Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#37 » Nov 15 2017 06:05

AleksandrGRC wrote:Ive been thinking a lot of the pay one price and choose weapons during deployment. And wishlisting it.
I feel it matches these mecha suits we play with perfectly,
Especially since im a battletech nut.

But list tailoring is bad
And tau are already seen as "that guy" by a lot of people.

Feel torn about it, i do.

Hmm, you want the ability to change your weapon profile huh... what a shame we have no such weapon :D

Image

zawyvern
Shas'Saal
Posts: 32

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#38 » Nov 16 2017 01:20

Panzer wrote:Being able to decide on Crisis weaponloadouts during deployment would be way too powerful. We could tailor our list perfectly to deal with any kind of army without any drawback while others would have to take all-comers lists. Tank heavy? Go all Fusion Blaster. Horde? Go all Flamer. Elite Infantry? Go all Plasma/CIB.
No way something like that will EVER be possible. Maybe as Stratagem. 1-2CP per unit. But even that would stretch it considering how big our Crisis units can potentially be.


I agree, I guess I should have clarified. I was thinking choosing from predetermined loadouts. Like the forgeworld commanders builds. The weapons are predetermind in the designers' favorite configurations. So no triple flamer. Probably burst cannon, flamer... I can't remember the fluff well enough to say what all of the combos were. Also the weapons would probably always be limited to 2 plus an optional system.
Anyway, silly conversation. Like you said, it won't happen.

But, I had a thought. Since the xv-8s are overpriced, minimize their expense as much as possible. If you have to use them in your list I mean.
I don't have my index on me but I believe it isn't required to fill all 3 slots. Stick to roughly 20-25 pts of weapons and add systems sparringly. It really goes against maximizing efficiency and seals the xv-8 in as a 2nd tier unit, but it may keep their costs down just enough to be tolerable.
Ex: CIB, MT, VT. -or- Dbl PR, MT. -or- Dbl BC, CDS. -or- MP, MT. -or- FB, MT, SI.
I put multitracker in there a lot, which you probably don't need if you got enough markerlights. But just to give you some ideas.
Again, not the best build. But a way for someone to use them if they don't have other models and don't want to invest too many points.

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 75

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#39 » Nov 16 2017 01:48

:)

But I thought we are fearfull that cibs will be taken away since they are not on the average crisis sprue; Ominous.
I would also like silly big manned artillery but with suits, bigger than a full on rail gun. Being seung around by a inflight coldstar, all gundam style.

Ive read it several times before but i think im convinced now to use a squad of all shield drones with three flamer suits from this thread.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#40 » Nov 16 2017 02:20

zawyvern wrote:
Panzer wrote:Being able to decide on Crisis weaponloadouts during deployment would be way too powerful. We could tailor our list perfectly to deal with any kind of army without any drawback while others would have to take all-comers lists. Tank heavy? Go all Fusion Blaster. Horde? Go all Flamer. Elite Infantry? Go all Plasma/CIB.
No way something like that will EVER be possible. Maybe as Stratagem. 1-2CP per unit. But even that would stretch it considering how big our Crisis units can potentially be.


I agree, I guess I should have clarified. I was thinking choosing from predetermined loadouts. Like the forgeworld commanders builds. The weapons are predetermind in the designers' favorite configurations. So no triple flamer. Probably burst cannon, flamer... I can't remember the fluff well enough to say what all of the combos were. Also the weapons would probably always be limited to 2 plus an optional system.
Anyway, silly conversation. Like you said, it won't happen.

But, I had a thought. Since the xv-8s are overpriced, minimize their expense as much as possible. If you have to use them in your list I mean.
I don't have my index on me but I believe it isn't required to fill all 3 slots. Stick to roughly 20-25 pts of weapons and add systems sparringly. It really goes against maximizing efficiency and seals the xv-8 in as a 2nd tier unit, but it may keep their costs down just enough to be tolerable.
Ex: CIB, MT, VT. -or- Dbl PR, MT. -or- Dbl BC, CDS. -or- MP, MT. -or- FB, MT, SI.
I put multitracker in there a lot, which you probably don't need if you got enough markerlights. But just to give you some ideas.
Again, not the best build. But a way for someone to use them if they don't have other models and don't want to invest too many points.

Urgh I'd hate Crisis with fix loadouts. Customisation > fix loadouts. And Crisis are the only unit we can customize properly anyway. There's literally nothing positive about fix loadouts except maybe it's easier for GW to balance (not that it would be properly balanced anyway).

Taking less weapons per Crisis Suits only makes them less point efficient since you'd be paying the same base cost but get less for it. Our problem is not how much Crisis cost, our problem is how cost efficient they are. If they were worth their ~300p per unit I'd happily pay those points. ;)


AleksandrGRC wrote::)

But I thought we are fearfull that cibs will be taken away since they are not on the average crisis sprue; Ominous.
I would also like silly big manned artillery but with suits, bigger than a full on rail gun. Being seung around by a inflight coldstar, all gundam style.

Ive read it several times before but i think im convinced now to use a squad of all shield drones with three flamer suits from this thread.

Not fearfull, just keeping that possibility in mind. ;)
We already do have artillery suits. Let me introduce you to the Broadside and the Stormsurge. We aren't Astra Militarum who have a big gun and people standing behind it...we ARE the gun. :D

AleksandrGRC
Shas'Saal
Posts: 75

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#41 » Nov 17 2017 01:43

Now Hear me out, squats.

Like orbital battery sized squat ion cannons. manned by broadsides.

Wait. Supremacy.

i just get giddy thinking of extreme size ratio imbalance .

User avatar
Garacaius
Shas
Posts: 53
Contact:

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#42 » Dec 08 2017 02:21

Does the new Marker stratagem change any considerations here?

I find outfitting a whole unit of Crisis Suits the same to be boring, but efficient.

I really like idea of a Crisis Team having separate load outs for maximum flexibility on a mission, but that's more a Kill Team thing than proper 40K.
Last edited by Garacaius on Dec 08 2017 03:31, edited 1 time in total.

“Just one game,” they said and started to play. That was yesterday...

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#43 » Dec 08 2017 03:08

Garacaius wrote:Does the new Marker stratagem change any considerations here?

I find unit asking a whole unit of Crisis Suits boring, but efficient.

I really like idea of a Crisis Team having separate load outs for maximum flexibility on a mission, but that's more a Kill Team thing than proper 40K.

No matter how accurate the are, equipping a squad with a variety of short-range guns is never a good idea. Now, if Missile Pods were very cheap, I could definitely see XV8s with two short range guns and one Missile Pod each- the Missile Pod's huge range would allow it to engage any target from far away. However, since Missile Pods are frighteningly expensive right now, that trick won't work for the time being.

Anyway, the new stratagem still won't change XV8 loadouts. XV8s need to get in close to kill their targets, so specialization is an absolute must, and always has been.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 372
Contact:

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#44 » Dec 08 2017 05:31

Arka0415 wrote:
Garacaius wrote:Does the new Marker stratagem change any considerations here?

I find unit asking a whole unit of Crisis Suits boring, but efficient.

I really like idea of a Crisis Team having separate load outs for maximum flexibility on a mission, but that's more a Kill Team thing than proper 40K.

No matter how accurate the are, equipping a squad with a variety of short-range guns is never a good idea. Now, if Missile Pods were very cheap, I could definitely see XV8s with two short range guns and one Missile Pod each- the Missile Pod's huge range would allow it to engage any target from far away. However, since Missile Pods are frighteningly expensive right now, that trick won't work for the time being.

Anyway, the new stratagem still won't change XV8 loadouts. XV8s need to get in close to kill their targets, so specialization is an absolute must, and always has been.


However autocannons just had a price reduction for astra millitarum all the way down to 12pts if you can argue that the difference between heavy and assault is 33% accuracy on the move so should cost 33% more then reasonable logic says our missile pod should be 16pts each in our codex.

But you know GW would have to want the cost to be fair and balanced and use common sense for that to happen :D

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#45 » Dec 12 2017 10:30

Arka0415 wrote:
Garacaius wrote:Does the new Marker stratagem change any considerations here?

I find unit asking a whole unit of Crisis Suits boring, but efficient.

I really like idea of a Crisis Team having separate load outs for maximum flexibility on a mission, but that's more a Kill Team thing than proper 40K.

No matter how accurate the are, equipping a squad with a variety of short-range guns is never a good idea. Now, if Missile Pods were very cheap, I could definitely see XV8s with two short range guns and one Missile Pod each- the Missile Pod's huge range would allow it to engage any target from far away. However, since Missile Pods are frighteningly expensive right now, that trick won't work for the time being.

Anyway, the new stratagem still won't change XV8 loadouts. XV8s need to get in close to kill their targets, so specialization is an absolute must, and always has been.


Well, I have to disagree here. (note: I have already talked about this in another post:
http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26661&start=18)

But I will insist. I am a frequent user of Homing Beacons, and even I have to force playing with Crisis instead of Commanders, when I really like them is with as many flamers I can get. Some problems can arise with that loadout, though:
    1- You can face a 100% mech army, and you will have to hold your flamer team on manta to strike when the transports are emptied or the deep strikers from the opponent land, which will mean that your homing beacon will be probably used or dead, and we all know that Flamer Suits deppend on homing beacons to be effective (or even playable, for that matter)
    2- You have to drop your Beacon Stealth team early in deployment to not give your opponent a chance to deny a good spot for them, and even by doing so you will sometimes have to place them in some akward spots, to try to survive if you go 2nd, while being as closer as possible to their deployment zone to make the harder alpha strike possible. This fact, plus the fact that they can counter deploy easily, can make your full flamer team look fool, with no targets whatsoever
    3- You can maybe drop them close to a single infantry squad of a highly mech army, kill it, and then be harmless for your opponent, who will be able to even ignore them for the rest of the game
    4- Your squad will be easier to kill for certain units, such as some kind of TEQ, as they are inmune to flamers and drones (for the most part)

By mixing weapons (I actually only consider FB and Flamers to take full advantage of the <8" dropping) you get:

    1- A huge flexibility, while keeping a main purpose (6xFlamer, 3x FB). For example, taking advantage of the melta range instead of the flamers if the situation asks for it.

    2- You will always be a threat while being on the battlefield, no matter what list you are facing.

    3- You will be a thread for melee units no matter what, being able to harm an Ogryn or 20 hormagaunts

My point is that, while on paper can be a waste of efficiency the mixed weapons loadout, with the homing beacon you will always drop in the middle of his lines, which will give at least decent targets for both weapons (again, considering just FB and Flamers)


PS: The FB, though, are being considered thanks to the new stratagem, which makes a 3xFB Crisis in melta range (homing beacon) more points efficient than a QFC with normal deepstrike, if in both cases the target has 5+ markers on it. So taking advantage of the already beacone'd suits to get in those melta shots, is a good tactic, in my opinion.

User avatar
Draco023
Shas'Saal
Posts: 70

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#46 » Dec 12 2017 12:00

JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
Garacaius wrote:Does the new Marker stratagem change any considerations here?

I find unit asking a whole unit of Crisis Suits boring, but efficient.

I really like idea of a Crisis Team having separate load outs for maximum flexibility on a mission, but that's more a Kill Team thing than proper 40K.

No matter how accurate the are, equipping a squad with a variety of short-range guns is never a good idea. Now, if Missile Pods were very cheap, I could definitely see XV8s with two short range guns and one Missile Pod each- the Missile Pod's huge range would allow it to engage any target from far away. However, since Missile Pods are frighteningly expensive right now, that trick won't work for the time being.

Anyway, the new stratagem still won't change XV8 loadouts. XV8s need to get in close to kill their targets, so specialization is an absolute must, and always has been.


Well, I have to disagree here. (note: I have already talked about this in another post:
http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26661&start=18)

But I will insist. I am a frequent user of Homing Beacons, and even I have to force playing with Crisis instead of Commanders, when I really like them is with as many flamers I can get. Some problems can arise with that loadout, though:
    1- You can face a 100% mech army, and you will have to hold your flamer team on manta to strike when the transports are emptied or the deep strikers from the opponent land, which will mean that your homing beacon will be probably used or dead, and we all know that Flamer Suits deppend on homing beacons to be effective (or even playable, for that matter)
    2- You have to drop your Beacon Stealth team early in deployment to not give your opponent a chance to deny a good spot for them, and even by doing so you will sometimes have to place them in some akward spots, to try to survive if you go 2nd, while being as closer as possible to their deployment zone to make the harder alpha strike possible. This fact, plus the fact that they can counter deploy easily, can make your full flamer team look fool, with no targets whatsoever
    3- You can maybe drop them close to a single infantry squad of a highly mech army, kill it, and then be harmless for your opponent, who will be able to even ignore them for the rest of the game
    4- Your squad will be easier to kill for certain units, such as some kind of TEQ, as they are inmune to flamers and drones (for the most part)

By mixing weapons (I actually only consider FB and Flamers to take full advantage of the <8" dropping) you get:

    1- A huge flexibility, while keeping a main purpose (6xFlamer, 3x FB). For example, taking advantage of the melta range instead of the flamers if the situation asks for it.

    2- You will always be a threat while being on the battlefield, no matter what list you are facing.

    3- You will be a thread for melee units no matter what, being able to harm an Ogryn or 20 hormagaunts

My point is that, while on paper can be a waste of efficiency the mixed weapons loadout, with the homing beacon you will always drop in the middle of his lines, which will give at least decent targets for both weapons (again, considering just FB and Flamers)


PS: The FB, though, are being considered thanks to the new stratagem, which makes a 3xFB Crisis in melta range (homing beacon) more points efficient than a QFC with normal deepstrike, if in both cases the target has 5+ markers on it. So taking advantage of the already beacone'd suits to get in those melta shots, is a good tactic, in my opinion.


I've been running a similar squad and strategy with 6 flamers and 3 CIB on my deep strike squad. In smaller point games they've been devastating when accompanied by 4 gun and 2 shield drones. Even without the homing beacon they've survived long enough to get into flamer range easily on the second turn and 6 flamers is a heck of a charge discouragement! This is at lower points where I'm not so worried about heavy armor, so the versatility of the CIB really shines.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#47 » Dec 12 2017 07:35

JancoBCN wrote:Well, I have to disagree here. (note: I have already talked about this in another post:

Let me disagree as well then! :D

JancoBCN wrote:
    1- A huge flexibility, while keeping a main purpose (6xFlamer, 3x FB). For example, taking advantage of the melta range instead of the flamers if the situation asks for it.

If you engage a tank, then you're looking at 1.5-2 Fusion Blaster hits from a ~300-point squad. XV8s are already inefficient for their points- you need to fire all of your weapons every turn or you risk rapidly becoming less and less relevant. You're flexible, but if you sacrifice firepower for flexibility, then you should probably consider investing in two different units, rather than a squad that can do two things less-than-optimally.

JancoBCN wrote:2- You will always be a threat while being on the battlefield, no matter what list you are facing.

You'll always be able to damage targets, but that does not equal being a threat to all targets. You'll statistically hit 1.5 times with your Fusion Blasters (2.3 times under ideal conditions), giving you 1-1.5 wounds on most T7 vehicle targets. That's nice, but is it really a "threat" to vehicles?

JancoBCN wrote:3- You will be a threat for melee units no matter what, being able to harm an Ogryn or 20 hormagaunts

Except, you just won't be. All melee armies have some way to charge past Flamer range; even if a player charges you within range of six Flamers they're probably either (a) not a good player, or (b) they've calculated the risk and are willing to accept 18-24 Flamer hits.

Edit: This sounds negative, but let me clarify- I'm not wedded to my preferred builds, nor am I entirely opposed to yours. The only thing I want is to identify and hone the best units in our Inex. I'd love to hear more of your ideas; I'm open to the idea of the 2x Flamer + 1x FB build, but right now I can't see past the drawbacks.

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#48 » Dec 13 2017 03:27

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:Well, I have to disagree here. (note: I have already talked about this in another post:

Let me disagree as well then! :D

Of course! I love discussing about those topics! :biggrin:
Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
    1- A huge flexibility, while keeping a main purpose (6xFlamer, 3x FB). For example, taking advantage of the melta range instead of the flamers if the situation asks for it.

If you engage a tank, then you're looking at 1.5-2 Fusion Blaster hits from a ~300-point squad. XV8s are already inefficient for their points- you need to fire all of your weapons every turn or you risk rapidly becoming less and less relevant. You're flexible, but if you sacrifice firepower for flexibility, then you should probably consider investing in two different units, rather than a squad that can do two things less-than-optimally.

You are right here, but the point is that my case was in the worst case scenario, which is way better than the same scenario with all-in loadout. Those 1.5-2 wounds are in melta range, and are a big deal do severly damage vehicles, while being able to almost erase a 10man T3 unit (main purpose).

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:2- You will always be a threat while being on the battlefield, no matter what list you are facing.

You'll always be able to damage targets, but that does not equal being a threat to all targets. You'll statistically hit 1.5 times with your Fusion Blasters (2.3 times under ideal conditions), giving you 1-1.5 wounds on most T7 vehicle targets. That's nice, but is it really a "threat" to vehicles?

Maybe the thing is that we play in differenc evironments, by I can assure you that if I have a 3FB squad in my deployment zone, and I have a 100%mech list... this unit will have to go ASAP (unless there are a higher priority target that requires my full fire power (by even then I would focus some of my resources to get rid of that anoying unit = threat (in my opinion, of course). And likewise, I don't think any of my playgroup members would let the 3FB unit go their way for a second.

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:3- You will be a threat for melee units no matter what, being able to harm an Ogryn or 20 hormagaunts

Except, you just won't be. All melee armies have some way to charge past Flamer range; even if a player charges you within range of six Flamers they're probably either (a) not a good player, or (b) they've calculated the risk and are willing to accept 18-24 Flamer hits.

Okay, that was a bit more questionable. Is not as harmless to be a 6xFLamer, 3xFB unit than a 9xFlamer one vs TEQ, but still you can easily NOT be a problem for them anyway.


And again, I base my argument on the fact that 9Flamer can easily be too much, and you can spare some of them in favor of other close ranged, very specific weapons. I have played with 9xFlamer teams many times, and I've found those points I made in the last post happen more often than not.

Arka0415 wrote:Edit: This sounds negative, but let me clarify- I'm not wedded to my preferred builds, nor am I entirely opposed to yours. The only thing I want is to identify and hone the best units in our Inex. I'd love to hear more of your ideas; I'm open to the idea of the 2x Flamer + 1x FB build, but right now I can't see past the drawbacks.

Hey, this doesn't sound negative at all for me! I love to hear different opinions with the proper reasonig, which you always do.

A pleasure to discuss with you, as always! ;)

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#49 » Dec 13 2017 03:52

Draco023 wrote:I've been running a similar squad and strategy with 6 flamers and 3 CIB on my deep strike squad. In smaller point games they've been devastating when accompanied by 4 gun and 2 shield drones. Even without the homing beacon they've survived long enough to get into flamer range easily on the second turn and 6 flamers is a heck of a charge discouragement! This is at lower points where I'm not so worried about heavy armor, so the versatility of the CIB really shines.


Well, I definitely can see how CIB are more versatile in a lower points list, so I like'em more than FB in those kind of matches.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#50 » Dec 13 2017 10:13

JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:If you engage a tank, then you're looking at 1.5-2 Fusion Blaster hits from a ~300-point squad. XV8s are already inefficient for their points- you need to fire all of your weapons every turn or you risk rapidly becoming less and less relevant. You're flexible, but if you sacrifice firepower for flexibility, then you should probably consider investing in two different units, rather than a squad that can do two things less-than-optimally.

You are right here, but the point is that my case was in the worst case scenario, which is way better than the same scenario with all-in loadout. Those 1.5-2 wounds are in melta range, and are a big deal do severly damage vehicles, while being able to almost erase a 10man T3 unit (main purpose).

So the idea is to use the squad primarily for its Flamers, while also posing a threat to vehicles? I guess in other words, pocket anti-tank?

JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:You'll always be able to damage targets, but that does not equal being a threat to all targets. You'll statistically hit 1.5 times with your Fusion Blasters (2.3 times under ideal conditions), giving you 1-1.5 wounds on most T7 vehicle targets. That's nice, but is it really a "threat" to vehicles?

Maybe the thing is that we play in different environments, by I can assure you that if I have a 3FB squad in my deployment zone, and I have a 100% mech list... this unit will have to go ASAP (unless there are a higher priority target that requires my full fire power (by even then I would focus some of my resources to get rid of that anoying unit = threat (in my opinion, of course). And likewise, I don't think any of my playgroup members would let the 3FB unit go their way for a second.

By "threat" I mean, can the squad really do damage to vehicles? Statistically you're looking at 1.5 hits and 1 wound on the average T7 vehicle, or 1D6 damage. I mean, that's not bad, but not exactly reliable either. The question is, ultimately, what's the unit's main goal? If you're trying to kill hordes of units, that 63 points of Fusion Blasters may not be well-spent, and possibly not used at all. If you're trying to kill tanks, then three Fusion Blasters may not really be enough.

JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:You will be a threat for melee units no matter what, being able to harm an Ogryn or 20 hormagaunts

Except, you just won't be. All melee armies have some way to charge past Flamer range; even if a player charges you within range of six Flamers they're probably either (a) not a good player, or (b) they've calculated the risk and are willing to accept 18-24 Flamer hits.

Okay, that was a bit more questionable. Is not as harmless to be a 6xFLamer, 3xFB unit than a 9xFlamer one vs TEQ, but still you can easily NOT be a problem for them anyway.

And again, I base my argument on the fact that 9Flamer can easily be too much, and you can spare some of them in favor of other close ranged, very specific weapons. I have played with 9xFlamer teams many times, and I've found those points I made in the last post happen more often than not.

I can see your point here- nine Flamers really can be too much. Statistically 6x Flamers will get 21 hits and 14 wounds on T3 targets, and will statistically kill 9-10 of them. The math comes out pretty much perfectly. With those extra three slots, adding Fusion Blasters or CIBs could really help. For the time being I'm actually leaning towards CIBs, since if you need to kill infantry, they really can help- 6x Flamers and 3x CIBs will kill just as many T3/Sv5+ infantry as 9x Flamers will, and of course the CIBs can engage other targets as well. Fusion Blasters of course will deal more damage against vehicles, but... they're so inflexible I really like seeing them on a squad that's designed to be flexible. Does that make sense?

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#51 » Dec 14 2017 04:57

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:If you engage a tank, then you're looking at 1.5-2 Fusion Blaster hits from a ~300-point squad. XV8s are already inefficient for their points- you need to fire all of your weapons every turn or you risk rapidly becoming less and less relevant. You're flexible, but if you sacrifice firepower for flexibility, then you should probably consider investing in two different units, rather than a squad that can do two things less-than-optimally.

You are right here, but the point is that my case was in the worst case scenario, which is way better than the same scenario with all-in loadout. Those 1.5-2 wounds are in melta range, and are a big deal do severly damage vehicles, while being able to almost erase a 10man T3 unit (main purpose).

So the idea is to use the squad primarily for its Flamers, while also posing a threat to vehicles? I guess in other words, pocket anti-tank?

Basically, yes. To take advantage of somewhat "free" weapon slots (not free, but already 6xflamers can be enough for their job), to put some damage to other targets, giving you the extra flexibility if you end up not having your ideal targets (aka, worst case scenario), or you have a mix of threads to shoot at.

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:You'll always be able to damage targets, but that does not equal being a threat to all targets. You'll statistically hit 1.5 times with your Fusion Blasters (2.3 times under ideal conditions), giving you 1-1.5 wounds on most T7 vehicle targets. That's nice, but is it really a "threat" to vehicles?

Maybe the thing is that we play in different environments, by I can assure you that if I have a 3FB squad in my deployment zone, and I have a 100% mech list... this unit will have to go ASAP (unless there are a higher priority target that requires my full fire power (by even then I would focus some of my resources to get rid of that anoying unit = threat (in my opinion, of course). And likewise, I don't think any of my playgroup members would let the 3FB unit go their way for a second.

By "threat" I mean, can the squad really do damage to vehicles? Statistically you're looking at 1.5 hits and 1 wound on the average T7 vehicle, or 1D6 damage. I mean, that's not bad, but not exactly reliable either. The question is, ultimately, what's the unit's main goal? If you're trying to kill hordes of units, that 63 points of Fusion Blasters may not be well-spent, and possibly not used at all. If you're trying to kill tanks, then three Fusion Blasters may not really be enough.

You definitely can harm vehicles with 3 FB in melta range, yes. A 100% mech army cannot let take 6-8 wounds on his shooting platforms turn after turn. I mean, would you? I would not. Those 1.5 wounds are 6.7 damage in melta-range, and don't forget that kind of melta damage rolls are the best targets fot the re-roll stratgem, keeping the highest dice and re-rolling the lowest one.. It feels so good. Also, we have a new relic now, and again, its best re-roll target is the Melta damage roll, in which case you re-roll both dice (as they both are a single damage roll).

And all of that is taking into accound average rolls, but let's face it.. FB are not a good weapon when you look to make average damage. This fact, even if you cannot count it when designing list and weighting your anti-tank capabilities, will make that your opponent fear the D6 damage roll a bit more, given that the possibility of poping a whole light vehicle will be there, and it can be a risk they cannot afford to take.

In my opinion, this IS a thread to vehicles for those reasons.

Arka0415 wrote:
JancoBCN wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:Except, you just won't be. All melee armies have some way to charge past Flamer range; even if a player charges you within range of six Flamers they're probably either (a) not a good player, or (b) they've calculated the risk and are willing to accept 18-24 Flamer hits.

Okay, that was a bit more questionable. Is not as harmless to be a 6xFLamer, 3xFB unit than a 9xFlamer one vs TEQ, but still you can easily NOT be a problem for them anyway.

And again, I base my argument on the fact that 9Flamer can easily be too much, and you can spare some of them in favor of other close ranged, very specific weapons. I have played with 9xFlamer teams many times, and I've found those points I made in the last post happen more often than not.

I can see your point here- nine Flamers really can be too much. Statistically 6x Flamers will get 21 hits and 14 wounds on T3 targets, and will statistically kill 9-10 of them. The math comes out pretty much perfectly. With those extra three slots, adding Fusion Blasters or CIBs could really help. For the time being I'm actually leaning towards CIBs, since if you need to kill infantry, they really can help- 6x Flamers and 3x CIBs will kill just as many T3/Sv5+ infantry as 9x Flamers will, and of course the CIBs can engage other targets as well. Fusion Blasters of course will deal more damage against vehicles, but... they're so inflexible I really like seeing them on a squad that's designed to be flexible. Does that make sense?


It does make sense, and a lot. But funnily enough, I don't use CIBs for similar reasons you make with combining weapons. They just are inefficient in everything, and they only do a GOOD job when killing light infantry.
Maybe my configuration is biased by my experience and my opponent's lists, where I always can find a spot to reach some vehicles and some infantry, but not as often I am able to find 3 light vehicles or 3 10man light infantry units.

In any case, I will continue using that, to know its potential, and what can I do in the worst situation possible, where the combined weapons shine... which actually, this is what despecialization is all about.

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 196
Contact:

Re: Throwing out the mold: the merits of despecialization in crisis teams

Post#52 » Dec 15 2017 05:31

In the end my descision to want to have 2x flamer 1x FB on a crisis suit is for target saturation...

I had several games where I had not viable good targets for my flamers.. either completely not there or in really low numbers or huddled up in transports. That way with a full flamer squad you have them just doing nothing for a couple of turns.. now that is ineffecient in my book. I rather have the option to be able to do something else in the meantime for such a high priced unit..
Now if you take a commander with 3 or 4 FB's then he is a specialist and only one model for a lower price, I feel he has a certain role to fulfill, but even then he might not be enough to take out your desired target and then to have the option to aid him where needed is good.

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests