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.

Haven't played my Riptides in a while. Do they still have a place? Should be fairly resistant to Scatterbikes... Though they still hate grav.

Tau CAD

Commander (dual missile pods, drone controller, PEN chip, onager)

Riptide (ion/SMS, EWO)
Riptide (ion/SMS, EWO)
Riptide (HBC/SMS, EWO)

10 Kroot (hound)
10 Kroot (hound)

3 Broadsides (HYMP, SMS, 4 missile drones)

Imperial Bunker

Canoptek Harvest 1
Spyder
3 Scarabs
6 Wraiths

Canoptek Harvest 2
Spyder
3 Scarabs
6 Wraiths


What do you think? Could this do okay at a tournament? I think it's the best plan I've come up with for getting my Riptides off the shelf...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh. Obviously the commander goes with the broadsides in the bunker with LoS to the midfield where you try to stick as many objectives as possible and the wraiths go in there to score...

Pretty sure you can't duplicate formations in tournaments. If jog seems decent... I'd love to play against this list but I run lots of grav so like you said that's not a great match up for you

I guess against grav heavy armies (depending on how they are running htat grav, i start the broadsides in the bunker, which can't be hurt by grav, try to be aggressive with the wraiths etc and either hide the riptides at the back to support from long range, or deep strike them. Its pretty good against drop pods because of all the interceptor and the ability to use the wraiths for offensive bubble wrap.

Its designed for ITC style events. Which allow three sources, two of which can be duplicated.

What's your plan for AV14? Why a drone controller on the Commander with no drones that can benefit from it? Why the big units of Wraiths? A 3 man unit does the same job for half the points. Why on earth no EWO on the Broadsides?

AV 14 generally means landraiders. Which are not common and can be dealt with by scarabs and wraiths. I've dealt with 3 landraider lists with wraiths before. You need rends.

I always like your lists and you often have interesting things to say on here. I'm curious why you think that three man units of wraiths are as effective as 6 man units. A six man unit of wraiths can actually hurt stuff. Or tie up serious combat units with a rake of attacks, in a way that I didn't think that a three man unit could. But can you tell me your experience with this

My thought had been to put the commander in the bunker to buff the missile drones, completely forgetting that drone controller didn't allow it. And I only didn't put EWO on the broadsides for points reasons. Maybe I'd be better putting an Ethereal in there, giving them EWO, and maxing the missile drones out.

The reason I don't rate units of 6 Wraiths is that they are 240 points and in a Gladius rich environment 2 5 man tac squads (that account for about 30 points of your opponents list, factoring the razorback out of the total 90 point spend) can charge them and that is them pretty much done for the game. That is my issue Wraiths are fast moving tarpits with poor damage output. They only kill vehicles and soft units in combat and a 3 man unit can do that. You want your tarpits costing less than the units they are tarpitting at 240 points that pool is small for things the Wraiths can actually effectively tarpit. Wraiths excel in multiple small units and will struggle to pull their weight if you over invest in them.

These days AV14 generally means bunkers loaded with grav or IF centurions. With no way to really deal with that except getting into CC with Wraiths you could find yourself in trouble.

Which brings me to my overall conclusion. Your army is a Necron army as in it has poor damage output (Broadsides are the only really threatening unit) but immense survivability. This will cost you against lists with real damage output or in KP missions and particularly Hammer n Anvil which could take your most damagey unit out of the game early on. I would like to see more damage output. Say dropping the Wraiths for more 'sides in a bunker.

As for the unit in the bunker get EWO on 2 of them and Target lick on the other. Drop the drone controller (and Onager) from the commander get him a VT and target lock to go with the pen chip. This gives you 4 targets for the unit with tank hunters against each, enough intercepting AA to atleast force a jink with more back up AA at full BS if required.

@flingitnow, the current way the meta is based in the uk everyone is running 5 or 6 man wraith squads due to the number of larger deathstars out there, also the number scatbikes means that 3 man squads die too easily. The terrain at the bigger tournies is also a big factor there isn't enough to hide multiple wraith squads, 2 at max (3 at a real push) so it's pointless running MSU wraiths in this environment. Also the missions incorporate kill points into every mission (ETC style) so double gladius battle company can win games but not tournies, so people won't be as willing to bring them.

@kholzerino, the lists looks fairly strong, I agree you need some target locks and EWO on the broadsides, as atm it's slightly overkill. You're gonna struggle with invised deathstars (wolf star, centstar) but using tau + crons neither have any real counter. As a concept on paper it has potential, compare it to what's realistically gonna be there, say at a 5 game tournie your gonna run into say 2 bad match ups definitely.

Sorry I don't get your point about hiding Wraiths in terrain? 2 3 man units of Wraiths are harder to kill than 1 6 man unit so that point is also lost on me. Which tournaments are using KPs in every mission my experience is they are largely using 6th Ed missions (a moronic choice) often with a sprinkling of Maelstrom (an infinitely better choice). Good necron players know that Wraiths suit MSU as they are a tarpit unit. Players fielding them in bigger units aren't worrying the top tables.

I disagree that Necrons nor Tau have an answer to invisistars. Wraiths are Necrons main answer a hold action granted (and Wolfstar tends to not worry about it) but that is all you need to win. Tau have marker lights and broadsides. I think Pathfinders have a real place in the current meta again for volume ML shots that largely ignore grav and are still not massively expensive. Get a hit or two then riddle them with missiles.

Well I guess the thing is that the UK tourney scene is very split. The GTs are eternal war now. Many of the other tournaments (Cally, Warlords GT, Ruinstorm in the Midlands, presumably AoC will be the same) use kill points. But anyway. I think with the propensity of Grav I can't run the list above and hope to not get spanked by someone. Which is why I stopped playing Tau anyway, to be honest. I haven't seen anyone running small units of wreaths at the tournaments Ive been at. I've seen units of six. Either two or three with lots of other stuff. Or one unit of six making a Deathstar with Orikan and a load of other named characters etc in it.

Very interesting advice from everyone above. When the new codex drops 'maybe I'll go to max broadsides and finally build the other 9 I have in boxes... EWO on all of them. Good night Skyhammer!

How is maelstrom infinitely better from an army building point of view? I like it because it is fun, but it adds randomness so is a terrible gauge of who is a better player?

I primarily play maelstrom right now due to being bored of the other missions.

Kill pts are just about the only time multiple smaller units isn't better, simply for the fact that two units can move, shoot, and assault exactly the same as one with no drawbacks, but can not be targeted by the same unit unless they have something like split fire. That alone is a massive benefit. Anytime you force an opponent to split their fire more you win because you give them the chance to make a mistake you can capitalize on.

Example you have two units of three wraiths that are both going to be able to assault two separate kind of squishy enemy units next turns. The squishy units have to shoot. Neither have a chance to kill more then one wraith by shooting, two if they consolidate max. So what happens is they take one wound off one in each squad. That's the same as one dead wraith right? No because it is a different squad none die so their combat efficiency is basically the same. They hit you with the same number of attacks from each squad when one could have been 33% less next turn

Maelstrom is better because it requires better players to be good at it. It enables you to win the game in the movement phase and the assault phase rather than just target selection in the shooting phase vs buffs from the psychic phase. It reduces the power of deathstars and getting lucky with stuff like rolling the right powers or not failing a grimoire all game.

Maelstrom is better because it is more tactically rewarding (there is greater player agency beyond the solely target priority in EW). It rewards players that engage with the game and it makes assault a thing.

For tournament player Maelstrom is really the only acceptable option.

I think I explained in one phrase why your last statement is completely wrong.

In a game of mental combat additional randomness increases variance.

I have lost one non tournament game of 40k. I have been to a few(four) local events and lost one.

The one non tournament game was a pure maelstrom game that I lost lost solely because of the cards pulled. I had 1400 pts of Tau left against 150 pts of a gladius. He didn't have to manouvre for any of his points. There was no way to deny them. The cards literally dictated I could not win. I had 0 missed points and missed no chances given to me to deny pts. I lost by 1 pt. This doesn't happen with dice rolls in the kinds of lists I brng because they have too many dice to roll throughout the game

That is antithesis to a tournament player. Assault being the thing doesn't matter either. All that matters is which one can I guarantee a win with by being better than the opponent. THat is the only thing a tourney player should care about if winning is their goal.

No way to deny him points? What pray tell were his magical winning objectives that were impossible to deny? Can't gave been anything to do with grabbing objectives as those can be denied by having contesting units on those objectives. So what were they? As you had ObSec units on all objectives at the end of each of your turns right?

And dice have a much larger impact on games than the draw of Maelstrom. If your list is designed to be able to achieve whatever comes out of the deck then there are no bad hands just bad lists. Where as bad dice can scupper any game yes you can mitigate this with redundancy and rolling lots of dice but still small things going against you can gave massive swing (the difference between doing 5 HPs to a Knight and 6 can massively swing a game).

I have a friend who writes decent lists but is not a top player he has beaten me exactly once and that too was in maelstrom and was by 1 VP. Turn 1 Pask killed an Imperial Knight (fairly lucky about a 20% chance but still lucky) the explosion killed a Broadside causing a panic check which resulted in the Broadsides and attached Ethereal running off the board. That had a huge impact on the game and gifted him 9 VPs turn 1 from 1 shot, my turn 1 my other Knight failed a 7" chance at Pask (who he had foolishly pushed too far forward had he not killed the other knight it would have had a 6" charge). A little unlucky but as Pask had been shaken I was no concerned. Pask then killed the 2nd Knight whilst snap shooting. I finished off Pask the following turn but the game was done as a fight because Pask had got ludicrously lucky whilst I had been very unlucky. What helped Pask is my opponent made the mistake of choosing PE IKs rather than Tau so the Plasmacutioner failed to hit due to a lack of PE rerolls, Pask rolled 1s to hit for both MMs when snap shooting promptly rolling 6s on the rerolls. So his mistakes helped him.

Why did the game finish only 1 VP apart? Because I used my Riptides aggressively and massively outscored him. Unfortunately the dice had swung the game too much for my play to pull it back. However I have NEVER lost a game due to bad hands but I have lost games that I should have comfortably won through bad dice on more than 1 occasion. I have lost games using armies designed for 6th because I haven't got lucky with the cards and my army wasn't designed to complete the objectives. That is not an issue with the cards nor with luck that is an issue with the army. In Maelstrom there are no bad hands only bad players and bad lists.

The randomness of Maelstrom is not comparable to dice. If I roll nothing but 1s to hit there is nothing that I can do about that. If I draw grab objectives on the other side of the board I can have units with ObSec that can get to the other side of the board, you can control whether or not you can complete any of the Maelstrom objectives you can't control rolling 1s to hit ever.

I'm sorry but since when did non farsight enclave Tau or Necrons my main have good lists with obsec units in the current meta?

That is a choice you made when writing your list. If you chose not to field ObSec units and instead concentrate on killing power you can't then complain when you get outscored. This is one of the reasons why I feel FE are the only remotely competitive Tau, but hey I don't take CSMs and then complain about luck when Tau shoot me to bits...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it seems that rather than get unlucky you just lost because your opponents list was better suited to the game.

The point at issue in that statement is which units in those armies can be obsec and competitive in a power gaming list. You can assume you could have played better that's fine. You're one of the only players on here who consistently puts up better than average lists so feel free. My list building is good. It's better than good. I test lists by running them against power army lists that clock in a 200-300 pts more. When they consistently win I know they are good and I save them.

My least favorite game is the purest form of warhammer and that's purge. It's the only one that doesn't vastly favor certain armies while hindering others as long as everyone knows they are playing before hand. I just hate that one and relic and do everything I can not to play them because they are too boring.

REALLY better suited? He basically drew the same cards three turns in a row. You're making assumptions based off zero information just because my opinion on what is a purer test of skill is different than yours

You don't know what game you play before you play in around 99% the time you are list building soit's still down to luck and my list would still win the majority of games and has.

I play farsight enclave all the time and have absolutely never had a game come down to an obsec crisis suit and I really really really doubt you have so I'm just not buying what you're selling. They just don't have the options for it to matter like a gladius.

jakejackjake wrote:
The point at issue in that statement is which units in those armies can be obsec and competitive in a power gaming list.

That is an issue with codex balance which is an issue across the board regardless of mission. Maelstrom massively reduces that issue. If you lost because of a lack of ObSec then any ObSec units would have been more competitive than what you took. FE obviously provide great MSU ObSec through unarmed Monats. Kroot are another option chucking snipers on them enables them to provide some anti MC firepower too. Tau don't really have much else with decent ObSec which is a codex weakness.

Necrons have Warriors and Immortals both which can be delivered by Night scythe to anywhere on the board from turn 2 onwards. Necrons generally win by swarming objectives and not allowing enemy unuts to get within 3". Gladius is an awful match up for them due to how silly the amounts of ObSec GW decided to give them. Fortunately both vodexes have a wealth of allies to call upon and ways to murder marines. You have to make your choice on how you're going to win, play for table against Gladius, choke objectives or bring ObSec in response.

It's only an issue in maelstrom. That's my entire point


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

jakejackjake wrote:
The point at issue in that statement is which units in those armies can be obsec and competitive in a power gaming list.

That is an issue with codex balance which is an issue across the board regardless of mission. Maelstrom massively reduces that issue. If you lost because of a lack of ObSec then any ObSec units would have been more competitive than what you took. FE obviously provide great MSU ObSec through unarmed Monats. Kroot are another option chucking snipers on them enables them to provide some anti MC firepower too. Tau don't really have much else with decent ObSec which is a codex weakness.

Necrons have Warriors and Immortals both which can be delivered by Night scythe to anywhere on the board from turn 2 onwards. Necrons generally win by swarming objectives and not allowing enemy unuts to get within 3". Gladius is an awful match up for them due to how silly the amounts of ObSec GW decided to give them. Fortunately both vodexes have a wealth of allies to call upon and ways to murder marines. You have to make your choice on how you're going to win, play for table against Gladius, choke objectives or bring ObSec in response.

They don't have them in decurion and they can't take enough of them in multiple units in an allied CAD with a decurion for it to have a big enough effect on the game to have them be obsec. I have gone over all these things literally thousands of times in my head.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you can't play a game to table then why play a war game? Why not make it "dancing with the stars" and you roll the dice to see if you pull off sweet dance moves. If you can't table someone with a list EVER and it can win the game... the game sucks.

Thats the entire reason I won't play an optimized Gladius. It doesn't have a chance of tabling even mediocre lists but it WILL win maelstrom games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doesn't matter this is subjective with too many variables to find an agreement and it's off topic.

Some people like tactical play some people don't want decision making to go beyond target priority. EW doesn't reward go play it rewards list building (which requires an internet connection) and target priority (which requires about 5 games experience to get right) and dice rolling. So for you a tournament should purely be a measure of how well you've read the internet vs how well you roll dice.

I prefer a tournament to reward tactical decision making when you have to build a list that can win Maelstrom (which is a balancing act between killing power and scoring power) when when you play to not only consider this turns objectives but also what you and your opponent may have to do next turn.

So what if your opponent drew similar objectives in 3 turns. Presumably you chose not to kill the units on those objectives nor have your own ObSec units on those objectives and have then claimed bad luck? Gladius has very strong ObSec just out killing it isn't enough the fact you hold that as the estimate of how the game was in your favour kind of illustrates your attitude that you just need to concentrate on killing and have the mission then hand you victory. That isn't the case with Maelstrom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again you fall into the trap with crons of assuming Decurion. It is an option and a strong one but it is not the only option.

peace.