The Kauyon; past the walls

A lot of stress has been put into the Kroot Wall aspect of the Kauyon; if it is best, how it works in most lists, its survivability, etc. I thought it would be worthwhile to look beyond the wall for a bit, and highlight how key units to the Tau army fight in context of it, and how they fare outside. I will be looking at two units specifically; Broadsides and Pathfinders.

-Broadsides: Outside of Kauyon, Broadsides make a big show of themselves; the often deploy centrally, drawing attention to themselves whilst maintaining a cover save. They attempt to abuse the enemy's fear of Railguns; making them target the 'Sides before anything else, leaving you time to maneuver away.

The downside of this is that the Broadsides are likely to be eaten alive unless thoroughly defended; in Mont'ka lists, small Broadside firebases are left in the dust, meaning the silencing of your railguns immediately.

In the Kauyon, however, they remain. Broadsides are often placed very far behind protective lines, leaving them among the last of your units to fall, only sacrificed to save Crisis Suits and your Fire Warriors. This means that opposed to a near maximum of three turns shooting, Broadsides can last 5 or 6, easily. This effectively doubles your anti-tank; something you can't see when just glancing at your list's weapons.

-Pathfinders: Regardless of the style, Pathfinders will receive the same treatment; newer players will ignore their non-damaging guns, only to be wiped by your buffed suits, while veterans will target them early and hit them with enough shots to send them packing... which is not a great many.

Pathfinders are constantly in danger in a good game. In the Mont'ka, the player must choose between setting them up in cover and camping until death, or continually redeploying them via transport to avoid enemy assaults. They either suffer the same problem as Broadsides, or they lose turns of firepower to stay around. Either way, they get in around 3 turns of shooting in MAX if they are under pressure.

In the Kauyon, they suffer the same problem; they are relatively easy to shoot out of the game. But the Kauyon offers a slightly better alternative to sticking them in area terrain or ferrying them; putting them behind a Kroot Wall. This may seem trivial, but it adds two major changes to the playing style of the pathies:

1) The Pathies get a choice of the best possible lane of fire. This is due to the fact that the Kroot wall can stretch to give them cover regardless of where they are. Instead of anchoring into terrain, they benefit from freedom and cover.

2) Assault protection. The Pathfinders no longer have to relocate to avoid assault; the Kroot have that covered. Without having to relocate, they avoid assault completely, allowing a focus on shooting; critical, as during the first few turns they have a large amount to support.

Why did I choose these two units specifically? Again the answer is two-fold:

1) They are the best of their role: They are the cheapest renditions of their incredibly useful and limited weapons. While others exist, they are inferior for that specific role; Hammerheads are inaccurate and expensive, while Stealth Marker Teams and Skyrays cost far too much for the 'lights they bring.

2) They work better in the Kauyon. These units both suffer from one drawback in comparison to their more expensive and less effective counterparts; they lack mobility. In the Mont'ka, this regulates them to an Alpha-strike followed by their inevitable demise. In the Kauyon, a solid system of blockading, trapping, and cover synergy leave them strong and firing.

My response to Nocker Geek's Mont'ka article:

Recently, OSH (Old Shatter Hands) tossed down an article about some of the problems with Mont'ka, here:

http://tauofwar.blogspot.com/2010/08/kauyon-patient-hunter-gets-prey.html

There was a response defending the Mont'ka and denouncing the Kauyon, posted on Nocker Geek's blog here:

http://www.nockergeek.net/2010/08/25/montka-we-will-strike-the-killing-blow/

In an attempt to continue this marry-go-round of decent articles, I will be responding to the above article, giving my counter-arguments for the Kauyon.

And so we go:

The first problem with the argument is that Nocker Geek makes light of a cover save, claiming that most armor reducing weapons will be at point blank, or barrage. This is hardly the case. Missiles and Lascannons are still around, and can insta-kill a Crisis Suit. The cover save also makes Gun Drones a better buy, gaining a cover save to make up for the lack of invulnerable save.

Further in the paragraph, Nocker Geek notes you are giving cover to Marines if you shoot through the Kroot Wall; but fails to note that JSJ allows you to clear your skirmish line to deny cover.

This seems to be odd to me, as he later advocates using JSJ in the Mont'ka as a means of breaking LOS; but I'll get to that soon.

His second point, that Kroot are not hardy, is very true. But again, he ignores certain facts that are common knowledge to most Kauyon players; unit composition and the positive aspect of Kroot's low leadership.

He cites the fact that Kroot will likely be sweeped; this is untrue, as an intelligent Kauyon player will have taken a large amount of hounds, meaning you will be hitting first to soften the damage and then making your assumed fallback at initiative 5 once you take off your actual mercs. This means your Kroot's low leadership is actually a boon; the most likely scenario is you absorb a charge, deal some damage, and fall back, leaving an enemy force completely in the open and available to be shot to pieces. Then you have a good chance of your wall regrouping and coming back into the fray. This makes a very useful, though not hardy, walling element; an assault absorber that leaves the attacker in front of a mass of guns and may have a chance to be recycled.

The face-to-face paragraph has a decent point, but I honestly don't see 12" a turn as fast enough to gain side armor shots on experienced players. Even so, the ability to make multiple firebases makes up for this downside, even though I wouldn't recommend that.

The argument becomes silly when trying to point out a static force's weakness to Deep-strike and outflankers; we have Kroot to fully surround our forces against deepstrike heavy armies, while our vehicles can make rough outflanker blockades, which honestly are not needed if we have the middle of the board.

A Mont'ka force should fear such units far more; they provide new and exciting ways for their opponent to box them in with meltaguns.

The next argument brings up breaking line of sight. Honestly, this is the most backwards looking argument in the whole article to me, as it seems to be saying "camp you Crisis Suits behind a wall", which is obviously a much bigger tactic with Kauyon than with Mont'ka; as Mont'ka's supposed claim to fame is its ability to move... an ability not sufficiently abused when chained to one area.

The paragraph on avoiding conflict is also odd to me; he implies that the Kauyon doesn't plan on killing the enemy, which is absolutely false. In fact, the Kauyon can do so better than the Mont'ka, as static lists tend to have far more emphasis on Crisis Suits and Broadsides... thus having a bit more firepower overall. While it is true that a mobile force gets the assistance of Burst Cannon and SMS, the static force gets masses of Kroot Bolters and a mediocre but crushing assault.

Mont'ka forces tend to pay far more for their Troops, Kauyon Walls included, meaning that they tend to have less points for firepower... making the argument that the Mont'ka is a better"killy" army a rather hollow one.

The argument that position can amplify firepower is true... but doesn't apply the way Nocker Geek would assume.

Rarely does side armor make a difference in games... only with Guard and other Tau is there a significant advantage to reaching side armor, as Rhinos, Wave Serpents, Land Raiders, light skimmers, all infantry, all MCs, and many other common threats don't care were you are, while backfield guntanks are nearly impossible to get side armor on anyways.

Meanwhile, as the Mont'ka wheels around to match the opponent's pivots, the Kauyon attackers fire for multiple turns practically uncontested... their safe location amplifying their attacks by giving them multiple turns of optimum capacity firepower.

The next paragraph applies to Kauyon as well; shoot at the actual guns who enjoy cover and support, or shoot at the support units.

I have tried using vehicles as blockades, and it fails miserably for one reason; meltaguns. Melta is a key part of any respectable assault squad, and having vehicles as your main blockading force is destined to fail, as you must contract your position in fear of melta weaponry.

Furthermore, Kauyon builds CAN play mobile... the Kroot outflank and they fight a modified Mont'ka with a higher Crisis:Tank ratio. It just isn't its most effective way of playing.

I don't believe that the Kauyon is the only way to play... the Mont'ka offers the use of the Tau's mobility and it's firepower, the two traits it is supposed to be renowned for. The problem is, by looking into the supposed advantages of the Tau, you may miss the more technical ones... the ones the Tau can base a firm army on.