To deal with a few comments - and thanks for your feedback on this -
The all inclusive nature of the list is the subject of the 'structure' aspect. However, I should point out that my belief is that this is the best way forwards.
My views on the current list are that it is possibly further along the road than some of your believe. Yes, there are issues in the list, but these are relatively minor in comparrison to 12 months ago. My driving force is balance, above everything (including background, where necessary). I do think that we could work to make the list more fluid. I would like to get this list to a stage where it is as balanced as reasonably possible (nothing is totally balanced), and let it settle. Long term directions would be for variant lists, and possibly adding units after the initial settle period.
As for seperating out the issues, there are times where this will not be possible, and times when discussion will overlap. I can live with that. The rteasoning behind this move is to get the community here on the same set of rails for this list. Lets discuss the issues that need discussing, I will make some decisions and we can then all get behind that list. This will not be a list that everyone likes, and there will probably be an aspect that each member disagrees with. There is not much we can do about that, and if people are expecting 'their list' to surface then they will be disappointed. I just want to set some things in stone, and use that for the next round to minor modifications. There is no point discussing unit stats if we change the special rules later and it throws the list out of balance. By continuing to be active here, everyone has to accept that the list as it emerges will be the one that we use, and not have the same half a dozen discussions every six months.
My use of 'synergy' is the interaction between formations, not necessarily a mix of units within a single formation. I mean the way that the abilities of individual units can be combined to work in interesting ways together.
A word on 'mutliple lists' and number of units. We should assume that we are working on a single list, which is a 'general' tau force with many of the current options available. So, when we discuss which units should be 'dropped', please bear this in mind and perhaps some units should be relegated in order to make an appearance in a later, variant list. Again, this will be open to discussion, but I am currently in favour of a single list, and it will be difficult to change my mind on this.
In terms of minis. I chatted with Jervis about this specifically. We should attempt to keep units which are available as minis, or which are easy to scratch build. More importantly, to me, is that the units should be clear - in terms of representation and model. This means that it is OK to have something like a Scorpionfish which is different from an Orca, because it means that the model will be different - no matter how it is represented if it is true to the stats. However, this is one reason for my change of heart on the Sniper Drone team. Representing them on the table will require some kind of drone and maybe a Fire Warrior. Even if models were available for this, it may be less appropriate for the game than a Swordfish which doesnt have a model but which can easily be identified as all models will have two honking great guns (Tau technical term!).
Releases will be numbered v4.5.x. The final version after the end of November will be v5.0. Version 4.4.3 will continue to be recommend for competetitive and tournament play.
I agree that the force should 'fall apart' as formations disappear. This is something that will, up to a point, naturally occur with a synergy based force. It is also something that stays close to the background of the Tau. Any suggestings on strengthening this would be welcomed.
Firefight - I am not actively aligning myself with any particular version. My view is simply that the community is split by this issue. I do not agree that the tau should have increased firefight values. I like the current system, I think that it works, and the current list has been based on this for generations. Changing this would be something that I disaggree with, and which would undermine the current ethos of design. I can see the various argument and reasons for peoples opinions on this... I just dont necessarily agree.
My comment regarding this was simply to hold this up as an example of an issue which some people will disagree with, but which a decision has been made of and which I hope that people will now get behind as a 'I dont agree with this call, but accepting as a basis for decisions...'. I also feel that the hold them off as far as possible approach is more in keeping with the spirit of the background and makes for a more interesting force.
As for wiping the slate clean, that is not my intention. All comments and changes will be based on version 4.4.3 as a starting point.
Thanks all.
_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Its a bit like the old way of designing tanks - specify the gun, size, weight etc, build it then try and find an engine that fitted in the chassis (I kid you not, one tank was so heavy and so cramped the radiator had to be put in the crew compartment, achieving what one critic pointed out was 'the dual aim of cooling the engine and cooking the crew')
