Crisis unit survivability |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability  Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:00 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
It means the opponent to tau should take mainly all AT weapons. |
I don't see this as an issue. The same thing could be said about most armies - the AMTL opponent should max out MW and TK, etc.. The point is to balance the list in a blind tourney situation.
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:17 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
Hello, I answer mainly to Tactica's points but feel free to comment 
In fact, I quite like the light vehicle specification for large battlesuits. It just makes sense as pointed out by others.
I also find that the 5+ RA of the stealthsuits is quite satisfying an abstraction for the time being: there is descrepancies, as for example stealth technology grants no protection against Titan killer weapons. That's weird but I can live with it for the time being.
Still I have some positive thoughts to share in the light of your statements:
Crisis battlesuits:
as you pointed out, the resilience of crisis battlesuits has drastically decreased with the loss of both 4+RA and the indroduction of the Light Vehicle specification that make them catch more fire and makes the use of any cover nearly impossible (or at least a dangerous tactic). Then I was chewing on your point about the ability crisis have in 40K to use terrain to hide from the ennemy, which is not represented in Epic. In fact, I think this could be abstracted in Epic by giving them the Walker ability, thus making them capable of dashing into a ruin-crowded areas. So in essence, the result of the hit-and-run tactic in 40K would be abstracted in E:A into Crisis being harder to hit on average when not in the open. Another good point is that this would be useless in an assault situation, so this would fit JG's current army-design.
Stealthsuits:
I remember someone proposed to try out Teleport as a representation of the stealth technology in Epic scale (ala Lictor). I just would like to know if JG was chewing on it... Might be worth looking at considering that Stealth contingent do not seem to be a popular choice currently.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:50 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
NH,
Although you don't see it as an issue, and I respect that, I do have to disagree here.
As far as tourny's go, an army that's easy to sidebar against means it can be eliminated from thought when building tourny armies as long as you guide by one or two principles.
In the case of Tau as currently designed, no major infantry threats, eliminate vehicles (and current LV crisis and broadsides) means take lots of AT - nuff said... Basically the mentality being, "as long as I go heavy AT, Tau will not be a threat" and then major considerations for other armies will ensue.
That to me is definitely a problem that could be resolved by making crisis and broadsides exactly what they really are - infantry.
I don't see a reason to stray from a concept if they are not imbalanced in doing so.
Why wouldn't we make them infantry? Terminators are infantry, space marines are infantry, assault marines are infantry... tau crisis suits should be no different.
As BaronP has already stated - when they had RA 4+ and the other rules were present - the crisis were REALLY overpowered and changing them from crisis to LV's made sense as an abstraction to solve a problem.
However, they are no longer anywhere near the power they used to be. They are now much more toned down and with excetpion to the LV - are a reasonable representation of what they are actually supposed to be.
Making crisis and broadsides LV's at this point (regardless of the walker ability or not) only weakens the army unnecessarily as we are solving no problems by doing so. On the other hand, we are creating a problem for the list. In the meta-game tourny planning - infantry threats are minimal at best due to lack of AT/MW threats from infantry and ML's and LV rules further impact the list... if all the Tau vehicle targets are dead, ML's don't mean a hill of beans to the adversary.
This is not hyperbole - I think there's a much larger case for crisis and broadsides to NOT be LV than there is for them to be LV at this point.
Baron P,
I think the stealths with teleport is interesting, but do you see it being used only for the markerlight and ap benefit? I see the Stealths becoming quite sacrificial as a result. I'm really not sure there's a pay-off that's meaningful right now.
Maybe if GM's across the board go down by one (6+ to 5+) like I *THINK* JG is saying, then we could see some possible gain... but still ML's only give +1 to the roll...
So in the beginning of some turn, you teleport in to mark a unit, now you have to get lucky enough to go first or the teleoported unit becomes wrecked. Then have to have a formation that you want to immediately put into range of the marked adversary to benefit from the +1. This could mean the new formation formation is now going to be in harms way as our best GM is still only 75cm... activating a HH formation too early could be disastrous.
I just wonder if stealth teleporting without any AT capability is really worth it for ML only benefit. Guess it would have to be playtested.
Right now, stealths are to expensive for their output IMHO. Allowing them to teleport does not 'appear' to make that big of a difference me.
For now, if their points come down - they would have one purpose in my army - run with the crisis and mark for them. On the other hand, heavy drones do the same job as others have pointed out to me recently and they can count as both AT and AP where stealths only count as AP, and I get 4 models instead of 3 for the same 125 points.
The counting as AT/AP thing is only necessary as the freakin' crisis and broadsides count as LV's right now - so stealths are not even a good choice to take with them as people can circument the stealths and their RA5+ and go straight for the LV's with their AT shots... so again, back to gun drones as the LV thing is screwing us... for no reason.
...so stealths are still not taken for various reasons.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:00 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
...Basically the mentality being, "as long as I go heavy AT, Tau will not be a threat" and then major considerations for other armies will ensue. |
You can't do that as a reliable strategy for a tournament.
In my last tournament army, I had exactly 4 AVs (rhinos only needed for a Turn 1 redeploy strategy) and no LVs. I even toyed with the idea of removing the rhinos and having no vehicles of any kind.
The tournament before that had no WEs, 1 mounted infantry formation, and 1 armor formation - maybe ~500 points of vehicles total.
So, sure, go to a tournament and take heavy AT to make sure you can beat the Tau. My Waagh will be licking their tusks. 
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimmyGrill
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:17 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm
Posts: 61
|
|
1. Teleport for Stealth seems like a fun idea to try out. Certainly according to fluff and would help them in the game.
2. Crisis and walker, my past experiences were they are too powerful. We can try it out though. Dropping LV is pretty much out of the question.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:19 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (JimmyGrill @ 03 2005 Aug.,22:17) | |
1. Teleport for Stealth seems like a fun idea to try out. Certainly according to fluff and would help them in the game.
|
I hope the previously discussed points reduction would still be in place - regardless of whether we act on the teleport thing.
2. Crisis and walker, my past experiences were they are too powerful. We can try it out though.
|
Walker doesn't solve crisis not going in/on buildings or in/on bunkers/fortifications - however, I'll take something rather than nothing and see if it helps.
Looking forward to the change.
Dropping LV is pretty much out of the question.
Blah... party pooper.
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
|
|
JimmyGrill
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:10 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm
Posts: 61
|
| Quote (Tactica @ 03 2005 Aug.,23:19) | | Walker doesn't solve crisis not going in/on buildings or in/on bunkers/fortifications - however, I'll take something rather than nothing and see if it helps. |
Well, Walker means a re-roll on terrain tests, so they are a 97% version of "just walk in there" (only a 1/36 chance of damage).
That's PRETTY good.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I think Tactica's objection is that buildings and fortifications (most of them) are impassible to vehicles. Walker doesn't change that.
To be honest, I never realized that they _weren't_ walkers. I had just assumed that they would be because it seemed so obvious.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
Jimmygrill:Well, Walker means a re-roll on terrain tests, so they are a 97% version of "just walk in there" (only a 1/36 chance of damage). |
That's true, but the use of cover depends on battlefield situations and is not possible all the time and is not always the best thing to do in my mind. Indeed, the extreme short range of the most powerful weapons Crisis have somewhat dictates their position on the battlefield if you want them to be efficient.
Therefore, I see this change as a good one on paper because you will have even more tactical choices to make.
Additionally, the fact that LV cannot enter buildings makes it a little more difficult to use.
As a side note I reread the description of teleport, and it is written in the main rulebook that this rule is meant to represent any ability a unit may have to appear from nowhere, wether by atcual teleporting, or just by using a highly advanced camoflage technology. No doubt it fits the fluf of stealth (ninjaaa). We have to try this one for the least.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:31 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 04 2005 Aug.,19:25) | I think Tactica's objection is that buildings and fortifications (most of them) are impassible to vehicles. ?Walker doesn't change that.
To be honest, I never realized that they _weren't_ walkers. ?I had just assumed that they would be because it seemed so obvious. |
NH,
You got it. We have several city fight boards here locally. there's no entering the crisis & broadsides on most of the table due to heavy amounts of buildings and fortified buildings and fortifications.
A very unfluffy feel for the units.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
xerxes
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:31 pm
Posts: 13
|
|
Although it sounds a little strange, has anyone considered the implications of making Crisis and Broadsides AV Walkers rather than LV? It would cut the amount of weapons that could target them down, while if Infantry wanted to target them they would still have the Assault/firefight option. Would this be workable?
Again going back to 40K, I rarely lost them to small arms, mostly to Anti-Tank weaponry.
Would anybody be able to try this?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I will go back to - we are trying to fix something that shouldn't be broke.
Make them what they are - infantry. No more special rules like walker are needed. No abstractions of making them any kind of vehicle are needed.
Its a simple fix that addresses the issue of them not being able to enter buildings and fortifications and it addresses the issue of them dieing too easily vs. AP and AT.
Note: light vehicles and armored vehicles are not allowed to go into buildings and fortificatiosn - that's problem one. Giving them Walker whether they are a Light Vehicle or an Armored Vehicle doesn't solve that problem.
There was a time when Crisis were infantry. I was in agreement and was a huge protagonist to the fact that the formation as a whole was too strong. Again - at that time. However, since then they've been toned way down, their light vehicle status is no longer justified. Since the days of old, Tau have undergone several changes...
At that time when crisis were too strong as infantry:
1) Tau jet packs allowed tau to double move with no negative penalty for firing. *That's gone.*
2)Crisis were cheaper as a whole because they were bought differently as part of a cadre - *That's Gone.*
3) Marker lights (stealths) joining the formation were cheaper and could fire AT from the markers - *That's Gone.*
4) Crisis had refinforced armor - *That's Gone*
As the relative power has significantly diminished from this formation, it only seems logical to return them to what they are actually meant to be. *Infantry*
The old justification for them be artificially made weaker into Light Vehicles is now gone.
Can we *please* just *try* these two formations as infantry again in the next right up? It it doesn't work, it can always be cut.
It just seems like the no brainer resolve for both issues on both of these units.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:41 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
The old justification for them be artificially made weaker into Light Vehicles is now gone. |
The dividing lines between whether something is Inf, AV, or LV are based on their general vulnerability, i.e. whether the appropriate weapon type can eliminate the combat effectiveness of a unit.
I don't know 40K Tau personally, but several people have noted that Crisis suit squads degrade quite quickly when subjected to relatively few heavy weapons fire shots. That would equate to vulnerability to AT fire in EA and LV would seem to fit.
Can Crisis suits really move in and out of buildings with ease in 40K? If they don't do so significantly better than other walkers (like dreadnoughts), then there is no reason they would need to have the full infantry mobility.
If they are significantly more mobile, then a tradeoff has to be considered. Is the "oddity" of how they interact with a handful of terrain types enough to change the dynamic of how they interact with enemy fire?
Can we *please* just *try* these two formations as infantry again in the next right up? It it doesn't work, it can always be cut |
By all means, Tactica, play them that way. Any time you see an alternative that you think might work, feel free to playtest it and report the results. The development is intended to be an open process and you don't need the Army Champion's "official" blessing to try out variants.
I can think of half a dozen different rules which have made it into publication which were introduced precisely because someone took the initiative to experiment and reported their success.
_________________
Neal
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:42 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
NH,
In 40K - most infantry is made short work of by heavy weapons fire of AT quality.
A tau crisis suit is better than an assault marine as far as defense goes.
They are both T4, but a crisis has two wounds.
They both have the ability to either A) move through difficult ground on foot as infantry - not dangerous. or B) use their jump/jet packs to bound over the terrain, and C) if they want to - land in the terrain. Both Assault marines and Crisis are required to take a dangerous terrain test for using their jet packs and landing in the terrain.
Crisis on the other hand can bound back out of the terrain in the their close combat phase, behind the LOS blocking terrain, and this is done after they shoot but before the enemy gets to shoot - thus the Epic Eldar "hit and run" ability but in 40K.
So crisis are quite agile in terrain and are more defiant from getting shot at than a marine. They are equally suseptable to Lascannons, Missle launchers, and railguns but crisis have 2 wounds each so can stick around longer against autocannons, heavy bolters, and mult-lasers as they have two wounds.
Crisis can move cautiously into the terrain like assault marines - and in addition can use their jet pack ability to get out of the terrain and be out of LOS by the time the enemy is ready to shoot! So although a crisis is no more suspeptable to a lascannon than a marine is in 40k, the crisis has the ability to get out of LOS much MUCH easier than the assault marine and therefore makes much better use of terrain than an assault marine could ever hope to do.
A crisis suit should be no more penalised by buildings and fortifications in epic than assault marines are. If anything, they should get a bonus!
NH - noted about the playtest. I'll have to keep that in mind.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Crisis unit survivability Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:49 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
A tau crisis suit is better than an assault marine as far as defense goes.
They are both T4, but a crisis has two wounds. |
Remember we aren't talking about an individual model. When comparing the two in epic scale, you are talking about the toughness of 5 assault marines versus 3 crisis suits. We're also not talking about just straight up "kills" but continued combat-effectiveness. That changes your vulnerability considerations substantially.
They are equally suseptable to Lascannons, Missle launchers, and railguns but crisis have 2 wounds each so can stick around longer against autocannons, heavy bolters, and mult-lasers as they have two wounds. |
Versus the first category, the Assault squad would actually last almost twice as long (5 hits v 3). Versus the second, the 3 Tau would only weather slightly more fire than the Assault Marines (6 hits v 5).
The Crisis suits do have a better save than the Assault Marines - 3+ v 4+ - so they are slightly better versus the high-volume weapons that translate into AP, like Heavy Bolters. So, that makes sense with the relative toughness.
OTOH, they do have real vulnerabilty to weapons which translate to AT. A couple of Lascannon hits will definitely take a crisis suit squad out of the game, while leaving the assault marines in battered, but combat worthy shape.
I realize the Tau have some short-range maneuverability bonuses, but those are going to be largely mitigated at Epic scale ranged fire where even "point" weapons like Lascannons are really relying on area saturation for the damage they inflict.
Based on the stats you posted, the LV status seems dead on with respect to vulnerability to fire.
With respect to maneuverability, I think you have to consider working within the scope of the EA rules. LV/Walker/Jet Pack is a very maneuverable combo, even if it is slightly less so than pure infantry. While a difference might not be fully modelled in 40K, there is the simple fact that a 25mm infantry base is more maneuverable than a 40mm crisis suit base.
The options would seem to be:
Infantry - no AT vulnerability, proper (iyho) maneuverability
LV - proper (imho) vulnerability, slight reduction in maneuverability.
==
Of the two, I'd rather have the LV option for best overall mechanical consistency and game balance.
