Actually, I think that would be a *GOOD* thing, to reflect the desire to not wage a prolonged battle... they'd have to hit hard and decisively early in the game and not be good at dragging things out.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Where's the 'Patient Hunter' in that idea?  

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

It's in a different army list... which would be a *brilliant* way to set up a variant Tau list!

So, this is the "Killing Blow" army list and focuses on that philosphy, and then an alt-list focuses on Patient Hunter... I really think that would be cool!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

The idea of deliberately "popcorning" the Tau list is interesting, but I don't think it's something we can really just theoryhammer to a conclusion. Something like that needs a lot of playtesting to see if it's viable/a disadvantage/broken.

Ginger has put forward a good case for it being viable, but as Onyx says, the Tau could become too fragile. However, I would also suggest they could become horribly difficult to deal with, as we all know how high activations can "break" Epic.

There's really no way of knowing without trying it out a lot.

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

Quote from V5 Tau rules.
Whilst not needing to be as close as formations taking a combined assault action, there is still a close range requirement to use Coordinated Fire.

Reducing formation size should force multiple coordinated fire attacks every turn and could mean that the Tau are heavily disadvantaged as the game progresses (as the smaller formations are more easily broken). This is obviously the same for every army but it seems to me that it could be used against the Tau quite easily.

I'm not in favour of reduced size formations.

I use Coordinated Fire for my Tau about as often as I use Combined Assault with, say my Marines (probably once every game or two when required).

I don't see a need to change things at the moment.

Is there a need to force other armies to rely on Combined Assault more? As has been pointed out by E&C, it's not used often now.

I'm sure TRC could powergame the heck out of a Tau list with as many activations as are being suggested here.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I have a game scheduled for tomorrow evening.  I plan on taking lots of FW with their current stats and attempting to assault effectively.  I'll try to keep track of the differences in what would have happened if they had 4+FF.

_________________
Neal

I'm going to be blunt here: How much of this is predicated on you having a fully (and awesomely) painted Tau army that you don't want to have to change up?

I know how expensive Tau stuff is, but I think it's inappropriate in making a *play* balanced list to allow that fact undue influence on the design process.  "I think Stingrays should be kept because I bought twelve!" is not a valid design principle, but it's been mentioned more than once in discussions; so where do you stand on that?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Make sure you use my Game Logs and have spare batteries for your camera!  *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

If the drone formation were to come back then drop their expendable status. Having the same unit with different in game effects, depending on what formation it is part of is just annoying.

Onyx, thanks for the spot on the 15cm restriction. However, the suggestion still stands as an alternative form for the Tau. To expand on the thought a little, I am suggesting that the relevant Infantry formations are given co-ordinated fire and reduced slightly both in size and cost; perhaps by ~3/4. So
6x FW               175
3x pathfinders 125 ??
4x Stealths        175

Armoured formations, Broadsides, Crisis and other 'supporting' formations would not be affected as they are the formations that you might expect to be co-ordinated in this fashion.

On powergaming, you can already take 6x FW in Orcas with 5x recon skimmers and a Hero spaceship which would provide a very respectable 'popcorn' drop army, and I am sure there are a number of equally tricky lists that could be made up. These suggestions would not change that position greatly. Reducing the costs as suggested while applying the principle of *Co-ordinated action* would potentially increase the number of FW formations to eight while effectively reducing the infantry activations to four.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

For the record, the yardstick for a Coordinated Fires effectiveness is not, IMO, the Combined Assault but rather an Engage preceded by a support formation doubling/advancing into FF range.

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!

Yes, but you can't buy grot formations. This is another Tau special rule fudge that is just not necessary.