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