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?

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

 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.

 yakface wrote:

 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.

madtankbloke wrote:
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

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.

Griever wrote:

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

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

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.

 DexKivuli wrote:
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.

 KingCracker wrote:

 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?

I think youre looking at it wrong, and are being sour about the outcome for some reason. Every army has a "best case" and a "worst case" which can pop out depending on the mission/objectives/table set up. Getting all bent out of shape and basically calling a player on here an unfair gamer is in poor taste. Set the table up differently, and set the objectives differently and it would of been a different outcome. But thats obvious because like I said, it will end up favouring one army over the other. Period. This is one of the few things that happens in 40k that is fairly realistic. Its NEVER going to be a perfectly even, fair fight. Someone is going to get the shaft, its up to the player and the dice to overcome the odds.

 yakface wrote:

 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.

 KingCracker wrote:

I think youre looking at it wrong, and are being sour about the outcome for some reason. Every army has a "best case" and a "worst case" which can pop out depending on the mission/objectives/table set up. Getting all bent out of shape and basically calling a player on here an unfair gamer is in poor taste. Set the table up differently, and set the objectives differently and it would of been a different outcome. But thats obvious because like I said, it will end up favouring one army over the other. Period. This is one of the few things that happens in 40k that is fairly realistic. Its NEVER going to be a perfectly even, fair fight. Someone is going to get the shaft, its up to the player and the dice to overcome the odds.

 mercer wrote:
I voted Necrons as the winner, though suspect they would be pretty beat up and expecting all Wraiths to die along with majority of the Night Scythes - looking at the aftermath is appears I was pretty bang on the money.

Reason I said those things is the RIptides can take out the flyers with weight of damage, but if a Riptide can be focused on with ABs, Warriors and then finished off with the old mindshackles and Wraiths, then job done. However, while this is happening those Wraiths will be taking fire power (didn't read if they did or not though by looking at it they got destroyed), though sounds like the Riptides killed themselves more than jy2 did

Some questions though:

How come you didn't place objectives like normally? i.e roll for table edge then roll for placing objectives.

Why did Tau deploy forward? Surely the opponent would expect you to put those Wraiths as close as possible? Everything would have done better being pushed back a little more with Riptides at the front. I am pretty sure Tau have the range to do this (correct me if I am wrong).

How come you moved the Night Scythes up the flank? I would have gone balls to the walls at that point as you badly needed the fire support and I would have moved them up, bailed out Warriors and then shot the gak out of the unit your D-Lord and Wraith was going to assault.

Well done on the victory, looks like Tau are pretty good, but I still hate 'em, so good job for mashing them up

NeutronPoison wrote:
I think you made a big mistake by bum-rushing with the Wraiths.

That's the right call against an army that's gone all-in on anti-tank, but against an army that's gone all-in on anti-infantry, I think you have to lead with the A-barges.

In your position I think I would have deployed the A-barges right on the line across from the Fire Warriors and the Wraiths all on one flank right on the edge of the Fire Warriors' range so they have to move out of cover if they want to bring weight of fire. I'd have probably hung back with the Wraiths until the A-barges (and later Night Scythes) had had at least two turns to pound on the Fire Warriors. Either they go to ground or a bunch of them die, but either way your Wraiths will have a much better time advancing late-game.

 jy2 wrote:
e]
We actually messed up on the objective-deployment. Normally it is roll for mission, place objectives and then roll for sides. In this game, we actually rolled for sides first because we forgot about placing objectives. We then rolled for objectives afterwards and decided to keep it as is. If my opponent had objected, we would have probably redone everything again or just re-roll for deployment. In any case, my strategy for placing objectives would be to put them as close to the edge as possible.

Tau deployed forwards so that they could shoot at my wraiths, are a little closer to the objectives and also to benefit from the ADL. Riptides out-ranged the FW's and he definitely didn't want to use them as a screening unit. I am of the opinion that his deployment was fine.

I moved the NS up to flank to avoid his riptides. They have sky fire and interceptor and in many cases, were overcharged. That meant 12 S6 shots. My flyers wanted no part of that. I decided that the survivability of my scythes were much more important than their firepower, especially since almost all my ground forces were gone.

Yeah, the new Tau are indeed pretty good.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It was a competitive game between jy2 and Adam. I really enjoyed reading the batrep and hope there is a rematch. I do not think the Tau army is optimized but it gave Jim's Necrons a run for the money. I would rather focus on all the many positive things in this thread rather than constantly harp on how competitive the game was. The meta is really crazy this edition and that makes things a lot more interesting than fifth edition for me.

I do agree with yakface - I'd much rather have Interceptor and Skyfire on the Riptides. They are very resilient as is. Making them more versatile is the better investment.

 mercer wrote:
No, you roll for mission first, then table sides then setup objectives. It appeared from the bat rep you just put the objectives down randomly or upon agreement with each other.

 mercer wrote:

Well the Tau have 36" long rifles so they do not need to be deployed forward if you are depploying 12" from your table edge (which looks like you was) and the ADL can be placed any where, so could be pulled back. With the Riptides at the front they would be a nice assault blocker. But hey ho each one to their own.

Yes, I read about you moving up the flanks for that reason, though I still would have gone balls to the walls as you're in range either way of Riptide fire power. I would have just hoped for the best.

What do you think of triple Riptide lists then?

 Thariinye wrote:
jy2, I think a better term for what you're meaning by saying 40k is an unfair game is that it is asymmetric. Despite being at the same points level, a game of 40k is not a symmetric battle between perfectly equally matched sides. Some armies are better than others in certain areas, and of course chance plays a role.

This is generally okay and accepted, asymmetric games allow for many cool strategies not possible with symmetric ones. The problem comes when, from a game design perspective, the asymmetries become either totally in favor of one or another player, to the point where it harms the fun of playing in the game.

BRB missions are beyond standard asymmetry. At their best (determined by chance), they are functional; at their worst, they encourage stale and static play. Compare the BRB missions to WM/H Steamroller scenarios, which still retain chance elements and asymmetry, but in a manner that does not make the players feel the mission is illegitimate.

When I get a 4, 3, and 2 value objectives in my half of the table in the Scouring, and I am playing a gunline with significant counter-assault elements, there's a fundamental problem. Having one player be aggressive in a matchup isn't bad, its bad when it effectively means that, unless I'm tabled, I win. From a game design perspective, it encourages stale play from my side, not exactly what we're looking for in an exciting game. The same happens in Emperor's Will, which quickly becomes 'who got first turn/got first blood.'

This also probably has to do with player vs game designer perspectives. From a player's perspective, asymmetry or unfairness is just the way things are, and one just deals with it by army composition and tactics. If one character in a fighting game is just better than others, so be it, I'll play that character in a tournament, and have all mirror matches with others who've made that same decision. That's my prerogative as a competitive player playing to win. However, if we're trying to encourage varied play styles and character selection, then we actively want to ensure that many choices are viable, and players don't feel screwed over.

TL;DR Asymmetry in 40k is good, but badly designed asymmetry is bad...
That's not to take away from the Battle Report, it's amazing as always!

Dozer Blades wrote:So jy2 made a mistake. I can't even count how many times mercer made so many huge 'mistakes' to his own advantage. Pot call kettle black.

NecronGeneral wrote:
also a flyer hit by immobilized result while zooming is just locked velocity and cant zoom or go less than 18in.

Q: If a Flyer suffers Locked Velocity and was moving at Cruising
Speed (18"-36"), what speed is its velocity actually locked at?
(p81)
A: 36".

niv-mizzet wrote:
Nice battle. Watching it has solidified in my mind that Tau are crazy good. Had the Tau general been on the same skill level as yourself and had seen that necron list before, it would've been a crushing Tau win, no questions asked. And as usual in 40k, you can't get through a game without the dice gods playing a prank on someone. Today it was the Riptides. That, and even against an unprepared opponent with an unoptimized list, the early-ending random game length roll saved the Necrons' collective bacon.

It is definately surreal to see a dozen guys on objectives stand up suddenly and announce that they won, and have an entire army on the other side all look down in sadness and walk home.

 Janthkin wrote:

NecronGeneral wrote:
also a flyer hit by immobilized result while zooming is just locked velocity and cant zoom or go less than 18in.

Actually, per the current FAQ, it's a bit worse than that:

Q: If a Flyer suffers Locked Velocity and was moving at Cruising
Speed (18"-36"), what speed is its velocity actually locked at?
(p81)
A: 36".

 SwistakCZC wrote:
After reading whole batrep and some comments I think that its better not to advance with wraiths, they gonna make enemy defending for a while but then they all gonna die, just try to get out of 30" range, kill mobile scoring unit like jetbikes with teslas. Then when he advance with FW shoot them with everything you have to reduce those huge amount of S5 shots, then at the end of game wraiths can try to assault, probably etheral gonna be dead by this time.

Do you think it is viable tactic?

 SwistakCZC wrote:
Those are reasonable thoughts. Its true that fusion guns are real threat.

Your new tactic seems fine, you can save some damage just by careful deployment and then advance with everything.

Etheral going to ground behind ADL is not pleasant, but if you shoot it with night scythe he cant claim cover save from that height. So I think that waiting a while and then attacking with everything might be best tactic.

Btw. Very nice battle report, thanks for posting, Im gonna read more texts.