Welcome to Librarium Online!
I have played Tau for a loooong time and one thing thats always niggled me is 'Mech Tau' why I hear you ask wearily.
Well to me Tau are a Mobile infantry force anyway, they rely on rapid response forces, they hate protracted battles and retreat when the odds swing away from them. The XV8, XV15 and XV88 are all mobile weapons platforms, even the pathfinders are ultra mobile. The HH and DF are both able to move and shoot (with multi), the Kroot can infiltrate along with Stealths.
I dont think Tau were ever intended to be static and most Mech lists I see have some form of slower unit within it (namely Kroot).
I mean take my list for example it has 3FW squads without DF and a Kroot unit but the rest is either vehicles or jet pack equiped and it is as fast as any Mech.
So I guess my question is what is the big difference with Mech (apart from a few more DF) and whats the big advantage that attracts you Mech players?.
I have played against Mech (using my Tau list and my other lists) and I dont find it any harder to beat them than standard Tau.
I keep seeing this point about its easier to take objectives with Mech and the troops are safer but to me this is the main weakness while the FW are in the vehicle flying around for a turn its a turn my army is not being shot at and if a unit of FW wants to try to take an objective from my army they are welcome to try.
I also like the fact that approximaitly 240 to 360 points is devoted to Df (with their fearsome burst cannons)
I just cannot for the life of me see what the big attraction is, I have read the tacticas and even subscribed to the Dakka forum trying to see what the big strength / advantage of Mech is but apart from the Fire Warriors scooting around in DF I cant see what the difference is, to me Tau are mechanised anyway.
Me thinks elitism rears its ugly head "mmmm yes I use Mech Tau, you too ahh welcome to the club" So c'mon persuade me, whats the big attraction of Mech and what makes it so different to a standard non static list, and just what is the qualification criterea that has to be met to class a Tau list as Mech, cos as far as I can see my Tau list is a fast mechanised army and thats what I see as standard Tau.
So basically I dont see a differentiation between normal tau and Mech, static is a different story no movement does not fit Tau (they are not guard) so if someone used a static list that is very different to the concept originaly intended for Tau, but Mech is just to much like the standard concept envisaged for Tau for it to be classed as a different type of Tau list.
First of all, there's no "normal" Tau army - there are different styles utilised by different players, and all of them still require strategy.
The basic idea of a Mechanised Tau army is the fact that all of your units generally are able to move 12" per turn. They are more mobile than a hybrid or static army. They generally have less core troops and more Elite-esque, but just as much firepower. Devilfish are remarkably good transports, and while they're no Wave Serpents they may draw the fire away from your Hammerheads and especially Crisis Suits.
Static is basically this idea, flipped. They don't need to move. They can sit and shoot and still win the day, and they generally win due to the amount of guns they are fielding.
All strategies, all styles of play have ups and downs. It's how the player utilises their army, that's what is important. No one style is better than the other, they are just different.
I prefer Hybrid, its nice and balanced, yet still capable of moving and sitting and shooting. Example:
I have 2 FW squads in DFs, but I can always deploy them in a sit-and-shoot fashion and have the DFs fly around shooting, they can't ignore the DFs, but they have to waste firepower taking them down.
I like Mech, except for the 'lack' of troops,so I did hybrid.
I may make a suit heavy army, just for fun!
I agree that there is no normal Tau army, what I mean is the fact that if you look at the codex and the designer notes its pretty plain to see that the Tau were designed to be mobile and the list variations coming within that mobile concept.Originally Posted by Lost Nemesis
Every army is variable within its theme.
As far as I can see the only unit designed to be sort of static is the Broadside and the rumour mill says thats changing (slow & purposeful).
The 12" move thing, well I see so many lists with Kroot included and I have seen Mech with Broadsides, they both do not move 12" even XV8, stealths etc only move 6" in the movement phase, the 6" assault move is all well and good but its not an actual 12" move, you can either move 6" closer fire then move
6" closer, fair enough if you want to be close with Tau
6" back and that equates to a 6" move.
6" Parallel(or nearly parallel) again not a true 12" move
Dont get me wrong the jump shoot jump is cool and it offers options but its not a true 12" move a'la vehicles and non mech lists get it as well
If the only qualification for Mech is a 12" move than their is no Mech, cos most lists dont move 12" a turn (usually Kroot)
How do you get the as much firepower, if you have 4 DF that means you are investing at minimum 320pts into 20 STR5 18" range shots, now that is not a lot of firepower, I can get a lot of firepower for those points. its just not true that Mech has as much Firepower.
I have never seen anybody distracted from killing the more lethal units in a Tau list by a DF, Eldar WS usually have lethal CC units in them so they need taking down, and while FW are not to be ignored they do not pose the threat that a hard CC unit getting close to your lines does.
Static Tau has largly fallen from popularity because basically it does not work and is very dangerous to the Tau player,
Tau are very powerful with shooting but I have seen static play and they can never get enough shooting in to stop the enemy getting to the lines.and you need the mobility to put multiple threats into the enemy lines to distract and give the enemy other targets to think about other than the ones in front.
Tau are designed to have powerful fire bases (the FW) and mobile support (the suits and DF, HH) they are designed to hit and run thats what the XV8, XV15, Drones are good at (thats why they have the JSJ move). Even Pathfinders were designed to light the target and then move.
If you want to get technical they are a mechanised infantry army, that means infantry supported by a lot of mobile support and the ability to deploy infantry fast to the battle lines.
This is my point the Tau are inherantly mobile, take a look at my list it is very very mobile but I have the firepower from turn one and every turn after, I have every component of a Mech list (suits, DF, HH, Stealths, Drones) but also have the troops and Kroot, the only difference is I lack 3 HH for the FW squads and thats the only diference.
I am not saying my list is better, but I am saying its can do anything a Mech list is supposed to do (i'e take objectives well thats the only thing I can think that mech are supposed to be able to do better)
The standard Tau list (as detailed in the codex) seems to have most bases covered, plenty of mobility and a strong firebase (that does not have to be static) there is no such thing as Hybrid because Hybrid is Tau, Mech is just Tau with a few more DF and static is just not Tau, if you want to play static play Guard they do it better
Dont get me wrong I dont have a problem with anyone playing mech I just dont see the differentiation that justifies the Mech tag, I see a lot of posts on forums saying the same thing, I lose with Tau so I am trying Mech, this comes from the misguided belief that Mech are easier to win with, they arent in fact they are probaly harder.
I suppose I really just dont see the big benefit in playing Mech, simply putting all the FW in transports does not make the list any more efficient in fact I think it makes it less efficient because of the lack of shooting 2 or 3 turns of movemnt in the DF is 36 less shots at the enemy, and I know that shooting is not everything but its bloody important when your armies main strentgh is its firepower. Thats why I like the 30" Pulse rifles being able to shoot from turn one.
I just want someone to convince why they need to use the label Mech cos it implies a different play style and a benefit to using Mech over standard Tau which I just dont see.
One reason is to achieve mission objectives. In most touneys, you have an objective to claim, and a a mobile force has the edge here.
In a recon game for example it is much easier around turn 4 or 5 to be moving you Fish closer to the other side, than starting to walk Firewarriors on turn 2 or 3.
I play a Guard army, and we have the same syle, - firebase, come and get us, outlast our shooting. This model is good if you don't have to move, but I find I need a couple of squads in Chimeras, to achieve bonum points at the end of the game.
I think the best model is probably a Hybrid, ( I would love to play with Broadsides! ), but in Tourneys, the best Tau armies that I have seen/ played against have at least a couple of Fish.
"A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."
Sir Winston Churchil
Yes but you dont need a full mech army to do that, any unit can take an objective(apart from units specifically forbidden to in their rules), I can take them with my XV8'S, Stealths, DF, HH, Kroot, Drones, FW.Originally Posted by Diggums Hammer
I never have any problem securing objectives or getting to them.
Your Gard example is not how I play Tau, I use a firebase but I have a lot of mobile units its about a 30/70 split stationary / mobile, I do not outlast the shooting I take the shooting to the enemy.
Thats my point its as easy to do anything with a standard Tau list as it is to do with Mech.
i do see rik's point as the only really big difference between most mech and hybrid forces are the devilfish. i also agree that although i see how the devilfish can help fire warriors take objectives once youre fielding a bunch of them the points really start to add up, and mike, im sorry but most of my opponents have no trouble ignoring a skimmer with the same amount of firepower as a stealth suit, and they also usually dont have to waste too much firepower taking them down either.
This addresses a lot of your questions.
Personally, I play Mech Tau because it's more fun and more challenging.
I enjoy using units and tactics that offer advantages to skilled players. I don't mean to imply that by using a more static army that you're unskilled. But there are certain things in the game that yield larger in-game benefits to people who know their army better. My favorite example of this is mobility. The game designers have to assign a point value to a unit with a jump pack. After careful consideration, let's say they decide that a jump pack is worth +5 points (I'm just making this up). Assigning value to movement buffs is a lot more difficult than combat or shooting buffs... since the amount of in-game benefit that a given player will derive from the increased movement is totally dependent on their skill as a player. In other words, a novice Marine player will likely not get 5 points of utility from his Assault Marines. He doesn't know how to best exploit their advantage in the movement phase. However, a 40k veteran will very likely get much more than 5 points of increased utility from his Assault Marines, since he fully understands the nuances of the game and how to use their increased mobility to his advantage in subtle ways. This explains why 40k novices generally gravitate towards "no brainer" units like Devastators, Land Raiders, Terminators, etc... there is much less skill required to get a sizeable return on your points investment. You just point 'em in the right direction and push the "go" button.
I noticed you mentioned dakka. What lead you to believe dakka in any way supports a Mech Tau mentality? My experience has been 100% the polar opposite. Mention Mech Tau on dakka and you're immediately chastised and lumped in with the "n00bs". I'd suggest visiting the Mech Tau Tactica forum (link in my sig) if you want more insight from Mech Tau veterans.
You and I have had a similar argument in the past in this thread and it seemed to me at the time that you were very set in your ways and unwilling to listen to my points. I have no great desire to go through that again, so feel free to re-read my posts here if you'd like to see my responses to your ideas
http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...1&page=1&pp=10 (Does Fish of Fury Work)
This just proves my point exactly, the whole Mech is for more experienced players scenario, I think you will find that most new gamers will gravitate towards Mech because of the percieved benefits it offers (unwarrented benefits), I am sorry but it takes more skill to keep FW lines alive than units in DF, but the returns are worth it (more shooting over more turns).Originally Posted by T0nkaTruckDriver
I am sorry but you can try deny your saying static (by the way I dont play static thats my whole point) is easier and takes les skill but thats exactly what your saying and your eluding to elitism.
You say you enjoy using units that offer advantages to skilled players, just what units do you use that are so different to my list apart from a few more DF.
I take advantage of all the movement a Tau list offers, I have multi on my HH, I use 2 drone squads, I use XV8's that get close and demand creative use of terrain and the jump move, I use Stealths and I use 1 DF unit of FW.
So its a bit rich to imply I (or any one else who does not use mech) dont understand the intricisies of movement.
Dakka is widely acknowledeged as the creator of Mech even though it does not support it now. I dont patronise Dakka now I dont find them interesting.
Why do you seem to think I have no experience of Mech, I came to this conclusion because I tried them extensively and I have a lot of experience with Tau, I class myself as a Tau vet though my opinions differ a lot from most peoples, but I like to use things that work not just things that are the fashion(mech, FoF, missile pods etc) or are deemed by self proclaimed experts as 'the best way' if I find a way that works then I use it and if someone pursaudes me otherwise then thats great.
To tread the path of the individual is lonely but all journeys deemed wortwhile are difficult.
Mech to me seems to come down to one thing FW with DF and sorry but 2 or 3 DF do not make the Tau any more unbeatable, in fact the opposite.
I have re,read the thread and it was a very good discussion (not an argument, why does discussing something have to be classed as an argument just cos we dont agree)between you and I, in fact it only got reduced in tone when others got involved, but I think its a bit unfair to say I was set in my ways and would not listen to your points.
If that is so why did I devote all that time to answering all your points, the reverse could be said, you would not accept any of my points and seemed set in your ways.I stood by my ascertions and you never gave me a point to which I could not return a valid point supporting my point of view, and the fact your pointing me to other forums and your last replies shows you still havent got a good reason for anyone taking Mech over a mobile Tau army apart from the elitist newbie unskilled point
Yep, you're right. It is most definately harder to keep footslogging Firewarriors alive. That's why I put them in a Devilfish. Static teams give you more shooting over more turns... but also more deaths over more turns. Because my Firewarriors are in a 'fish and are being kept alive, I don't have to kill anything with them in order to result in a net gain in VP's at the end of 6 turns. In fact, if my Firewarriors sit in their 'fish the entire game while their transport kills a single Marine, my Firewarriors have just killed more VP's than they gave up. And that's all that matters.Originally Posted by rikimaruI know that you don't play static. I didn't say that you did. We went over this in the other thread, don't you remember? Also, please re-read my post. I never said playing Mech Tau implies that you're a more skilled player. What I said was that a Mech Tau army has the potential to yield larger benefits to a skilled player. That's because there are twice as many opportunities for a player to exercise their skill when they're actively participating in 2 of the phases of the game instead of just 1.Originally Posted by rikimaruNone. Our lists are nearly identical. We went over this in the other thread, don't you remember? I never implied our lists were terribly different. You're just getting defensive.Originally Posted by rikimaruI know all this. We went over this in the other thread, don't you remember? Also, I never implied you don't understand the intricacies of movement. All I said was that an army with mobile troops has the potential to perform better than a more static army in the hands of a skilled player. There are skilled players who play Static Tau. I am arguing that those same players could improve their performace by switching to a more mobile army... since the troop selection allows them to exercise their skill more effectively.Originally Posted by rikimaruI don't know where you got that idea, but it's just plain false. Please show me some evidence.Originally Posted by rikimaruI never said you had no experience with Mech Tau. In fact, you told me about the time you'd tried playing a Mech Tau army in the other thread, don't you remember? I think, however, that I've discovered the answer to your original dilemma.Originally Posted by rikimaru
You play a largely mobile army. In practice, it works very similar to a Mech Tau army. You yourself stated it in the other thread (don't you remember?), "I would say I probaly use a lot of Mech type tactics in my list". However, Mech Tau has recently gained a substantial internet following and you'd sooner be caught dead than be seen following "internet fads." So now you're in a bind. You hate Mech Tau because it's "in vogue", but have had success with what is essentially a Mech Tau way of war. How can you reconcile your current success with your desire to be "different"?
I ain't got the answer to that one...That statement couldn't be farther from the truth. I hate Firewarriors. My GT list included only one squad of them. If I could play Tau without Firewarriors, I would do it in a heartbeat. I also told you this in the other thread, don't you remember?Originally Posted by rikimaruAn argument is simply a discussion where the people involved don't agree. The word "argument" does not by itself imply any negative feelings between the participants.Originally Posted by rikimaruAs I've said many times now, our points were often the same, with the exception of whether or not to bring Devilfish for your Firewarriors. I told you why I do it, and you dismissed it. That's your choice.Originally Posted by rikimaruIncorrect. There are plenty of good reasons. You yourself play with the Mech Tau way of war, so I bet you could do a better job than I of relaying them.Originally Posted by rikimaruOriginally Posted by rikimaru
Look dude. I don't care how you or anyone else plays the game. I couldn't care less whether you play Mech, Static, Mobile, Hybrid, whatever. Play the way that works for you. Heck, invent your own playstyle and name it whatever you want. After all, it seems it's the name you're hung up on the most.