Tactical Command | View topic - E&C's Tau proposal

Page 3 of 18

[ 268 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

E&C's Tau proposal

Mephiston

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:30 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262

No, The Supreme Commander and Commanders in the IG army are Infantry units not Character upgrades so they have to have 2 formations.

Top

BlackLegion

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:33 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

Black Legion also replaces units if you take a Daemon Prince as upgrade.

Really i don't understand the fuss about an additional line in the armylist which is purely cosmetic.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Top

zombocom

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:35 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569

Quote: (BlackLegion @ 25 Jul. 2009, 22:23 )

Well why is there a Regimental HQ formation in the Steel Legion armylist when you can easily add a Supreme Commander upgrade to the Mechanised Company?

Answer: The armylist document looks better this way.

A better example is that the IG list has both an Infantry Company and a Mechanised Infantry Company, exactly like this list.

I'm ambivilent, it's rearranging deckchairs.

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

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:42 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

It's a minor issue, either the list is a good proposal or it's crap.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:35 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Well, I am amused. It seems we are dusting off our ideas from a year ago when CS asked for alternatives.

I agree as I did back then that formation sizes should match FW pack sizes, that there should be a variety of FW formations (largely because they are such good mech troops its not a linear progression).

So shall I dig into the files and get out the old alternative list brought up to date?

Leaving aside all the other changes E&C (as I thought we were asked about ML solutions) your basic idea is that shooting at marked targets gives you +1 to hit.

So just a straight buff for firewarriors (as if they have any sense they already include a skyray) and a general buff for everything else.

I can't honestly say it would change the Tau playtest armies I was using way back when much, I guess more skyrays to ensure there at ML's everywhere and taking FW as opposed to pathfinders (who remembers the days when those things were inordinately good?).

Maybe there are two things Hondo should be looking at. His core mechanic change and ideas for re-doing the list around it if nessecery.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:41 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Quote: (The_Real_Chris @ 25 Jul. 2009, 23:35 )

So just a straight buff for firewarriors (as if they have any sense they already include a skyray) and a general buff for everything else.

But also a hefty nerf to the indirect fire capabilities of the list, as I've proposed the removal of both non-canon AP Missile units.

The Tau are left with more direct fire weapons, meaning they must manuever forwards into range of the enemy (risk themselves) in order to bring their firepower to bear, unlike the ranged attacks of the AP GM's.

I guess more skyrays to ensure there at ML's everywhere and taking FW as opposed to pathfinders (who remembers the days when those things were inordinately good?).

Me, being as somewhere around my fifth game of Epic in this edition was against one of your Tau proxy armies. :))

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:50 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Ah, sorry

Still least it didn't put you off forever

Top

Honda

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:37 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

All I will say at this point is that I am reading the proposal and letting it stew.

It would also be helpful for a couple of battle reports showing the impact of the changes against recognizable and well understood enemies. If it were possible, a game against Steel Legion IG, SM, and Orks would be helpful in the analysis. Winning or losing isn't as important as much as demonstrating behaviors.

And it must also be stated that any decisions will be made jointly with CS and so that everyone is clear on the hierarchy, I work for him and support him unequivocably. I hope that is very clear to everyone.

Carry on.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:45 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

On first appearances I don't mind it actually. I have a few issues though.

First, my likes:
It's a tidy army list. Neatly presented with fewer upgrades.

I like the push of the HHs to a support formation.

The Skyray formation looks interesting but I'm waiting to hear the moaning about 6x AA5+

The possibility of using the variant HHs. I would definitely like to see all Hammerhead variants available to the FW list. Let us use all the models available in the range. :agree:

i.e I have 6 Missile HHs that I use as Stingrays, what the hell do I do with them now?

And my dislikes:

The Tau are left with more direct fire weapons, meaning they must manuever forwards into range of the enemy (risk themselves) in order to bring their firepower to bear, unlike the ranged attacks of the AP GM's.

If you're forcing the Tau to close range how have you offset the cost of them having little assault ability? Pushing them close to the enemy means they will get largely slaughtered. Are you assuming that their shooting/co-ord will be enough to stop them being assaulted? There's no getting around the fact that this game is largely based on engagement situations. It's the number one way to win in this game. You can pretend that co-ord could win a Tau "engagement" but what then do they do when that second formation gets to assault them?

If you're focussing the effort of the list to use it's MLs with synergy, why then restrict it to Skyrays? If you introduce it, use it universally. Otherwise that's counter productive to your idea. It's very annoying that you have to spend 100 points everytime you need MLs -that's a nasty way to reduce activations in a list that is expensive vs. fragile. Also what the hell use will Pathfinders be if they don't have a ML? Are they just a co-ord unit? Plus if you have to attach mixed unit types (in the case of a non mech FW formation)this makes every formation vulnerable to all types of fire. Yet another weakness for the Tau.
I do not like this restriction.

Why would the crisis cadre not get any other upgrades? Limiting them due to a theory that theyd be too strong is a bit naff IMO.

I don't like gundrones being unavailable to most formations.

The Ethereal could be cheaper by removing the ridiculous MW assault weapon.

I think the Scorpionfish is still usable. If you want to restrict it from being a gunline unit then do so, don't remove it. I know Honda will not want this. He regaled me with a few PMs not to do this when I proposed it ages back. It's obviously a pet unit for him.

On a more important note - I still don't see people needing to take FWs. You still haven't addressed making them more attractive IMO. Crisis suits perform better and Ion cannons hit on 4+ AP. Why would we need to use them? I can still stack my list without FWs even remotely being needed or useful.

I can't see the point in the second list if you've removed the AP GMs - if they aren't available to the Tau in the FW list why would they be solely available to an armoured list? If the Tau develop the tech why would they not use it across all their forces. It's like the US military developing a rifle and then saying only the Marines can use it.... :no:

Plus the cost of the cadres is a bit ridiculous. At almost one sixth of a 3k game each! Doesn't seem like you'd get many activations.

Also we removed the Moray for a reason. Don't reintroduce it. Step forward not backwards.

There's a lot of dislikes for me but I do actually think it has merit to a certain degree. I wouldn't say no to trialling it.

Lastly, this proposal is all very nice but will you actually test it yourself??? You've largely been a voice of negativity with the current list but you provided absolutely no actual playtest data, just theory and ideas.

If you expect us to play it you should be showing us your results. And I mean playtests/batreps not theoryhammer.

Top

Onyx

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:05 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia

Hi E&C.

I'll make a deal with ya. Ã‚Â :vD

If you stop using the phrase "non canon" with regard to the Tau list, I'll stop calling the Warhound weapon surcharge a "tax".
Deal?

This is meant to be tongue in cheek but I'll stick to it if you do Ã‚Â :blush:

.

I'll add a bit more about my thoughts on these lists later when I've had a chance to digest it further (I sound like a Tyranid..).

Steve.

_________________
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.

Top

BlackLegion

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:13 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

@Dobbsy: E&C didn't change Pathfinders, so they still have Markerlights.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:39 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Quote: (Dobbsy @ 26 Jul. 2009, 02:45 )

And my dislikes:

The Tau are left with more direct fire weapons, meaning they must manuever forwards into range of the enemy (risk themselves) in order to bring their firepower to bear, unlike the ranged attacks of the AP GM's.

Yes, I am assuming that the Tau will be forced to move close to the enemy to take out Infantry type targets.

That's how they operate in the background (tanks engaged at long range with rail cannons or Guided Missiles, but enemy infantry must be attacked by Fire warriors).

I am assuming that the firepower boost that will come from inter-operability with Markerlights will deeply hurt enemy formations, and whilst they are not excellent in Egagement situations, Fire warriors are quite respectable (better than Guardsmen, due to their armour save).

There's no getting around the fact that this game is largely based on engagement situations. It's the number one way to win in this game. You can pretend that co-ord could win a Tau "engagement" but what then do they do when that second formation gets to assault them?

The enemy formation will have been denuded by superior Tau firepower, hopefully enough that the Engagement will be unpalatable to the enemy.

Battles without close-range risk are boring.

If you're focussing the effort of the list to use it's MLs with synergy, why then restrict it to Skyrays?

Markerlights are not restricted to Skyrays.

But they are mostly restriced to only being available in small Support formations like Pathfinders and Tetra Skimmers. The idea being that you use them in a manner analogous to a formation that 'supports' a nearby Engagement. In this case they don't support with direct FF attacks, but by lending the shooting formation +1 to hit.

So some formations were denied access to Markerlights in order to emphaise that the Tau army must be used in a synergetic manner if it wants to win.

what the hell use will Pathfinders be if they don't have a ML?
They should have Markerlights.

Why would the crisis cadre not get any other upgrades? Limiting them due to a theory that theyd be too strong is a bit naff IMO.
I've found them strong in the past, able to hide behind Gun Drones all game and remain a fully combat-effective formation. They don't need that power boost.

I think the Scorpionfish is still usable. If you want to restrict it from being a gunline unit then do so, don't remove it. I know Honda will not want this. He regaled me with a few PMs not to do this when I proposed it ages back. It's obviously a pet unit for him.
I note in my proposal that the Scorpionfish could be retained as an anti-tank missile barge, just as long as the AP missile is removed.

On a more important note - I still don't see people needing to take FWs. You still haven't addressed making them more attractive IMO. Crisis suits perform better and Ion cannons hit on 4+ AP. Why would we need to use them?
Cheaper, can sustain more casualties, more numerous, with Markerlight support they have a respectable firepower. Also Crisis Suits are denied access to cheap protection in the form of Gun Drones (Crisis Suits with Gun Drones are awesome. Crisis Suits alone are not as outright superior to Fire Warriors).

If TRC says he sees lists being build around Fire Warriors as attractive then I'd say the proposal has boosted their power.

I can't see the point in the second list if you've removed the AP GMs
I have not removed the AP GM's. I only removed their availability to the core list by removing the AP Missile units, in order to make Fire Warriors attractive.

if they aren't available to the Tau in the FW list why would they be solely available to an armoured list?
Let's assume that the missile is only issued by certain Tau Septs, which are low on Fire Warriors.

If the Tau develop the tech why would they not use it across all their forces. It's like the US military developing a rifle and then saying only the Marines can use it.... :no:

The UK SAS use different rifles to the rest of the UK army, because they're more awesomer.

Plus the cost of the cadres is a bit ridiculous. At almost one sixth of a 3k game each! Doesn't seem like you'd get many activations.
That's the point, a current Tau tank-themed army list has more activations than any other comparable tank-based army list (Ie: it's too good).

Note that the core tank Companies are still cheaper than a Steel Legion or Minervan Tank Company.

Also we removed the Moray for a reason. Don't reintroduce it. Step forward not backwards.
We removed it from the core list because like the AP missile, it incentivised an un-Tau way of warfare (maximum range attacks, never closing with the enemy). I think it fits fine with the nessesary ethos of any tank-based army list (Tank based army lists must adopt the 'maximum range' philosophy in order to compensate for their lack of close-range prowess).

There's a lot of dislikes for me but I do actually think it has merit to a certain degree. I wouldn't say no to trialling it.
Cool.

Lastly, this proposal is all very nice but will you actually test it yourself???
I'll badger the Tau player in my group to try it, yes.

You've largely been a voice of negativity with the current list but you provided absolutely no actual playtest data, just theory and ideas.
Most of the changes I propose here are based on years of playing against the Tau army list.

If you expect us to play it you should be showing us your results. And I mean playtests/batreps not theoryhammer.
I honestly don't expect anything, but I'm not one to not try. :))

I'll see about getting some games in.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:44 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Quote: (Onyx @ 26 Jul. 2009, 05:05 )

I'll make a deal with ya. Ã‚Â :vD

If you stop using the phrase "non canon" with regard to the Tau list, I'll stop calling the Warhound weapon surcharge a "tax".
Deal?

well, 'non canon' is the inoffensive term as far as I'm concerned... I could be saying 'made up without regard to the Tau background' or 'un-Taulike AP artillery', instead...

I suggested 'surcharge' for you as a less emotive term than 'tax'... care to suggest a word or phrase I can use instead of 'non canon' that is less emotive ? :cool:

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:45 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Quote: (Honda @ 26 Jul. 2009, 02:37 )

I will see about getting some games in, my first opportunity will be on Tuesday.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Onyx

Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal

Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:48 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia

Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 26 Jul. 2009, 17:44 )

Quote: (Onyx @ 26 Jul. 2009, 05:05 )

I'll make a deal with ya. Ã‚Â :vD

If you stop using the phrase "non canon" with regard to the Tau list, I'll stop calling the Warhound weapon surcharge a "tax".
Deal?

Well, you could try just using the units name and leave it at that...

No need to tell everyone that circles are round, the sky is blue, water is wet or that the Scorpionfish is an unofficial unit for 40K. :agree:

_________________
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.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 3 of 18

[ 268 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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

Jump to:

E&C's Tau proposal

Who is online