Whoops, I somehow completely forgot that Kroot already count towards your Support Group limit. Nonetheless, I would still raise the limit to 3 per Cadre to mitigate the proposed loss of the AMHC. On a related note, I would leave the Hammerhead Support Group just as is (4+2 Hammerheads). I am strictly against cutting the Hammerhead Upgrade from them. With the upgrade, people could still simulate the AMHC by taking a Support Group of 6 Hammerheads for the same price.

As for the ML/GM dependancy: As far as I see it, there are enough ML units in the list to keep GM competetive. The rules change just made them more interdependant/synergistic and a bit more fragile. Seems very Tauish. Also, most of the ML units are quite good on there own, like Skyray with its long range AA. You don't need to cram otherwise useless ML into you army, you just need to be a bit more careful with both  your army composition and your play.

OnyxIf FW's became more effective, I could support a removal of the AMHC as long as there is 3 Support formations per Cadre.

HH's would have to retain an upgrade to 6 tanks (as would Stingrays) or the deals off...     .

Here's, I believe, the first posted battle report for Tau v5.0.

I took an "extreme" Tau list, just to test it out.

Orks vs Tau: Horde vs Hammerheads

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I kinda like the networked drone idea, so I think it should stay, but 25 points is awfully cheap for a leader. Most armies have to spend at least 50, though they do get a character's attacks etc as well.

So basically, I dunno...

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

I think if should be renamed as "Command and Control Node" or something similar... because, aren't all drones networked when nearby?

Make it a "character" with a stat box, and, perhaps add a weapon or an additionaly special ability, and make ot +50 points to add.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I kinda like the networked drone idea, so I think it should stay, but 25 points is awfully cheap for a leader. Most armies have to spend at least 50, though they do get a character's attacks etc as well.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Does anyone else think that maybe broadsides are a bit underpriced? I understand that they are slow, and occasionally have line of sight issues when compared to their HH competitors. But they have a long range, can be deployed on overwatch in cover and have reinforced armour. I use one formation of them every time I play Tau and they consistently over perform. I think perhaps a 50 point price increase is in order.

Just throwing this out there.

I think the Networked Drones upgrade could safely be removed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

One of the reasonably accepted proposals in the last argument phase was a range reduction for railguns.

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

I agree w/ Hena and the others, the option is cool, but it really sticks out in how easy it is for vehicles to get a leader and how hard it is for FWs.


I got a game in today and tried out the Manta and Barracudas.  The Manta performed well, but did not dominate the game, the shortened range of the Ions really kept it from just sniping anything it wanted.  It was eventually killed by a determined Eldar opponent after it lost its shield to a Crit on the first shot against it!

The Barracudas were a bit lackluster.  It didn't seem worth the risk to close for the additional AA6+ shot from the Burst Cannons as it would have brought me into flack range when on CAP.  Later in the game when I was trying some ground attacks with it, my options were very limited as it only has one attack against the ground w/o MLs.

Otherwise, I learned I need to stick at least one more ML unit in my list, as a series of blown activations w/ ML units really hurt my firepower.

I agree w/ Hena and the others, the option is cool, but it really sticks out in how easy it is for vehicles to get a leader and how hard it is for FWs

Update time: CS has been released from the dungeon (i.e. Real Life ™ ) and will go through the technical edits. Then there are a couple of things that we are kicking around before freezing the list for play testing.

We noted with some humor, that a few of the recent discussion points were in previous versions and were later argued/debated out.

So what does that tell us besides the fact that the whole 4.x series has been a journey of circles?

Once we freeze the list, then it will come down to play test, play test, play test. I almost don't want to hear any rants about the list at least for the first month. After something like 30 days, then we can start discussing the list behavior and expand our investigations.

However, as stated at the beginning of this "trip", testing will be for a multi-month period of time, primarily driven by the level of play testing. No testing. No progress. Lots of testing, then we'll see refinements introduced more frequently. At this point though, steps will be incremental.

We are currently targeting this weekend for the final release.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Cool, looking forward to it.

That's a matter of those idiots in GW not including any detail about how the FW operate in larger forces, where large groups of FW congregate and work together.  There *should* be a leader available to FW.  Just a bare leader, nothing else.  I math-hammered in the Tau Infantry thread that IF you do FF-Engage with v5 Fire Warriors, you're going to lay a lot of hurt on someone, but it's going to pretty much take that FW unit out of the game for a few turns while they shed BMs (like 10!).  I've given a suggestion for it, and there's another suggestion floating around out there for how to give FW a 'platoon leader'.  I suggested a Shas'vre, who for training purposes is running a bunch of FW before he is given command of his own Cadre.  No co-fire, just Leader.  For the sake of fluff, he doesn't have the equipment (commo and/or markerlights) to call a co-fire.

I got a game in today and tried out the Manta and Barracudas.  The Manta performed well, but did not dominate the game, the shortened range of the Ions really kept it from just sniping anything it wanted.  It was eventually killed by a determined Eldar opponent after it lost its shield to a Crit on the first shot against it!

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"