Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 3 of 5
  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

E&C's Tau Proposal
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
True, but with 4's available, I have a suspicion they'll become the most common type.

I wouldn't bet on that. I never field 4's... too brittle by a long shot and you can't rely on it to do a job when it's broken all the time.... plus it doesn't hit hard enough, especially with the new GM/ML rules. Hell, if you implement the node again they will need it for sure! Personally, I think you're actually a little mad to take 4. Even with a 'ray attached you'll be broken with two kills. Not my idea of a solid armour formation anyway...

I voted 4's because it makes sense for Manta deployment and they can still be 6's. 4's as a solo formation is just an add on in my view if I have points left over - yeah right!  :laugh:

We always found that the leader upgrade for Hammerheads was too good, or at least too cheap, as Hammerheads then never needed to Marshall at all.
I wonder if we play the same army then  :vD  even with a leader my HHs had issues getting back in the fight.

If pathfinders are to be allowed as an Upgrade, they will have to be really really expensive. The point of my proposal was to make formations have to rely on each other in a synergetic manner in order to win... if the Fire Warrior formations can be made self-sufficient in this manner (having both Coordinated Fire and Markerlights), that does somewhat break the synergetic style of the list.
How is it not synergy to have a PF unit attached? Just because it isn't a separate formation doesn't make it any less synergistic.... Having two units of PFs attached is a great synergy. It works nicely. Also remember I'm still paying points for that synergy.... Plus the list still has issues with ML costing so much that a 200 point PF formation means I lose a solid fighting formation from my army. In a list this fragile that's not great at the business end of a game (turn 3 or 4). Tau suffer towards the end of a game in trying to claim objectives (which they aren't really suppose to. lol) due to brittle formations being either broken or destroyed fairly easily once they contact the enemy.

You mean Skyray?
Sorry I read Pirahna and for some reason thought Tetra  :blush:  So that makes it even worse as there's actually no possibility of indigenous Co-ord for the FWs. It may be trying to force a synergy but that synergy actually hampers the list building IMO.

I really think a reconsider on the PF attachment is warranted here. As I said I see you want people to use fire warriors but then you go and hamstring them if anything they should have any and all assets available to them to make them more attractive.

Remember I'm not asking that PFs need to be an upgrade to every formation - just the PBI that you say should be the backbone of the list. In modern terms the PBI get almost any support it needs attached to it.

Anyway, just some food for thought. I can't convince you if you have your mind already set. It'll just be a pity is all to not help bolster the FW ethos for your list
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Jstr19
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
I agree entirely with Dobbsy. I think that FW's should have lots of upgrades available to them so they can be tailored for any job. This would certainly make FW's the centerpiece of the army. Ideally I'd like to see Stealths, Broadsides and Pathfinders allowable as upgrades for FW's.

Although I would be hesitant to reintroduce the C&C node.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
It may be trying to force a synergy but that synergy actually hampers the list building IMO.


What it does is, just like my Markerlight Proposal, force formations to work together to achieve their goals.

It gives each formation type a niche, a role to play within the overall whole.

Allowing formations to become totally self-sufficent reduces that theme of synergy, and what you end up with is just 'better' individual formations, rather than formations that must work together to function most effectively.


=====

Fire Warriors should be desirable because they're awesome at killing enemy Infantry, not because of the Upgrade types available to them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 21 Aug. 2009, 15:58 )

...
Fire Warriors should be desirable because they're awesome at killing enemy Infantry, not because of the Upgrade types available to them.

Question..

What do you envision the role of those Fire Warriors to be when playing against an all (or mostly) AV/WE army?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Quote: (clausewitz @ 21 Aug. 2009, 19:03 )

Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 21 Aug. 2009, 15:58 )

...
Fire Warriors should be desirable because they're awesome at killing enemy Infantry, not because of the Upgrade types available to them.

Question..

What do you envision the role of those Fire Warriors to be when playing against an all (or mostly) AV/WE army?

Pretty much the same as all the other dedicated AP units out there. They'll struggle.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Most of those "dedicated AP units" would have the option of an assault as they often come with decent FF values.

The Tau are different in that they rely on their shooting, you can't fall back on assault characteristics.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
vytzka
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 553
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Again it needs to be repeated that 5+ FF, 5+ armor and skimmers arrayed in front so you don't get countercharged into CC is hardly terrible in assault.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Agreed. Fire Warriors are not bad at assaults at all. Hardly specialised assault troops, but not terrible by any means.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Quote: (vytzka @ 21 Aug. 2009, 20:21 )

Again it needs to be repeated that 5+ FF, 5+ armor and skimmers arrayed in front so you don't get countercharged into CC is hardly terrible in assault.

Yup, FW are actually not awful in an assault.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Quote: (zombocom @ 21 Aug. 2009, 19:22 )

They'll struggle.

Yup, FW are actually not awful in an assault.


Which is it?  :vD

I'm a little surprised.  When asking the question how do FW deal with vehicles I didn't expect the answer to be "assault them".

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I think the question should be how to FWs deal with RA WE and vehicles. They can't exactly assault that sort of formation. Would be nice if someone would reinstate the MW FF for Crisis  :laugh: But that's a different argument.

What it does is, just like my Markerlight Proposal, force formations to work together to achieve their goals.

It gives each formation type a niche, a role to play within the overall whole.


I'm not doubting that it forces formations to work together. I'm doubting that it helps you avoid a weaker list. That niche could easily be filled by a PF upgrade as it is still synergy. They are working together in the same formation. It's not as if the PFs would be a free upgrade.

I think where we differ is that you see synergy as completely divided into separate fromations whereas I see it as single upgradable formations.

But as I said, you've got your mind set so I'll have to put up with it I guess :laugh:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:36 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
For the record, I'm with Dobbsy and clausewitz on this one.
FW's with limited upgrades are a one trick pony. If the enemy has few/no infantry formations and plenty of RA WE's, the centerpiece of the Tau army is a toothless tiger.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
mnb
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:56 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Parts Unknown
how would PFs help deal w/ RA or WEs? you still have the skyray for a few GM shots.
than again, if PFs were in w/ the infantry formation it wouldn't have to rely on them being within 30 cms. which would do way w/ the dreaded gunline that this list is supposed to prevent.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:08 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Quote: (mnb @ 22 Aug. 2009, 09:37 )

how would PFs help deal w/ RA or WEs? you still have the skyray for a few GM shots.
than again, if PFs were in w/ the infantry formation it wouldn't have to rely on them being within 30 cms. which would do way w/ the dreaded gunline that this list is supposed to prevent.

Who is asking for just PF's to be allowed?

I'd like to see Broadsides available and if there are many allowable upgrades then there would be other combos that could deal with WE etc.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Let's be clear here. We aren't asking for multiple upgrades across the list here. We would just like to have a bit more utility for the FWs. We don't need every unit type available just some carefully picked ones to give the FWs a greater ability to deal with various types of situations. As Onyx mentions maybe a Broadside upgrade and as I mentioned a PF upgrade.

For example, FWs are infantry, so being able to add the other infantry/LV types would make sense from a support asset stand point. Only 3 types of upgrades can be taken. And you could stipulate that Fott FWs get only Broadsides and Mech FWs get Mech PFs/Tetras etc..

Just re-iterating. I don't want masses of upgrades - I like the mainly streamlined design, E&C - but FWs don't seem that great yet in terms of utility, the choice of upgrades available at present isn't the greatest diversity :agree:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 3 of 5
  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net