Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

Honda

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:17 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

As for the balance issue, what type of tangible evidence is needed to show that PFs are better than FWs? I think that, in the absence of a large number of power gamers who don't play "flavor" armies, it is difficult to prove. However, just because they lack in-game proof doesn't mean that a comparison based on thought experiments should be dismissed out of hand. Well, I agree that thought experiments should not be dismissed out of hand because that is how some anomalies are uncovered. At the same time, I'm trying to find something "tangible" in the costs and relative effectiveness that says a change is warranted. I want to be sure that I don't appear to be invalidating your experiences, because I am not, but I know that I take just as many FW cadres as I do Pathfinder contingents. Of those that I know who play Tau on a regular basis do the same. I do not hear of other players taking lots of PF's to the exclusion of FW on a regular basis because of their fragility. Some of my experiences may reflect who my opponents are, just as your experiences may do the same. I think PF's are a great unit and I like the capabilities that they provide. I just know that if I built a list and didn't take a balanced approach, I'd continually find myself hamstrung. So for me, that means in a 2700 pt list, I do take PF's, sometimes two. But they don't replace units in my list, they supplement and enhance the rest of the units. And as far as the direct "porting" of abilities, I don't find myself bothered by the differences as I'm the kind of person that tends to look for an intended effect or result. If that effect/result meets my expectation, then I'm not as concerned about how it achieved it. Just have to chalk that up to a personality thing and blame Myers-Briggs.   So, to summarize my ramblings. I do hear you guys when you express concerns regarding PF abilities vs. other similar units and when you are concerned about costs. I think these issues will surface as we continue testing. _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:51 am

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

Well, for me, this is an issue of staying consistent with how other armies translated from 40k to Epic. Obviously, that is separate from the balance issue, but it is still very important (at least to me). Semaj..., For the record, there are inconsistency's galore across lists. There is no 'standard' porting principle. Examples: Look at tau broadsides and chaos Obliterators - why aren't they both LV's or both infantry? (same size, same wounds, same saves, broadsides can have more models per formation with drones though) - why does a broadside get 2 shots in 40K (with multitracker)and 2 in E:A... while an Obliterator gets 1 in 40K and 3 shots per turn in E:A? Why does Eldar pulse get up to 3 hits in E:A, an IG heavy bolter gets one shot in E:A, and an IG Hydra in E:A get 2 shots an activation? - The Hydra has 4 shots in 40K / turn. IG heavy bolter and IG multi-laser 3 shots in 40K. Why is there a difference between Eldar skimmer, IG skimmer, and Tau skimmer speeds? Why are Vultures, Valkyries, Nightwings, Mauraders, hell talons all planes in 40K but Valkyries and Vultures are skimmers in E:A while the rest remain planes. Why was the Eldar list developed with special rules that the champion claims were put in to specifically address issues beyond the GT turn 4, while every other champion is devleoping E:A lists for the GT standard of up to turn 4 only? - All 40K games are played with the same 6-9 turns afterall... The list of inconsistencies is vast and goes on and on Semaj... Of course, these are all rhetorical questions. The reality of your, "issue of staying consistent with how other armies translated from 40k to Epic" is that there is no standard. Each army champion deviates from any principle. SO - with no standard in place, the champions deviate as they see fit from any 'defacto' standard even. So, what do you fall back on when developing if even defacto standards are deviated from? Answer: Balance in play. At the end of the day, each list needs to generate balanced results when played against other armies out there. I've yet to read anyone addressing Honda's balance in play question. TRC was able to break the 5 Aces list consistently and time and time again against *MOST* opponents. Can anyone say this about some organization of the Tau list with Heavy Pathfinders? Can you please provide some battle reports for our reference? As Cw has mentioned, we know the PF formation is a bargain on PAPER... we've yet to see the formation abused consistently with results. Can someone please provide that? PS - somebody asked what the minimum squad size was for PF in 40K, its 4. PS2 - somebody said Tau Sniper Drone teams align more with a 'sniper' than PF's - oddly, both follow the same 40K rules. Both have targeters. Both have 3 rail rifles that can target seperate targets. Both have a minimum squad size of 4 models. Both have the same to hit potential... One serves as forward reconnisance and is mobile, the other serves as support. PS 3, Tactica nods to Cw for the support Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

semajnollissor

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:01 am

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA

Quote (Tactica @ 31 Mar. 2006 (18:51)) Examples: Look at tau broadsides and chaos Obliterators - why aren't they both LV's or both infantry? (same size, same wounds, same saves, broadsides can have more models per formation with drones though) - why does a broadside get 2 shots in 40K (with multitracker)and 2 in E:A... while an Obliterator gets 1 in 40K and 3 shots per turn in E:A? I don't think these are good examples, because in these cases, I do think that the tau list ought to be brought in line with the preceding lists. So, my answer would be: because the Tau list isn't done correctly. Why does Eldar pulse get up to 3 hits in E:A, an IG heavy bolter gets one shot in E:A, and an IG Hydra in E:A get 2 shots an activation? - The Hydra has 4 shots in 40K / turn. IG heavy bolter and IG multi-laser 3 shots in 40K. Well, that has do with the fact that the pulse laser is an AT weapon (it has to affect 1 target) where as an IG heavy bolter is an AP weapon (it has to affect 3-7 target on a single stand). The multilaser is a compromise between two, based on the assuption that, given its strength, it can only affect a vehicle on a lucky hit. The Hydra is also a compromise based on its strength as well. Why is there a difference between Eldar skimmer, IG skimmer, and Tau skimmer speeds?

Well, probably because the speeds in 40k are abstracted to fit on the tabletop. The Epic speed is more of the true speed, and they harken back to 2nd Ed 40k, when vehicles speeds were more specific.

Why are Vultures, Valkyries, Nightwings, Mauraders, hell talons all planes in 40K but Valkyries and Vultures are skimmers in E:A while the rest remain planes.
Because vultures and Valkyries are helocopter equivalents (and they do have special hover rules in 40k - so they don't act like aircraft all the time).

Why was the Eldar list developed with special rules that the champion claims were put in to specifically address issues beyond the GT turn 4, while every other champion is devleoping E:A lists for the GT standard of up to turn 4 only?
Hey, that's MC's opinion. I think JJ was swayed be those who were arguing that some BM management was needed for the GT scenario. JJ just chose a bad rule, that's all.

- All 40K games are played with the same 6-9 turns afterall...
What? Some last as few as 4 turns, some longer than siz, but the normal is 6. On top of that, in a normal tourney setting, games are time limited to usually less than two and a half hours.

Of course, these are all rhetorical questions.
They're only rhetorical if you think they have no explanation, but they do.

The reality of your, "issue of staying consistent with how other armies translated from 40k to Epic" is that there is no standard. Each army champion deviates from any principle.

SO - with no standard in place, the champions deviate as they see fit from any 'defacto' standard even. So, what do you fall back on when developing if even defacto standards are deviated from?

Answer: Balance in play. At the end of the day, each list needs to generate balanced results when played against other armies out there.
But balance isn't the only thing that is needed. While balance is the primary parameter, the army must also match how it exists in the other games. I mean, you can give ork grots 30cm MW4+ weapons, point them accordingly, and they'd be balanced. But, they wouldn't match what they can do in 40k or in the fluff. Similarly, IG guardsmen stands could be armed with 10 different weapons systems, be pointed accordingly, and be balanced. But, that wouldn't make logical sense knowing that there are only 5 guys on that stand, and there'd be no way for them to produce that amount of fire based on the way weapons work in E:A.

As for the army champions, yes they have their own perogatives, but this is the forum where we are suppose to raise these types of issues, as well, isn't it? Is it too late for me to offer my input? Is what I've said simply incorrect or have no value? I think I make strong points, and I've tried to back them up with specific examples.

So no, I don't have any playtest references, but that's not the PoV that I'm arguing from. Don't we still have time to improve the list in ways other than point cost/effectiveness adjustment? Certainly, any changes that I suggest would require points adjustments, I'm not trying to say otherwise.

PS2 - somebody said Tau Sniper Drone teams align more with a 'sniper' than PF's - oddly, both follow the same 40K rules. Both have targeters. Both have 3 rail rifles that can target seperate targets. Both have a minimum squad size of 4 models. Both have the same to hit potential... One serves as forward reconnisance and is mobile, the other serves as support.
I think you misread the comment. I said that pathfinders are more like marine scouts, where as sniper drones are more like eldar rangers. The distinction is that sniper drones always have sniper rifles (just like eldar rangers always have sniper rifles), whereas pathfinders only have them by player's choice (just like marine scout only have sniper rifles by player's choice).