Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tedurur wrote:Seriously, I cant help but feel that you are unnecessarily confrontational. A nice list none the less.

It depends on how you see it. Notice all I did was to ask people to elaborate what they mean, when they give generic comments like "this is wrong", "this is weak", etc.

If people can give solid replies to back their claims, I m pretty cool with that. Most importantly, I wasn't even defending my own list, so the point on being defensive is kind of moot, no?

Isseyfaran wrote:

tedurur wrote:Seriously, I cant help but feel that you are unnecessarily confrontational. A nice list none the less.

It depends on how you see it. Notice all I did was to ask people to elaborate what they mean, when they give generic comments like "this is wrong", "this is weak", etc.

If people can give solid replies to back their claims, I m pretty cool with that. Most importantly, I wasn't even defending my own list, so the point on being defensive is kind of moot, no?

Where did I say you were being defensive? My point about you being a little confrontational is not dependent on whether you were defending your list or not.
And while I agree that generic comments are fairly useless without any suggestions to back them up it is the way you answer non generic comments that irks me, like for instance: "So you speak of FWs firepower being significantly better, but math tells me it is not the case?" Where a simple, "as you can see that is not really the case." wouldhave sufficed.

Ohwell, not going to derail your thread with this. GL with continouing playing Tau "the right way"

tedurur wrote:And while I agree that generic comments are fairly useless without any suggestions to back them up it is the way you answer non generic comments that irks me, like for instance: "So you speak of FWs firepower being significantly better, but math tells me it is not the case?" Where a simple, "as you can see that is not really the case." wouldhave sufficed.

AHHH, I seriously don't know why "So you speak of FWs firepower being significantly better, but math tells me it is not the case?" would seem impolite to you. Not trolling, but I SERIOUSLY don't think it's the least bit impolite. Nvm, I think different people have different choice of words, and preference in structuring their sentence. I like to use question marks very often so as to encourage feedback, instead of saying things like ".... this is not the case, period" .

tedurur wrote:Ohwell, not going to derail your thread with this. GL with continouing playing Tau "the right way"

Thank you. I m not only going to continue playing Tau the right way, but will educate people about the right way.

So, the thread has deviated from the match-up of these two forces to discussing sentence structure and implied meanings of written text.....this isn't an literature class gents! This is war!

As an Ork Warboss myself I want to see how my boyz did!! I agree that this list has some potential pitfalls against the Tau list shown above, but if they can survive the first volley it should get interesting. As a Kan Wall player that is currently mapping out his Wagon List I've found that almost all Ork lists are based around that one thing.....surviving the volleys before charging.

So, rather than playing internet tough guy with each other over the two armies listed above lets offer up some different strategies. For example....

I know that a lot of people really like the Wagon Rush due to its speed at clearing the table. As a result they invest heavily in the Wagons. The same can be said for the Kan Wall with Kans and Dreads. However, what could an Ork do is either 1. Offer up other targets to shoot at or 2. Combat this superior stand and shoot ability presented by the Tau?

Why not lighten the load in other places to add Koptas or Kommandos or really anything that might cause the Tau to split their fire up. I love the wagons and think that AV14 beats the hell out of my AV11 on my Kans....but if all the Tau have to shoot at is the Wagons then that presents a problem. However, I realize that the point of this game was to represent a TAC list, but I think my point for list adjustments still stands regardless of the opponent. Many Marine lists would give this a run at shooting volleys too. Wolf Longfangs are very popular and could become a nightmare. Guard Tanks and Cannons.....the list goes on. My point is rather than saying ......."without Grots to potentially score they are hosed"......lets think of other opportunities to improve the Ork TAC list.

My Ork Kan Wall for example has no lootas. I realize that this is contrary to popular tactics, but I'm trying to win without them. As a result I play with 2 units of 5 deffkoptas with rockets, but no buzz saws. The reason is that it gives me two good anti tank or terminator units that can be up close on the enemy early. This makes them potentially split their fire. Now, the Koptas I mentioned are both expensive in the unit sizes i mentioned as well as very fragile. They tend to attract a lot of fire and die by turn 2, but that is 2 turns of the wall moving with limited concentrated fire unpon it. So, all lists are open to discussion and my certainly is not perfect.

But rather than discussing the dominating power of railguns and Tau shooting lets think of tactic improvements for either list in a TAC situation.

I like the Tau list, looks about as good as Tau can get. The ork list is good, but not totally optimized. Grots would have been nice, and some chaff units (kopta/buggies) also seem to work well in wagon lists.

The ork list does have a difficult match-up here. Piranha's are great at blocking wagons, and S10 AP1 shooting hurts for open-topped vehicles.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:I know that a lot of people really like the Wagon Rush due to its speed at clearing the table. As a result they invest heavily in the Wagons. The same can be said for the Kan Wall with Kans and Dreads. However, what could an Ork do is either 1. Offer up other targets to shoot at or 2. Combat this superior stand and shoot ability presented by the Tau?

Why not lighten the load in other places to add Koptas or Kommandos or really anything that might cause the Tau to split their fire up. I love the wagons and think that AV14 beats the hell out of my AV11 on my Kans....but if all the Tau have to shoot at is the Wagons then that presents a problem.

Ok, let's see... (please note i m critising your recommendation, not you - in case I get accused of being confrontational again).

You said you want the Tau to split fire into other things and lift some pressure from the wagons, so it's better that we spend some points in things like koptas, kommandos etc.
But you have a cap of 1750 points. If you take away 140 points to buy 2 koptas, that is one less wagon that you can buy. So instead of 4 wagons + lootas, etc, you now have 3 wagons + koptas + lootas, etc. You are merely exchanging one wagon for 2 koptas. Is there some additional benefits in terms of target that I m not seeing here?
In fact, 2 kopta + 3 Wagons is an even worse combination than 4 wagons. Those crisis suits who originally had nothing to shoot at (they cant hurt wagons, lootas will be too far away), suddenly have something to shoot at (the koptas) instead of idling around. This is bad target saturation.

If the Crisis suits have Missile Pods, they can start shooting side armor on the Battlewagons first turn if you deploy well. Utilizing missile pods for anti-vehicle the first few turns also lightens the Tau's reliance on Broadsides so you can take the Railhead with sub-munition I mentioned earlier. *ahem*

Once you do de-mech the Orkz, you have to shift from tank-hunting to horde-killing, and a Railhead sub has the potential to wipe a mob of 'Ard Boyz right off the table.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:
I know that a lot of people really like the Wagon Rush due to its speed at clearing the table. As a result they invest heavily in the Wagons. The same can be said for the Kan Wall with Kans and Dreads. However, what could an Ork do is either 1. Offer up other targets to shoot at or 2. Combat this superior stand and shoot ability presented by the Tau?

Why not lighten the load in other places to add Koptas or Kommandos or really anything that might cause the Tau to split their fire up. I love the wagons and think that AV14 beats the hell out of my AV11 on my Kans....but if all the Tau have to shoot at is the Wagons then that presents a problem.

That is very true and if the player is able to do so and provide chaff for the main force, it would be an excellent idea. HOWEVER,

Isseyfaran wrote:
Ok, let's see... (please note i m critising your recommendation, not you - in case I get accused of being confrontational again).

You said you want the Tau to split fire into other things and lift some pressure from the wagons, so it's better that we spend some points in things like koptas, kommandos etc.
But you have a cap of 1750 points. If you take away 140 points to buy 2 koptas, that is one less wagon that you can buy. So instead of 4 wagons + lootas, etc, you now have 3 wagons + koptas + lootas, etc. You are merely exchanging one wagon for 2 koptas. Is there some additional benefits in terms of target that I m not seeing here?
In fact, 2 kopta + 3 Wagons is an even worse combination than 4 wagons. Those crisis suits who originally had nothing to shoot at (they cant hurt wagons, lootas will be too far away), suddenly have something to shoot at (the koptas) instead of idling around. This is bad target saturation.

THIS, is one of those lists that might not benefit from such tactics. The idea of having many different threats to shoot at rather then 1 or 2 High-Value targets is an excellent idea that many people do use but in certain lists the points just aren't there for the taking. as Isseyfaran points out, adding additional targets could actually help the opposing player by allowing softer targets for those who cant hurt the tougher shtuff.

Of course this is where it gets tricky and where everyone needs to sit back and take these lists with a grain of salt. If i remember correctly, each player was suppossed to field an army that they believed could take on any other army out there. neither player would have had an idea of what they were goin to face, so the inclusion of thus said Koptas might have appeared like a good idea for an all-comers list. when the 2 players would have their fight, however, those 2 Koptas that looked like a good idea, at the time will actually fall flat on their face and start cryin for momma,( ...oh wait.....Orks don't have moms cuz their plants right? ) Although in a different setting/matchup those 2 Koptas might be what decides the game. Although just 2 additional Koptas while losin a BW might appear as a horrible idea when playin against THIS PARTICULAR LIST, it might be exactly what they need in a different fight.

As for accusing people of being "unnecessarily confrontational", we all need to remember that we are from different backgrounds and have different histories and need to take EVERYTHING someone/something says with a grain of salt. If they appear to be overly hostile, i always assume that the person did not appear to be so and that it is mearly a habit of their's that they have always had.

'Course in my opinion, Isseyfaran was probably in a debate team since he is able to see things and spot flaws while backing up his claims

MakersHitstheMark wrote:
So, the thread has deviated from the match-up of these two forces to discussing sentence structure and implied meanings of written text.....this isn't an literature class gents! This is war!

I couldn't have said it better myself! As i like to say, "Make War, not Trollcraft"

Isseyfaran wrote:

MakersHitstheMark wrote:I know that a lot of people really like the Wagon Rush due to its speed at clearing the table. As a result they invest heavily in the Wagons. The same can be said for the Kan Wall with Kans and Dreads. However, what could an Ork do is either 1. Offer up other targets to shoot at or 2. Combat this superior stand and shoot ability presented by the Tau?

Why not lighten the load in other places to add Koptas or Kommandos or really anything that might cause the Tau to split their fire up. I love the wagons and think that AV14 beats the hell out of my AV11 on my Kans....but if all the Tau have to shoot at is the Wagons then that presents a problem.

Ok, let's see... (please note i m critising your recommendation, not you - in case I get accused of being confrontational again).

You said you want the Tau to split fire into other things and lift some pressure from the wagons, so it's better that we spend some points in things like koptas, kommandos etc.
But you have a cap of 1750 points. If you take away 140 points to buy 2 koptas, that is one less wagon that you can buy. So instead of 4 wagons + lootas, etc, you now have 3 wagons + koptas + lootas, etc. You are merely exchanging one wagon for 2 koptas. Is there some additional benefits in terms of target that I m not seeing here?
In fact, 2 kopta + 3 Wagons is an even worse combination than 4 wagons. Those crisis suits who originally had nothing to shoot at (they cant hurt wagons, lootas will be too far away), suddenly have something to shoot at (the koptas) instead of idling around. This is bad target saturation.

I agree with your point and don't feel like you are attacking me, but are actually just addressing the points I raised. So, we are all good.

My point was to try and constructively move along the conversation. Though I agree that in this case taking 70pt Koptas is a bad play in the place of a battle wagon full of guys I was trying to prove a point. The point being that when trying to build an All Comers list we should spend our time discussing what tactics might improve the lists. Personally, at 1750 I probably wouldn't take the 4th battle wagon. I would invest the points in additional lootas to apply suppressing fire to try and keep your crisis suits from getting on the flank of the Wagons. There isn't much that can be done to prevent the broadsides from shooting at them except maybe taking Kommandos. However, that teeters on the idea of list taking based on the opponent. I play a Kan Wall as I mentioned earlier and would definitely benefit from time to time by having them in my force. However, I never consider them for an all comers game.

Thanks for keeping it moving constructively! I'm interested to see the battle report so that we can potentially ID areas that could have improved the Orks chances. This is really important to me as an Ork player, but also with a new TAU codex in the near future it is extra important.

If you drop the burna from the mek and rpj from all wagons and remove one boy, you have 41pts = enough for a gretchin squad. Would make the list better IMO.

When is the report coming anyway?

I'm questioning the 15 Burnas. Isn't that a bit overkill for what Tau is bringing (or overkill for just about anything for that matter)? Granted it's meant to be a TAC list, but couldn't dropping that squad to 10, make room for some Gretchin without really hurting the list?

Sekminara,

I know that orks strength is mostly in thier numbers, and the tau are superiour marksmen. I just still didn't understand why the ork boyz took shootaz instead of the choppaz or betta? But seeing it was a TAC list, I do see the versitility shoota boyz offer over choppa boyz


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illumini wrote:
When is the report coming anyway?

I second that, where's the BR?

'nuff chattin, I wants to see sum choppin and Dakka, Dakka!
(pun fully intended!)

Ok just gotta say I agree with Jy2, SabrX and anyone saying this is a slightly uphill battle if not more for the Tau. Anyone who would think that Tau will have an easy time against any army after only seeing one Bat Rep out of a guy obviously doesn't know how fragile the Tau really are. I am not trying to bash anyone I am just saying that we really don't know too well how Isseyfaran handles things just yet. And with Tau if you screw up in your movement phase then you are almost guaranteed to lose some expensive units, that you might not have or a turn earlier than planned. Can't wait for this one too! I may be copying your lists soon once I get the rest of my suits.

Ben

Good to see someone else advocating tau as a good army nowadays. My tau came back into play to counter the razor/dread GK spam as they work very well against it.

The differences between my lists and yours are that i find great use in pathfinders, drones on the suits and using wargear on the suits (such as target locks, targetting arrays and black sun filters).

I also don't like firewarriors > kroot. Kroot have always performed brilliantly for me and FWs rubbish (as in i've markerlit for FWs upto BS5 and 12 of them at rapid fire only do ten wounds lol).

Kroot are just so inconsistent for me. In one game a full squad got Sweeping Advanced by ONE Wych, while in another, a less than half strength squad killed Belial in CC. I mean, they're decent shooters and can put up wounds in CC, but they're so fragile. Cover helps them a lot, but if there's an objective in the open, expect them to get mulched.

Mar'tacus wrote:Kroot are just so inconsistent for me. In one game a full squad got Sweeping Advanced by ONE Wych, while in another, a less than half strength squad killed Belial in CC. I mean, they're decent shooters and can put up wounds in CC, but they're so fragile. Cover helps them a lot, but if there's an objective in the open, expect them to get mulched.

I agree with the volatility of Kroot. Its definitely due to the fact of how GW wanted them to play out: meat shields that die in one round of combat so you're beefier units can shoot at whatever just killed the kroot. This resulting fragility definitely makes it tougher to play them outside of what they were intended to do.

Just kinda as a goofy question. Does anyone here play Eldar? The reason I ask is because I have heard that each one of their units has a specific role and pretty much if it leaves that role it will die. Aren't Tau kinda the same way?

Benamint wrote:Just kinda as a goofy question. Does anyone here play Eldar? The reason I ask is because I have heard that each one of their units has a specific role and pretty much if it leaves that role it will die. Aren't Tau kinda the same way?

I play Eldar. Yes, majority of their units is specialized. Howling Banshees and Harlequins are specialized for assault. Fire Dragons is specialized for taking out monstrous creatures or vehicles. Dire Avengers is specialized for medium anti-infantry shooting. There are units that serves other purposes, but the only units that I can think of that performs well against all types of targets is the Jet-seer council and Fire Prism.

Tau is also mostly specialized, but they do have some units, which serves multiple roles and/or performs well against different types of targets. These include Crisis Suits and Rail-head. Some may argue units with markerlights with seeker missiles provides anti-mech to many other units, but it's not particularly effective in game play.

Was this played as an actual tabletop match or purely virtual?

@ SabrX - Duh stupid me... I had already known that you played Eldar but asked anyhow... Oops. The reason I asked that was just because it seemed to me that (at least in Bat Rep and virtual world) that Tau always get plugged as a weaker codex than Eldar (more complaining at least) and that people tend to play/win more with Eldar. Why is this since Tau isn't exactly worse than it? Do players have the wrong mindset?

Aside from Broadsides, there isn't much else in the Tau's arsenal against AV12 and higher. Fusion blaster Prianhas are good, but tends to get shot down by Eldar's range anti-mech. Railgun Str10 gets reduced to Str8 and Fusion Blasters don't roll an extra D6 against Energy Fields Wave Serpents. Eldar heavy support vehicles could have Holofields, which makes them very durable. Deathrains and Fire Knife is effective against AV12 either. Also, Eldar vehicles are all fast. A singe Wave Serpent carrying 5 Fire Dragons can wipe out a Crisis Suit team and many Eldar in general will win assault against Tau infantry. Eldar is latent with psychic powers, which Tau has no defense against. There's also the Jet-seer council, which wreaks havoc against Tau infantry and vehicles a like. I think the best counter to Eldar would be gunline. I've already played a couple mech Tau vs. mech Eldar games and they didn't end well.

Benamint wrote:@ SabrX - Duh stupid me... I had already known that you played Eldar but asked anyhow... Oops. The reason I asked that was just because it seemed to me that (at least in Bat Rep and virtual world) that Tau always get plugged as a weaker codex than Eldar (more complaining at least) and that people tend to play/win more with Eldar. Why is this since Tau isn't exactly worse than it? Do players have the wrong mindset?

Are you talking about Tau and Eldar vs other codex, OR Tau vs Eldar?
Tau has a bad matchup against Eldar.

But anyway, don't hijack my thread? If you fancy a BatRep on that, you got to wait for it.

It's not a bat rep yet, so far it's simply a list of either army, and debate as to the efficiency of those

I was speaking more like Tau and Eldar vs. other codexes. Like why is Tau always complained about and Eldar not so much since they are both very specialized. Though SabrX's misunderstanding kinda explained that in showing why Eldar could beat Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And @Isseyfaran - I wasn't trying to thread jack and mean no disrespect. As a Tau player I am extremely excited to see this Bat Rep! My question has been answered in a round about way by SabrX so no I wait eagerly for the rest of your report!

Well, that ended how I thought it would, but didn't happen like I expected. I anticipated the Tau popping the Wagons open, but aving never played against Tau I hadn't thought about stuffing fast attack stuff into their lanes of advancement. That was probably what changed the course of the game the most because it slowed the Ork advance considerably.

That being said....has this list played an Imperial Guard Mech army yet? I'd love to see Lemans and Manticors going toe to toe with these broadsides and crisis suits. Obviously, the Tau have a speed advantage, but I think the battle would become a shooting war of heavy weight titans throwing haymakers at each other's chins.

I feel that this game could of been decided quicker with a different deployment strategy, just a slight tweak to optimize results, so to speak.

It is of my opinion that if one broadside squad was deployed towards the right/middle of the field, the wagons would go down even quicker. My reasoning behind this conclusion is that the wagons would have to either go for your main fire base and expose their (AV 12?) side armor to the railguns of the lone squad, or split a wagon to go to the other side, minimizing the threat to the main force.

This could be magnified if more units were deployed on the flank, but the counter reaction would be more attention to them.

Another think to consider is having pathfinders in your list, especially at 2000 points to deal with KFFs and the times where you want something gone, just 3 hits and that save is gone on those wagons.

my 2 cents

mythological wrote:It is of my opinion that if one broadside squad was deployed towards the right/middle of the field, the wagons would go down even quicker. My reasoning behind this conclusion is that the wagons would have to either go for your main fire base and expose their (AV 12?) side armor to the railguns of the lone squad, or split a wagon to go to the other side, minimizing the threat to the main force.

I already tried to extend the kroot wall as much as possible. I didn't want to risk exposing my broadsides without wrapping them. If he rolled hot for his KFF (he already was rolling pretty hot), my broadsides will not have a 2nd chance of surviving.

mythological wrote:Another think to consider is having pathfinders in your list, especially at 2000 points to deal with KFFs and the times where you want something gone, just 3 hits and that save is gone on those wagons.

my 2 cents

Agreed. But I tend to prefer to spend the points on more broadsides.

mythological wrote:
It is of my opinion that if one broadside squad was deployed towards the right/middle of the field, the wagons would go down even quicker. My reasoning behind this conclusion is that the wagons would have to either go for your main fire base and expose their (AV 12?) side armor to the railguns of the lone squad, or split a wagon to go to the other side, minimizing the threat to the main force.

I already tried to extend the kroot wall as much as possible. I didn't want to risk exposing my broadsides without wrapping them. If he rolled hot for his KFF (he already was rolling pretty hot), my broadsides will not have a 2nd chance of surviving.

The point is to make the bait as tempting as possible, so you wouldn't want to give those broadsides a kroot wall, in fact, having them die would be preferable then the main ork force getting to your lines (which they eventually did)

I know it is hard to lose units when playing tau, because our units are so expensive, however sometime losing one or two units is preferable to losing the main force.

mythological wrote:
Another think to consider is having pathfinders in your list, especially at 2000 points to deal with KFFs and the times where you want something gone, just 3 hits and that save is gone on those wagons.

my 2 cents

Agreed. But I tend to prefer to spend the points on more broadsides.

You make a good point with having more points spent on broadsides, but usually you only need around 5 at 2000 points (minimum), you have enough broadsides already but you just need something to direct their firepower.

Quality over quantity so to say.

And just to offer a opposing viewpoint. I am only running 4 broadsides at 2000 points. You may ask where are points being spent if not on broadsides, three 6 man firewarrior squads in devilfish (I have 5 troop choices including two kroot squads). Now my overall firepower may be smaller (mind you I still field 12 Crisis Suits), but all that AV 12 vehicles with cover saves means that I have a better chance at winning 2/3 of regular games then you.

mythological wrote:
The point is to make the bait as tempting as possible, so you wouldn't want to give those broadsides a kroot wall, in fact, having them die would be preferable then the main ork force getting to your lines (which they eventually did)

Without that team of broadsides, I wouldnt have taken down ghaz and nobs, so I am pretty sure I want them alive till the very end.

mythological wrote:I know it is hard to lose units when playing tau, because our units are so expensive, however sometime losing one or two units is preferable to losing the main force.

I only lose units i know i can afford to lose. I couldn't afford to lose the broadsides that early this game.

mythological wrote:You make a good point with having more points spent on broadsides, but usually you only need around 5 at 2000 points (minimum), you have enough broadsides already but you just need something to direct their firepower.

But that's your benchmark. I don't think 5 is hardly enough.
I don't understand the part about directing power.

mythological wrote:Quality over quantity so to say.

6 Pathfinders cost 72 points, which is about enough for me to purchase another broadside. I don't have time to go too much into math right now, but 1 broadside + 6 pathfinders on expectation scores a 0.75 unsaved (no cover in this case) hit , while 1 broadside + 1 broadside on expectation scores the same amount of unsaved hit. Of course the larger the squad of the broadside, the higher marginal benefit of the pathfinders.But you hardly use large squad of broadsides to shoot at the same target.
And pathfinder suffer from lower toughness, Lower Ld, shorter range than broadsides, lower saves than broadsides ,etc

mythological wrote:And just to offer a opposing viewpoint. I am only running 4 broadsides at 2000 points. You may ask where are points being spent if not on broadsides, three 6 man firewarrior squads in devilfish (I have 5 troop choices including two kroot squads). Now my overall firepower may be smaller (mind you I still field 12 Crisis Suits), but all that AV 12 vehicles with cover saves means that I have a better chance at winning 2/3 of regular games then you.

Your "better chance" is misleading because my list has no problem winning objectives game as well. This was evident from my first batrep. The firepower more than compensates by crippling the opponent at the key spots.

I have another variant of the list which utilisies 6 troops. You may explore if you are interested.

I would like to see rematch, but with Seize Ground or Capture and Control.