Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Heavy infantry viable?
Reply
Old 27 Oct 2007, 23:52   #1 (permalink)
Kroot Warrior
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default Heavy infantry viable?

Hey all,
After a long break from 40K (been playing fantasy) I have returned to find a new Tau codex in place 0_o

I havn't bought it yet but I have heard of all the cool new stuff in it.

Anyway to my question. I'm thinking of doing a heavy infintry Tau army. Now my question is would it work?

Could I have 60 Fire warriors and 10 Kroot in a 1000/1500 point game or would they simply not work?

I'm figuring 60 warriors with leaders would be 660 points?

That leaves just enough room for a commander and anti tank support right?

Oh and on a small note sorry but I hate tanks >_> Fish of Fury is an effecitve tactic but it's not for me.

So with the odd battlesuit with twin linked fusion blasters and maybe a twin linked plasma rifle model could this actually work in a standard game?

Cheers
Lochy
lochland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 Oct 2007, 03:34   #2 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
The Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,208
Default Re: Heavy infantry viable?

Possibly, though most people shun the static Tau line. What you'll really have to look out for though is assaults. Ans some times those are hard to stop (like the Land Raider with a chaplain led squad). I think it could work, so I'd encourage you to do it. But then that many FW squads is a big investment in time and money, and it would suck if it didn't pan out.

As for the anti-tank, you might want to look into broadsides if you don't like the HH. I'd rely on that more then a tl-fusion XV8.
__________________
The Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 Oct 2007, 04:31   #3 (permalink)
Kroot Shaper
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 57
Default Re: Heavy infantry viable?

I have done the heavy infantry before and find it to be affective in certain situations, but not all. It really depends on your opponents army and their style of play. If you play only 1 person all the time then build an army around what works best against them. I personally play a variety of opponents and often don't know what I will be up against (especially in a tournament when you keep the same army list the whole way through). I have drifted to a very balanced army with some units that sit back and fire where others will be more aggressive. I also equip my crisis suits with a multitude of weapon combinations where each unit can kill a bunch of chump troops, or down a Hive Tyrant.

Basically,I have found that if you favor too much of one thing you will be AWESOME in certain situations, and TERRIBLE in others. Bottom line though, do what you think would be the most fun for you as far as modeling, painting, and playing.
__________________
Tau>Tyranids>Necrons>Tau
riburn3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 Oct 2007, 09:58   #4 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Is the Politiburo smoking weed?
Posts: 5,144
Default Re: Heavy infantry viable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by riburn3
Basically,I have found that if you favor too much of one thing you will be AWESOME in certain situations, and TERRIBLE in others. Bottom line though, do what you think would be the most fun for you as far as modeling, painting, and playing.
So true.

With my guard I played infantry heavy footsloggers for years, but overtime my army has been slowly losing effectiveness. Being very 'assaulty' not HtH, but close range meltas and sentinels for close combat etc. it both excels and fails spectacularly.

When I fail it is often down to dice or deployment whereas when I win it is usually down to getting close enough to let fire with 2 or 3 squads of flashlights at 12" it puts you in a postion to be assaulted. However that can often work to your advantage.

With 'larger' and more powerful units slowly filtering out among my mates they are finding it easier to kill my hordes of men. Particularly people on these forums often think that three Hammerheads is not cheesy. However from my opinion it is as cheesy as the Iron Hands extra heavy slot full of oblits.

I take a dim view of said lists, but will still play them because I know that games run on the luck of the draw and often terrain can create advantages that will put those units at a disadvantage.

Quite simply if you want to go troop heavy make sure you pack key units which will disrupt your opponents game so that he/she cannot focus on a combined assault against your lines. Thus I would suggest packing out such a list with Piranha to sit in front of your gun lines to foil assaults because you can get more for the points than Hammerheads or Devilfish.

If you don't want to invest in these vehicles then I may suggest you use the lure of a foreward squad of broadsides packed out with as much survivability gear as possible. This will again draw opponent attention while you can waste your opponents army without he/she knowing.

If your opponents are canny then this may not be the best tactic. Hence if I knew that I was going to face a infantry heavy guard I would bring some heavy mortars to the fight. If you can't sit in cover or just out of range then I have the advantage because I have just taken away some of the advantages of fire warriors.

Secondly I'm not going to be deepstriking any of my units down in your army because they will get shot to bits, so like any good game I will sit tight with the biggest guns I can and blast away at you in a SIGFH style.

I hope this point of view will inform you about what your opponents might do against you,
Genmotty
Genmotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 Oct 2007, 10:32   #5 (permalink)
Kroot Shaper
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 57
Default Re: Heavy infantry viable?

Good stuff.

Another thing to consider is that a troop heavy army might be able to lay down the firepower, but in 40k not everything is about straight up killing. In fact often time you might slaughter your opponent but fail to meet mission objectives. Many mission types will deal with getting tables corners or capturing objectives, and if you spend your points on a static army full of Fire Warriors you will have a tough time winning as it will be a very slow moving force. Not to mention if you move the warriors you will lose their range of firepower. Just a few things to consider.
__________________
Tau>Tyranids>Necrons>Tau
riburn3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28 Oct 2007, 12:24   #6 (permalink)
Kroot Warrior
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Default Re: Heavy infantry viable?

Some very interesting points of view coming down here. It's greatly appreciated ;D

You're right, manouverability and coming assualts could prove a problem. Espescially from pesky land raiders. I think 3, 1 man Broadside team tricked out with 2 shield drones and a shield generator would be a defo as I'd imagine all the anti tank firepower would head their way?

Oh and for capturing table quarters. Could the odd battlesuit or maybe a squadron or two of gun drones do this? Because I can't imagine anyone paying too much attention to 6 gun drones when they have 60 pulse rifles facing them ;D
lochland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I NEED BIG HELP! against heavy infantry. dark_angel_tyranid_lord Space Marines Army Lists 4 06 Sep 2009 13:06
CSM Nurgle Heavy Infantry limpchickeninabizkit Chaos Army Lists 0 04 Feb 2009 06:53
Are ranger heavy armies still viable? Lord Of War Craftworld Eldar 28 26 Dec 2008 19:07
Means of Anti-Heavy Infantry Tralfagar Craftworld Eldar 8 15 Aug 2007 21:12
Tau Heavy Infantry: arguleon-veq House Rules 11 23 Jul 2005 10:35