I guess I'm a little surprised at this statement. I know you have played 40K (at least in the past), so to pass off 40K as something for children and non-competitive seems to be ignoring or denying what 40K does bring to the table.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

With the various non-canon hole-filling units/weapons removed, I am certain that this list could be balanced and finished inside of a few months... done and dusted after all these years of tweaking units and weapons that don't mesh properly with the Tau way of war.

The Tau are supposed to be a highly mobile force with Fire Warriors at their core, but the presence of the non-canon AP missiles (and previously, skimming Titans) has meant that the most effective list style is one focused on tanks and war engines that lob AP missiles (previously reinforced with those aforementioned skimming Titans).

Remove those AP missiles (and give the Fire Warriors their long-overdue power boost, in whatever form) and the most popular list styles will look like the Tau armies found in the background.

That was what the famous Peer Review called for.
That's what many here have called for.

====

Bite the bullet, make the hard choices, and the core Tau list can be *finished* within months. Not just pushed to the next round of testing, but *completed*

Then things can move on to task 2, to creating an 'armour' themed army list for the non-canon units that have been removed, like the Moray.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I agree, I'm keen on starting a Tau force but I don't want to start it until the list gets more stable. So far I've seen a lot of suggestions, but no one seems to want to test them to see if they work. Worst case it fails and the list goes to another revision adding the AP GM back.

_________________
-Vaaish

First off, let's all take a step back and breathe on this thread. It's starting to wind up a bit and that isn't going to help solve issues.

Second of all, it's easy to say it's simple to solve. People have been stating that for years now along with all the simple fixes that would "solve" all of our problems. Evidence is to the contrary, otherwise it would have been done.

It's also very easy to claim to want the hard choices to be made, but in reality those kinds of comments only hold up when the hard decision is something you approve of.

And I will state this for the last time, I am open to hearing about how we are going to fix the AP GM issue and Fire Warriors. I asked earlier for you guys to come up with a couple of builds that you could support. Continuing to carry on the discussion about whether or not you like 40K, who is supposed to play it, whose fault it is that we're in this mess, why you're not happy with the state of the union, etc. isn't going to fix a single thing.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Its not constructive, but I have to say - they really haven't. Progress on lots of things has been glacially slow. And lots of stuff simply hasn't been done (for good or ill). For instance has anyone gone and removed the AP GM to see the effect on list composition? It - and other things - have been unassailable regardless of the effect they have. The worse was the insistence for playtest reports fr stuff that was obviously broken which showed a lack of experience with EpicA more than anything else. As for fix quite quick - yes it could have been done 2-3 years ago on the old forums, its just the fix was unpalatable for people as part of it was dependant on axing certain units. As it is at this rate it will get overtaken by the EpicUK project which I will be very surprised uses anything that can't be brought and doesn't need to be scratch built. (Early thought seem to be here http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....299153)

Now I'd prefer to get this one nailed down instead and have this become the accepted standard, but to do that I beleive some fundemental things will have to change - or you bring out an army that is balanced and works, but isn't much of a Tau one (instead being a skimmer tank force with support).

Anyway - being constructive.
If people think the way to nirvana is more ML effects (and I'm not convinced) you need to ensure that formations that stand to benefit either  can't have ml's in them, or cannot benefit from any ml's already attached to them (going with the whole supporting fire concept and assuming we want a tactical not list building effect). I think the latter is better as it means the army list doesn't need a lot of rejigging to account for such additions. On the downside those upgrades lose most of their rational. Skyrays still make sense but pathfinders and stuff are now better in their own formations. Would this be okay?
As for the synergy I'd say calculate what you want the things to do (say make to hit rolls get +1 on ML'ed targets) then cost the units fr the increase in ability, adding half what you normally would. Leaves something which is then rewarding if used and hampering if not.

Prob restrict the effect to certain weapon systems so a non ml force (say an armour based force) is still viable.

SO what benefit should such a synergy grant? And to who?

_________________
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

I think the cadres could stand to have some harder limits on what upgrades are available. But as you say the ML upgrade would need to be applied universally then.

I asked before, and I ask again:

What does that actually mean? What are you asking us to do?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What does that actually mean? What are you asking us to do?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

So you want a detailed proposal, not just isolated concepts. Fine, I'll post something tomorrow.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

@Mephiston

I think the cadres could stand to have some harder limits on what upgrades are available. But as you say the ML upgrade would need to be applied universally then.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Proposal posted here: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 23;t=16235

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

After reading E&C's idea here a general note for this thread culled from the bottom.

Maybe there are two things Honda should be looking at. His core mechanic change and ideas for re-doing the list around it if nessecery.

_________________
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

I Have infantry in guard armies to hold ground, the Tau don't need expensive FW for that, they are better with high armour being aggressive mobile troops, taking the fight to the enemy, but while there are better options at that, that aren't as risky, I am better off using them. And the Tau list is supposed to have a daring, short ranged, mobility based play style - at least thats what I've always thought.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Yes the Tetra has only a single Twin Pulse Rifle. AP6+ should be the maximum for it.

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