I cannot believe I am going to say this, however...:

It was proposed to me that in an list design, it is better to make things cheaper and find that it is under-costed than to make them over-costed where there is hardly a defence at that point to state they are useless (general attitude and lack of playtests to see what is actually being taken).

Maybe go cheap (not stupid cheap) and work up from there. If playtests show that they are always being taken at the detriment to other formations that never see a game, that would be a good indication to start increasing the costs - even at the whining of the Tau players - because you then can show a history to justify the cost increase.

This applies to all the discussions

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Who proposed that?

My philosophy has always been the opposite.
Make stuff look expensive to start with, and drop the points cost if it's underperforming.

Otherwise, if you approach things from the other side, you end up with a "cascade effect", as you increase the points on one "super combo", another one comes to the fore, then you have to increase the points on that, and the next one after that, etc.

So I've always aimed to start lists as underpowered and tone up, rather than start overpowered and tone down.

That way development can be closed at any point and although the list won't be finished, it also won't be left in an overpowered & unplayable state, which is what will happen if you start off with an overpowered list and gradually tone down.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It was a theoretical discussion I was having with Morgan

Perhaps he will see this and expand it further. I does rely however on finishing development on not stopping it as you suggested.

From experience, for development lists, it is easier to see something as 'too cheap' than to see it as 'over-costed'. Maybe that's just how my brain works...?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Maybe, but if you miss a super combo by accident (Noone's infallible) and close development, then you'll be stuck with it for years.

This Tau list is intended for use in tournaments, so it has to be stable for several years at minimum. That means not taking risks with making it overpowered.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I wish this theory of thought was in existence when some other lists (that will not be named) were placed forward and accepted for tournaments...

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

The make it powerful and we can always downgrade it policy was originally followed by the tau list - and was directly responsible for the only official lists rules that were put in place for several year in UK tournaments as the tau were wiping the floor with everybody else. That 2005-6ish

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Isn't that more of a problem with the list being rushed to completion rather than the theory of the design being placed into practice with appropriate playtesting?

It amazes me that we will readily accept a list such as the Tau for tournaments yet other variant lists they may be just as balanced or even more so are held to a 'development' status.

I guess if you are attempting to rush out a tournament list, over-costing is the way to go. Why rush however.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

But if the "underpower, then tune up" philosophy had been followed, there wouldn't have been any problem with Tau (And IIRC, Tyranids) dominating the tables.

I'd venture to say that with a greater variety of balanced and approved Net lists, the EpicUK split-off might never have happened.

Plus, and I can only offer this thought by speaking from my own experience, it is IMO much easier to spot problems in lists if you're "tuning up" rather than "tuning down".


I understand that the Net ERC will have promoted a lot of lists to "Approved" when the armies book finally hits.

EpicUK, who are also involved in Tau development, have a lot of approved lists, although not normally with the same broad scope as NetEA lists, they do at least pin their colours to the mast and generally stick with them.



The Tau list has been in development for something like 5 years.

That's less of a rush and more of a crippled crawl.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

A massive problem with Tau development was that it was overpowered in many ways to start with and each change became a long drawn out argument between people whose play styles exploited that and those who didn't. Really some things remained the same for 3-4 years and were exploitable the whole time. I think also the Tau with their universal appeal threw up different play styles in different areas in a big way, initially at least especially in regards to how aircraft are used. It does tend to be true that it is a lot easier to power stuff up in testing than power down. That may not be the best way to achieve balance, but it is the best way for a practical result 9that doesn't take half a decade). I mean really, during development the Tau model range has been removed!

I was the one who brought up the tunnel fighting Yme-loc. They were sent into the sewers of this city to find a terrorist cell. They weren't really expecting to find any sort of organized or well equipped enemy (which is why they freaked out when they stumbled upon Ciaphus Cain and his band of merry men). This is not what pathfinders typically do - that's my point. It is something they'd probably use Drones for most of the time, like they did in Courage and Honor.

But then the /big twist/ at the end story (which honestly makes no sense anyway if you look at the rest of the Tau fluff) wouldn't have worked. Same deal for Stealth Suits really.

And the thing about turns/shooting being a long time is a point against Pathfinders using their carbines. They don't carry much ammo. Fire Warriors carry essentially a limitless amount of it, but Pathfinders don't carry the back-pack charger.

Anyway. The Pathfinder's place in the greater good is to be a scout for the main army, pulling the Tau force forward as they advance and marking key targets for destruction while disrupting the enemy with high powered weapons in an opportunistic way.

If getting into carbine range and firing wasn't an active detriment to their primary task I would agree. But it is. Suddenly, the forward scouts that are supposed to be advancing are now bogged down in a fire fight. A fire fight that is not advantageous to them - it's almost impossible for it to be. They have to withdraw, and now the attack is going forward blind, while the enemy are now on high alert making all of the other pathfinder's jobs harder as well.

When they're found out, they have a bad tendency to get dead rather fast. Everyone has basically figured out what they are by now. High priority targets you might say. Staying way back and sniping or calling in missiles, that's probably fine. Hanging back, using attacks that don't really reveal your location. That way you don't get artillery strikes called in on your head.

I'll maintain this position. Pathfinders using the carbines on a regular basis... It's like the spotter in the sniper team making them move closer because he wants in on the action for once. Or an artillery observation team moving up because they're tired of the big guns always hogging all the glory.

There are situations where these might be good ideas, but it is all too micro-scale for epic, like setting up a localized ambush for enemy scouts. Not something that Epic can really do because the details are too fine. That is where the Carbine is in my opinion. An option for a select set of situations, most of which fall under 'engagement'.

A lot of it depends on how stringent the playtesting is, and what you're looking for. Tune up is less likely to be disruptive over the long term, but more likely to result in a less competitive list/formation/unit. Tune down is more likely to be disruptive in the short term, but more likely to have all components stress tested.

The biggest problem with "tuning up" is that certain components are often neglected, and because of a wealth of 'good options', the bad ones are just ignored. Examples here, are Marine Vindicators and Tau Gun Drones. This can be a problem across the board, in that it is easier for a list seen to be too strong, to be neutered, than to convince a large group that a weak list needs boosting.

The up side of the "tuning down", is squeaky wheel gets the grease. If the same units/formations are being taken constantly, makes a power reduction/points increase easier to find. It's possible the reason is something else (playtester likes the minis), but at a competitive level, people tend to gravitate towards the more cost effective units. One list I was working on, some significant problems were found early by just asking The Real Chris to make an army.

As long as people can remain objective, particularly the line designer, and as long as people don't rush to "lock" a list, either way works.

Morgan Vening

I don't really intend to stick my nose in here much because yme-loc is the captain of the ship now, so I'm just registering an opinion, but before you add Sniper to every single stand in the PF formation, please do consider a couple of things which has prevented that from occurring in the past:

1. What are the closest equivalents (from another army) to Pathfinders? The Eldar ranger guys and SM scouts...possibly ratlings, but I tend to not include them because they are a dedicated sniper formation.

2. How do these other formations translate their sniper abilities to Epic? In the case of SM Scouts, which in 40K are capable of getting 10 sniper rifles, they get an upgrade to one unit. One unit. The Rangers I'm not sure of, not being Eldar, but there if each stand gets Sniper it is because the formation is a dedicated formation armed to snipe, so to speak. That is not the role of PFs.

3. Tau PFs get, by last count, 3 Rail rifles. They have no sniper capabilities inherent because of the RR, the RR is merely a longer ranged harder hitting weapon and unless it is married with a ML, does not hit any better than a pulse rifle. It is a weapon that deals with power armored opponents quite handily, but to no more accurate a means than other weapons, sans ML.

4. Sniper is an extremely powerful capability. In the past, I have considered an upgrade for a single unit ala SM Scouts, but do not consider the mechanics in the larger scheme of things to justify Sniper to each unit.

My two yen.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Honda. I believe your opinion is just as important as anyone else's, so please do not be a stranger.

What you posted makes a lot of sense, and if what you have to say helps sway development to a better list, not having you around to give the opinions would be a real waste to the development of this list.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Regarding Space Marine Scouts: As Epic: Armageddon was developed SNiper Ruifles where much more restricted for SM Scouts. Onlyinthe current Codex you can equip the whole squad with Sniper Rifles.

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

@MV,

Fair comment, though I haven't seen SM players clamoring for the Sniper ability on all units in a formation.

The question remains, should Pathfinders get Sniper on all the units in the formation. My opinion is "no", it is not justified.

_________________
Remember Taros? We do.

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment