Honda, is it perhaps a wise move to pop up a 5.1 Discussion area? Maybe not just one thread but a section pertaining to various items of discussion where we can post our thoughts and brainstorms? Just an idea anyhoo.

There actually is a limitation on HH's as a support group - the fact you can't take more than 2 groups per cadre which means you can't popcorn them BTW.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Well I for one really respect what Honda is doing here and elsewhere, and understand his direction to concentrate on testing 5.1 as it is now. I will be doing this, time and opponents permitting.

While it is in the nature of wargamers to 'debate' add-nauseum, I can equally understand Chroma's desire to keep certain topics under the spotlight during this period of testing (especially where games are harder to come by for many of the community), but I tend to agree with Honda that they should remain just that - "debates" - until we have been able to play a number of different races, each with a number of different style Tau armies.

So, can we keep a log of these 'areas for improvement', but change the style of debate to define :-
- the percieved problem in the structure or content of 5.1
- tests that demonstrate the problem
- options to fix the problem

And Guys, please can we try to moderate our language to encourage constructive critisism rather than using inflamatory comments like the above.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

That's not what Honda is saying. He wants us not to debate at all, unless it's about testing related things. For example:
I have basically ended the discussion on this topic in the other thread and I apologize if my earlier comment led you to believe that I thought additional discussion was warranted.

It's not.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The problem is, Honda doesn't want us to look at Structural issues in the list right now.  

Quote Honda:
So let me express myself better. I am concerned that a lot of the debating that I see going on will distract the effort. I am especially concerned that we stay on focus and not get off the path. Given that we are not going to make any structural changes to the list until we conclude the upcoming testing phase, I personally do not understand the direction that discussions are taking.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Apology accepted.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Umm, well I was paraphrasing what Honda said earlier in this thread which included this statement :-when we open up the discussion for the next set of refinements, any new proposals will have to provide the following:

1. Address an observed failure or imbalance in the list
2. Come with play test proof that clearly demonstrates the issue

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ah...  Y'all must have caught me at a bad time... business law homework is the last thing one should do before trying a text-only conversation...  

Alrighty... time to kick some more games loose.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

15 activations with 200 points for upgrades, SC etc. While this army is relativley lightly armoured, IMHO it is still a very reasonable semi-tournament level army that can rapidly deploy on a flank to chew up formations in detail, with sufficient ML capabilities for long-range fire, and the Hero to take on TK level targets. Drop the Hero to get 400 points of serious upgrade potential, or even another FW formation.

Dobbsy, as far as I know, removing the AMHC was the popular choice.  Both on these boards and the Peer Review.

Honda, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you went the other way?


Another reason for 4 HHs is that you can still stick the formation into a Manta.  (although I am unsure why you would, I suppose the crossfire potential would be pretty strong.)

One of the reasons regarding the dropping of the Support Group and keeping the Cadre was my input.

My reasoning is along two paths.

Firstly, the HammerHead Cadre was introduced for a reason. One of these reasons was to add an extra dimension to the force. With just FW and Crisis Cadres, the core of every Tau force in the game having to be built around infantry alone, and most forces looking similar. The purposes that lead to the addition of the HammerHead Cadre still exist.

Secondly, there is a cost issue. By forcing the Tau player to take infantry you force the player to spend large amounts of cash.

As a conclusion, I prefer the idea of a mixed force which allows the player to select their own core, than a infantry based force that most players dont want to play or cant afford to play.

I do understand the potential issue with a Tau that is not infantry-centric. However, most 40K forces started as infantry forces - for example the Imperial Guard were an infantry force until the addition of the Armoured Spearhead. My view is simply that, at the EA level, not every Tau force would have an infantry/Crisis core.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Thanks for the insight CS. While I understand the thinking around keeping the Cadre rather than the support group, did you consider revising the size of the Cadre, and if so, what was the thinking there?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

CS, can we then discuss the possiblity of a future change to 4 strong HH AMHC that we can build up? All other cadres start around 200-250 already so the popcorn argument doesn't hold up that much in my opinion.

I see know reason why we cant consider this. However, given the schedule which Honda and I are working on, I am not sure that any structural changes are wise for this, fixed list.

It is something that we could investigate with playtest experience, when version 5. has been fixed for the appointed period.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.