Posts Tagged Tactica

Re-examining Tau Battle Philosophy – List v1.0

Regarding yesterday’s post on rethinking our philosophy towards objective based missions, here’s the list I’ve been working on. Last night, I finally got it to a nice, even 1500 points (thanks for the suggestion, Zeev; it really freed up some points!), and here it is for review:

HQ: Commander Shas’el (4#, 259 pts)
1 Commander Shas’el (Cyclic Ion Blaster; Plasma Rifle; Targeting Array; Hard-wired Multi-tracker; Hard-wired Drone Controller; Shield Drone)
2 Crisis Bodyguard (Plasma Rifle; Twin Linked Burst Cannon; Hard-wired Multi-tracker)

Elite: Crisis Battlesuit (2#, 94 pts)
2 Crisis Battlesuit (Flamer; Twin Linked Missile Pod)

Elite: Crisis Battlesuit (3#, 186 pts)
3 Crisis Battlesuit (Missile Pod; Plasma Rifle; Multi-Tracker)

Elite: Crisis Battlesuit (3#, 171 pts)
1 Crisis Battlesuit (Team Leader; Fusion Blaster; Plasma Rifle; Targeting Array; Hard-wired Multi-tracker)
2 Crisis Battlesuit (Flamer; Twin Linked Fusion Blaster)

Troops: Fire Warrior (15#, 215 pts)
12 Fire Warriors (Pulse Rifle)
1 Devilfish (Gun Drones; Disruption Pod; Multi-Tracker)

Troops: Fire Warrior (15#, 215 pts)
12 Fire Warriors (Pulse Rifle)
1 Devilfish (Gun Drones; Disruption Pod; Multi-Tracker)

Heavy Support: Hammerhead Gunship (1#, 180 pts)
1 Hammerhead Gunship (Railgun; Smart Missile System; Disruption Pod; Multi-Tracker; Target Lock)

Heavy Support: Hammerhead Gunship (1#, 180 pts)
1 Hammerhead Gunship (Railgun; Smart Missile System; Disruption Pod; Multi-Tracker; Target Lock)

Total Roster Cost: 1500

Feel free to pick it apart and make suggestions. Just remember the idea behind it – killing is more important than capturing. Our units aren’t hardy enough to be defensive, so we have to be completely on the ranged offensive.

, ,

Comments

Re-examining Tau Battle Philosophy

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?

,

Comments

Followup: Stealth Marker Teams

So, last week I said I was going to put my money where my mouth is and try out a Stealth Marker Team. While I didn’t get as many opportunities over the Labor Day weekend as I’d hoped, I did manage to get in a 1500-point game against my friend Richard’s Ork Biker army. The game was a Spearhead/Seize Ground mission, and while I haven’t had the opportunity to compile a full battle report, I can happily report that I managed to eke out a victory 2 objectives to 1. The Stealth Marker Team performed well – better, in my opinion, than a Pathfinder team in a similar situation. However, the Stealth Team’s cost did make it considerably harder to fit into my army list, and a few cost-cutting measures had to be taken, so I’m not ditching my Pathfinders completely; I’m sure they’ll show up in other army lists.

A few notes about the Stealth Marker Team:

  • Moving and firing every turn is absolutely worth it, as is still having 12 burst cannon shots every turn while doing so.
  • With only 5 markerlights, I still managed to average 3 hits a turn, which gave me enough to boost my BS to 5 on the units that needed it.
  • Positioning is everything. Between being able to infiltrate into a safe markerlighting position, and being able to Jump-Shoot-Jump into cover or out of assault range, I was able to keep my Stealth Team useful every turn.

Still, at the end of the day, Markerlights can help you score a hit, but it can’t make a wound stick when invulnerable saves or Feel No Pain is involved. They’re far from a panacea, especially against tough units like Nob Bikers. A markerlight is only as good as the weaponry it guides, so remember to keep that in mind when deciding target priority for your markerlight units, be they Stealth Team, Pathfinder, or Sky Ray.

, ,

Comments

Markerlight Tactica: Pathfinders vs. Stealth Suits

pathfinder_vs_stealthIn the current edition of 40K, markerlights seem to be all the rage for Tau armies. Whereas many Tau armies in 4th edition focused on bringing mechanized troops to the table, the current trend is to bring markerlights to negate 5th’s ever-present cover saves. While there are a variety of units that can mount markerlights, the two most commonly used are the Pathfinder squad and the Stealth Team. So, which is better? Are there any clear advantages to using one over the other? Let’s take a look at two potential markerlight units:

Stealth Team
3 Shas’ui w/ Burst Cannon, Drone Controller, Marker Drone
1 Shas’ui team leader w/ Burst Cannon, Markerlight, Hardwired Multi-tracker, Drone Controller, Marker Drone
Cost: 260 points

Pathfinder squad
7 Pathfinders w/ Markerlights and Pulse Carbines
1 Shas’ui w/ Markerlight and Pulse Carbine
1 Devilfish w/ Smart Missile System, Disruption Pod, Multi-Tracker
Cost: 221 points

So, what are the advantages of each? Let’s start with the Stealth Team.

  • Jet Pack Infantry – this is probably the biggest advantage of the stealth team. Most importantly, it makes the unit Relentless, allowing them to move and shoot their markerlights. They also gain the extra 6″ of movement in the assault phase, allowing them to use Jump-Shoot-Jump tactics, as well as effectively putting their markerlight range at 42″.
  • 3+ Armor Save – higher survivability is better. True, it doesn’t carry over to the drones, but the suits themselves can take more punishment than pathfinders can.
  • Markerlights on Drones – having the markerlights mounted on drones allows the stealth suits to still use their burst cannons. With 4 suits, that’s 12 shots at 18″ – 4 more than the pathfinders can dish out. Also, unlike the pathfinders, the Stealth Team can fire their markerlights and their burst cannons in the same turn. Even the team leader, with his multi-tracker, can fire both.
  • Networked Markerlights – thanks to the marker drones’ networked markerlights, the Stealth Team can even use their own markerlight hits, if they so choose. Note that this is not true for the team leader’s markerlight.
  • Infiltrate – deploying last on the table, and being able to be within 12″ to 18″ of an enemy unit allows the Stealth Team to get into a prime location for lighting up the enemy.
  • Deep Strike – if a prime location can’t be found at the beginning of the game, then the Stealth Team can deep strike later in the game, keeping them safe until they deploy, at which time they are free to mark the enemy.
  • Stealth Field – always being treated as being under night fighting rules helps keep the Stealth Team just a little bit safer. Whether the field helps in assault as it did in 4th edition is still up in the air, unfortunately.*

So, that’s what the Stealth Team has going for it. What advantages do the Pathfinders have over them?

  • Lower Cost – the Pathfinder unit I’ve posted is relatively maxed out; it’s got a full unit with a shas’ui, and it’s riding in a Warfish. With all that, it’s still cheaper than the Stealth Team. At the very bare minimum, a 4-man Pathfinder squad can be had for 128 points. You’d be hard-pressed to find a less expensive option for putting markerlights on the table.
  • More Markerlights – the Pathfinder unit is bringing 8 markerlights, as opposed to the Stealth Team’s 5. That’s going to get you an average of 1-2 extra markerlight hits a turn.
  • Dedicated Transport – the Pathfinders come with their own Devilfish, which they can use to get into a good position. After that, they can either use it to escape, give it to another unit for taxi purposes, or just let it run around on its own to harass the enemy and contest objectives.
  • Scout – getting a free move before the first turn can help the Pathfinders react to enemy positions and pick a better markerlighting position. More importantly, it allows them to deploy from their Devilfish before the first turn, thus allowing them to stay stationary and fire.
  • Fast Attack slot – Stealth Teams have to compete with Crisis Suits – the workhorses of the Tau army – for Elite slots. Pathfinders, on the other hand, are a Fast Attack option, and are arguably the best Fast Attack unit we have. It’s easy to fit them into your army’s FOC.
  • Markerlights not tied to drones – one weakness of the Stealth Team is that, while there are many advantages to having marker drones, there’s one major weakness: if you lose a drone controller, you lose the attached drone as well. Each dead Stealth Suit causes you to lose two models, not just one. Pathfinders, on the other hand, each carry their own markerlight, so losing one is just that – one model lost.

On a side note, both units are capable of outflanking (Stealth Teams due to their Infiltrate rule, Pathfinders due to being Scouts), so that particular item is a wash.

After looking at the two units, there’s two ways we can compare them. From an pure economic standpoint, the Pathfinders are the winners, hands down. They’re cheaper per model, allow you to pack more markerlights for fewer points, and can be decently tricked out and still come in under the Stealth Team’s cost. However, from a pure utility standpoint, I have to give the win to the Stealth Team. They’re more mobile, more survivable, and are capable of doing more damage than the Pathfinder team, all while providing comparable markerlight support – if not better support, thanks to being able to shoot and move every turn. Unless you’re pressed for points, I feel that they’re the better option. The Pathfinder transport is nice, and does make it a solid option, but there’s just not that many turns in the game, and you’re going to lose at least two turns using it – one to pick up a unit, and another to disembark them. Stealth Teams don’t have that slowdown, and can remain just as mobile as a Devilfish.

Now, as for myself, I’ve been using Pathfinders for my markerlight support, and while they’re good, they’re not quite as good as I’d hoped. This weekend, then, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is. I’ve picked up another Stealth Team (for my fourth marker drone), and I’m going to put them to the test during my gaming over the Labor Day holiday. I think the peformance will prove my conclusions above, but there’s only one way to be sure, and that’s to try it on the table.

* EDIT: The Stealth Field Generator’s anti-assault effect – treating the Stealth Team as being in cover for assault – is unclear in 5th Edition. This is because it’s terrain, not cover, that changes up the initiative order in 5th Edition, and Stealth Fields don’t change the terrain. However, the unofficial INAT FAQ from Adepticon indicates that the assaulters are still affected, while the official GW FAQ says nothing either way.  Rules as Written say one thing, Rules as Intended indicate another way, and there’s no consensus. It’s always best to err on the side of caution, though, so unless your opponent or tournament organizer says otherwise, assume that it does not help.

, ,

Comments

Tau Tactica: Dual Burst Cannons v. Smart Missile Systems

While most discussion of Tau tank weaponry revolves around comparing the Hammerhead’s railgun and ion cannon options, as well as the Skyray’s seeker missiles, the secondary weapon options should not be overlooked. While there are three options – dual burst cannons, smart missile systems, and paired gun drones – only the first two come into play for our heavy support choices*. So, which is better, either in general or situationally?

At first glance, the dual burst cannons seem to be a very solid option. For half the cost of the SMS, you get half again as many shots, all with the same strength and armor penetration, that can be split evenly between two separate targets. You do lose 6 inches of range, but it seems to be a fair trade for what you gain. More fire is always better, right?

However, the extra 10 points spent on the SMS gets you more than just extended range. Just what do you get for the extra cost?

  1. 6 extra inches of range. More reach is always good, especially if it can soften up or eliminate a unit before it gets into assault range.
  2. Ignoring line of sight. This alone is worth the extra points. Being able to hit anything in a 24″ radius, regardless of whether it’s hidden behind a hill, wall, or another larger unit (like a vehicle) is invaluable. It allows you to remain a threat while removing the need to expose yourself to the target.
  3. Ignoring many cover saves. In the cover-save-rich environment of 5th Edition, this is huge. The SMS ignores any cover that the target is not inside (area terrain) or touching. This allows you to ignore intervening units (either your own or your opponent’s), as well as most terrain between the tank and the target. Also, with the rules on whether a unit is in cover or not, half the targeted unit would actually have to be touching its piece of cover before it would gain any benefit.

The SMS has some major adavantages that the dual burst cannon just can’t match. However, that doesn’t mean that the missiles are superior in every way to to the cannons. First, you do give up some killing power with the SMS. Over a standard 5 turn game, the burst cannons can potentially have 10 more shots than the smart missiles. Against a lightly-armored army like Orks or Eldar, that’s likely to be as many as 5 to 8 additional kills. Second, while cover saves are great, they’re not going to matter much against an opponent with heavier armor. Space Marines and their equivalents will get their armor save against both AP 5 weapons, so ignoring cover saves may not make as much difference as one would like. Finally, 10 points less is 10 points less; if you need to shave points off of your army list, downgrading from an SMS to dual burst cannons is a viable option.

There’s also an additional caveat on both of these weapons – the usefulness of both is highly limited without the additional purchase of a target lock. Without that upgrade, these weapons are limited to targeting the same unit as the vehicle’s main gun. For a Hammerhead with an ion cannon, it’s an annoyance; for one with a railgun, it can render the secondary gun(s) useless. In most cases, you’re going to want to take the target lock, so just figure that into the vehicle’s true cost (unless, as mentioned, you’re running an Ionhead and don’t care about splitting fire). The Skyray has an advantage in this case; it comes already equipped with a target lock, so it ignores this issue completely.

Speaking of the Skyray, it approaches the choice of secondary weaponry from a completely different angle. Its primary armament – the two networked markerlights – have no strength, making them defensive weapons. That means that whatever you choose for the front turrets become’s the Skyray’s main gun, thanks to 5th Edition’s more restrictive defensive weapon rules. With that in mind, the single SMS is a better choice than the dual burst cannons. A Skyray with an SMS can move at combat speed and still fire all its weaponry, all without the need of a vehicle multi-tracker; with the multi-tracker, it can do the same at cruising speed. The burst cannons, on the other hand, would lose half their shots, as only one would be able to fire.

So where does that leave us? In many ways, the SMS is the superior option for our heavy tanks. With its ability to ignore most of the things that would prevent you from targeting another unit and landing hits, it’s a great option that’s well worth the points. That doesn’t mean that the burst cannons are bad; they are still a viable, and significantly cheaper, option that has similar killing effectiveness. In the end, if you have the points to spare, go SMS. If not, don’t be afraid of going with option #2.

* Gun drones have weaker weaponry, don’t benefit from a targeting array, and give up more kill points, all for the same cost as the SMS. They’re not even remotely viable as a useful option for our tanks.

,

Comments