Pure Theory: Designing an "Optimal" Tau List?

Discuss and develop your army list amongst new players and veterans alike.
User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 480

Re: Pure Theory: Designing an "Optimal" Tau List?

Post#19 » Jan 08 2018 10:56

gunrock wrote:So I don't want to derail this thread by getting to deep into speculation on multi-tracker, but I feel I should present this point more clearly as it does pertain to optimal builds. I apologize in advance if this is not full proof, but hopefully will convey my point on efficiency.

Marker-light efficiency:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26347&p=333204&hilit=markerlight+efficiency#p333204

Pathfinder
0ML 16
1+ML10.66666667
Pathfinder is the cheapest marker light source at 16 points per average hit. Seeing as how commander spam lists don't ever seem to run them because of their fragility the next closest source is 20 points/hit for two marker drones buffed with DC (ignoring the cost and logistics of getting a DC). Obviously without DC they're even less efficient.

Another Commander is 76 points base cost. If we're operating under the assumption that commanders are generally engaging separate targets that they would otherwise use a marker light on and assuming we're not running pathfinders lets assume a virtual cost of 20 points per target.

Multi-tracker efficiency:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26927

QFC = 160pts and 3.333 hits per turn; i.e. 48 pts per Fusion hit
Multiitracker Variant: 141pts and 2.916666 hits per turn: 48.3428 pts per Fusion hit

Points per hit the QFC is very marginally stronger, obviously with the addition of a marker light hit the QFC is much more efficient, but without it they are almost indistinguishable.

So my theory is your not actually losing much firepower by not filling the last hard point, as the three additional FB are merely being moved to another model which works as an offset of the cost of markerlights as the cost of the commander model is very close to parity withe the cost of marking three targets.

I don't know if my logic is full proof, but I think there might be some merit in the commander spam list. Even if the multi-tracker build is marginally less efficient it has some significant merit in providing additional wounds through more bodies and drones, addressing the issues of excessive drops created by spamming drone squads, loosing marker light support in later turns, and obstructed line of sight. Obviously, with most other battle suits this does not work (on XV8 its garbage), but in the case of commanders I think it actually works.


How many times in editions previous to 8th did everyone HATE on Tau because we could splitfire our suits from other members of the squad? I cannot tell you the amount of tears collected from this very very very common gripe. Taking away tactical flexibility(firing at multiple models) with your commander is going backwards for something as easy as a single markerlight hit not to mention you're throwing a gun away. I will never condone the multi-tracker in it's current form, even if it were free. Split firing happens frequently enough and I can't imagine having even LESS quality shots on the table than we do already. It's simply not good.

User avatar
shasocastris
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1008
Contact:

Re: Pure Theory: Designing an "Optimal" Tau List?

Post#20 » Jan 09 2018 02:02

gunrock wrote:Multi-tracker efficiency:
http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewt ... 52&t=26927

QFC = 160pts and 3.333 hits per turn; i.e. 48 pts per Fusion hit
Multiitracker Variant: 141pts and 2.916666 hits per turn: 48.3428 pts per Fusion hit

Points per hit the QFC is very marginally stronger, obviously with the addition of a marker light hit the QFC is much more efficient, but without it they are almost indistinguishable.

I was just about to post this thread. Thank you, gunrock.

First, one use that I've found with the multi-tracker that hasn't been mentioned yet is that if you are character sniping with fusion commanders, markerlights often aren't available. Making the commanders more reliable is often a better tool than more potential, especially in a competitive setting where it's better to know more clearly when your models CAN do vs what they MIGHT do.

Second, I don't think that the cheapness of markerlights should be immediately discounted. Let's take the list and replace the triple fusion commanders with QFCs. Where do the points come from to sustain that? 56 points is a lot in a finely tuned list.

That said, I do disagree with the multi-tracker on the coldstars and hazards. I think the Coldstar should just get a single ATS instead of the multi-tracker and target lock. It's the same points, and it gives you more punching power. And if you really do need to advance, hitting on 3+ isn't a terrible sacrifice compared to the positioning you can do.

On the hazards, I think that you should drop both multi-trackers and equip them with drone controllers, which puts the army at an even 2000. At BS 4+, re-rolling ones isn't all that exciting compared to when you are BS 2+.

Cheers!

gunrock
Shas
Posts: 52

Re: Pure Theory: Designing an "Optimal" Tau List?

Post#21 » Jan 09 2018 04:10

shasocastris wrote:
gunrock wrote:Multi-tracker efficiency:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26927

QFC = 160pts and 3.333 hits per turn; i.e. 48 pts per Fusion hit
Multiitracker Variant: 141pts and 2.916666 hits per turn: 48.3428 pts per Fusion hit

Points per hit the QFC is very marginally stronger, obviously with the addition of a marker light hit the QFC is much more efficient, but without it they are almost indistinguishable.

I was just about to post this thread. Thank you, gunrock.

First, one use that I've found with the multi-tracker that hasn't been mentioned yet is that if you are character sniping with fusion commanders, markerlights often aren't available. Making the commanders more reliable is often a better tool than more potential, especially in a competitive setting where it's better to know more clearly when your models CAN do vs what they MIGHT do.

Second, I don't think that the cheapness of markerlights should be immediately discounted. Let's take the list and replace the triple fusion commanders with QFCs. Where do the points come from to sustain that? 56 points is a lot in a finely tuned list.

That said, I do disagree with the multi-tracker on the coldstars and hazards. I think the Coldstar should just get a single ATS instead of the multi-tracker and target lock. It's the same points, and it gives you more punching power. And if you really do need to advance, hitting on 3+ isn't a terrible sacrifice compared to the positioning you can do.

On the hazards, I think that you should drop both multi-trackers and equip them with drone controllers, which puts the army at an even 2000. At BS 4+, re-rolling ones isn't all that exciting compared to when you are BS 2+.

Cheers!


NP, I thought it was an interesting point on a support system people tend to dislike. That list is going through editing, and I've also been looking at a very similar list with Y'Vahra, flamers, and without multitracker. The move towards ATS on Coldstar and either target lock or shield generator makes sense, as does dropping it from XV-9.

Right now I'm leaning towards the markerlight list, for the reasons that people have stated. Multi-tracker on commander is only ever so slightly marginally worse then 4x without markerlight (.7), but can't be improved at all. While with markerlight its quite a gap. I think it's difficult to quantify what the advantage of multi-tracker is or really any any of less efficient units then commanders, as it's also quantifying the value of getting an additional wounds and drones. Really weighing any sort of trade off of firepower for tactical value is hard to rationalize as 'optimal'. For example XV-25, which has a really poor offensive efficiency, but is one of our most versatile strategic units. The same is true of cold star, which has incredible tactical value, but comparatively poor offensive efficiency.

On a side note, I think XV-25 is one of the few units where multi-tracker works well, as you don't lose a hard point, they're inexpensive enough to make ATS cost prohibitive, they also don't usually want to waste their markerlights on light targets. When taking fusion blaster and drone controller on XV-25 it fits well.

So fusion blaster + multitracker is probably a no, but if the dynamics with CIB and multitracker are similar the tactical value of not exploding may be worth it.

Thoughts?
All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; Unto the place whither the rivers go, Thither they go again.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2679

Re: Pure Theory: Designing an "Optimal" Tau List?

Post#22 » Jan 09 2018 07:15

gunrock wrote:So fusion blaster + multitracker is probably a no.

It's funny, after all this reading I'm starting to like 3xFB+MT more and more in small lists. I bring 5x-6x Pathfinders at 750 points and below, as well as a CIB XV8 team and a Fusion Commander. In every game I use Markerlights to assist the CIB team instead of the Fusion Commander, because the return is so much higher. In addition, in small games, the Fusion Commander likely won't be firing at the same target as the CIB team, since there likely won't be a single huge vehicle or monster.

With that in mind, do you think that an independently-operating 3xFB+MT Commander is a good asset alongside a Markerlight-supported CIB XV8 team, in small games anyway?

Return to “Cadre Building”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests