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.

It was one of his first games with the new Tau. Riptides are the new hotness so I can totally see the enthusiasm for wanting to run three. He had some bad dice with the many Overheats... The FNP buff could have been a game changer. If I were to play Tau I'd take a long hard look at the heavy burst cannon... It's pretty darn good. That said some diversity I think would have served him better rather than spamming the same build x3. He is learning. Like I said before I'd love to see a rematch with more terrain next time around. Adam has bested jy2 several times which is a testament to his skill.

Its not bashing its text book definition of what happened. He had the OP practically tabled and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, its text book incompetence. I lost a match in my last GT to the same incompetence. It was table quarters and I had killed all my opponents units but a shot to hell LR and a rhino and a land speeder. He was able to beat me 2-1 on table quarters. I had given him exactly zero KP, and held 2 objectives to zero. Final score is 15-14 I lost by one claiming both secondary and tertiary objectives. You lose the forest for the trees sometimes, happens to everyone.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Crushing Victory for the 'Crons?? No bloody way I was expecting that after that cataclysmic first turn. Bravo sir

Thanks!

Theorius wrote:
Wow! how many wounds did he do to himself with novacharge fails and gets hot! wowza!!

sounds like you got super lucky jy2 (not to down play your positional dominiance which worked out well) just the rolls and finished turn 5, i also agree that he should have moved out his troops/suits way sooner once he had handled the wraiths.

I believe he did something like 11-12 Wounds on himself due to failed over-charges and overheats. This seems a little high to me so I attribute it to just bad luck on his part.

Actually, I'm beginning to wonder whether I really did get super lucky. I was rolling low for most of the game. It was actually consistent of me to roll low for the end of the game as well.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Wow, amazing steal there. Your opponent probably did a weapons-grade facepalm when you rolled that 2 to end the game.

Yeah, I could see it in his face. He was kicking himself inside. Must have been a real downer of a game for him. I know I'd be down if it was the other way around - that I was the one who let an easy victory slip out of my hands. Oh well, live and learn.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:
More or less as predicted. You kept his eye off the ball for long enough that all he had were long shots at the end. Realistically I think he'd need 2 more turns to pull out a win, your troops all look to be outside of markerlight range and I don't see him shooting down all 4 of your troop units with 2+ cover (in fact I think only the Riptide has range to your 2 units on the right, and a decent chunk of his FW look out of range of all of your troops). He might be able to tie objectives in one turn though

Not a fan of his move with the jetbikes. Unless he genuinely didn't know that you'd be gunning for them I don't understand that one. Putting them 18" in front of your two scythes would've been a better play in my opinion. Then if you wanted to shoot them you'd have to disembark warriors early (and in front of a riptide), or divert another scythe to that side of the table. As it was though he didn't force you to make any kind of a decision.

DSing one or both of his Commander/bodyguards probably would have helped him out a lot in this game too. I'm not sure how much damage they did to your wraiths, but them DSed near the right objective would've been hard for you to deal with. Is there a reason his ethereal was his warlord and not the T5, 2+ save, 4 wound guy? I'm also not sure their weapons compliment the rest of the list very well, I'd be more inclined to go 2 fusion on each, with puretide and target lock on the commander.

I also think he was overly timid with the riptides. He seemed to jump back a lot when there wasn't really a reason to (perhaps falling prey to the "I have this awesome ability so I'm gonna use it" mindset). Specifically I'm talking about the 2 in middle. Looking at how much damage he did to your wraiths T1 he could have very comfortably left them at the front of his DZ and positioned himself much better to contest with them later in the game (same thing on T2 only now there's quite literally no reason not to press forward since your wraiths are dead and your barges are all in range already).

He might have made it to contest with his riptide had he gone for the 4D6" overcharge jump (along with 6" move and D6" run). He might have got his riptide in for linebreaker as well. In any case, winning on T6 was entirely possible. He might have even shot my warriors off of them as well.

He thought about turbo-ing his jetbikes towards my scythes and even beyond them, but he was concerned about me taking them out with my troops. I guess he decided to do what he felt might have been the lesser of 2 evils - pull his bikes back into the protection of his army. This way, if I had gone after them (and I did), my flyers would then be in range of all his guns.

His command squad did contribute to hurting my wraiths. They also took off 2 HP's from my AB with fusions (only glances) before his commander killed it in assault. Also, it was the Overwatch of his command unit that finally took down my Destroyer Lord (with a re-roll from Doom). If they hadn't been there, my D-lord would have made it into assault.

Yeah, he needed to play more aggressively with his riptides. That was probably his biggest tactical error in this game, and I actually told him so after our game.

GTKA666 wrote:
This bat rep has inspired me to trust in my reserves...if they come on before turn 4 that is .

On another note I never knew pathfinders were that effective? What did marker lights do that wiped out that many of your wraiths?

Not necessarily pathfinders, but their markerlights. Markerlights are what makes the army work. Fortunately for Tau, before only pathfinders could really take them. Now, almost every unit can take marker drones, and they have patherfinders and drone squads that will be your main source for markerlights.

Look at it this way - markerlights are to the Tau what psychic powers are to tyranids. You can still play without them, but they make things so much easier and your army so much better.

Markerlights can be used to remove cover or to upgrade the BS of your shooters. He was basically using them to make his fire warriors and riptides BS5 while taking away jink cover from my AB's and night scythes. Imagine 30 shots from just 1 unit of 10 fire warriors (firing in their "sweet spot") hitting at BS5. That's 24 hits, 16 wounds, 5 failed saves for my wraiths. And that is just 1 unit! It's crazy how effective markerlights make the army.

 Tomb King wrote:
Markerlights are heavy so if he moved them up they would of been snap firing. It is why scouting with them can help with that.

Yeah, but at least you could still fire them. In any case, he was using them against my flyers so he was snap-firing with them anyways. He should've just moved on up as well.

 Ecstasy in Service wrote:
wow... not to put you down or anything but that is just so maddening! To lost after such a great start, and knowing it was all cause you had made such terrible tactical mistakes? Thats got to hurt.

If the objects had been closer to his line, if he had gotten two objectives on his side rather then you then he would have won this one.

Well played on your spot but that is a heartbreaking end for your opponent I am sure. Those Riptides sucked so bad this game, I mean, they did do stuff but they pretty much killed themselves!

No worries. I felt bad for him myself.

Actually, if the situation was reversed - that he had 2 objectives on his side - I still might have won. Say he had his 2 objectives in his backfield and I had my objective. I still had 2 night scythes left. Assuming the game ended on Turn 5 as it actually did, I would have dropped off both units of troops to contest his objectives, also achieving Linebreaker in the process. So I would take it 1 objective to 0. Say he shoots down 1 unit of warriors with his intercepting riptide. Now we will end up tied on objectives with 1 objective each. He would get First Blood + Warlord. However, I would get +2 VP's for his Warlord and Linebreaker....I would have won by secondary objectives.

Of course, there were things he could have done to make it harder for me to contest, but the point I want to make is that it is not an auto-lose situation had he the more favorable objectives. You can still overcome this "advantage" by good tactics and proper planning.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I said triple Ripetide is overrated and I think this report proved just that - too much moar win in lieu of balance.

I think jy2 made some bad decisions in the beginning so it all evens out. You've really got to make the right calls down the line when the game is on the line. Gambling for the game to end on turn 5 was the right choice - I would have done the same. I play Necrons too and am happy to see that the flyers were so strong... I learned a lot in that regard reading this report.

I'd love to see a rematch some time.

I think dual-riptides is definitely a viable build - that Tau doesn't necessarily need 3 riptides to win. However, the fact of the matter is that people will spam the riptides just as they spam heldrakes in competitive play. Many competitive players (myself included) just love efficient units and the riptides are damn efficient.

My deployment is also a nature of habit for me. I'm so used to just deploying across from my opponent and then playing ultra-aggressively, especially if I don't think they can do enough damage to me with their alpha-strike. I have lost a couple of times by doing this, but I've won way more times than I've lost. Now looking back in hindsight, I agree that I should have played more conservatively with them.

I see my opponent every week at our LGS. You can be sure there will be a rematch somewhere down the line.

bodazoka wrote:
I tip my hat too you good sir! I didnt think you had a chance just looking at the army lists!!

Spot on about the Tau players needing to change there game play now they have something they can be aggressive with! the Riptides!!

I was very surprised that he didn't 4D6 move towards your objectives to contest!

I played a Tau player a few days ago with 3 x ghost arks and the only thing I was worried about was the 2 x Str10 smash attacks from the rip tide. My Tau opponent only thought to charge me when I layed out the math hammer for him, before that charging into combat never entered his mind!

I kind of want to say that many Tau players are just too "programmed" in the way they play. Sometimes, they don't see the options available to them tactically until someone points it out.

Tau players have been playing the defensive, gunline game for so long that many aren't sure when to "attack" and play aggressively. Today, my opponent exhibited that behavior, but I can guarantee you that he will learn from his mistakes and change his playstyle. He is actually a pretty good player. Hey, before this game, he beat me 3 out of 4 games!

Positional dominance is as much about forcing your opponent to move where you want him to, as it is about getting your own movement correct. In this battle the Tau achieved Positional dominace during their deployment phase. The objectives were all concentrated in one half of the board, and with the open nature of the battlefield, the Tau gunline really had the advantage from the start.
If the objectives had been more intelligently placed, across the board, The necrons would have forced the Tau out of their deployment zone to take or contest their objectives, and at a stroke robbed them of their dominant position. where they were placed is not really relevant, as with the nightscythes, the necron player could very simply drop troops onto them whenever he wanted.
The necron deployment was awful. there was the rest of the battleield to deploy in, much of it out of range of that scary looking mob of firewarriors, or at least with restricted fields of fire. and if the objectives were scattered, the tau player would have had to spread his forces more, and lost lot of mutual support, and you could have used the wraiths, out of LOS, to threaten any objectives he may be considering going after.
As it was, the necron player decided to concentrate the objectives, deploy opposite a gunline which proceeded to tear massive chunks out of the wraiths, and it was only the Tau players unwillingness to move out of his deployment zone (he didn't have to, after all) that allowed the Necrons to steal the win.

Overall, the Tau lost the game, rather than the necrons winning it (an important distiction) and the Necron player, failed to adapt to the threat that the tau gunline presented and tried to push home an attack that was obviously doomed to failure. there was no way those wraiths were going to make it in anything close to useful numbers, and that was exacerbated by deploying on the line, in the open.

The Tau dominated the game, but failed to score the points to win the game

MarkyMark wrote:
I think it is more of a example of a good tactical player versus one not so good playing the mission is more important then playing a game in regards to winning well done JY2

Thanks! It actually takes discipline to "play the mission". Many times, people just get too caught up in "killing stuff" or at least in trying to kill stuff. Though sometimes, you can get away with it by killing the troops, it is practically impossible to do so against necrons troops protected in their flyers.

 hippesthippo wrote:
@jy2 "Are hymp really that good?" Yes, they are. You said it yourself when talking about how to equip Riptides, it's all about rate of fire (I would give tides ion/fusion+evo tho personally). HYMP-sides with drones have waaaaaayyy more shots, higher strength, and more wounds for a comparable price to Riptides.

Tack on the iridium/chip commander, which can float from unit to unit as needed, and they gain even more resiliency and tank/monster hunters. SICK.

I still think 'tides have a place and would take a pair with ion/evo, but I would consider 1 squad of missle sides to be mandatory in any Tau list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, I called that game to perfection. 1 or 2 Wraiths lived and you were able to play the objective game.

Well played, Jim. Thanks for another great report. (Though I still think you deployed incorrectly. You had a PERFECT opportunity to refuse flank. Setting up spread out straight across the board against a pure gunline army plays right in to their hands.)

I'll take your word for it - that they are good - though the riptides are a much more obvious choice. Most of the Tau players in my area are running riptides, but not many run missilesides. Can't really say I blame them considering there is a niche for the regular broadsides and those models look way cool, like Tau punk rockers with guitars, whereas the missilesides like kind of meh.

And good call.

 DexKivuli wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I said triple Ripetide is overrated and I think this report proved just that - too much moar win in lieu of balance.

I think that the Riptides could've been much more useful here. I don't see any reason why (after the death of the wraiths) the Riptides couldn't have all started moving forward. Jy2 couldn't have really done much to them, and they would've easily been in contesting range by the end of the game. Also, they would've been a threat to all the barges (in assault, a smashing riptide will kill an AB) and would've made movement more difficult for the flyers (particularly the locked velocity one).

Given their resiliency, I the riptides alone could've clinched the battle for the Tau.

Agreed.

 DexKivuli wrote:

QFT. Missilesides are monsters. I'm a necron player that runs triple barges, and these guys are what I fear. The force-multiplying effects of markerlights and the chip can make these guys absolutely horrendous.

Consider 3 missilesides, 2 drones each, with a drone controller, shooting at the front armour of an annihilation barge:

WIth no assistance, they have a 23% chance to glance it to death IN A SINGLE VOLLEY

4 markerlight hits (2 to take cover, +2 BS), they have a 72% chance to glance it to death IN A SINGLE VOLLEY

4 markerlight hits and tank hunter, they have a 98% chance to glance it to death IN A SINGLE VOLLEY

They're not cheap, but they can do a lot of damage to anything in the game except AV14.

Good data to know. Thanks.

 rems01 wrote:
Anyone else think the terrain was poor?

That table looked very sparse, and more importantly all the terrain was clustered on the edges. Additionally there was no line of sight blocking terrain at all.

Still good job on staying on task and pulling the win through.

You could tell the terrain was placed by a Tau player. j.k.

I think in the future, I'll probably alternate placing terrain with my opponents. People have a habit, even if subconciously, of placing terrain that they like on the table and not those that they don't.

 Valek wrote:
Good job turning that around JY2, altough indeed as mentioned and i mentioned also I think you botched deployement and your first turn.

Running to gun lines is a tactic only employed by primitives when they have thousands to sacrifice.

Now however, you then executed the flyer game to perfection and the small gamble for turn 5 payed of.

I think Riptides are like Helldrakes, 2 is a worriesome thing to face 3 is overextending and debalancing your army.

Yeah, I was betting on Necron resiliency + speed > Tau shooting. Lost that bet.

Then I had no choice but to use my shooting to try to distract him. It was actually somewhat effective, thank goodness!

Triple-riptides is not unbalancing. You can never have enough shooting from the Tau. Riptides give you good shooting, good mobility, a counter-attack presence and great anti-air. They're more versatile than the heldrakes because they can deny objectives and threaten enemy tanks with assault as well. And for about 200-pts, they are actually a bargain.

You don't need three Riptides though. If there had been more terrain its possible a D Lord could have assaulted one of them. Two is good enough. A third doesn't make them 3/2 better.

@jy2- Saying 40k is unbalanced and that I should revert to tic tac toe is a huge cop out. Are there random elements to the game? Absolutely! Does that mean we should not mitigate the most unbalanced aspects to the game? I'd like to think that if someone wants to claim to be a great general of 40k then they need to at least set the stage fairly. Had he received the side with 2 objectives it would have been massively unbalanced in his favor, I am not taking sides here but the fact remains that unless both players are going to discuss terrain and set up of objectives fairly eary on then honestly the whole game can be fairly moot in regards to said objectives. Did the necrons grab a couple objectives? Sure. Did bot players make mistakes? Absolutely, the difference being had the primary objectives been set up like most fair GT run them then all things considered this was a tau win.

Again this was a fun read and I am not trying to detract from the game simply giving what I think is solid feedback so if you play a rematch, we can have a fair table with even objectives. Like I said earlier, if you aren't going to use the BRB to pace terrain then why is it so important to use it's awful rules for objective placement?

 Red Corsair wrote:
@jy2- Saying 40k is unbalanced and that I should revert to tic tac toe is a huge cop out. Are there random elements to the game? Absolutely! Does that mean we should not mitigate the most unbalanced aspects to the game? I'd like to think that if someone wants to claim to be a great general of 40k then they need to at least set the stage fairly. Had he received the side with 2 objectives it would have been massively unbalanced in his favor, I am not taking sides here but the fact remains that unless both players are going to discuss terrain and set up of objectives fairly eary on then honestly the whole game can be fairly moot in regards to said objectives. Did the necrons grab a couple objectives? Sure. Did bot players make mistakes? Absolutely, the difference being had the primary objectives been set up like most fair GT run them then all things considered this was a tau win.

Again this was a fun read and I am not trying to detract from the game simply giving what I think is solid feedback so if you play a rematch, we can have a fair table with even objectives. Like I said earlier, if you aren't going to use the BRB to pace terrain then why is it so important to use it's awful rules for objective placement?

If you want to make 40K completely fair, then I am sorry....you're going to have to play with a lot of house-rules. You can do something about terrain, but a lot of the core mechanics and the dynamics of each individual army is inherently unfair. Even the deployment types, the mission scenarios, the objectives-placement, the bonus objectives, even stealing the initiative - just basic mechanics of the game - will inherently give 1 army an advantage over another. You just have to do the best you can within the framework of the system and it is this exact same system that can sometimes screw you (though randomly). The only fairness and balance to it is that it is random - you don't know who will and can be put at an advantage/disadvantage in any game until you actually play it.

In this case, the game gave me an advantage with regards to objective-placement because I rolled for it. Now why is it my responsibility to make that fair? The dice could have just as easily screwed me over and put 2 objectives on his side. Just as if I fail a charge, should my opponent let me re-roll my charge distance to make it fair and give my wraiths a fighting chance instead of getting mercilessly slaughtered? I'm sorry, but this is a dice game. You win and lose by the dice and that includes rolling for the mission type, initiative, who get's to pick sides and who places the objectives in addition to rolling to hit, to wound, on saves and for morale.

We did not begin the game with any pre-deteremined house-rules in terms of setup. I really don't see why we then need to make house-rules after we have already started rolling for stuff.

I appreciate your feedback. I'm just trying to say the game isn't completely fair. Some stuff, you can make as fair as possible - like terrain and terrain-placement. Other stuff you really can't because they are determined randomly. And while the game may be competitive, it is still just a pick-up game. Since we hadn't agreed prior to the game to playing any particular tournament missions/setups or any particular house-rules, that meant that we just played it by normal book missions/rules. Now if you complain about the fairness of that, then you're basically complaining about the fairness of 6th Edition on the whole.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ajsnips44 wrote:
The Tau player just needs to work on his tactics with his riptides really. Turn 3 they should have begun booking it for objectives across the table, and his infantry for the middle. All of the Necron combat troops were gone turn 3 and only the some barges and flyers remained. Personally, I find my riptides attempting to Nova every turn, but his rolling for his riptides was atrocious to say the least. I would have stopped rolling to Nova by the third turn for sure with failing so many attempts.

Personally, I wouldn't let a few wounds stop me from using my Nova-charge if I was playing Tau. Unless he's only got 1W left and I need him alive to contest.

41_WarGaming wrote:
I am now subscribing to the theory of Positional Dominance.

Excellent game.

If the Tau player got over the willies of getting into the thick of it, you would have been . But luck given by the Dice Gods favoured you to end the game.

Great report! Much appreciated.

Thanks. Yeah, I stole this game. It should've been his.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Eh, the Fire Warriors should have been spreading out all over the board after turn one. This isn't 5th Edition where you have to stand still to get rapid fire.

I concur with all of Yakface's points. What's the point of the ADL when Tesla has no ap?

Why he didn't put easily accessible objs in his deployment is another mystery.

It was definitely a nature of habit for him to play so defensively.

But there is one benefit to the ADL - 2+ go-to-ground cover if he really needed it. That helps against my volume of fire, especially with his Ethereal gone and him testing for Morale off of LD 7.

As to the placement of his objective, it might have been his own confidence or his unfamiliarity with my army or both!

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I will add that the movement phase is really the only part of the game where a good general has 95% control of what will happen (difficult terrain tests account for the other 5%). Games are won and lost during the movement phase, but beginner players or people who just thrive for the 'kill' tend to weight their tactics via shooting/assault.

Jy2 is a very good tactician, i read his batreps regularly. he understands, and puts to use with this "Positional Dominance" theory what the rest of us should all learn and live by: "Move Right, win the fight". or something along those lines. It also helps that necrons have basically the ability to appear anywhere on the table as long as their night scythes are functional.

Thanks! One of the reasons why I promote my philosophy is because I hope perhaps my battle reports can help people with their games. Many people are under the impression that 40K is all about the offense - shooting and assault. The Movement phase is often regarded as not so important. What I am trying to say is that the Movement phase is just as important as the Shooting and Assault Phases. You can just as easily win the game with movement and positioning as you can with shooting or assault. I hope my reports make people think about not only Movement in the game, but that you have to take it into consideration in the list-building phase as well. Because you won't be able to move well if you don't give your army some mobile units when you build your armies.

And when it comes to movement, necrons have the ultimate advantage with troops in flyer transports. Their shooting and their assault can be good, but it is their mobility which is unparalleled.

The movement phase has always been the most important phase of the game and is by far the least affected by dice. If you think about it your scythes won you the game. Just think if Adam had a unit of missilesides to replace one of the Riptides. He made a lot of mistakes but in my opinion his unbalanced list lost him the game more than anything else.

Missilesides only have a 36" range, it was possible for the NS to keep out of range until the last turn.

Hmm Tau heavy support is very crowded, but I now think Skyrays are possibly the best value unit in the codex. 115 points for a 6 missile Alpha Strike at 72", twinlinked SMS, AV13 and two networked BS4 Markerlights, and Skyfire for free?

Missilesides are great, but very expensive, and BS2 Missile drones are kind of a waste of points since they can't split fire. Not to mention you can pretty much have almost similar firepower from a Bodyguard or Crisis suit team, without the single support system limitation.

A Longstrike Hammerhead is very useful as well against those scary AV14 threats... but Skyrays are so good and cheap I can't help thinking that three Skyrays in the HS slot is the way to go.

A third Riptide might be a bit excessive, but unit saturation is important.

I think the Tau way forward is anti-AV14 on Shadowsun/suits, Skyfire on Skyrays, Anti-MEQ on Ionsides with marker support, and VoF on Firewarriors, and Str 7 from Commander/suits. Now the only thing they need is a mobile, tough scoring unit and psychic defence: Eldar Guardian Jetbikes do the trick and Doomseer do the trick.

 Red Corsair wrote:

I'd subscribe to objective dominance 1st. I said it earlier and Yak said it again, in this scenario with these two armies and those objectives it was pretty much over before it began.

No it wasn't. Despite me having 2 objectives on my side, my opponent not only had a very real chance, but a very good chance to win it. I'm sorry, but if you thought that situation was an autowin for the crons, then I have to wonder about your tactical acumen. His mobility might not have been the best, but he had more than the means and the time to get to my objectives.

Terrain was actually not that bad, considering the fact that if you fallow the terrain deployment from the book it easily could have been worse, and probably would have been. So it baffles me whenever people ignore the BRB for terrain generation and deployment, but then claim that the objective deployment rules from the BRB are sound

I'm the type who plays it as it is, whether it is fair or not. I don't complain because I feel that a well-built army should be able to handle some unfavorable situations. I could have easily swapped out some area terrain for LOS-blocking terrain, but because I felt that you may come up to tables with little to no LOS-blocking terrain in tournament play, then you've got to learn to deal with it. A table with no LOS-blocking terrain is just not fair when you are playing against a gunline army, just as a table with too much LOS-blocking terrain isn't fair when you are playing against a fast assault army. But that's ok because I accepted it, just like the fact that my opponent accepted the objective-placement and layout. If he really felt it unfair, we could have re-rolled for table sides or even for the objectives placement since we kind of messed up in the first place.


For those who really have an issue with the objectives, perhaps in the future, I will request as a house-rule that there only be even-numbered objectives. Personally, I don't agree with changing the core rules in this manner, but I will see what my opponent thinks.

 Kendowned wrote:
As both a tau and cron player i think necrons will struggle vs a good tau list which I don't believe the list played was. they necrons list was a optimised tournament list , not only was the tau list not optimised I don't think its tournament competitive at all.

Really, now? Then I'd like to see what you think is a competitive Tau list at 2K. Don't worry, I'll be nice. I won't pick it apart too badly.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The Tau list is okay but it can definitely be improved.

Yeah, it can be improved upon.

But for some to say it isn't competitive is just sheer ignorance. Just look at what it did to my necrons!!!

Chancetragedy wrote:
I don't think JY2 was talking about having a LOS blocker for all 18 wraiths. But how different would this have been if he had 1 piece to hide a Dlord and 2 wraiths while the other 4 In the squad get blown away. My guess from reading his reports is he meant what you said, just enough terrain to block a tiny section and not be running through an open killing field in the middle of the board. The terrain was clearly set up in the tau favor and the objective placement balanced that out IMO.

Exactly.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:
I don't think JY2 was talking about having a LOS blocker for all 18 wraiths. But how different would this have been if he had 1 piece to hide a Dlord and 2 wraiths while the other 4 In the squad get blown away. My guess from reading his reports is he meant what you said, just enough terrain to block a tiny section and not be running through an open killing field in the middle of the board. The terrain was clearly set up in the tau favor and the objective placement balanced that out IMO.

So what does he mean then? Hiding space for one unit? OK so turn one still would have cost him a unit and a half and he would need to expose himself with the rest at some point to assault. Remember you need LOS to assault as well in 6th, so baring poor play from the tau, he was going to need to expose himself to 150 s5 shots at some point.

OK and had the central piece been solid he still would need to rush out for at least 2 turns worth of fire. Those wraiths are not going to beat that much s5 fire. All those wraiths are the equivalent of 36 assault marines, not even as resilient as blood angel FNP AM in this match up and I would never bet on them making it into assault and being effective so why would I bet on the wraiths? No, the objectives didn't balance the game, the game was unbalanced by the objectives and only seemed close due to clean firing lanes and poor necron strategy, people have this backwards. He never even had top assault him to win, had there been massive LOS blocking terrain all he'd need to do is hide until the end of game, not to mention how even more unbalanced it would have been had he placed those two objectives in areas out of site.

Still, I'd prefer to have some LOS-blocking terrain rather than none at all.

Imagine if I was playing the very slow tyranids or other such army. Without any LOS-blocking terrain, they've got practically no chance against this Tau list.

LOS-blocking terrain gives you tactical flexibility. One doesn't necessarily need to rush. Rather, one can always sit and wait for the enemy to go after the objectives and then pounce.

 BigJP wrote:
Im actually a little disappointed. As a Tau player whose new fire warrior gunline has gone 4-0 with ease I was hoping to see the wraiths hit home and do some damage. I dont doubt that a counter exists (a reasonable one that isn't 3 LRs) but I was hoping to see it here. I'm starting to feel bad blasting my opponents to pieces and watching their spirits get crushed. I might need to switch back to my Nids . Anyway, informative BR thanks for your effort.

I don't think this is the norm. I still think wraithwing necrons have a good chance of making it into assault. His damage output was excellent because my saves were below average. I actually failed the first 2 saves for my D-lord on Turn 1! Also, even a smallish piece of LOS-blocking terrain would have helped my army tremendously. Finally, if my crons were to go first, that would be 1 less turn my opponent would have had to shoot down my army.

I think that, as an experiment, I will request a rematch with him with the same armies. Next time, however, I will give him the advantage in objectives-placement but will be putting some LOS-blocking terrain on the table. You're going to see the difference to be like day and night.

 jy2 wrote:

1. He probably meant for his commander to be suicidal melta unit. I believe in most of his other games, his Ethereal survives and his suits dies, so he probably made his Ethereal Warlord by nature of habit. Also, in the previous games between us, I normally go after his fire warriors first and ignore his pathfinders. Had he put the Ethereal with the warriors, it would have made my target priority much easier. Now he's making me choose - go after his scoring units or after his Warlord with a non-scoring unit.

I can understand that, but really with him going first he had to have the expectation to get first blood. And given that your Warlord is also likely going to be charging across the table towards him he really has to expect to get Slay the Warlord too.

That makes the two points you can get by killing his Warlord and Ethereal amazingly crucial to the outcome of the game, almost the entire deciding factor given the objective placement.

Yeah, your target priority would have been easier against the Firewarriors if the Ethereal had been with them, but he's also way less likely to lose the entire 10 man unit even if they don't go to ground...and if the unit DOESN'T go to ground then he can simply join the Ethereal to another unit in the next turn and make it much harder to ever get close to killing the Ethereal.

2. Not all of them were gettting protection from the Aegis. They were back away enough from it and my AB guns were high enough that some of those guys weren't 25% obscured by the ADL. Had he been slightly closer, he would have benefited entirely from the ADL.

He wanted to centralize his Ethereal so that everyone would and could benefit from him.

That's crazy, and that's pretty much what I was talking about above. Making the Ethereal the Warlord basically makes him the most important model in his army for winning the game. If he's going to join him to the Pathfinders then by gods that unit should be the absolutely right behind the ADL or directly behind a FW unit that is right up against the ADL. Its not like your army has a bunch (or any?) blasts/templates...so why did this happen?

His units are bunched up 'vertically' behind the ADL, when instead they should have been strung out and interspersed 'horizontally' with each other. Because of the 6" range of the Supporting Fire rule, as a Tau player you always want to string your units out 'horizontally' along your board edge to maximize how many can be within 6" of each other at all times...and it also means it would be a lot easier to get all of your units close enough to the ADL that only Night Scythes could have possibly targeted them 'over' the ADL and deny a cover save.

3. This would be a judgement call. With wraiths initially and flyers every turn, he probably felt it was a priority to maximize the firepower of his riptides. He just wasn't rolling well with them. Although he probably should have did the 4D6" jump near the end, I have no problem with him over-charging every turn. If I was playing Tau, the riptides are just another sacrificial pawn to me. I really don't care if they live or die as long as my troops survive. Just like I really don't care if my wraiths live or die. You can't really be to attached to your units surviving unless they are scoring or they give off VP's when killed. Those riptides were neither.

While I agree, the problem with that hypothesis is that the Riptides could and should have been used as denial units against the objectives on your side. By taking senseless wounds early in the game you make it harder for a Riptide to survive rushing to the other side and you also make it more risky to gamble for the extra 4D6" thrust when you really need it at the end of the game.

Obviously this is going to be a learning curve for me when I start fielding my Riptide's but I think just like good Tyranid players really have to think when to spawn their Termagants from their Tervigons, good Tau players are going to look for situations where they can get away with not Nova charging their Riptides to save some of their potential for later in the game when things can be really crucial.

4. Doesn't the commander automatically Look-Out-Sirs to his bodyguards? He wanted his marker drones to survive, which was why he left them in the rear. So any shots that hit were were automatically going to his bodyguards first and foremost, whether his bodyguards were in front or his commander was. I fired both AB's and the NS and he failed just enough saves to kill off both bodyguards.

Nope, that unit automatically passed any LoS tests it takes, but it is still totally up to the Tau player when (or if) to utilize LoS. So he should have kept rolling 2+ saves on his commander until he was down to 1 wound (out of 4) and THEN he'd potentially start passing off wounds via LoS, and I don't see why anyone wouldn't put the marker drones closest to the Commander, especially given that at the time there were still ABs flying around in front of them! The two bodyguards w/ fusion blasters are WAY more useful than BS2 marker drones IMHO.

So it sounds like that whole deal got played totally wrong, and its highly unlikely that the unit would have had to take a Morale Check which would have allowed it to threaten your objectives a whole lot more potentially.

@Yakface

If I was playing Tau against the crons, I would have made the Tau Commander the Warlord as well. In our game, he really didn't need to go kamikaze with his commander against my army.

As far as deploying his fire warriors, I wold have deployed the very front unit (or the front 2 units) horizontally. Then I would deploy the rest of the units vertically to ensure that they could shoot. Actually, I'd swap out 1 of those units of FW's for some kroots as my screening front line.

As for riptides, there is just too much motivation for him to always try to nova-charge them in this game. Initially you have the wraiths. Then you have flyers coming in. Then he has nothing to deal with AB's besides his command unit and over-charged riptides. I see your point about timing when it comes to powering-up those tides, but really, every turn was a turn that he should have tried to power up. Unlike tervigons, who once they roll doubles, they are done, riptides have 4 chances to try to nova-charge. Try to be too conservative with them and you may end up losing the game before you even know it.

As for LOS for his commander, yeah, he played it wrong. He kind of nerfed himself by doing so. During the game, I just took his word for it. Next time I see him I will let him know.

 gr1m_dan wrote:
As others have said this is really not a competitive Tau list.

The Riptides IMO were not optimised with Interceptor AND Skyfire. Using Riptides as your only AA is a waste of points and best left to Missilesides who are probably the best AA unit in 40k right now. They are also great for taking on anything else through sheer weight of high strength firepower. They can glance AV13 to death pretty quickly too.

I have been using Piranha squads VERY successfully and I think 2 or 3 of these with FB would have minced your AB's. You have to be SUPER aggressive with the new Tau and I have won against a couple of tournie style Necron lists through sheer aggression and focus fire.

I also play Necrons so that probably helps ;-) They are incredibly frustrating to play against and the NS + Troop tactic of just claiming objectives is horrible and so effective. I think Crisis suits with two MPods each could have helped against troops and even the flyers. They spew out some good firepower since the FAQ to the weapon systems.

Overall the Tau player really needs to look at his list and not just rely on 3 Riptides to do the majority of the heavy lifting as when they fail he has no solid back up.

The Ethereal + Firewarrior combo however is brilliant and I use him inside a DF with 11 Firewarriors for a modern Fish of Fury. Combined with support it can put out a lot of pain. Risky as hell but hey, you gotta be aggressive :=D

Who says the riptides were his only source for AA? And using riptides as AA is a waste of points? WHAT?!? You can't be serious?!? While missilesides can be a source of AA, he's actually got enough pulse rifles to seriously hurt AV11 flyers, especially with markerlight support and with one of the objectives being skyfire.

Piranha's are definitely a viable choice, just like hammerheads and skyrays. Unfortunately, nowadays they are eclipsed by riptides, broadsides and pathfinders and maybe even the Sun Shark.

I've got a question for you....have you run the new riptides yet? Moreover, have you tried running 2 or 3 riptides? For some reason, I have a feeling that the answer will be 'no'.

tgf wrote:
You should have lost your Tau opponent seems quite incompetent, not planning for a 5th turn game over, it happens 1/3 the time.

Yeah, I should have.

Calling my opponent incompetent is kind of harsh. I admit that he made mistakes, but he will learn from them. In my personal opinion, incompetent is someone who doesn't know how to play his army and makes the same mistakes over and over. He knows his army. What he needs is to refine his tactics, and that will come through experience.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It was one of his first games with the new Tau. Riptides are the new hotness so I can totally see the enthusiasm for wanting to run three. He had some bad dice with the many Overheats... The FNP buff could have been a game changer. If I were to play Tau I'd take a long hard look at the heavy burst cannon... It's pretty darn good. That said some diversity I think would have served him better rather than spamming the same build x3. He is learning. Like I said before I'd love to see a rematch with more terrain next time around. Adam has bested jy2 several times which is a testament to his skill.

I'll recommend the missile-sides to him next time. I'm curious to see how they will perform as well.

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

I'd subscribe to objective dominance 1st. I said it earlier and Yak said it again, in this scenario with these two armies and those objectives it was pretty much over before it began.

No it wasn't. Despite me having 2 objectives on my side, my opponent not only had a very real chance, but a very good chance to win it. I'm sorry, but if you thought that situation was an autowin for the crons, then I have to wonder about your tactical acumen. His mobility might not have been the best, but he had more than the means and the time to get to my objectives.

Wonder all you like. I am seriously questioning your tactical acumen myself if you think playing the most mobile army to date against the most static, with complete starting dominance over objectives is anything but a HUGE advantage. Further more I find it comical to question my tactics when it was your deployment that was a perfect demonstration of how not to deploy against a gunline. Literally had it not been for the objective placement you would have been utterly crushed and it's obvious to see, yet the report claims a "crushing victory for the metallic dead" where perhaps a more accurate and modest conclusive title should read.

Consider the fact that those 2 objectives were 6" from your edge leaving 30" for him to cross to get his FW within scoring/denial range. That's 5 turns, the length of the game you played not factoring any terrain rolls and assuming the obvious fact that he needs to be shooting rather then running. Yes I would consider this game an easy win for necrons based on those facts.

I find it very telling when a player can't find the humility to admit when a win was produced from such a situation and not from their hand. Sorry but there was nothing tactical about that necron win.

What I do find compelling is how your opponent despite his MANY errors AND being at a great disadvantage was very close to a win by tabling.

As for LOS blocking terrain I really can't debate it any further as it's hard to even tell from an internet observer what you consider it to be. Those GF9 Ruins in the center to me would qualify even with the occasional gaps as the majority of a units fire would be limited almost entirely and because its such a large piece. I think your going to struggle in general though to hide those massive wraith models from that even more massive riptide whatever the table is.

@yakface- I think he deployed his FW in columns rather then rows (this is speculation on my part) in order to fire all of them at enemy ground targets. Now wraiths are large as models so in this case he probably should have formed rows but I think many people forget that TLOS is forfeit from a squads own members but not friendly units. General beware if you pack 50 FW into a 5 row phalanx you will almost definitely be blind be the time you get to the 3rd unit back let alone the 4th or 5th when firing at like sized models. Many people fail to actually duck down an look at what there mob of FW do in regards to blocking LOS to other units behind them.

In regard to the ethereal I think perhaps purchasing a drone so that your ethereal can attach itself to the riptide and hiding both drone and ethereal behind it may be a valid strategy. If a player can resist those overcharge checks the riptide can make a considerable bodyguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Food for thought while someone mentioned piranhas. At 40 pts a piece stock, it would only be 600 pts to field 15! I would hate to shell out the dough for those but with av 11 and 8 s5 shots a piece 4 of which are TL, that is some serious dakka for the points.

madtankbloke wrote:
Positional dominance is as much about forcing your opponent to move where you want him to, as it is about getting your own movement correct. In this battle the Tau achieved Positional dominace during their deployment phase. The objectives were all concentrated in one half of the board, and with the open nature of the battlefield, the Tau gunline really had the advantage from the start.
If the objectives had been more intelligently placed, across the board, The necrons would have forced the Tau out of their deployment zone to take or contest their objectives, and at a stroke robbed them of their dominant position. where they were placed is not really relevant, as with the nightscythes, the necron player could very simply drop troops onto them whenever he wanted.
The necron deployment was awful. there was the rest of the battleield to deploy in, much of it out of range of that scary looking mob of firewarriors, or at least with restricted fields of fire. and if the objectives were scattered, the tau player would have had to spread his forces more, and lost lot of mutual support, and you could have used the wraiths, out of LOS, to threaten any objectives he may be considering going after.
As it was, the necron player decided to concentrate the objectives, deploy opposite a gunline which proceeded to tear massive chunks out of the wraiths, and it was only the Tau players unwillingness to move out of his deployment zone (he didn't have to, after all) that allowed the Necrons to steal the win.

Overall, the Tau lost the game, rather than the necrons winning it (an important distiction) and the Necron player, failed to adapt to the threat that the tau gunline presented and tried to push home an attack that was obviously doomed to failure. there was no way those wraiths were going to make it in anything close to useful numbers, and that was exacerbated by deploying on the line, in the open.

The Tau dominated the game, but failed to score the points to win the game

There are 2 parts to my philosophy. The first is to control the movement of your opponent. The second is to set yourself up relative to the objectives. In a sense, you can kind of say that he controlled my movement because he wanted me to move towards his shooting. However, he failed to achieve the second part, which is to set himself up to either claim or contest the objectives. Thus, he did not execute the strategy of Positional Dominance, at least not in my eyes.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

I'd subscribe to objective dominance 1st. I said it earlier and Yak said it again, in this scenario with these two armies and those objectives it was pretty much over before it began.

No it wasn't. Despite me having 2 objectives on my side, my opponent not only had a very real chance, but a very good chance to win it. I'm sorry, but if you thought that situation was an autowin for the crons, then I have to wonder about your tactical acumen. His mobility might not have been the best, but he had more than the means and the time to get to my objectives.

Wonder all you like. I am seriously questioning your tactical acumen myself if you think playing the most mobile army to date against the most static, with complete starting dominance over objectives is anything but a HUGE advantage. Further more I find it comical to question my tactics when it was your deployment that was a perfect demonstration of how not to deploy against a gunline. Literally had it not been for the objective placement you would have been utterly crushed and it's obvious to see, yet the report claims a "crushing victory for the metallic dead" where perhaps a more accurate and modest conclusive title should read.

Consider the fact that those 2 objectives were 6" from your edge leaving 30" for him to cross to get his FW within scoring/denial range. That's 5 turns, the length of the game you played not factoring any terrain rolls and assuming the obvious fact that he needs to be shooting rather then running. Yes I would consider this game an easy win for necrons based on those facts.

I find it very telling when a player can't find the humility to admit when a win was produced from such a situation and not from their hand. Sorry but there was nothing tactical about that necron win.

What I do find compelling is how your opponent despite his MANY errors AND being at a great disadvantage was very close to a win by tabling.

As for LOS blocking terrain I really can't debate it any further as it's hard to even tell from an internet observer what you consider it to be. Those GF9 Ruins in the center to me would qualify even with the occasional gaps as the majority of a units fire would be limited almost entirely and because its such a large piece. I think your going to struggle in general though to hide those massive wraith models from that even more massive riptide whatever the table is.

@yakface- I think he deployed his FW in columns rather then rows (this is speculation on my part) in order to fire all of them at enemy ground targets. Now wraiths are large as models so in this case he probably should have formed rows but I think many people forget that TLOS is forfeit from a squads own members but not friendly units. General beware if you pack 50 FW into a 5 row phalanx you will almost definitely be blind be the time you get to the 3rd unit back let alone the 4th or 5th when firing at like sized models. Many people fail to actually duck down an look at what there mob of FW do in regards to blocking LOS to other units behind them.

In regard to the ethereal I think perhaps purchasing a drone so that your ethereal can attach itself to the riptide and hiding both drone and ethereal behind it may be a valid strategy. If a player can resist those overcharge checks the riptide can make a considerable bodyguard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Food for thought while someone mentioned piranhas. At 40 pts a piece stock, it would only be 600 pts to field 15! I would hate to shell out the dough for those but with av 11 and 8 s5 shots a piece 4 of which are TL, that is some serious dakka for the points.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that we can just agree to disagree.

Yes, objective placement was an advantage to my crons. But whereas you think it is an overwhelming advantage, I think it is an advantage that my opponent could have easily overcome. His riptides could have moved, shot and still jumped towards my deployment and made it there in 2 turns (with an average move of 6" + 7" jump = 13" each turn, and that's not including over-charging his jetpacks or running on T5).

Whereas you thought terrain wasn't a big deal, I say that it took away a lot of tactical flexibility for my army and that does make a difference. Either deploy as I did and get shot up or deploy far away from his shooting and thus, take myself out of position to do what I want to do. Meanwhile he would be moving closer to me in order to try to get within firing range....and this would also take him closer to the ojectives.

Either ways, doesn't look like either of us are going to budge because I guess we are both just that darn stubborn.

This batrep illustrates that Tau still have some major problems holding objectives.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This batrep illustrates that Tau still have some major problems holding objectives.

Pshh maybe for some Tau players...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This batrep illustrates that Tau still have some major problems taking objectives.

Fixed that for you.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You don't need three Riptides though. If there had been more terrain its possible a D Lord could have assaulted one of them. Two is good enough. A third doesn't make them 3/2 better.

You don't need 3....but it's nice to have. Seriously, trying playing against 3 of them. They are such a versatile and good unit. They won't unbalance your list at all, at least not in my opinion.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Missilesides only have a 36" range, it was possible for the NS to keep out of range until the last turn.

Hmm Tau heavy support is very crowded, but I now think Skyrays are possibly the best value unit in the codex. 115 points for a 6 missile Alpha Strike at 72", twinlinked SMS, AV13 and two networked BS4 Markerlights, and Skyfire for free?

Missilesides are great, but very expensive, and BS2 Missile drones are kind of a waste of points since they can't split fire. Not to mention you can pretty much have almost similar firepower from a Bodyguard or Crisis suit team, without the single support system limitation.

A Longstrike Hammerhead is very useful as well against those scary AV14 threats... but Skyrays are so good and cheap I can't help thinking that three Skyrays in the HS slot is the way to go.

A third Riptide might be a bit excessive, but unit saturation is important.

I think the Tau way forward is anti-AV14 on Shadowsun/suits, Skyfire on Skyrays, Anti-MEQ on Ionsides with marker support, and VoF on Firewarriors, and Str 7 from Commander/suits. Now the only thing they need is a mobile, tough scoring unit and psychic defence: Eldar Guardian Jetbikes do the trick and Doomseer do the trick.

I've actually played against the skyray before and it's actually pretty good. My only concern is that the Tau heavy support slots are pretty stacked, with regular broads, missilesides and railheads (with Longstrike). But more importantly, people are probably going to fill out their FA slots first with lots of markerlights before going to the heavies. It's ironic that despite such good HS options, Tau players are most likely going to fill up their Elite and FA slots first.

I'm looking forward to the new Eldar codex...because that will be the day Runes of Warding gets nerfed.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This batrep illustrates that Tau still have some major problems holding objectives.

As long as you can kill their Ethereal. Otherwise, their troops are actually pretty hard to get off of an objective. Definitely go after the Ethereal's unit. Otherwise, it will be a much, much tougher fight.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This batrep illustrates that Tau still have some major problems taking objectives.

Fixed that for you.

The way Tau play in objectives games is to shoot the opponent off of theirs unless you can hide the units/objectives behind LOS-blocking terrain.

Sms don't care about a unit of 10 Cultists out of LOS.

Nice read. Thanks for writing it up. The only thing I can say is...should have bought stim injectors for his riptides.

I'll probably be rolling 1 riptide and 2 crisis teams for my (non competitive) list. It's interesting to see so many fire warriors. I usually only take the minimum 2 squads and try to just neutralize everyone else's scoring units. Then again, I am a large fan of the "1 suit and 2 shield drones" model.

 jy2 wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
Positional dominance is as much about forcing your opponent to move where you want him to, as it is about getting your own movement correct. In this battle the Tau achieved Positional dominace during their deployment phase. The objectives were all concentrated in one half of the board, and with the open nature of the battlefield, the Tau gunline really had the advantage from the start.
If the objectives had been more intelligently placed, across the board, The necrons would have forced the Tau out of their deployment zone to take or contest their objectives, and at a stroke robbed them of their dominant position. where they were placed is not really relevant, as with the nightscythes, the necron player could very simply drop troops onto them whenever he wanted.
The necron deployment was awful. there was the rest of the battleield to deploy in, much of it out of range of that scary looking mob of firewarriors, or at least with restricted fields of fire. and if the objectives were scattered, the tau player would have had to spread his forces more, and lost lot of mutual support, and you could have used the wraiths, out of LOS, to threaten any objectives he may be considering going after.
As it was, the necron player decided to concentrate the objectives, deploy opposite a gunline which proceeded to tear massive chunks out of the wraiths, and it was only the Tau players unwillingness to move out of his deployment zone (he didn't have to, after all) that allowed the Necrons to steal the win.

Overall, the Tau lost the game, rather than the necrons winning it (an important distiction) and the Necron player, failed to adapt to the threat that the tau gunline presented and tried to push home an attack that was obviously doomed to failure. there was no way those wraiths were going to make it in anything close to useful numbers, and that was exacerbated by deploying on the line, in the open.

The Tau dominated the game, but failed to score the points to win the game

There are 2 parts to my philosophy. The first is to control the movement of your opponent. The second is to set yourself up relative to the objectives. In a sense, you can kind of say that he controlled my movement because he wanted me to move towards his shooting. However, he failed to achieve the second part, which is to set himself up to either claim or contest the objectives. Thus, he did not execute the strategy of Positional Dominance, at least not in my eyes.

Viewing a battle report from an observers perspective gives me a different point of view compared to someone who was fighting the battle. Its quite obvious that both of you adopted a strategy that you are familiar and comfortable with, and while its fair to say that the Necrons scored a crushing victory points wise, a look at the table at the end of the game shows a completely different picture. Its also fair to say that the Tau lost the game, rather than the Necrons winning the game, and that is a very important distinction when you consider the outcome. that isn't to say that it was an undeserved victory, you did after all play to the victory conditions and go after the objectives. However, you were saved from complete defeat by the simple fact that the game ended on turn 5.
The tau deployment, with a very concentrated firebase, and a commanding view of the central objective literally dominated the battlefield from the start. This was compounded by your poor placement of the central objective, and your poor deployment of your wraiths. you failed to take advantage of the rest of the battlefield, and your initial deployment, together with the positioning of objectives gave the tau very little incentive to move out of their initial very strong position. the tau could sit firm in their deployment zone, and given the cntral objective was in the open, simply shoot it clear in their turn. So in my opinion, the Tau achieved positional dominance in the deployment phase, and maintained it throughout the battle. If any criticism can be levelled at the Tau, its that they didn't move out of their deployment zone earlier. The wraiths were dead early on, and while the annihilation barges were still a threat, there was easily sufficient firepower to deal with them. So while the Tau achieved and maintained their positional dominance, they were unable, or unwilling to seize the initiative and exploit it.

The error that you made, while it didn't cost you the game, was failing to realise that the Tau had a very very strong position, and that you underestimated just how potent the tau shooting would be. The result was that your wraiths, the units you would use to control the movement phase were dealt with in short order. It could be argued that the wraiths achieved what they were supposed to, since the tau remained in their initial deployment zone and didn't advance sooner, but i think, based on numerous games played against gunlines, the players are not as prepared to advance as perhaps would be recommended and he would have maintained his position against any variety of necron army you would be able to throw at him.

From my perspective, the only thing that saved the Necron army from being tabled was the fact the battle ended on turn 5, if it had continued, it would have been a relatively simple exercise to clear the central objective, take out the remaining necrons, and table them.

What i think you can perhaps take from the battle is that Tau appear to have (if this batrep is anything to go by) a hard counter to a poorly deployed wraithwing, and that this tau player in particular is perhaps too defensively minded and needs to learn to exploit the dominant positions he achieves. Its hard to find any point in the battle that the Necrons had the upper hand despite the fact they technically won.

Position wise, casualty wise and indeed overall, i would put this as a solid Tau victory. but that is also the reason that this is a perfect example of why you need to keep the objectives in mind, since despite their positional advantage throughout the game, the Tau still lost on VP's

What a boring game. No idea why people choose to play gun-lines. I feel like deploying your models and then rolling dice for five turns is really boring.

Griever wrote:
What a boring game. No idea why people choose to play gun-lines. I feel like deploying your models and then rolling dice for five turns is really boring.

Well you've just described every single 40k game played since the dawn of time. Well done.

Perhaps something more involved like Chess is more for you?

People play gunline armies because the Tau army functions best as a gun-line army. Blame the designer, and not the gamer. Some people like to pew pew. Some find pushing 120 plastic orcs across a table every bit as dull.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Griever wrote:
What a boring game. No idea why people choose to play gun-lines. I feel like deploying your models and then rolling dice for five turns is really boring.

Well you've just described every single 40k game played since the dawn of time. Well done.

Perhaps something more involved like Chess is more for you?

People play gunline armies because the Tau army functions best as a gun-line army. Blame the designer, and not the gamer. Some people like to pew pew. Some find pushing 120 plastic orcs across a table every bit as dull.

Uh no, most armies are not gun-lines. Your dismissive tone is not necessary.

Nobody knows what Tau functions best at yet because it's still way too early.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


Blame the designer, and not the gamer. Some people like to pew pew. Some find pushing 120 plastic orcs across a table every bit as dull.

QFT! Hoard orks are the boring games for me. No surprises just run at me and if I kill you before you get to me which is pretty likely then I win. If you get to me with enough hitting power to kill me then you win. Its too marine for my taste.

Griever wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Griever wrote:
What a boring game. No idea why people choose to play gun-lines. I feel like deploying your models and then rolling dice for five turns is really boring.

Well you've just described every single 40k game played since the dawn of time. Well done.

Perhaps something more involved like Chess is more for you?

People play gunline armies because the Tau army functions best as a gun-line army. Blame the designer, and not the gamer. Some people like to pew pew. Some find pushing 120 plastic orcs across a table every bit as dull.

Uh no, most armies are not gun-lines. Your dismissive tone is not necessary.

Nobody knows what Tau functions best at yet because it's still way too early.

If 'I feel like deploying your models and then rolling dice for five turns is really boring' isn't dismissive, I don't know what is. Saying the game is boring is dismissive. If you bring a dismissive tone, I am at liberty to bring it right back.

Is moving your army and shooting slightly more fun than standing still and shooting? At the end of the day, you're still moving models and rolling dice. If going from an almost-tabling to crushing victory isn't exciting for you, I don't know what it will take.

This isn't League of Legends, there isn't an evolving meta. Everything the Tau can do is readily apparent to a skilled player who reads the codex. Tau are good at pew pew from a static gunline. This is how the codex is designed. Don't read Tau reports if you hate gunline armies.

 dementedwombat wrote:
Nice read. Thanks for writing it up. The only thing I can say is...should have bought stim injectors for his riptides.

I'll probably be rolling 1 riptide and 2 crisis teams for my (non competitive) list. It's interesting to see so many fire warriors. I usually only take the minimum 2 squads and try to just neutralize everyone else's scoring units. Then again, I am a large fan of the "1 suit and 2 shield drones" model.

You can only take 2 support upgrades for Riptides.

If you take Stim Injectors, besides being incredibly expensive, that means you have to give up either Skyfire or Interceptor...both of which are INCREDIBLY useful in certain situations.

I think this bloke really nailed it (I've only quoted the key sentences):

madtankbloke wrote:

It's also fair to say that the Tau lost the game, rather than the Necrons winning the game

you did after all play to the victory conditions and go after the objectives.

However, you were saved from complete defeat by the simple fact that the game ended on turn 5.

If any criticism can be levelled at the Tau, its that they didn't move out of their deployment zone earlier.

A few people have mentioned the death of the wraiths, and the idea that the Tau gunline is a counter to them. This is true. To small arms fire (that are AP4 or worse) a unit of 6 wraiths is just as tough as 12 asault marines. Volume of fire will bring them down, as was seen in this report.

Tau are especially good at this for a few reasons: markerlights can increase the chances to hit; S5 makes wounding 3+ as opposed to 4+ on a lot of other weapons; and ethereals/range mean more shots/earier shots.