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.

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

This was capture and control

LOL, okay, missed that and couldn't see the well covered Objectives.

So Straight Annihilation and Seize Ground then.

Call me crazy, but I think this battle was over as soon as the Ork player CHOSE to let the Broadside-laden list take the first turn against his BW spam. You said he did this to close the gap to your army faster, but... you know what closes that gap EVEN faster? A turn of movement. And as for the fact that this "strategy" allowed him to see where you were deploying... why should that matter? There is only one objective for him to worry about getting to, and that gets placed before either army deploys.

Kudos to you, though. You definitely played this game the right way... your opponent brought an inferior list, played it poorly, and got tabled. For his sake, I hope that's the last time he voluntarily gives up the first turn of the game... unless I somehow end up playing against him

hilleraj wrote:Call me crazy, but I think this battle was over as soon as the Ork player CHOSE to let the Broadside-laden list take the first turn against his BW spam. You said he did this to close the gap to your army faster, but... you know what closes that gap EVEN faster? A turn of movement. And as for the fact that this "strategy" allowed him to see where you were deploying... why should that matter? There is only one objective for him to worry about getting to, and that gets placed before either army deploys.

Let me be the first one to call you crazy. I hate to doubt that you are actually a 40k player, but do you know that the person who starts first has to deploy first? So if he starts first, he has 2 choices :-

1) Deploy on the right or left side, and HOPE that I am stupid enough to deploy directly opposite him.

2) Deploy in the middle, get 1st turn. And since he is in the middle, he has to expend about 7-8 inches to move to the side I am, and end up only 4-5 inches better of, BUT with the rest of the wagons clogging behind. I wouldnt say that's a much better option.

You mentioned about the objective. You do realize (or maybe you haven't) that if he starts first, it makes it worse because I can place my objective in response to his.
And if you assume he should deploy directly opposite across where my objective is, I can always place it in the middle backfield, and keep my FireWarriors in my fish. Since in this case as he is much further away from me, I don't even have to use my Devilfish for movement blocking. And realize even in this game, my Fish stayed alive till the end of the game.

hilleraj wrote:Kudos to you, though. You definitely played this game the right way...

Thank you

hilleraj wrote:your opponent brought an inferior list,

Enlighten us what is a better wagon list.

hilleraj wrote:played it poorly, and got tabled.

And educate us how he should have played it better.

Don't give vague comments and leave us hanging there. Do elaborate so that everyone can learn from you (assuming your arguments are sound of course).

And pardon me for saying this :- I see that you ve just created an account today, and this is your first post. I can't help it but feel that you are a clone account of someone who just got shot down by my argument.

I may be thinking too much, but doesn't matter, as long as you bring solid argument into the discussion.

but do you know that the person who starts first has to deploy first?

Seriously?!?! Well that changes EVERYTHING!!

Since you're gonna be defensive to the point of insulting my intelligence (through a cleverly-disguised question, mind you), I don't really feel like getting into a long, theoretical blow-by-blow reenactment of how this battle could have gone... but I'll reiterate - you only have one objective, so his BWs need to deploy across from it, and head (relatively) straight for it, letting the green tide roll over everything in its way.

Enlighten us what is a better wagon list.

The need for home objective-holding cheap troops has already been addressed several times in this thread. I can't see how this list would be considered a TAC list without a dedicated unit(s) for the possibility of a capture-and-control mission.

And educate us how he should have played it better.

Apart from the questionable tactic of giving up the first turn, I'd say it became pretty apparent that he forgot what the mission was (understandable when the WAAAAAGH takes hold), since he left his objective alone, and instead decided to try and foot-slog his units into a Tau deathtrap, after losing all his mobility. In this battle, once the BWs were wrecked, I think a smarter move would have been to play for the draw - bubble-wrap the objective, and power klaw anything that comes near. Not the Orky way, but I think it would have ended with a better result.

I can't help it but feel that you are a clone account of someone who just got shot down by my argument.

Definitely an understandable thought-process... but I hope this skepticism is your main reason for being so harsh on a noob like me. First-time posting, but I've been reading this site since I got back into the game less than a year ago. I really liked your first batrep, but I thought this time around there were some really obvious deficiencies in your opponent's tactics, and it didn't seem like anyone else was even questioning it.

With that in mind, I'd like to say that I'm not an Ork player (shocking, I'm sure) - so I'd love to hear from some of the Ork players out there: would you voluntarily give up the first turn in this situation? And as OP so eloquently said: (please) don't give vague comments and leave us hanging there!

hilleraj wrote:
Since you're gonna be defensive to the point of insulting my intelligence (through a cleverly-disguised question, mind you), I don't really feel like getting into a long, theoretical blow-by-blow reenactment of how this battle could have gone... but I'll reiterate - you only have one objective, so his BWs need to deploy across from it, and head (relatively) straight for it, letting the green tide roll over everything in its way.

And i said placing my obj in the middle, did you miss it? So is he going to deploy left, OR right?

hilleraj wrote:Enlighten us what is a better wagon list.
The need for home objective-holding cheap troops has already been addressed several times in this thread. I can't see how this list would be considered a TAC list without a dedicated unit(s) for the possibility of a capture-and-control mission.

He was tabled. Did it make any difference? Like reducing 7 boys to purchase a unit of 10grots + Runtherd?

OH, and having a single squad of Gretchin is the difference between a good BW list and a WEAK BW list? REALLY?

hilleraj wrote:Apart from the questionable tactic of giving up the first turn, I'd say it became pretty apparent that he forgot what the mission was (understandable when the WAAAAAGH takes hold), since he left his objective alone, and instead decided to try and foot-slog his units into a Tau deathtrap, after losing all his mobility. In this battle, once the BWs were wrecked, I think a smarter move would have been to play for the draw - bubble-wrap the objective, and power klaw anything that comes near. Not the Orky way, but I think it would have ended with a better result.

He did exactly that, retreating his boys to the objective, but got wiped.

OH you mean the moment his wagons all got wrecked, EVERYTHING, including his GHAZ + NOB should go back and pray for a draw? Is this how you will play the game?

And if he had retreated another squad of boys instead of EVERYTHING, his Ghaz squad wouldnt have survived till turn 7 given the concentration of firepower, and I could then divert all 9 suits into shooting at the 1 and half squad of boys at the back. And if they don't die, the worse case is a draw for me, and best case is a win for me if he cannot take down my devilfish contesting the obj.

hilleraj wrote:Definitely an understandable thought-process... but I hope this skepticism is your main reason for being so harsh on a noob like me. First-time posting, but I've been reading this site since I got back into the game less than a year ago. I really liked your first batrep, but I thought this time around there were some really obvious deficiencies in your opponent's tactics, and it didn't seem like anyone else was even questioning it.

Fair enough. So I answered your queries. Anything you want to add?

hilleraj wrote:With that in mind, I'd like to say that I'm not an Ork player (shocking, I'm sure) - so I'd love to hear from some of the Ork players out there: would you voluntarily give up the first turn in this situation? And as OP so eloquently said: (please) don't give vague comments and leave us hanging there!

Now tell us. Would you have deployed on the left, the right, the middle, or whereever my objective is? And then we can discuss the pros and cons of your suggestion.

Thanks for your comments anyway.

It is funny, cause 1 month ago, there was the exact opposite thread : ie. a Tau player that was unable to beat an ork BW list.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/415026.page

Concerning the list of the OP's ork player, I think a more competitive list would have boarding planks on the BWs.
Since a skimmer wall seems to be a common solution against BW list, I suppose many ork player add a boarding plank on their BWs, no ?

He was tabled. Did it make any difference? Like reducing 7 boys to purchase a unit of 10grots + Runtherd?

List composition is a completely different subject from the results of this one particular battle. Please keep that in mind when people offer constructive criticism of a particular list. You asked what improvements could be made to this Ork list, and the collective wisdom of the Dakka forums said to at least get a grot squad.

OH, and having a single squad of Gretchin is the difference between a good BW list and a WEAK BW list? REALLY?

Now you're putting words in my mouth, and trying to exaggerate them to make me look foolish. I never said "weak" - in fact, as you've said many times, there are plenty of BW spam tourney lists that can do well. This list, however, is an inferior TAC list (my words), since it does not account for the possibility of all the different scenario types. A similar BW list with a dedicated objective holding squad (I'd go with more than 10 grots, but less than 20, to keep them fearless after taking a few casualties) is a superior list to the one your friend brought to this game.

He did exactly that, retreating his boys to the objective, but got wiped.

He sent one half-destroyed squad of troops back. If he sends the teal squad back as well on turn 3 (instead of running them forward to certain death), there is no way that you will kill them all. Rapid fire (or 18" stand and fire from kroot, can't tell from your diagram and you didn't specify), SMS, and a lack of cover saves chewed through that mob of orks. If he denies you these, you don't have enough fire power to kill both teal and green squad before the game ends (even after going 7 turns).

EVERYTHING, including his GHAZ + NOB should go back and pray for a draw? Is this how you will play the game?

C'mon dude, are you seriously berating me for this one? You asked me how he should have played it better, and I answered. A draw is better than a loss, end of story.

And i said placing my obj in the middle, did you miss it? So is he going to deploy left, OR right?

What you actually said was:

And if you assume he should deploy directly opposite across where my objective is, I can always place it in the middle backfield, and keep my FireWarriors in my fish

That's different from saying "my objective is in the middle", which is a definitive statement. It's capture and control, so your objective MUST go in the backfield. Middle, left, or right makes no difference. You can hide your squad in your transport, regardless of where the objective is placed, so I'm not really sure what your point is. In fact, I don't even know why you're asking this question, other than to try and confuse anyone else who's reading this, in a vain attempt to make it look like you're right, or at least that you know better than me.

He deploys across from your objective. I think I made that pretty clear already.

Fair enough. So I answered your queries. Anything you want to add?

That's really funny, since I didn't ask you any questions. You answered nothing, just questioned my advice (seemingly without taking the time to read it.) However, I've answered every one of your attempts to dislodge my arguments, and left an open-ended question for the rest of the forum, in an attempt to actually gain some insight on the situation.

First of all, no need to get all worked up over toy soldiers, or with someone in the internet who is thousands of miles away from you. There are more important things in life

hilleraj wrote:List composition is a completely different subject from the results of this one particular battle. Please keep that in mind when people offer constructive criticism of a particular list. You asked what improvements could be made to this Ork list, and the collective wisdom of the Dakka forums said to at least get a grot squad.

Ok, so I get you. The existence of a gretchin squad wouldn't make a difference to the outcome of this game.
Thx, this was what I wanted to clarify.

hilleraj wrote:Now you're putting words in my mouth, and trying to exaggerate them to make me look foolish. I never said "weak" - in fact, as you've said many times, there are plenty of BW spam tourney lists that can do well. This list, however, is an inferior TAC list (my words), since it does not account for the possibility of all the different scenario types. A similar BW list with a dedicated objective holding squad (I'd go with more than 10 grots, but less than 20, to keep them fearless after taking a few casualties) is a superior list to the one your friend brought to this game.

Ok so in other words, the list wasn't bad, was good but just not optimal. Yes, No?

hilleraj wrote:He sent one half-destroyed squad of troops back. If he sends the teal squad back as well on turn 3 (instead of running them forward to certain death), there is no way that you will kill them all. Rapid fire (or 18" stand and fire from kroot, can't tell from your diagram and you didn't specify), SMS, and a lack of cover saves chewed through that mob of orks. If he denies you these, you don't have enough fire power to kill both teal and green squad before the game ends (even after going 7 turns).

By Tau turn 4,
Missle and Plasma from 1 squad of Fireknife - 5 wounds, 2.5 dead
Missile from Deathrains - 3.75 wounds, 1.875 dead
Fusion blaster - 0.555 wounds, 0.2777 dead
4 Drones - 1.48 wounds, 0.74 dead
BC - 1 wound, 0.5 dead
Thats average 5.892 dead orks per turn, 23.568 dead orks over 4 turns. The combined number of orks from the 2 squads was only 23 (in fact from my original batrep record was like only 21). I haven't even factored in kroots shooting for 1 turn, But they probably only kill about 2.
So yes, they will die , or have a more than average chance to die; i..e odds are against him.

*I forgot I should discount 1 turn of rapid firing, so minus 3 plasma shots, -0.625 wounds. Oh, and if orks go to ground, the number will drop from 23.568 to about 15. But I haven't even factored in the fact that I can do a desperate assault on turn 7. 6 suits on the charge causes 6 wounds, 5 more dead orks - doesn't matter that the suits die, and if they don't die, next turn 2 more orks goes down on average.

So yeah, there is the chance that these boys survive, with their objective contested, and the ork player loses on Victory point.

That leaves us with 4 more suits and 7 railguns against Ghaz + Nobs. Lets see, just ROUGHLY.
On Tau turn 4, 7 railguns = 5.185 wounds, 2.6 unsaved. Let's assume 1 goes to Ghaz, 1 nob dies. Carry over the half to turn 5
Plasma from Shas El - 0.55 wounds, 0.2777 unsaved
Plasma from suits - 1.25 wounds, 0.625 unsaved
Assume Missiles all saved.

Tau Turn 5, 7 railguns, everything one from each squad goes into ghaz and assume all gets saved. So the balance 4 railgun shots - 2.96 wounds, 1.5 + 0.5 carried over = 2 dead nobs.
Rapid Plasma from Shas El and suits, 2 unsaved wounds.

Tau turn 6. 4 broadsides get wiped by Ghaz+Nob, before getting wiped by 3 railguns and 8 plasma shots. Or IF Ghaz survives, firewarriors get wiped and ghaz goes down on turn 7.

So going by your BRILLIANT strategy, it will be a tabling, OR I win by one objective, and still table the opponent OR I will by Secondary Mission.

hilleraj wrote:C'mon dude, are you seriously berating me for this one? You asked me how he should have played it better, and I answered. A draw is better than a loss, end of story.

Yes, I am, because you are wrong without doing your mathhammer. And you don't win tournaments by playing for draw. True, a draw is better than a loss, but deciding to turtle back that EARLY in the game is never going to make sense to me.

hilleraj wrote:What you actually said was:
That's different from saying "my objective is in the middle", which is a definitive statement. It's capture and control, so your objective MUST go in the backfield. Middle, left, or right makes no difference. You can hide your squad in your transport, regardless of where the objective is placed, so I'm not really sure what your point is. In fact, I don't even know why you're asking this question, other than to try and confuse anyone else who's reading this, in a vain attempt to make it look like you're right, or at least that you know better than me.

He deploys across from your objective. I think I made that pretty clear already.

Got you, the long story was unnecessary though. So he will deploy in the MIDDLE in this case. THen I ll just pull out my previous comment :-

hilleraj wrote:Deploy in the middle, get 1st turn. And since he is in the middle, he has to expend about 7-8 inches to move to the side I am, and end up only 4-5 inches better off, BUT with the rest of the wagons clogging behind. I wouldnt say that's a much better option.

hilleraj wrote:That's really funny, since I didn't ask you any questions. You answered nothing, just questioned my advice (seemingly without taking the time to read it.) However, I've answered every one of your attempts to dislodge my arguments, and left an open-ended question for the rest of the forum, in an attempt to actually gain some insight on the situation.

It's ok :-). I tried again. If it didnt help, feel free to chip in again. . I am always ready.

You have a lot of confidence in mathhammer, Isseyfaran, so much in fact that you are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.

hilleraj makes some good points with his comments, but I think you are somewhat aggravated at him and you aren't hearing him out, I'll try to reiterate.

I also think that taking first turn could have altered the game significantly for the orks. The point was made that the objectives are placed before deployment, so the ork player could have just saw where you're objective was being placed and deployed right opposite from it, whether it was in the right, middle, or left. He would then get a free turn 1 movement and an almost assured turn 3 charge, turn 2 if the dodge rolls fails.

The ork list wasn't optimal, answering your query. This isn't much of a deal but you are advertising playing the best tau out there so your opponents should have the best possible lists themselves.

Isseyfaran is English your primary language? I'm not asking to be snotty or difficulty. I'm asking to form a frame of reference around the conversation. Reading this thread you are very well spoken (well, written, but you get the idea), but your tone is very harsh. I think that is a lot of the reason that so many people are reacting defensively to your comments.

You asked for feedback and input, but when other players are chiming in to continue the conversation you belittle them or insult their intelligence through subversive questions and snide comments. If you want people to participate maybe stiffle your retorts a hair so that the forum thread doesn't turn into an internet tough guy pissing contest. Remember it is a game fellas.

The truth of the situation is the following....
1. This wasn't a perfect list because the whole army is built around the idea of going and getting stuck in. You mentioned a tournament player would never sit back after losing the wagons and play for the tie. Though that may be true, a tourny list should also expect multiple scenario types and should bring something to hold the fort down while the wagons move on. It could be grots or boys....the point is leaving it open is a poor move.
2. As for deployment....you kept mentioning that the Ork player needed to move where you deployed and that by going first he would have lost the ability to deploy as effectively as he needed to. While that may be true I thought this mission was about objectives. So, if you toss yours in the middle and then deploy left or right of that who cares? He needs the objectives to win. Killing you is a bonus. He obviously can't ignore you because of your range and fire power, but some different decision could have been made was all that hilleraj was trying to point out. In fact, he went so far as to say.....the ork list wasn't perfect, the ork player made some mistakes, and you being a good player with a solid strategy in place around your own list capitalized. There is nothing negative or degrading about your efforts being mentioned there. In fact, it sounded like a compliment. From my experience in playing sports, warhammer, and from being a history buff the side that loses any conflict is most often the side that makes the fewest mistakes and fights/plays the game within the strategy they built. The Ork strategy had holes in it before it ever hit the table and they got worse once the shooting started. The list you played against is a popular themed ork list for tournies so regardless of having a unit to leave at home or not, it was a good test.

Great win! Congrats! It seems like you've got a good list going here. Keep play testing it. I'd love to see it play against some other marine chapters or even a guard list. Being relatively new to the game (I start in June) I've only played against Eldar, Blood Angels, Nids, and UltraMarines. So, seeing reports against some other armies would be great.

Keep having fun guys!

mythological wrote:You have a lot of confidence in mathhammer, Isseyfaran, so much in fact that you are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.

I didn't. I merely showed why the alternative wasn't a better one.

mythological wrote:I also think that taking first turn could have altered the game significantly for the orks. The point was made that the objectives are placed before deployment, so the ork player could have just saw where you're objective was being placed and deployed right opposite from it, whether it was in the right, middle, or left. He would then get a free turn 1 movement and an almost assured turn 3 charge, turn 2 if the dodge rolls fails.

Since it appears that you and your friend are having trouble visualizing what I have explained (that there is almost minimal net gain in distance), I have replicated your suggestion in vassal.


The net gain for Wagon 1 & 2 was about 6", wagon 3 about 4" and wagon 4 was worse off.
And this positioning actually makes it easier to stagger my skimmers so that wagon 1 and 2 will have to ram through 2 consecutive skimmers ; i.e. a 1/9 chance of success.

mythological wrote:The ork list wasn't optimal, answering your query. This isn't much of a deal but you are advertising playing the best tau out there so your opponents should have the best possible lists themselves.

You are right. My opponent should have the best possible list. When asked how would a squad of gretchin have changed the outcome of this game, you guys said it wouldn't have made a difference to THIS game. Then may I ask :- since nothing is going to change because of the gretchin squad, then how is it going to affect the value of THIS BatRep in illustrating "best Tau". That's my question

Also, as previously mentioned by myself, I actually agree the list wasn't optimal, but NOT because of the gretchin squad, most because of the point sunk in burnas. Sadly, no one actually got that right.


Instead of accusing me of being unwilling to consider alternatives, why not you think deeper into your own suggestions and spend some time with mathhammer (don't be lazy) to reconfirm your claim.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MakersHitstheMark wrote:Isseyfaran is English your primary language? I'm not asking to be snotty or difficulty. I'm asking to form a frame of reference around the conversation. Reading this thread you are very well spoken (well, written, but you get the idea), but your tone is very harsh. I think that is a lot of the reason that so many people are reacting defensively to your comments.

You asked for feedback and input, but when other players are chiming in to continue the conversation you belittle them or insult their intelligence through subversive questions and snide comments. If you want people to participate maybe stiffle your retorts a hair so that the forum thread doesn't turn into an internet tough guy pissing contest. Remember it is a game fellas.

1) If you had spend the time to read the first 2 page of this thread, there are actually people who agreed that my tone was fine. So my guess is people just aren't happy that I shot down their argument, and accuse me of being rude. If i had merely shot down people without backing up myself with something logical, then you may have made sense. But apparently, i give solid arguments - unless you can POINT to me which part of my comment does not make sense.
2) It's funny that you find my replies insulting, but actually put in the effort to read the whole batrep, thread, and then post this long chunk of comments. I seriously doubt your intentions. If all I am to you is just an internet tough guy who refuse to listen to reasoning, and my batrep has no value to you because I am merely bullshitting, why bother responding to me now? You could have jolly well left in search for better reports. But apparently, this is again not the case.

* OK, maybe you mean well.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:The truth of the situation is the following....
1. This wasn't a perfect list because the whole army is built around the idea of going and getting stuck in. You mentioned a tournament player would never sit back after losing the wagons and play for the tie. Though that may be true, a tourny list should also expect multiple scenario types and should bring something to hold the fort down while the wagons move on. It could be grots or boys....the point is leaving it open is a poor move.

I actually am more interested in how it would have affected THIS GAME, because the intention is how to play Tau better. We can discuss about the gretchin squad over and over again when I am doing my series of Batrep for orks, but not now. But if it would have affected THIS game, then tell me how. Otherwise, quit repeating something that has no value to this BatRep.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:2. As for deployment....you kept mentioning that the Ork player needed to move where you deployed and that by going first he would have lost the ability to deploy as effectively as he needed to. While that may be true I thought this mission was about objectives. So, if you toss yours in the middle and then deploy left or right of that who cares? He needs the objectives to win. Killing you is a bonus. He obviously can't ignore you because of your range and fire power, but some different decision could have been made was all that hilleraj was trying to point out.

POINT is, there was NO WAY he could head for the objective in a straight line because of the terrain. He would have needed to move to the sides no matter what. NOW do you see why it always seems to you that I am shooting you down? Because you guys aren't even getting the BASIC facts right, especially when people took the effort to write a detailed batrep with vassal pictures.

MakersHitstheMark wrote:In fact, he went so far as to say.....the ork list wasn't perfect, the ork player made some mistakes, and you being a good player with a solid strategy in place around your own list capitalized. There is nothing negative or degrading about your efforts being mentioned there. In fact, it sounded like a compliment.

And this reinforces the fact that I aint even looking for personal fame. I am just very particular about what is offered here because I want people to learn the right things, and not be misguided by poor comments. So i make an effort to break down every poor comment here and explain to people what's wrong with them.

mythological wrote:I also think that taking first turn could have altered the game significantly for the orks. The point was made that the objectives are placed before deployment, so the ork player could have just saw where you're objective was being placed and deployed right opposite from it, whether it was in the right, middle, or left. He would then get a free turn 1 movement and an almost assured turn 3 charge, turn 2 if the dodge rolls fails.

Since it appears that you and your friend are having trouble visualizing what I have explained (that there is almost minimal net gain in distance), I have replicated your suggestion in vassal.


The net gain for Wagon 1 & 2 was about 6", wagon 3 about 4" and wagon 4 was worse off.
And this positioning actually makes it easier to stagger my skimmers so that wagon 1 and 2 will have to ram through 2 consecutive skimmers ; i.e. a 1/9 chance of success.

MarkersHitTheMark: When a skimmer succesfully dodges the ramming tank will stop in its' tracks.
Pg 71 "Ramming a skimmer"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just curious, is that big piece of terrain blocking LOS?

If a skimmer successfully dodges, the ramming vehicle (i.e. BW) stops right there. It doesn't go through.

However, my question for me is, does the skimmer still suffer D6 S10 hits from the BW when it dodges?

jy2 wrote:If a skimmer successfully dodges, the ramming vehicle (i.e. BW) stops right there. It doesn't go through.

However, my question for me is, does the skimmer still suffer D6 S10 hits from the BW when it dodges?

No. Hits only take place when the ram is successful. If he dodges the ram, it's not successful.

On a second note, why weren't there any boarding planks on the BWs to get some PK attacks on the skimmers in the event that ramming failed? Not only would it have made a difference in the outcome of this battle but it would have improved the effectiveness of the list being made as a TAC.

just out of curiosity, was this game played in Vassal or in real life then relayed through Vassal?

Sorry if you already said, couldn't find whether you did or didn't

I am always ready.

I hope so...

there was NO WAY he could head for the objective in a straight line

Ok, I see the pattern of problems you're having now. You're inferring waaay too much from what I've written, and getting all worked up over it. Care to show me where I said he should move in a straight line to your objective? You keep misunderstanding what I'm writing, and just fill in whatever you want to make it fit with your points. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and chalk it up to a language barrier. But if you're going to disagree with anything/everything that I say, please at least make sure that I actually said it, and that you weren't just assuming you knew what I meant.

Setting up directly across from your objective, with a large LOS-blocking piece of terrain in front of him, gives him the option of heading either way around the terrain based on your deployment. Alternatively, it lets him split his trucks, making it almost impossible for you to block them effectively with your skimmers (if they're all alive - remember he gets the first turn, and has two squads of lootas... mathhammer it out if you'd like, but at least one, maybe two of the skimmers shouldn't be able to move after his shooting is done). This, of course, means two of his BWs don't get the KFF, but again this would have to depend on your broadside deployment.

The net gain for Wagon 1 & 2 was about 6"

That's all he needs to Waaagh and assault you on turn 2. Splitting one of his BWs (to the right, in your diagram) means that three of his BWs get at least 6". closer to you (and actually more for the one on the right, since it doesn't need to move so far to the side to make room for the others (which is a pretty terrible movement strategy in the first place... one that I assume you used here in your example since it results in the smallest net gain for the Orks, which suits your point perfectly. The left-most BW could move almost the full 13" straight ahead, with the others moving in behind it. But it's your diagram, so I'll go with it). So we now have two BWs in potential turn-2 assault range, although I'd probably wait for turn 3 to Waaagh, depending on how your turn 1 shooting goes. As we saw in your batrep, only 1 BW went down on the first turn, but if it's one of the front-runners, then it's probably better to hold the Waaagh for late, as your opponent did. The difference now is that you're going to have two or three full BWs in your face on turn 2, and practically the entire Ork army assaulting you on turn 3. I believe sums it up nicely.

Ok, so I get you. The existence of a gretchin squad wouldn't make a difference to the outcome of this game.
Thx, this was what I wanted to clarify.

Again, please re-read my statement. Did you notice me say anywhere that you were right about this? I merely pointed out that you were defending a different point than the one you made earlier (originally you asked how to improve this LIST, then jumped to the conclusion that it wouldn't have made a difference in this particular GAME). And since I've enjoyed proving you wrong so far, let's take a look and see how a grot squad might change things in the outcome of this game.

First we need to make a few subtractions from the list to make room:

but NOT because of the gretchin squad, most because of the point sunk in burnas. Sadly, no one actually got that right.

The two go hand in hand. You need to get points from somewhere. And actually, it was YOU who said to drop 7 boys for the gretchin squad, so actually YOU got that one wrong. Dropping two burnas, 2 boys, the big choppa from the Nobz, and a grot rigger off a BW gives you enough for a squad of 14 gretchin and a runtherd. Now that we have the squad, let's see how they might change things a little.

Ork turn 3: (btw, how come the Orks didn't blow up the piranha in Tau turn 3? did he forget to make his 6 PK auto hits on it? another mistake by the Ork player?), the Big Mek and his squad no longer need to fall back to their objective, and can instead join up with the rest of the of the horde. Teal and green can both assault the devilfish, most likely wrecking it, and bringing all three squads under the cover of the KFF (not really necessary for the Nobz squad, unless the one non-cybork is still alive). Tau turn 4 shooting no longer wipes out teal squad, since 1/3 of the SMS wounds are saved. Teal is weakened (or maybe you try to wipe out green, leaving teal mostly unharmed), but now you're dealing with three (maybe 2) squads with PKs. Here's the fun part...

Ork Turn 5: WAAAAAAGH!

Teal and/or Green moves to the edge of the forest, while the Nobz move toward your red squads. All run 6". Teal/Green assaults the 2nd kroot squad, pulling them away from your suits due to pile-in moves. Nobz multi-assault all the red suits, smashing them into a pulp! Kroot most likely die, too (that's what they do best). Things are looking a little different, no? I don't really care to get into how the rest of the match would go, since there are so many possibilities for both sides from here... but I'd wager that the Orks have at least a 50% chance of winning the game, since you will lost your last squad of troops on turn 6, and he still has 3-4 squads of troops left, occupying both objectives... I'd say that's a MUCH better result than what happened in this game, and all because of one little grot squad.

This is fun, let's keep going:

Ok so in other words, the list wasn't bad, was good but just not optimal. Yes, No?

No. Good is a vague word (especially since there has been a lot of misunderstanding of words on your behalf). Good could mean "good enough" to some people, and "it could be better" to others. You want to be up against a reasonable replication of a tournament-worthy list, which this is definitely NOT. I've shown how to improve the list, which is EXACTLY what you asked me to do.


And after all this fun I've had poking holes in every one of your arguments, I decided to go back and read the batrep with a more skeptical eye.

First off, since you stopped posting pictures of the last two turns, and didn't actually mention the result of the game, did you just assume that you won because you tabled your opponent? 5th ed rule book says this is so for a standard mission, but you seem pretty intent on a tournament setting. And every tournament I've played (as well as others that I've read the rules for) say that tabling doesn't award full points - you still have to fulfill the mission objectives, so as to avoid armies that bring two minimum sized squads of troops, and load up on the other slots. So since you're playing with a secondary objective already (which is not part of the standard 5th ed rules) I'd say that what you have done in this game (against an inferior list with poor tactics) is score a minor victory. Is THIS how you play Tau the RIGHT WAY?

And you don't win tournaments by playing for draw

You also don't win tournaments by squeaking out minor victories - it's all but guaranteed that, in a large field of competitors, at least one person will score major victories in all their games.

So maybe big tournaments aren't what you're going for? That's fine. Beating up on inferior opponents can be fun, too (after all, why do you think I keep replying to your posts, and proving you wrong!) In fact, let's go back to your original post:

Since most people has a misconception that Tau is a relatively weaker codex compared to the new toys, I will be putting up a series of battle reports to illustrate how to play Tau properly against different codex/armies.

Hang on a sec...

compared to the new toys

What was that?

compared to the NEW toys

(*emphasis added by me)

I'm pretty sure that the Ork codex was released in early 2008. Now, it's still capable of producing tournament-quality lists that can win with a good player (neither of which you encountered in this batrep). The point being, though, that it's almost 4 years old now, and practically no one who plays competitively is complaining that Orks are over-powered.

I see you copied and pasted your objective statement from your previous batrep - maybe you thought it was so brilliant that it had to be repeated, or maybe you're just lazy.

Ok, maybe that last comment of mine was out of line. I've been berating you for misinterpreting my words this whole time, and maybe I'm the one who wasn't reading your original statement correctly. After all, there is a third option: are you saying your list could perform better than the new armies could against your opponents? If that's the case, I'll ask one of our thread contributors a question:

@Jy2, how do you think your MTO necrons would perform against the Ork list (not Tau... although I would LOVE to see that battle) presented at the start of this batrep? Think you could table him in 6 turns or less? Or more accurately, do you think you could score a Major victory against him in this scenario? Because it looks like that when you play Tau properly, a minor victory is the best you can hope for (in this specific case, at least).

[quote=hillerajOk, I see the pattern of problems you're having now. You're inferring waaay too much from what I've written, and getting all worked up over it. Care to show me where I said he should move in a straight line to your objective? You keep misunderstanding what I'm writing, and just fill in whatever you want to make it fit with your points. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and chalk it up to a language barrier. But if you're going to disagree with anything/everything that I say, please at least make sure that I actually said it, and that you weren't just assuming you knew what I meant.

Isseyfaran, as was mentioned before...you come across as kind of a dick. Mind toning it down a bit?

In other news, does your bubble-wrapped gunline tend to work against most meched-up opponents? I've never thought Piranhas were worth their points. Is it just 180 points dropped into blocking people?

Mar'tacus wrote:Isseyfaran, as was mentioned before...you come across as kind of a dick. Mind toning it down a bit?

In other news, does your bubble-wrapped gunline tend to work against most meched-up opponents? I've never thought Piranhas were worth their points. Is it just 180 points dropped into blocking people?

You do realize it was hilleraj who started with his arrogance, even though he doesn't have the substance to back him up? Ok, maybe you haven't.

And if you think i m such a dick, why bother asking me for advice? I mean isn't it a pain to speak with someone whom YOU THINK is a dick (genuine question)?

Isseyfaran wrote:

Mar'tacus wrote:Isseyfaran, as was mentioned before...you come across as kind of a dick. Mind toning it down a bit?

In other news, does your bubble-wrapped gunline tend to work against most meched-up opponents? I've never thought Piranhas were worth their points. Is it just 180 points dropped into blocking people?

You do realize it was hilleraj who started with his arrogance, even though he doesn't have the substance to back him up? Ok, maybe you haven't.

And if you think i m such a dick, why bother asking me for advice? I mean isn't it a pain to speak with someone whom YOU THINK is a dick (genuine question)?

I wanted to keep my post more or less on topic by asking you a question that I didn't expect an answer to after my initial statement. That was the meat and potatoes of the post. I find you insufferable.

Hey, so I noticed you have a lot of Broadsides in your list. What's your opinion on Broadsides vs. Railheads?

Mar'tacus wrote:

Isseyfaran wrote:

Mar'tacus wrote:Isseyfaran, as was mentioned before...you come across as kind of a dick. Mind toning it down a bit?

In other news, does your bubble-wrapped gunline tend to work against most meched-up opponents? I've never thought Piranhas were worth their points. Is it just 180 points dropped into blocking people?

You do realize it was hilleraj who started with his arrogance, even though he doesn't have the substance to back him up? Ok, maybe you haven't.

And if you think i m such a dick, why bother asking me for advice? I mean isn't it a pain to speak with someone whom YOU THINK is a dick (genuine question)?

I wanted to keep my post more or less on topic by asking you a question that I didn't expect an answer to after my initial statement. That was the meat and potatoes of the post. I find you insufferable.

Hey, so I noticed you have a lot of Broadsides in your list. What's your opinion on Broadsides vs. Railheads?

Me too

Isseyfaran wrote:

Mar'tacus wrote: I find you insufferable.

Me too

No need to hijack my thread with your silly emoticons. Not only you won't get any insights from me, you ll just make yourself look stupid.

because how can someone who claim to be experienced in 40k not know this BASIC assault rule?

Yep, I definitely got that rule wrong. My bad, thanks for pointing it out! But you know what else is funny? Once again, you're putting words in my mouth! I never claimed to be a competitive player, or even experienced. In fact, I quite openly admitted that I only started playing the game less than a year ago, and in fact I told you explicitly that I don't even play with the army that you're asking me for advice on!

Ohhh yeah, let's go back to that again, shall we? In your most recent post, you said:

so advocating ways to improve the ork list (IF it wouldnt make a difference to this game) is not what we are looking for

That's really interesting, since the whole reason I got into this discussion was because you asked me for the following:

Enlighten us what is a better wagon list.

Seems to me, improving the Ork list is EXACTLY what you asked me to do. It appears you don't even know what YOU wrote in this thread, let alone take the time to read what other people are writing.

I know your strategy, as I've seen people like you try to use it time and time again. You keep asking question after question, hoping to catch peoples' mistakes, without caring about their correct answers. It's a great way to show your knowledge on the subject, without ever having to admit you're wrong about anything. Well, here's the kicker... everyone is wrong about things ALL THE TIME. Some people acknowledge it, and try to learn from their mistakes. Others try to cover it up by over-emphasizing the mistakes of others. If that makes you feel better, more power to you. But it makes the world a pretty lonely place after a while, because no one will want to have a serious discussion with you. This thread is a great example of that, but it's true the world over. Sorry I can't give you a mathhammer breakdown on this, but there's this:

Let me be the first one to call you crazy

You're the only one to call me crazy. Everyone else has either been agreeing with me, or just disgusted by your general approach.

mostly likely wreck the Devilfish

Assuming 20 Ork shoota boys (I believe you said 23 orks in total, -3 for Nobz and big mek) = 60 Attacks * 1/6 to hit = 10 hits * 1/6 to glance = 1.66 glances

5/18 to immobilize, same chance to stun it. Slightly better than 1/4 chance the PKs auto-hit during the Ork player turn, but that's not very good, so we'll assume it's not immobile yet.

2 Nobz and 1 Big Mek = 12 PK attacks * 1/6 to hit = 2 PK hits * 5/6 chance to pen + 1/6 chance to glance = 1.66 pens + 2 glances combined between all the attacks.

Pens = 1/3 wreck or destroyed, and 1/3 chance you cant move during your next turn. Glances = 1/3 chance you can't move next turn.

So you take 1.66 * 1/3 = 0.55 hits that wreck you, and

0.55 + 2 * 1/3 = 0.55(pens) + 0.66(glances) = 1.21 hits that prevent you from moving next turn.

We'll say the Ork player gets a little unlucky, and doesn't wreck you this turn. On your turn, your fish can't move, and the PKs auto-hit.

9 PK hits = 7.5 Pens and 1.5 glances. I don't think I need to give you the odds here, so I'd say that you're most likely wrecked before the Ork player's next turn.

Maybe I confused you by not expanding on this combat to include Tau turn 4. If so, that's my bad, sorry. However, mathhammer says that fish is a wreck. I think I just assumed that since you're such a fan of the tool, you'd be able to figure this one out on your own. I guess not.

But funny that on one hand you advocated retreating, but after seeing my mathhammer, you turn your argument.

Once again, you're very very confused as to what is going on. I don't think you've even picked up on the fact that we're talking about two different scenarios. My strategy for retreating to the Ork objective was in response to how your opponent could have played HIS LIST better.

My strategy for advancing was in response to how adding a grot squad to his list would change the outcome of the game. Note, these are now two different lists we're talking about, so two different strategies are called for. I did not "turn" my argument. There is no way to interpret this differently.

However, when we talked about how you would deploy if the Orks had the first turn, and your objective was in the middle, YOU said the following:

And if you assume he should deploy directly opposite across where my objective is, I can always place it in the middle backfield, and keep my FireWarriors in my fish. Since in this case as he is much further away from me, I don't even have to use my Devilfish for movement blocking.

And yet, in your lovely diagram, your devilfish is in the middle of the table, blocking the BWs. Seems to me that you're the one who's turning his argument here. Is that because keeping your fish in the backfield was a mistake that you were hoping we'd ignore? Or once again did you just forget what you wrote earlier?

You seem to be having trouble making connections between what you're writing, and what you're putting on your own diagram.

Lets assume my stuff are on one side of the board, as i have already illustrated.

You only showed the placement of two squads (along with the skimmers) on your diagram. Meaning the rest of your army is in reserve? I really don't think this is the case, but if you want me to comment on your diagrams, please provide them complete, instead of making me guess.

Not sure if you know how to read the vassal pics properly.

LOL I just don't know how to see your invisible troops.

If your whole army is on the left side where you placed those two squads (and not controlling your objective in the middle of the backfield), then all the Ork player has to do is move all his BWs to the RIGHT of the LOS-blocking terrain. This prevents you from shooting at his BWs for the first 2 turns, and allows him to sweep up to within about 18" of your objective before you've had a chance to wreck anything. It also gives you only 3 turn (maybe 4, or 5 if you're lucky... but it took you 7 turns in your batrep) to try and kill his forces, move your troops to your objective, AND contest his objective. The Ork player still has 4 full BWs, and hasn't used his Waaagh yet. Wanna show me how you can mathhammer your way out of this one? Good luck with that.

Call me slow, but i don't understand your flow of actions. Would be appreciated if you do illustrate via vassal pics

Did anyone else have trouble figuring out what I've been saying this whole time? Well, seeing as other people have chimed in, trying to explain to YOU what I've been saying, I think that it's just you. You're slow.

Not sure what tournaments you are talking about

http://www.warmasterschallenge.com/2011_40kChallenge
http://www.conquesttoronto.com/

Here are the two tournaments I played in last year, with more than 40 players attending each. In both cases, tabling your opponent did not give you a major victory.

Here are two others I found by quickly googling:

http://gt.bugeatergames.com/40kMissions_FinalPacket.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=3&aId=9500009&start=4&multiPageMode=true

The last one is the 'Ard Boyz tournament, which I hope you are familiar with. Again, neither of them give you a major victory for tabling your opponent.

but i like the Nova 5x5 format

As far as I could tell, Nova format also doesn't award a major victory for tabling your opponent. I'm unfamiliar with the 5x5 system, care to explain?

you indeed do win and advance if you win by primary, secondary, or tertiary

In all of the tournament formats mentioned above, your match seeding is based on the results of your previous games. They take the people who scored minor victories, and pair them up against the people who scored major victories - this is to ensure that the players who scored major victories will not come up against each other until the later rounds of the tournament, making for more meaningful games.

Scoring a minor victory makes it very likely that you'll be up against one of the better armies in your next round. Again, this will make it much more difficult to win. This is their system, not mine, so even if you want to debate the merits of playing it this way, I'm the wrong person to talk to.

Also, most of the tournaments mentioned above use a combined score system, meaning the winners are (usually) the ones who score major victories in all of their games. So you will need to score major victories at some point in the tournament, or else your combined score won't push you to the top.

You weren't even able to score a major victory against a list that isn't tournament-worthy. How do you expect to get major victories over tournament lists with generals who actually know how to play the game?

I thought I would have a pretty decent shot at placing well in the first tournament I went to, since I was consistently beating my friends that I play with. I did not place well - at all (not last, but close). There is definitely a gap between friends who play casually for fun, and competitive tournament players. You start to notice these gaps when you play against both types. I'm really starting to wonder if YOU actually play competitively, since you don't seem to be able to see all of the mistakes that your opponents make. (Or maybe you just don't want to admit that your opponents made a lot of mistakes, since that cheapens your own victory? It MUST have been your brilliance that won you the game, after all)

Come to think of it, you never actually mentioned if you play competitively, or if you've managed to win any tournaments by playing Tau the Right Way. I think people would learn a lot more by seeing some of those batreps, where your tactics are used to beat competitive players with tournament-quality lists.

And seriously, tell us which codex have an easy time scoring major victories every game

Once again, you don't understand what's going on here. I did not say one codex has an easy time scoring major victories. What I said was that, in a large field of competitors, it's pretty much guaranteed that at least one person will score major victories in all of their games. This has practically nothing to do with the codex, and everything to do with player skill, along with the luck of the dice.

I don't know what's the problem with that, but ork is newer than Tau.

You said "new toys", not "newer toys". Again, you really need to check back on what you've written before you try to argue differently. Or are you turning your argument again? The Tau codex is less than 2 years older than the Ork codex. Yes, the Ork codex is newer than the Tau, but relatively speaking, both are old now. In fact, they were both written for a set of rules that is no longer used.

Let me use an analogy, since you seem to have difficulty following what I say: If you bought your kid a 4 year old bike, and told him it was new, you'd be a pretty mean person. If you continued to argue with him that it was a new bike, after he called you out on the fact that it was indeed 4 years old, you'd be a massive prick. (sure, it wasn't a great analogy, but I hope I made my point clear... also, it seems to me that you're the kind of person who WOULD argue with him in this case, and tell him that you got him a "newer" bike than the one he had, so therefore it's new)

You do realize it was hilleraj who started with his arrogance

It's perfectly okay to be wrong - learning from your mistakes is one of the best ways to learn something. Refusing to admit your mistakes, especially when they be come apparent to everyone, is arrogance - something you accuse me of, and yet here I am admitting to the things I'm wrong about, and learning from my mistakes. Care to do the same?

hilleraj wrote:
Yep, I definitely got that rule wrong. My bad, thanks for pointing it out! But you know what else is funny? Once again, you're putting words in my mouth! I never claimed to be a competitive player, or even experienced. In fact, I quite openly admitted that I only started playing the game less than a year ago, and in fact I told you explicitly that I don't even play with the army that you're asking me for advice on!

Nobody ask you for advice, LOL. You came in and started ranting about things, and so I asked you to back up what you claim. So in case you got me wrong, I aint interested in your insights at all, especially from someone who doesn't even know ONE OF THE MOST BASIC RULES

hilleraj wrote:That's really interesting, since the whole reason I got into this discussion was because you asked me for the following:

Enlighten us what is a better wagon list.

Seems to me, improving the Ork list is EXACTLY what you asked me to do. It appears you don't even know what YOU wrote in this thread, let alone take the time to read what other people are writing.

Your comments was obviously made within the context of this game, and obviously my counter argument would be against the same context. Not my fault that you have problem reading things in context. And seriously, improvements that wouldnt have impacted this game would have zero value add to this BAtRep.

hilleraj wrote:I know your strategy, as I've seen people like you try to use it time and time again. You keep asking question after question, hoping to catch peoples' mistakes, without caring about their correct answers.

LOL? Strategy? OMG. Instead of second guessing people's intention, why not reflect upon yourself, if you really are presenting proper facts?

hilleraj wrote:It's a great way to show your knowledge on the subject, without ever having to admit you're wrong about anything. Well, here's the kicker... everyone is wrong about things ALL THE TIME.

You are the one who made all the mistakes about the rule, LOL? I don't think I ve made any mistakes so far? EVen all the mistakes you are ranting about in the BatRep were mistakes that you think the ork player committed. So MAY I ASK, what's my mistake? LOL

hilleraj wrote:Some people acknowledge it, and try to learn from their mistakes.

I hope you did learn your mistake, and be less arrogant next time if you didnt do your homework. Otherwise, it's really embarassing.

hilleraj wrote:Others try to cover it up by over-emphasizing the mistakes of others. If that makes you feel better, more power to you. But it makes the world a pretty lonely place after a while, because no one will want to have a serious discussion with you. This thread is a great example of that, but it's true the world over.

If there is any mistake that me as the Tau player have committed in the BatRep, you can feel free to point them out :-). Giving generic statements like that doesn't bring your argument anywhere.

hilleraj wrote:You're the only one to call me crazy. Everyone else has either been agreeing with me, or just disgusted by your general approach.

AWW. The way you define EVERYONE is not "every single person" in this thread? Because apparently not every single person in this thread agrees with you. But I understand. It's not the first time you use your words loosely anyway .

hilleraj wrote:2 Nobz and 1 Big Mek = 12 PK attacks * 1/6 to hit = 2 PK hits * 5/6 chance to pen + 1/6 chance to glance = 1.66 pens + 2 glances combined between all the attacks.

LOL? I didn't know Big Mek comes default with Power Klaw. AH, doesn't matter. It's not the first time you base your strategy on wrong fundamentals anyway.
But nvm, I am accepting your math on the Devilfish anyway. It becomes wrecked on my turn.

hilleraj wrote:Once again, you're very very confused as to what is going on. I don't think you've even picked up on the fact that we're talking about two different scenarios. My strategy for retreating to the Ork objective was in response to how your opponent could have played HIS LIST better.

REALLY? Let's see :-

hilleraj wrote:Ork turn 3: (btw, how come the Orks didn't blow up the piranha in Tau turn 3? did he forget to make his 6 PK auto hits on it? another mistake by the Ork player?), the Big Mek and his squad no longer need to fall back to their objective, and can instead join up with the rest of the of the horde

EVERYTHING HERE was spoken in the context of the GAME's turn 3. The words in bold were very telling. So either (1) you are covering the fact that you are indeed changing your stance, OR (2) you have trouble putting your thoughts in proper English so that people understand you.

hilleraj wrote:And yet, in your lovely diagram, your devilfish is in the middle of the table, blocking the BWs. Seems to me that you're the one who's turning his argument here. Is that because keeping your fish in the backfield was a mistake that you were hoping we'd ignore? Or once again did you just forget what you wrote earlier?

The comment "I don't even have to use my Devilfish for movement blocking" was an attempt to emphasize how poor your movement strategy is - you are actually in a worse off situation than if you had taken turn 2, to the extent that i could even handicap myself by placing away the devilfish. The words in bold makes it quite clear that it is by no means a definite course of action. I MEAN, is this that hard to understand, to the extent that you have to clarify the intention?

hilleraj wrote:You seem to be having trouble making connections between what you're writing, and what you're putting on your own diagram.

So far, it's more like your problem with the language.

hilleraj wrote:You only showed the placement of two squads (along with the skimmers) on your diagram. Meaning the rest of your army is in reserve? I really don't think this is the case, but if you want me to comment on your diagrams, please provide them complete, instead of making me guess.

I am not obliged to put in that kind of effort for your convenience, especially when you aren't even putting in 50% of the effort to explain yourself properly via diagram.

hilleraj wrote:If your whole army is on the left side where you placed those two squads (and not controlling your objective in the middle of the backfield), then all the Ork player has to do is move all his BWs to the RIGHT of the LOS-blocking terrain. This prevents you from shooting at his BWs for the first 2 turns, and allows him to sweep up to within about 18" of your objective before you've had a chance to wreck anything. It also gives you only 3 turn (maybe 4, or 5 if you're lucky... but it took you 7 turns in your batrep) to try and kill his forces, move your troops to your objective, AND contest his objective. The Ork player still has 4 full BWs, and hasn't used his Waaagh yet. Wanna show me how you can mathhammer your way out of this one? Good luck with that.

Wait wait, is it now 4 wagons to the other side, or one. Make up your mind, and then I ll mathhammer for you.

hilleraj wrote:Did anyone else have trouble figuring out what I've been saying this whole time? Well, seeing as other people have chimed in, trying to explain to YOU what I've been saying, I think that it's just you. You're slow.

No one else replied to your crap, but everyone else commented on my batrep. So it's quite telling. Either people didn't bother to read or understand what you are trying to say, OR they read but they don't understand. I am actually quite amused that you ASSUMED people READ AND UNDERSTOOD what you were trying to say, LOL
It's hilarious that you call me lazy for not putting up complete diagrams, when you yourself can't even be bothered putting up a simple illustration. I shall leave it to the audience to determine who is the lazier chap.
And so without a proper illustration from you, I take it that you are merely spewing crap. And there is no way I can refute crap.

hilleraj wrote:http://www.warmasterschallenge.com/2011_40kChallenge
http://www.conquesttoronto.com/

Here are the two tournaments I played in last year, with more than 40 players attending each. In both cases, tabling your opponent did not give you a major victory.

Here are two others I found by quickly googling:

http://gt.bugeatergames.com/40kMissions_FinalPacket.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=3&aId=9500009&start=4&multiPageMode=true

The last one is the 'Ard Boyz tournament, which I hope you are familiar with. Again, neither of them give you a major victory for tabling your opponent.

I guess this will bring us to another string of argument, but the format you quoted above are not in my opinion fair and competitive. You are welcomed to open up a thread to debate about this, and i m sure many people will chip one. But the Ard Boys for one, has a tournament format which many deemed to be unfair and less competitive.

hilleraj wrote:As far as I could tell, Nova format also doesn't award a major victory for tabling your opponent. I'm unfamiliar with the 5x5 system, care to explain?

Google/visit Stelek's blog. There was a detailed article on that, or I think BaldandScreaming has something on that too?. I just can't be bothered to explain to you in detail here. I shouldn't be punished for your ignorance.

hilleraj wrote:You weren't even able to score a major victory against a list that isn't tournament-worthy. How do you expect to get major victories over tournament lists with generals who actually know how to play the game?

:-) You assumed the ork list isn't tournament worthy, and the general don't know how to play the game. And you based your assumptions on a single gretchin squad. I am not sure how to refute your assumption, except by empirical evidence - there are dozens and dozens of ork lists who didn't have THAT gretchin squad, and placed well in tournaments.

hilleraj wrote:I thought I would have a pretty decent shot at placing well in the first tournament I went to, since I was consistently beating my friends that I play with. I did not place well - at all (not last, but close). There is definitely a gap between friends who play casually for fun, and competitive tournament players.

I ain't surprise, especially when you don't even know the fundamental rules well.

hilleraj wrote:You start to notice these gaps when you play against both types. I'm really starting to wonder if YOU actually play competitively, since you don't seem to be able to see all of the mistakes that your opponents make. (Or maybe you just don't want to admit that your opponents made a lot of mistakes, since that cheapens your own victory? It MUST have been your brilliance that won you the game, after all)

LOL, didn't need you to tell me that. Unlike you, i play 40k competitively. Unlike you, my opponents from both BatRep come from tournament background, and one actually had placing in Nova last year. So I m pretty sure that the games i will be illustrating will be against players who are at least a notch above you (ok, not that using you as a benchmark adds credibility to my claim ). And with regards to whether it cheapens my victory, I don't really care. Because unlike amateurs like you, personal fame to me is no longer important. Educating people is
So don't just assume everyone has the same mentality as you, desperate for attention and personal fame

hilleraj wrote:Come to think of it, you never actually mentioned if you play competitively, or if you've managed to win any tournaments by playing Tau the Right Way. I think people would learn a lot more by seeing some of those batreps, where your tactics are used to beat competitive players with tournament-quality lists.

My events are mostly in Asia and Australia. I would probably be attending Nova next year, and will definitely be putting up BatReps. :-). But unlike you, I don't get trumped in tournaments

hilleraj wrote:You said "new toys", not "newer toys". Again, you really need to check back on what you've written before you try to argue differently. Or are you turning your argument again? The Tau codex is less than 2 years older than the Ork codex. Yes, the Ork codex is newer than the Tau, but relatively speaking, both are old now. In fact, they were both written for a set of rules that is no longer used.

Not interested to debate on that with you. I actually find it pretty childish that you actually had something to complain about this, especially it has nothing of value to add to the BatRep or learning experience. And anyway, new toys in the context of Tau would mean anything newer than Tau. Accept it, or suck it up. Because obviously no one else have a problem with that introduction, nor the fact that the orks are part of my consideration :-)

hilleraj wrote: It's perfectly okay to be wrong - learning from your mistakes is one of the best ways to learn something.

But it's not alright to be wrong and arrogant at the same time.

hilleraj wrote:Refusing to admit your mistakes, especially when they be come apparent to everyone, is arrogance - something you accuse me of, and yet here I am admitting to the things I'm wrong about, and learning from my mistakes. Care to do the same?

That's great. You finally realize your mistake :-).
As for mine, I am still waiting for you to tell me what did the Tau player (me) do wrong in the BatRep


And since this thread is all about playing Tau the right way, and educating people the right things to do with Tau, I would think it is more useful if you pick out mistakes by the Tau, RATHER than mistakes by the ork player. Because seriously, even if the ork player is doing 100 things wrong, all we are interested in is the one thing that the Tau player did right, OR the one thing that the Tau player did wrong.

reiterating my question, was this list played on Vassal, or replayed through pictures using Vassal?

Yup, actually answering relevant questions - instead of pissing all over each other - would be nice.

Isseyfaran wrote:And since this thread is all about playing Tau the right way, and educating people the right things to do with Tau, I would think it is more useful if you pick out mistakes by the Tau, RATHER than mistakes by the ork player. Because seriously, even if the ork player is doing 100 things wrong, all we are interested

" We " ? That's an assumption on your part.

I'm interested in seeing a tau player beat an opponent who didn't make mistakes, with a cut-throat list (neither of the SW list nor this ork list) and had average dice. With real pictures, not vassal.

Your opponents made some doozy-sized blunders, so your two batreps have been disappointments.

You didn't make mistakes, nor did I see you do anything extraordinary or brilliant. Opponents came at you. You shot them. They made key mistakes. You won (insert a slow/sarcastic clap orky-emoticon).

It's easy to win when the other guy makes mistakes. Colossal ones like mounting up Long Fangs, denying two Turns of shooting when there was a D'fish to shoot, FWs, b-sides ....

Isseyfaran wrote: in is the one thing that the Tau player did right, OR the one thing that the Tau player did wrong.

You played a good game ... against a Baby-Seal SW player and an foolish ork player who didn't leave behind a Troop Unit for a C&C mission and letting your D'fish stay unmolested in his back field.

I'd love to hear from the SW player and how he feels about the game, and why didn't he just *Move& Run* his LFs to better LoS on Turn 1, block/protect them with a Razor/rhino for a that turn and move it away Turn 2? Heck, a BA Baal-pred spam player did that to me today.

I'd like to hear from the ork player about why he left the key portion of the game, his C&C objective, unmanned and unguarded.

How about annotating each pic, not just with a caption on the action, but why you did X or didn't do Y? Posters mercer, jy2 and other dudes do that.

Face it, Issy, you're going to have to get tougher/smarter/better playing opponents and have them play better games than the two you've shown if you want to be taken seriously as a tau player with something to add.