Archive for October, 2009

Re-examining Tau Battle Philosophy

Posted by NockerGeek in Tactica on October 4, 2009

Lately, building a solid list for the Tau is tricky. Mostly, it comes down to troop choices and battle roles in Fifth Edition. Only troops can capture objectives, and two of the three standard missions in the rulebook require holding objectives to win. Tau troops are too slow and fragile on their own, so they have to be loaded into our rather expensive transports. To fit three or four such units in the budget, they are often run at minimal size in Devilfish, sometimes complimented by some outflanking Kroot. Of course, this focus on capturing units cuts into the ability to field killing units.

My mind keeps wandering back to a line in the Tau Codex describing the Tau’s philosophy towards seizing territory: “Ground is for position from which to make the kill; once the kill is made, the ground is for the taking.” I’m starting to wonder if perhaps that same attitude should be taken to the tabletop. Rather than worrying about capturing objectives, the goal should be to prevent the opponent from capturing objectives by removing his ability to do so. Once the enemy troops are off the scene, that’s when the Fire Warriors come in to sit on the objective. Instead of going for several small mechanized troop units, run the minimum – two units of Fire Warriors – at full size in fully tricked-out Warfish. The points normally spent on the two extra transports go towards more Elite and Heavy Support choices, which is where our main ability to do damage resides. Those units either have the range to reach out and touch someone, or the ability to jump around the board and/or deep-strike in to exactly where they’re needed. In a pinch, those units can contest the objectives and deny them to your opponent.

“But two of the three core mission types are about capturing objectives,” you might object. Only one of those mission types – Seize Ground – has you dealing with more than two objectives. Capture and Control lets you focus on two objectives, one of which is yours from the start. If you treat the objectives as bait – kauyon-style – then your killzones are defined for you from the start of the game, allowing you to focus your plan from turn one. Seize Ground is a bit harder to deal with, as there are three to five objectives to fight over, but the basic strategy still stands. Placing the objectives becomes an important strategic choice; whenever possible, put them where your opponent is denied cover. Create lanes of fire where moving towards an objective becomes risky for your opponent. Focus on having one or two that you can hold yourself, on your terms, and focus on keeping the opponent’s troops off of the others.

Right now, I haven’t tested this strategy on the table – I’m on vacation right now, and about 250 miles away from my miniatures – but I’ve been working on putting together an army list to support the plan, and then I’ll give it numerous trials by fire. At this point, I’m working on fine-tuning a 1500-point list under this philosophy, and once I have it together I’ll post it here.

So, what do you think? Could this work, or is this a horribly-flawed plan?

,

View Comments

It’s All Been Done Before

Posted by NockerGeek in Warhammer 40K on October 1, 2009

Right now, there seems to be a bit of turmoil across the 40K blogscape, and it’s mostly been kicked off by two factors. First, there’s the power creep perceived in the new Space Wolves codex. Second, there’s the big Imperial Guard win at the ‘Ard Boyz nationals. In response to these, there’s been a flurry of discussions online about the state of the game. Are people jumping on to the Space Wolves and Guard bandwagons in droves? Is the tournament scene dead for older armies? Is the hobby as we know it dead or dying and in need of yet another revamp?

Well, folks, the sky is not falling. The end is not nigh.

How do I know this? Because I’ve witnessed this particular kind of temporary panic before. It’s a regular occurrence in the collectible card game world. Any time a new expansion comes out, or a new faction/deck type wins a major tournament, the same conversations take place. Are people flocking to this new deck type? Are there any “real” players of that faction/deck left? Are the cards in the latest set overpowered or underpowered? If they’re overpowered, why do the designers want to destroy the game so much? Is there any point in playing anymore? Sometimes, it can get pretty nasty. Insults will be thrown around, people will quit the game, and it will seem that all hell is breaking loose. Eventually, though, cooler heads prevail, everything settles back down, and people get on with rethinking strategies and playing the game again. 40K isn’t that different. You’ve got new armies (or revisions of older ones) that come in and upset the current tournament balance. You’ve got players who jump from one netlist to another because they want to win. You’ve got the players who change what they’re playing just because they’re tired of their old armies just aren’t performing at the same level as they once did. It’s unsurprising that the same discussions take place here.

With that in mind, here are a few points to help you keep your head while those about you are losing theirs:

  1. The metagame is a constantly-shifting thing at all scales – local, regional, national, and international. Power lists will come and power lists will go. Often, what happens is that the environment isn’t ready for a new addition, because it’s never had to be. During that period of growing pains, it’s likely that the big new thing will dominate. Over time, though, players will adjust their strategies and tactics to deal with the new threat – whether it’s a new codex on the market, or just a new player at your local store – and learn to co-exist along with it… just in time for the next new thing.
  2. Design philosophies change. Armies designed for 5th Edition seem to be dominating right now, especially when compared to those armies with 3rd and earlier 4th edition codexes. I’m not so much convinced that this is power creep so much as it is a rethinking in how the armies are built. The downside is that older armies are falling a bit to the wayside, just because they were designed with a different mindset and for a different environment. The upside is that as these armies are revisited, they’ll be brought into line with the new way of thinking (and from the sound of things, GW has a five-year plan that includes all currently available armies getting updated codexes).
  3. People are going to play what they are going to play; don’t let that faze you. There will always be players who want to play the winning army du jour, especially in the competitive world of tournament play. For such players, it’s the win that’s paramount, rather than what they were playing to achieve it. That doesn’t mean that all players playing that army are that way, or that it’s even a bad way of approaching the game. It’s just how they play. If you have an army that you like, don’t feel pressured to jump to the latest codex if it’s not for you. That said, if what you have isn’t working for you, or if you’re just bored and looking for something different, don’t be afraid to try out something different. Trying to draw lines between bandwagonners and “true believers” is a fruitless effort, so just stick to your guns, play what you want to play, and enjoy yourself.

In the end, the landscape of the game may change, but the game, and the hobby around it, will survive. Change is often an uncomfortable process, but it’s also important for growth; a stagnant environment is a dead one. It’s true for CCGs, and it’s just as true for miniature wargaming. Just remember to play what you want to play how you want to play it, and to have a good time doing it, because that’s what really matters in the end.

, ,

View Comments