PDA

View Full Version : Tau vs Guard: how the game should be played?



Carlosophy
22-03-2011, 23:37
Tau and Guard represent the 2 shootiest armies in the game and fighting between the 2 tends to move towards firefights as opposed to brutal assaults. Plenty of armour on both sides also brings maneouvers into it too. Assaults are very rare and often it is just to storm a position to shoft the enemy, not fightings for fightings sake.

Is this the best way to play 40k? Often the game gets accused of being more of an assault fest than a shooting match (which is how modern warfare works)

I must confess my own battles of my Tau vs Guard have been very enjoyable for the aforementioned reasons.

Threeshades
22-03-2011, 23:59
Well it obviously isn't how GW intends the game to be played. Except maybe for Tau, Guard and Tyranids.
Most codices (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Templars, Wolves, Grey Knights (i presume), Dark Eldar, Daemons etc.) have this:
http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn326/Sanguiluna/drive-me-closer.jpg
written all over them.
And a few (Eldar, Orks, Space Marines, Chaos Marines (arguably)) actually leave you a decent choice.

I haven't really played a mainly firefight oriented match yet, since I hate playing with tyranids at the moment (not at least for the fact that they did in fact become a shooting-heavy army) and my other forces are more tilted towards brawling, but I do imagine it to be a lot of fun to do every now and then.



Okay, I exaggerated on the nids a little, but it is a fact that you can hardly go out of your house with them without spending a good 10% of your points on hive guard, and that severely cripples my preferred nid style: Hacky slashy horde armies, you know the way the fluff tends to describe them

Bestaltan
23-03-2011, 00:16
Why should that be the way the game is played? We've had these sorts of discussions before, and a number of folks have talked about how with the futuristic advancements of personal armor that you see in the lore, it is far easier to kill the enemy at close range than from afar.

A Space Marine in terminator armor is far better protected from a brutal gunline than from a weedy little grot that sneaks up behind him and stabs him in an exposed joint.

Besides, some of us prefer brutal hand-to-hand assaults or close-in firefights to sitting in our deployment zone and just shooting away.

night2501
23-03-2011, 01:38
Why should that be the way the game is played? We've had these sorts of discussions before, and a number of folks have talked about how with the futuristic advancements of personal armor that you see in the lore, it is far easier to kill the enemy at close range than from afar.

A Space Marine in terminator armor is far better protected from a brutal gunline than from a weedy little grot that sneaks up behind him and stabs him in an exposed joint.

Besides, some of us prefer brutal hand-to-hand assaults or close-in firefights to sitting in our deployment zone and just shooting away.

Actually is a simphtome of WH40k being originally fantays in space, based on the gothic armor being able to give a great protection to knights...

on the futuristics advances, it makes little sense, the ranged weapons have several advantages over hand to hand combat, and even in 40K ranged weapons are as good or better than theyr melle counterpart at penetrating armor power weapon to plasma weapon both ancient... the difference is the number of atacks from the system bias to HtH...

the last one I can actually agree ... tough I preffer the close firefight rather than armies running to the front of a rifle ... guess wath Tau do the close firefight thing quite good...

Threeshades
23-03-2011, 01:52
Well I think the game wants to make both shooting and close combat have equal importance on the outcome. Thus the damage done in hth is quite a bit more, not at least because it takes a few rounds before the first assault starts while shooting usually happens from turn 1.
And why does the game try to give them equal bearing? Because the setting says so, its trying to cover lots of very varied army styles from the giant rifle wielding Tau to the Space Orks who are lovin them some good brawls. Logic and realism are omitted obviously, but if W40k ever started caring about realism or logic i must have missed the memo.

The Marshel
23-03-2011, 02:47
I believe often when these discussions pop up that someone eventually pipes up with some stuff on how modern warfare does in fact still involve a lot of very close quarters combat. I dont have any of the sources on this myself though, but its a point that has been made in these shooting vs assault threads.

I dont think the imbalance between assault and shooting is as bad as people think. there are a few wow factors to assault that make it seem significantly better then shooting. for example a good assault unit wants to be done their assault in two turns or less, preferably finishing the opponent off in their turn.If they linger too long in one assault they wont be able to get in enough over the course of the game to win the battle. to achieve this the rules need to make assaults have to be pretty quick and brutal so you get the wow factor of how devastatingly quick they are. then there is also the difficulty in getting into assault by turn 2. baring any reserve gimmicks or similar , a decent player shouldnt have to much trouble either avoiding a turn 2 assault, or at least avoiding a devastating turn 2 assault they cant really counter act.

shooting on the other hand is a bit trickier. depending on the range of the guns in question and the targets, game wise you dont particularly want one unit easily taking out another, equivalent unit in a single rounds shooting. at the same time you need to balance it out so that they can viably cripple an equivalent unit before they become an assault threat. so what you end up with is many less dead a turn compared to assault, but a more flexible way of dealing damage in that you dont commit yourself to one place, and will usually get 5-7 attempts at causing that damage to 1-7 different units. Its just not as spectacular as assaults.

there is defiantly an unbalanced between the two, but i dont think its quite so bad as people would make it out. part of the problem is player laziness i think. its easier to apply the point and click style of dedicated assault troops then the more skillful approach of carefully picking targets at range to cripple their counter attacks. for example, why go to great lengths to plan out my movement and 2 turns of supporting fire and then the final rapid fire bolter rounds from my sternguard, when i could have just thrown th ss termis at them?

IcedAnimals
23-03-2011, 09:02
Actually is a simphtome of WH40k being originally fantays in space, based on the gothic armor being able to give a great protection to knights...

on the futuristics advances, it makes little sense, the ranged weapons have several advantages over hand to hand combat, and even in 40K ranged weapons are as good or better than theyr melle counterpart at penetrating armor power weapon to plasma weapon both ancient... the difference is the number of atacks from the system bias to HtH...

the last one I can actually agree ... tough I preffer the close firefight rather than armies running to the front of a rifle ... guess wath Tau do the close firefight thing quite good...

I dunno. If I was part of an elite force vs a guard army I know for damn sure I would not want to sit out across "no mans land" and fire back at them while im constantly being shelled. Instead I would want to be in close combat where my armor is going to be used to its fullest. The enemy has a much harder time aiming weapons at me when im inside the trench with him instead of across the field in another trench. Not to mention the threat of friendly fire and not having to worry about artillery.

In theory if I was to be wearing something that could RELIABLY block most of an armies ranged weapons, and I could get to said enemy due to teleportation/drop pod/ jump pack/ whatever, and I know that without their guns they have very very little chance of harming me it is where I would want to be.

Sure right now modern warfare says stay in cover and use your guns. Well we do not have armor that is stronger than said brick wall we are hiding behind. Our "bullet proof" vests are easily penetrated and cover very little of our body. But if I was given a suit of power armor right now and was fighting a modern military I would sure as HELL not want to be in a fire fight. I would be rushing to reach army dudes as fast as humanly possible. (or inhumanly in the case of space marines.) By doing so I know most modern militaries are not going to call in any type of ordnance in that close of proximity to their own guys. I would know that none of them could hurt me with their own fists/small caliber firearms.

Anyways. I have done shooting vs shooting armies. I actually prefer the games with that element of melee to them. Because it adds a lot more depth to the game. Gun line armies are fun to play because of the threat of melee reaching you, you have to react and play accordingly. In straight shoot outs it removes a lot of that and instead is just a dice off.

AndrewGPaul
23-03-2011, 09:28
If the designers wanted 40K to be about "realistic" firefights, then they wouldn't have core units armed with chainswords. 40K is a fantasy in space, and the background, miniatures and rules reflect that.

There are plenty of Sci Fi sckirmish games with a greater emphasis on shooting, and plenty of those are generic, to allow you to use any miniatures you like. If you would rather play a game which allows you to use realistic fire tactics without being beaten stupid by a gardening implement on a stick, you may wish to look at them rather than 40K.

Castigator
23-03-2011, 09:52
If the designers wanted 40K to be about "realistic" firefights, then they wouldn't have core units armed with chainswords. 40K is a fantasy in space, and the background, miniatures and rules reflect that.

There are plenty of Sci Fi sckirmish games with a greater emphasis on shooting, and plenty of those are generic, to allow you to use any miniatures you like. If you would rather play a game which allows you to use realistic fire tactics without being beaten stupid by a gardening implement on a stick, you may wish to look at them rather than 40K.

This.



additional characters

Bunnahabhain
23-03-2011, 11:36
Well, if you really want to see ranged combat, try Guard vs Guard.

You'll often have things turn into short range( under 12") firefights, and the question of who gets the charge isn't the vital one, it is, do I charge, or do I fire the lasguns at full effect? Against other guardsmen, especially with the right orders, massed lasguns hurt.