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

E&C's Tau Proposal
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
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 Foot FWs get only Broadsides and Mech FWs get Mech PFs/Tetras etc..

I have been spitballing something along these lines, but honestly, aren't you better-served by having a full Broadside formation, for example, instead of a Fire Warrior formation with two Broadside Battlesuits inside it? All those AP shots mostly likely will be wasted.


Fluffwise, Pathfinders/Tetras operate in seperate groups, rather than attaching themselves to larger formations, so that explains my hesitancy there.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Fluffwise, Pathfinders/Tetras operate in seperate groups, rather than attaching themselves to larger formations, so that explains my hesitancy there.

No worries I understand your hestiancy,  :agree:  But! Don't forget, that the formations sizes in Epic are an abstract of a 40K game so your average 40k force has many different troop types in one grouping. I'm not saying that this is how Epic is or should be designed but if you're using fluff as a basis no Epic formation is truly correct. I would say a little leeway would be possible.

2 units of PFs attached to FWs is akin to having 10 pathfinders on a 40k board - I know we don't like to use 40K as an analogy but I'm trying to make a point here. :laugh:

There will still be synergy if you have an indigenous PF upgrade attached to a FW formation AND that FW formation will be a better tool on the table top than just a plain old mech infantry formation. It's just a little more abstract than a stand alone formation of PFs is all.

A full PF formation can stay in the list as, utility-wise, people like to have a choice. I don't like to lose a fighting formation, but others may prefer the extra ML/Co-ord formation to be a separate one. It's all up to the user, but it'd be a cool idea if there was the option for both players' design needs.

aren't you better-served by having a full Broadside formation, for example, instead of a Fire Warrior formation with two Broadside Battlesuits inside it? All those AP shots mostly likely will be wasted
Of course a full Broadside formation is a better option vs armour - provided you have the points available.... a 2 unit upgrade can fill a hole if needed and give the FWs a punch they don't have.

Also, it's not about wasting AP, it's about adding AT firepower to an otherwise toothless formation if enemy armour comes calling  :;):  Adding a Hammerhead upgrade to a foot FW formation is pretty pointless when the FWs only move 15cm, right? Well if you add 2 broadsides that FW formation can now lay hits on armour and force the opponent to wonder whether to throw that 4 tank predator formation at the poor old Fire Warriors of Foot.

Again, FW utility is paramount in this list design. If the FWs are truly what you see and wish this list to be the focus of, then making them the "Queen of the Battlefield" with minimal uprade possibilities will be a bit genius IMO. Think about it, FWs able to deal with all comers (well not RA units) but you get my meaning.  :)

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 22 Aug. 2009, 14:44 )

Fluffwise, Pathfinders/Tetras operate in seperate groups, rather than attaching themselves to larger formations, so that explains my hesitancy there.

No worries I understand your hestiancy,  :agree:  But! Don't forget, that the formations sizes in Epic are an abstract of a 40K game so your average 40k force has many different troop types in one grouping. I'm not saying that this is how Epic is or should be designed but if you're using fluff as a basis no Epic formation is truly correct. I would say a little leeway would be possible.

2 units of PFs attached to FWs is akin to having 10 pathfinders on a 40k board - I know we don't like to use 40K as an analogy but I'm trying to make a point here. :laugh:

"what appears on a 40k board" is rarely a good indicator of what to do in Epic... you can mix up all different types of Marines in squads of 5 in 40k, or artillery and guardsmen, etc.

That doesn't mean that the standard Marine formation in Epic should be one Terminator unit, two Tactical units, two Assault units, and a scout unit.

Possible unit combinations in 40k shouldn't dictate formation types in Epic.

There will still be synergy if you have an indigenous PF upgrade attached to a FW formation AND that FW formation will be a better tool on the table top than just a plain old mech infantry formation. It's just a little more abstract than a stand alone formation of PFs is all.
It's less synergy and more a flat upgrade of all the units in the formation, by that point. It's unlikely the pathfinders will die before the formation becomes combat-ineffective.

There comes a tipping point where you might as well simply re-stat all the units in the formation and forget the Markerlight rule entirely.

====

I'll be thinking about possible upgrades for Fire Warrior formations, but won't make any major moves on it until some more reports come in about how the proposal plays.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Possible unit combinations in 40k shouldn't dictate formation types in Epic.


I'm not saying that this is how Epic is or should be designed but if you're using fluff as a basis no Epic formation is truly correct. I would say a little leeway would be possible
LOL I think you completely missed this part of my post E&C  :laugh: I underlned my point to QFE  :;):

It's less synergy and more a flat upgrade of all the units in the formation, by that point. It's unlikely the pathfinders will die before the formation becomes combat-ineffective.
Ok, it is slightly less synergetic, but that other separate formation over the hill from that PF upgrade will be happy for that synergy when it can use the ML those PFs carry....

There comes a tipping point where you might as well simply re-stat all the units in the formation and forget the Markerlight rule entirely.
Can you explain why? I'm not quite with you. The way I see it, the FWs with the PFs are one formation. Other formations can still use that formation's ML so thereby keeping the ML rule in play. Sure, that FW formation with PFs doesn't rely on a stand alone PF formation now, but all other formations do - it becomes yet another cool FW bonus in this army design  :;):

I'll be thinking about possible upgrades for Fire Warrior formations.
Cool! I look forward to hearing what you come up with.  :agree:  :grin: I hope I have given you good food for thought at least.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I hope I have given you good food for thought at least.


You have, I assure you.

It'll take a while to digest before I, uh, create some new forms from your food. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Well, here's an update then!

CHANGES:

- Added Pathfinders Upgrade
- Added Broadside Suits Upgrade
- Made Hammerhead formation 4-strong
- Made Hammerhead Upgrade 2 tanks instead of 3
- Removed Ion Cannon & Twin Fusion Cannon Hammerhead turrets from the 'generic' list, as they are apparently not going to return to sale, whilst the Railgun Hammerhead apparently will.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:21 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
There probably have been hundreds (or even thousands) of Ion Cannon Hammerheads sold (over the years) and it is entirely appropriate, that those of us that have them, have a list with stats in it to use them.

I know your argument against their inclusion E&C, but I don't believe that is a good enough reason to throw them out.
And despite what TRC said about the Ion Cannons not looking as good as the Railguns  :)) , I really like the way they look (and play) and want to be able to use them.

_________________
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  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (Onyx @ 26 Aug. 2009, 15:21 )

I know your argument against their inclusion E&C, but I don't believe that is a good enough reason to throw them out.
And despite what TRC said about the Ion Cannons not looking as good as the Railguns  :)) , I really like the way they look (and play) and want to be able to use them.

Then use them as 'counts as' Railguns in the generic list, or use them in the Armoured list which will have every variant ever produced.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:29 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Why is the Armoured list being treated as a poor, ugly cousin to dump all the units you don't like (or haven't an official model for) in to? If it's ggod enough for the Armoured list, it's good enough for this list.

Ion Turret Hammerheads are an official unit, with an official model that many of us have. I don't need to play them as counts as RailHeads and I don't want to.

I don't care if it isn't available in a years time, let the future Tau players use their RailHeads for proxy Ion Heads if they want. The argument is just as sound.

Oh, and thanks for the changes to the Fire Warrior upgrades  :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
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Come on, it just doesn't look as good as the railgun :)







_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (Onyx @ 26 Aug. 2009, 15:29 )

Why is the Armoured list being treated as a poor, ugly cousin to dump all the units you don't like (or haven't an official model for) in to? If it's ggod enough for the Armoured list, it's good enough for this list.

It's being treated as a variant list, Ie: stuff that isn't available as standard.

Variant Hammerhead turrets are no longer going to be available as standard. They're going to require converting or eBay hunting.


It is terribly unfair to new players to expect them to go hunting through eBay in order to get units that are in the 'standard/generic' list.



I don't care if it isn't available in a years time, let the future Tau players ...

My concern is much more focused on the future of the list(s) than that.


I want the generic list to be as attractive to newbies as possible, with a minimum number of conversions or eBay visits required.


=====

Note that I will carry this approach through to the other lists I steward ; if the Stormblade and Stormsword do not return to sale, the forces of Krieg will likely lose access to those tanks.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (The_Real_Chris @ 26 Aug. 2009, 15:35 )

Come on, it just doesn't look as good as the railgun :)

I prefer the look of the Ion Cannon one, personally.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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
It's the same as wioth the Minervan Tank Legon. The Main Imperial Guard amrylist don`t get all the different Leman Russ variants, but the variant list Minervan Tank Legion gets all the funny toys.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Removed Twin Fusion Cannon Hammerhead turrets from the 'generic' list, as they are apparently not going to return to sale, whilst the Railgun Hammerhead apparently will.

OH DAMMIT! The one thing I truly loved about your proposal and you remove it - not to mention I also just bought some. There's a few more expletives I really would like to type here but I won't. Let's just say I'm very P****ed off.  :mad:  :mad:  :mad:  :mad:

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: E&C's Tau Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Dobbsy: I will ring up FW tomorrow and double-confirm which Hammerhead turrets will be returning / won't be returning.

Plus, don't forget that the Armoured list will be developed (if my proposal is selected by Honda), and so those Fusions will not be useless!

For the record, I wish I didn't have to remove the two variant turret types from the generic list, but the list *must* be accessable to newbies.

I believe that is simply the duty of any non-variant NetERC list bar the ones that don't have models to buy like Necrons and Tyranids, not to develop only for those that play right now, but to develop for those who may play in future too.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
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 4 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 10 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:  


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