KivArn: Clauswitz did a battle report which demonstrated the problems with previous versions of the tau list somewhere on the boards. He set up ML pickets halfway up the board using pathfinders and drones then started putting missile boats on o/w. They sat in their deployment zones keeping his opponent at distance. It is still very possible to play in this manner with broadsides and piranhas in the current list. In fact it is still the most effective to may play against Eldar and Marines. The removal of the created units had hardly any impact on the way the list operated IMHO. I can honestly say I don't miss them and I regularly used Morays before they were dropped. The created units only overshadowed cannon units which performed the same function only at greater risk and less well.

The pictures have gone but the report is here... http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=16297

I wasn't exactly intending to "demonstrate problems with the list"

At the time a lot of people considered GMs to be somewhat superfluous and the Tau to be under-powered. I wanted to show that GMs could actually be rather good (the synergy between GMs, MLs and O/W being the key).

Turns out they were too good

Being brutally honest Clausewitz playing Jstr19 the past weekend the game had a very similar look and feel to all the games we played under 5.1

Tau castled hiding under the combined OW and missile threat until they had to break out to contest. Then hit what they needed to with overwhelming fire-power.

The old area denial tricks are still there.

That's the point I was trying to make to KivArn. There is no reason to invent units to allow the Tau to play in that manner. Cannon units are very able to utilize those tactics.

Well it's a bit reduced, as they lost their ignore cover AP Overwatch missiles, and their Macro Weapon Overwatch missiles, but Broadsides on Overwatch certainly put a crimp in your advancement intentions.

The main thing that's changed since 5.1 IMO is due to the loss of the AP missiles, they now have to close with you with Fire Warriors if they want to do AP damage.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Jstr19 must also be a great player then

That's not a total surprise to me. I was never convinced that the Scorpionfish was the sole cause of the gunline style of play.

I accepted its removal as non-canon. However, as Tau are a shooting-based army it always seemed that a certain amount of static play would follow (shooting is better on Sustain, and good shooting units make good o/w units).

That was why we basically gave everything except Fire Warriors -1 to hit from their 5.x stats, and then gave the Markerlights the ability to give +1 to-hit, to degrade the Overwatch game a bit in forcing the Tau player to use Markerlight pickets to support the Overwatch style.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Had I been really thinking E&C I could have made that game much harder for Ryan. My placement of objectives was poor and I let the defilers get distracted from what they should have done.

The scorpionfish added MW to the list that, at the time, was very light on MW.

As I said at the time I feel the list is now in a good place, but I also thought with a little effort 5.X could have been as equally balanced.

At the time.... There were reasons given. i.e. the Tau had developed new tactics after encountering the mass waves of Ork attacks etc. And given the Tau's "dislike" for the up close and personal approach it did seem to make sense that they would use "some kind of long range anti-personnel weaponry" but not indiscriminate weapons like traditional artillery, thus the AP GMs appeared.

Then they were removed again. This was because they were not canon AND/OR because they induced a static playstyle.

I do agree, and said as much at the time of proposing changes, but then, the proposals were less about balance and more about having a different playstyle (One with a greater emphasis on manoever and synergy) being the default choice for Tau players. I said as much at the time, noting several times that this would set back the balance of the list for a couple of iterations.


I'm sure as people start getting more used to the 6.x style Tau their win/loss ratio will come down (I'm wondering specifically how Yme-Loc has been doing lately). They're very close to balanced now across the board, I think.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I do wonder if the current Tau wins have anything to do with the fact that Jstr19 and Yme-Loc are "Tau expert" players. Can the rest of the Tau players match their performance?

Testing will tell.

I think Yme-Loc generally does very well in the tournament rankings, and although Ryan hasn't been to any tournaments as all he plays is Tau, I generally fetch up in the top third in tournaments and Ryan has a good record against me.

So I don't think it's completely improbable that Good player + unexpected list style == good results.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hi KivArn,

you played BFG as well, right?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

The battle report doesn't really highlight the problems in the list, just shows that it was successful, didn't seem massively overpowering (well not much different to having 9 Skyrays instead ...) But I can see that unit being a bit superfluous, esp if you are driving for a bit more of a dynamic play-style.

I also ceratinly remember various questions being raised over the validity and worth of the GMs which the report seems to support.

Cannon units were able to use these tactics back when the other units were created. They were created to support the tactics and bridge weaknesses that were there because other units didn't exist. (for instance the fusion HH weren't around for at least V2, and possibly not until some time into V3)

I assume that all the aircraft lost there seeker/hunter/interceptor missiles for some form of balance reasons? As in the fluff (both in this list AND on FW site) they all have some form of missiles....which are guided by markerlights (they also all have ML, but thats by the by...)

Oh and the same goes for the Manta (has 10 seekers and a ML.... from a canon perspective)

Coupled with this, the current Tigershark seems overly similar to the barracuda - especially if the missile variant is being dropped (that at least gave it a form of uniqueness as the only craft with GM). It is slower and has tougher amour and is better(?!?) at AA, but otherwise is the same - It may get to transport a formation of drones, but they don't seem to be that worthwhile (and were never really taken much before - fair bit of discussion as to whether they should exist at all....)

Lastly is there a v6.3 coming out somepoint soon as there seems to be a few changes floating around the site

Is the below the complete list of changes for V6.2 to V6.3?



However there also seems to be talk of Manta gaining AP to it's burst cannons (seems odd being the only ground based vehicle with BC not to have an AP value...) and a few other bits...



Yup