Page 3 of 4

[ 49 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Tau changes
nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:36 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I was addressing Piranha formations earlier. The point is that you have to price units based on their "highest and best use" to use a legal value-setting term.  In a setting with lots of MLs, as in Jaldon's "Way of the Tau" (and which seems intuitively obvious to me), an all-Piranha formation seems like a cheap AT formation.  So what if it's not very tough.  It's 75cm away from the enemy, has indirect fire, and is comprised of fast skimmers, i.e. not exactly easy to engage (in general terms, not Engage = assault). _________________ Neal
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:33 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Neal, I tried the Piranha formation (with 10 Piranhas as per the WIP 4.2) and it didnt seem too powerful. Its in my battle report. As a comparison a SM Predator Annihilator formation has 12 AT shots (which on sustained fire are at 3+), they are AV with a 4+ save so are better protected and have ATSKNF. So the 10 AT shots for 250 points in an LV 5+ save formation doesn't seem much better.  It has a longer range and the possibility of indirect fire, but the good to-hit values and indirect ability are reliant on your target being marked.
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:49 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	The Preds would have 4 AT4+ and 8 AT5+. _________________ Neal
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:56 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Right enough, my mistake.  I think the comparison stands though.
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:38 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	The only reason I can think of that Piranhas are looked down on is an irrational aversion to LVs.  Compare them to other LVs at equal points and they look really good. SM speeders - comparable firepower, 5x the range (or better firepower at close range), indirect fire, same armor, comparable area coverage due to sheer numbers, both skimmers, same speed, weaker in FF, can't garrison, weaker initiative KoS - comparable firepower, twice the range (or much better at close range), indirect fire, same armor, skimmer, same speed, better command and control, weaker assault, can't take nearly as large a formation Vypers - better firepower, 2x range (or much metter at close range), indirect fire, same armor, slightly worse command and control (spirit stones), slightly worse in FF I like all of those units.  Not only would I put Piranhas as good as or slightly better than similar-role vehicles in other races, they are especially useful in the context of the Tau army by providing massed AT fire that is otherwise lacking. _________________ Neal
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:29 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Couple of points. SM Speeders have a 4+ save, ATSKNF and are a real assest in supporting assaults. Vypers also have hit-and-run, full move consolidate etc. All your examples make for fast moving assault capable formations (the Vypers in a Jet Bike formation).  It would seem rather appropriate that the Tau equivalent is not much good in assault (and the Piranha isn't good there) but has better ranged shooting ability.  Does the lack of assault potential not balance the benefits of increased shooting? Is it just Piranhas in a massed formation that you are concerned about as it's a unit that didn't cause much of a worry when it appeared?
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:17 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Is it just Piranhas in a massed formation that you are concerned about as it's a unit that didn't cause much of a worry when it appeared? Pretty much.  I've always thought they looked like a good value but were tempered because they never quite fit with any of the formations that could take them as an upgrade. _________________ Neal

Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:29 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Fair enough.  Though I must admit I dont share your disquiet regarding the Piranha formation.  Is there any precendent?  Any other units that would be too good if they could be fielded on their own instead of upgrades?
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:08 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	It's hard to say, because there are other factors involved in most cases.  However, a few stick out: Falcons. In the Aspect host, they are 65 points each.  In the Troupe, they are 50 points each.  That's a big difference.  The focus of having uniform unit abilities compared to the "diluted" nature of the Host would, imho, tend to increase the effectiveness of the units.  Granted, a significantly smaller formation size and lesser flexibility might warrant a price drop but I think it's currently off by quite a bit.  Still, the point is that in a focused and more homgenous formation, the Falcons' abilities work better than in a more varied formation. Vindicators. Even if the discussed changes are implemented, would Vindicators fit in an Assault squad?  Would the effectiveness of a Vindy in that formation not be significantly different than the effectiveness in an armor formation? _________________ Neal
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:00 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	The fact that Falcons are cheaper when selected on their own, instead of as an upgrade, would support the argument that Piranhas on their own would be worth less than Piranhas in a larger formation (one that already has markerlights built in for example)? I am a little confused as to what the Falcon example was meant to show.  It seems to be the oppoesite of the question "What unit is too good to have its own formation?", as, in fact, Falcons do come in their own formation and they are cheaper. Likewise vindicators are already a separate formation, and not one that is considered over-powered, in fact my impression is that its a fairly rarely used formation.
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:19 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	My fault for not being specific enough.  As I said, there are other factors involved in those examples and they apparently muddy the waters too greatly. Let's try again: Defilers 75 points each in the Black Legion list because they are in a mixed formation where all their abilities cannot be used to full effect.  100 points each in the L&D list because they are in a dedicated formation that can maximize their abilities. Major difference in point cost based on the formation context. SM Dreadnought. There is widespread support for a dedicated Dread formation because dreads mixed into other formations have serious disadvantages.  Rarely fielded for 50 points in a mixed formation, but the dedicated formation proposals almost all have them as 4/200, or 50 points each.  Once again, major difference in functionality based on the formation. _________________ Neal
Top

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:46 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	Vindis aren't used much AT ALL because they're too slow to get into range, or hobble a unit they're attached to severely for the firepower, ATM.  I've pinged on this repeatedly, that a Vindi should be faster tactically than a Whirlwind since a WW needs to stop in order to shoot, while a Vindi doesn't. I originally designed the 'Lionfish' (so named because of the mental image of the missile smoke trails going everywhere, then curving around onto the target, not from vanity) to pretty much be a Tau Whirlwind.  It's designed as an antipersonnel 'field artillery' piece, a capability the Tau list at the time really lacked.  Adding the AT fire of the Pirhanas would dramatically increase the capabilities of the formation, IMO (haven't tested it yet), above the effect of two individual formations. _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:58 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	NH and Cw, I think composition does impact a formations effectiveness. Heck, you don't have to travel beyond our list to see that. Jet Pack technology is only useful if all models have the jet packs. Add crisis to a FW squad on foot and you get little advantage from those jet packs Kroot Great Knarlocs slow a formation down. Adding LV piranhas to a HH formation make it suseptable to AP fire damage and might make you change a decision for position as a result. But the pressing question you guys have been chewing on really boils down to this IMHO - is the piranha formation as a stand alone formation over the top? Didn't appear so by any stretch in Cw's report, but much more playtesting is needed IMHO to feel comfortable for sure. _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:05 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Tactica, I agree that formation composition can affect a units usefulness and sometimes cost.  Neal and I have indeed been discussing whether the Piranha Contingent is too good.  Though I would suggest there are two questions: firstly is the formation not appropriate at all and should be removed, or secondly is the formation just not costed correctly? Neal, Ok, defilers are are good example, especially as when fielded independently they are often used as an artillery formation, which the independent Piranhas can mirror.  If we were to take this as an appropriate precedent it would seem to indicate that a slight points increase would be the way to go (I actually suggested 6@175 originally).  The fact that dreadnoughts cost the same as upgrades as they do in a separate formation is less comparable than the defilers as they would do roughly the same job in either case. Lion, at present there hasn't been any concern over the Piranha upgrade to the Stingray.  (I liked Lionfish, but I understood that there was a desire to make the Tau sound less "Fishy")
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Tau changes Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:40 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Cw, I would say the Piranhas are definitely not over the top. They are LV after all and will have their problems with that alone. In regards to their points, I would say they are close - one way or the other. They need some more playtest in this role and I'd hate to go crazy with adjusting points unless we are sure they need to go up to start. The stand alone Tetra contingent went to 175 in WIP v4.2 due to playtest results, though I personally disagree with that as I think they were costed right. Example: the pathfinders are more valuable to me than the tetras. However, others disagree and think the Tetras are equally valuable to them, so, we raised the points as suggested. Fair enough, both PF's and Tetras are equal in price now. So if we need to start the piranha formation off at 175 base, I'm happy to do that. If there's not a mass push to do that, then I say playtest it at 150 as the unit has proven itself to be balanced as an upgrade - no sense in fiddling with the points if its unwarranted. Afterall, that is what playtest is for. Final thought, its easier to increase points later than it is to reduce points later IMHO. Thoughts? Increase Piranha formation to 175 for playtest or leave it at 150? _________________ Rob
Top

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 3 of 4

[ 49 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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