Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

asaura	Post subject: Tau Rules Questions Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:11 am
Brood Brother Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am Posts: 481	Drone numbers 1C+2D setups are not typical in 40K armies. 2 Drones per Crisis is the maximum (IIRC). 0 Drones per Crisis is the minimum. The average amount of drones used in 40K is something far lower than 2. In Epic, we deal with pretty large Crisis formations, consisting of at least 8-12 Crisis suits. These will very often include some drones, which are built into the Crisis saves (3+). If we want to model a Crisis formation with a lot of drones, we add a Gun Drones upgrade to the formation. This allows us to model some drones (just Crisis) and lots of drones (Crisis + drones) AT susceptibility You keep referring to the 3-7 infantry models per stand thing. Again, I want to point out that the design notes for Tau state that the stats are based on 2-3 models per stand. 2-3 is clearly less than 3-7. If I understand correctly, you say that the LV/infantry question is important in and of itself, that Crisis and Broadsides are infantry, period. I am concerned with how they play on the Epic tabletop. In this respect, I want to see AT Predators be able to take them down and so on. What it says on the unit stats blurb is of very little concern to me, and I care nothing for 40K. We've previously gone over a Heavy Infantry designation. It would probably be a very good fit for Crisis suits, but, since we don't have it, LV or Inf are both possibilities. We can certainly go the Infantry way and say that a Crisis unit is three suits modelled as infantry, period. It's just not as inevitable as you make it out to be. The 4.0 and 4.1 lists specifically took another route. Terrain One of the reasons specifically mentioned by JG (link) in the LV thing was making Crisis suits not hop from cover to cover: As for Crisis, yes this means they don't hop from cover to cover anymore, but hey, that was the idea We can change this, obviously, but that was one of the intents in the LV modelling. I've found that the speed and inability of Crisis suits to use cover makes them work in a distinctive "Fire Brigade" fashion, fighting near areas of cover occupied by foot infantry (FWs, PFs, maybe Stealth).
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Tau Rules Questions Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:58 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

1C+2D setups are not typical in 40K armies. 2 Drones per Crisis is the maximum (IIRC). 0 Drones per Crisis is the minimum. The average amount of drones used in 40K is something far lower than 2. Fair enough, not all people take all possible models in all possible units. We could extend that to any multi-model unit in the game. Therefore, I'm not sure how 'averge taken' is relivant. That's a player tendancy or option more than anything else. The fact remains that max unit size is 3 crisis and 6 drones. In Epic, we deal with pretty large Crisis formations,

As is the precident for all armies... large jump pack formations of 12-28 models in assault marines... large tac squad formations of... you get the idea...

consisting of at least 8-12 Crisis suits.
I would say 8-16 per formation, but we can go with your 8-12 for your argument's sake.

These will very often include some drones, which are built into the Crisis saves (3+).

Whethere rules are built in or not, we agree that the drones are also on the bases and factor into the units overall ability in E:A - that's true.

If we want to model a Crisis formation with a lot of drones, we add a Gun Drones upgrade to the formation. This allows us to model some drones (just Crisis) and lots of drones (Crisis + drones)
Whoa - we diagree here. Drones are part of crisis formations and definitely account for the models on the bases as well as the crisis stats and therefore may be included on the base to accurately reflect WYSIWYG.

A Drone formation is also a seperate formation.

An orc mob may add more orcs to the mob - but that's not to say that the original mob was not also made of of the same orcs.

Crisis are made up of crisis and drones. Just becasue we may want to bolster the ranks of an Epic:A formation with more drones, does not discount the fact that the crisis foramtions ALSO have drones on their stands.

AT susceptibility

You keep referring to the 3-7 infantry models per stand thing. Again, I want to point out that the design notes for Tau state that the stats are based on 2-3 models per stand. 2-3 is clearly less than 3-7.
The design notes are confusing and contradictory to say the least. First, the design notes are just that - notes. They are not rules. Second, the v4.1 design notes say 2-4 and then say 2-3. However, for the sake of your argument - yes, I agree that we have to have rules to account for 3 crisis _models_ per stand. Since the design notes are part of this argument, while we're at it, let us also not forget that the design notes also say we should feel free to add drones to stands as they are _also_ part of the stand. Jervis also clearly stated that infantry stands are made of of 3-7 models per base. So we agree, the crisis - per design _notes_ - meet all definitions of the unit type _infantry_ in the book and are based on infantry stands, and I would further note that have a legacy of being just that - infantry in other games.

If I understand correctly, you say that the LV/infantry question is important in and of itself, that Crisis and Broadsides are infantry, period.
I'm saying that is the first consideration. I think my case was clearly stated so not going to reiterrate. If I was confusing on any of my points, I'll be happy to elaborate. I don't want to become a broken record though either.

I am concerned with how they play on the Epic tabletop.
As am I! That's why I've been playing these vary formations as infantry in numerous battle reports posted over the past months. They aren't broken at all as infantry. In fact, vs. opponents that play in 40K - its logical that they would be infantry. I've received several comments that have said the units work not only work fine as infantry, but its what they actually expected the unit to do.

In this respect, I want to see AT Predators be able to take them down and so on.

Noted. I acknowledge that desire and can appreciate the perspective from someone whom which doesn't play Tau.

In that same line of thinking, I want to be able to tell Eldar players they can't use Spriit stones or holofields and that they need to give tau back their hit and run ability. I would also like to note that my lascannons in my IG heavy weapons platoons should make short work of Terminators. Furthermore, I don't understand why broadsides can't take down marine bikes - it sure seems like I'd punch a hole right through them as well as their terminators - their huge, and I have lots of big guns. Same goes for obliterators and Thousand sons, they are really slow and really big... I should tear them apart with my broadsides AT shots!

However, the rules of the game are based around precidents and principles. Infantry can only be hurt by AP. Tanks are hurt by AT. Their's a special rule for light vehicles and Jervis' intent for this is quite clear and experessly detailed in the book. The lable is for vehicles that have open crew compartments and little to no armor. Land speeders, ork trusk/warbuggies, sentinels, piranhas, tetras, etc. Crisis, like marines and terminators - are infantry that are mounted on a stand.

So although we 'want' to hurt certain things in the game with AT as typical adversaries of those armies, in the end, the game has an inherent balance of what should and should not be killed by AT and AP fire. Jervis has done an excellent job at describing each unit and how it is based. I would refer you to the afformentioned 'for reference' posts to support these facts.

I also What it says on the unit stats blurb is of very little concern to me, and I care nothing for 40K.
We definitely disagree here. I care very much for the franchise feel of the game and each race. I think the legacy of Epic is a direct derivative of 40K. It's our reference point. I feel we have a responsibility to avoid stylistic faux paus as NH and others would attest. There is no precident for Obliterators, terminators, crisis, broadsides to be considered vehicles of any sort. I see no reason why we should start now just because you want to shoot predator AT fire at crisis or because I want to shoot broadside AT fire at obliterators.

We've previously gone over a Heavy Infantry designation. It would probably be a very good fit for Crisis suits, but, since we don't have it, LV or Inf are both possibilities. We can certainly go the Infantry way and say that a Crisis unit is three suits modelled as infantry, period. It's just not as inevitable as you make it out to be. The 4.0 and 4.1 lists specifically took another route.
And we could extend that to all sorts of infantry formations in the game. As soon as you call crisis 'heavy infantry' look at the other formations that require the same designation for the same reasons Ogryn, Bikes, Obliterators, Termiantors, chaos terminators, thousand sons, Nobs in Mega armor, tyranid warriors, etc, etc, etc...

The fact remains that we could do lots of things to further break down and sub category Infantry - but why? They work as infantry in all of these lists. Why attempt to fix something that doesn't need fixing? Just because you want them to take AT damage? That makes no sense, we all have wants.

The formations should be what they are - infantry. We should only consider straying from franchise concepts if the balance require it. This is just pure design principle. If Terminators are ifantry in 40K, Light vehicles in Epic, and space ship cruisers in bfg... (obvious exageration) the whole franchise concept of a super human huge size of a man in a heavily armoured suit of ancient forged tactical dreadnought armour starts to unravel. Without the franchise history, the game universe of the 41st millenium would not be where its at today, and the flavor of units that we have in epic would have never been created in the parent game franchise of rogue trader and 40K. We have to respect franchise lineage where possible IMHO. I've yet to hear a reason why its not possible in this case or any other equally heavy if not heavier bit of infantry.

Terrain

One of the reasons specifically mentioned by JG (link) in the LV thing was making Crisis suits not hop from cover to cover:


That was also from a different version of the list and was from October 2004, just over a year ago. This is development, concepts once thought to be true do change. Precidents do develop in other lists, and changes come about.

We've been talking about making tau infantry as E:A infantry for a long time since that post you are referencing - and for the right reasons. There's been a significant amount of playtest with them as infantry - and they work from reports thus far.

Just like there was a time when JG thought FF should be good on Tau (as well as many other things that we've attempted), we've learned otherwise.

We can change this, obviously,
I appreciate that. Please note that many of us Tau playtesters have desired and planned on moving forward with this change for quite some time. Thus, v4.2 was long overdue. Without a champion for quite some time (and still) we have plenty of playtest work to do. I know from private messages and player experience that I speak for many in the Tau community, now is definitely the time to administer this conceptually aligning change to v4.1 and start playtesting it in mass as many are on board.

I do respectfully ask you and others for that opportunity.

PS - I do take notice, and have documented, that a playtest question to be answered in WIP v4.2 is - "Are battlesuits (crisis, broadsides) balanced as infantry with existing stats?"

Cheers Asaura,