Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

How I see the Tau
Dobbsy
 Post subject: How I see the Tau
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Orks have 3 currently.
And Imperial Guard have two lists, three if you include the Minivans and 5 if you include teh two sige varient lists.
Marines come Marine month will have at least a half dozen, most already majority done.
Eldar I think have Ulthwe and Saim Haine ready? Though I don't follow the pointy ears much.


So do each of those lists have 2 versions of their own list? 2 Saim Hann Lists? 2 Ulthwe lists? This is what I'm talking about. Your Tau lists are essentially one list with different units in them under different names mainly. throw in a couple of units that people don't like in the curent list and hey presto you've created

I wouldn't see it as dividing time as lessons from one hold for the other as the major changes (Manta and the like) apply to both.

That's not how you balance a list. Divide them into 2 and apply the results to either list?? You can't possibly hope to get a list balance right if you do it this way. How do some units work in conjunction with others not in their normal list config.? Is that how the Siege list was written....?

By removing the 'combo's' from one and embracing them in the other both groups are appeased and it will be a darn sight faster to get the ball rolling again and finish off.
Until it comes time to actually having ONE list... We're not trying to appease either side we're trying to get one list consolidated. Changes need to be made and people need to recognise that not everyone can be pleased. It's the nature of experimental lists. You don't go into experimental lists thinking it's the final form. I didn't glue the turret down on my Scorpionfish just for this reason.

Those that don't like the current one should really have no grounds to dislike the 'armour' one as their no fluff or power arguments against it.
Yet. What happens when there is? Do we argue endlessly about that list as well?

6 reasons
1 it allows a more assaulty formations to be made and priced appropriately. There is an advantage to starting in the enemy corner of the board.
2 it allows finer restrictions for the Orca. The 10+2 formation is intended to be Orca'd in so is more expensive, being a gateway formation for it. The 12 strong FW is cheaper per FW, especially if you get the drone upgrade as well, but is deliberately too large to fit in an Orca.
3 It lets mechanised firewarriors cost more per stand than the on foot non air assaulting ones, as frankly they are a better formation with their range. The walking formation is simply there as a cheap core to let more support slots be bought if a player desires such.
4 You could do all the sizes with a linear upgrade cost
5 Having 'firewarriors' as the only core choice looked very lonely and it all still fits on the page at a higher font size than the pdf!
6 Devilfish come in 3's, so 3/6/9 should be the standard.

And with all this said, other than some small differences, is it very different to what you can already do?


Sadly yes as the stupid Epic convention of same name same stat is very irritating.

Am I missing something here? Why don't the Broadsides carry the same weapon as the hammerhead just twin-linked?

Giving them ML's though would up their price and conflict with other ML options
As opposed to making them more expensive with heavier weapons and ML and a separate unit type? What's the diff? Heavies are already another ML option....

Model wise I'd never buy any drones as they are discs with little guns stuck on.
Fair enough, but others really do want to.

It makes them better shooting but worse assault, quite Tauish :) Remember they can be dropped from tigersharks and Orca now so have a very flexible deployment and can mix guns in with the formation which also now is activating.
Oh so can you mix different turrets into the one formation now? I missed that bit of info. Only thing is, what if you just want ML sentries? No firing from these units.... fearless would make sense really.

Besides, everyone was saying the Tau should have a deployment zone attack!
So you have to fork out 850 points to do that for one attack activation?

With armour 4+ they shouldn't be too offensive as its makes them too extreme and either a game winer or a points sink. As it is 2 for 250 at that range with the 4 gm's between them seems a good equivalent to a Shadowsword
Except Shadowswords shoot 90cm and don't need to get close to kill their target.

I cowardly left it alone and hoped someone else would come forward with the solution.
I'v ehad a crack at it in another thread.

I will finish my thoughts on this later as I need to head off.

stay tuned
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: How I see the Tau
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 21 Jul. 2008, 04:17 )

No other serious army has 2 official lists. Think about it. It makes no sense.

Orks have three.
Space Marines have two.
IG have two.
Chaos have two.


Having multiple army lists is the norm, not the exception.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: How I see the Tau
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 21 Jul. 2008, 07:18 )

So do each of those lists have 2 versions of their own list? 2 Saim Hann Lists? 2 Ulthwe lists? This is what I'm talking about. Your Tau lists are essentially one list with different units in them under different names mainly.

Yes, look at guard. Infantry. Armour. Mechanised. What are the differences between the minervans and the mechanised forces? The Speed Freeks and Ghazguls horde? This was actually the design intention for Epic lists.

That's not how you balance a list. Divide them into 2 and apply the results to either list?? You can't possibly hope to get a list balance right if you do it this way. How do some units work in conjunction with others not in their normal list config.? Is that how the Siege list was written....?


Yes some stuff was dropped from the siege list. E&C for his infantry and armour lists eventually slip them to balance them. And splitting something into to can be how you balance it. With soe many units making others obsolete you will never successfully balance the SG list as it stands, you will always be able to either create an unbalanced list or one that has no relation to the Tau as they are supposed to fight. Because units work with each other differently putting them in separate lists where they can be costed separately you get to fix a problem whereby you otherwise have to cost for the 'optimal use' which currently given the model weapons is not how people see Tau as playing.

What fundamentally do you see as the Tau style of play and what would be in a typical army?

I didn't glue the turret down on my Scorpionfish just for this reason.

But some people did and would like to have Scorpionfish in their army. You can't have them at a realistic cost in an army where you are supposed to take Firewarriors. Hence getting to play a role befitting their firepower in a list with a different play style.

The other split between them of course is that for the infantry list you can buy everything (without the heavy drones admitably, if they are indeed redundant with ml turrets being able to be dropped they could go) adn the other requires scratchbuilding.

6 reasons

And with all this said, other than some small differences, is it very different to what you can already do?

Yes, because this way allows for more balance and fine tuning.

Am I missing something here? Why don't the Broadsides carry the same weapon as the hammerhead just twin-linked?

They don't, it doesn't have an AP value.

So you have to fork out 850 points to do that for one attack activation?
Nah 725 I stuck down as a conservative amount though it could come down to 700. Idea is to have the stuff I outlined in the notes for it.

Except Shadowswords shoot 90cm and don't need to get close to kill their target.
And except if you deal with the flak nothing can ever attack you and in practice 45cm means against everyone bar Eldar and Tau ground flak never theatens to start with.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net