Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15045		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Chroma [ Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Okay, the Tau don't have "rigidly" defined formations, they tailor formations to the needs they need to meet.  So, why are the various upgrades all fixed in number?  Why can't I add just two Gun Drone Squads to a Cadre to eat up the last 50 points?

The following upgrades are have point values that are easily divisible by the number of units to 25s or 50s:

Fire Warriors
Pathfinders
Gun Drones
Broadsides
Recon Skimmers

So, why not "add 0-4 Gun Drone Squads for +25 points each" instead of "add 4 Gun Drone Squads for +100 points"?

I'm sure the point values for the +125 per two or three additional units could be tweaked for easy addition.

This also allows people to use "spare" models.

Thoughts?
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:53 am ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Wow... no one has any thoughts/comments about this?!  

That seems... un-Tau-like!  *LAUGH*
Author:  Dobbsy [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:18 am ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Personally Chroma? I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to make a list when they're in blocks. I'm not sure I'm super keen on having to add each and every unit to make my list. For one thing it could breed mistakes in tournament lists where you forget to add the cost when you put something in last minute etc.
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 06 Mar. 2009, 03:18 )

Personally Chroma? I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to make a list when they're in blocks. I'm not sure I'm super keen on having to add each and every unit to make my list. For one thing it could breed mistakes in tournament lists where you forget to add the cost when you put something in last minute etc.

I don't think many Ork or Cultist players forget to add the costs of their multiple, variable upgrades... it's just that you're not used to it.

You could still use the same "blocks" that you're using now, as that configuration would still be available.

This proposal does *NOT* remove "up to three upgrades" limitation.
Author:  Mephiston [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Please, not more options/flexibility!
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Quote: (Mephiston @ 06 Mar. 2009, 12:59 )

Please, not more options/flexibility!

But "options/flexibility" is one of the hallmarks of Tau military philosopy.

Sometimes I just want 2 Gun Drones with my Pathfinders, not 4.
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Given the number of people already complaining about the number and complexity of the Tau upgrades (most of which are rarely used anyway), making them more complex and more customisable seems counter-intuitive.
Author:  Lion in the Stars [ Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:23 am ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
So simplify the number of TYPES of upgrades (reduce line-item count), but make each individual line item more flexible.

For example:  Remove Broadsides and Recon Skimmers upgrade, and make the Fire Warriors a +2/+4/+6 option.  JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN, *NOT* A SUGGESTION FOR WHAT TO REMOVE.
Author:  Honda [ Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Frankly, I would categorize this as "activity" vs. "productivity", from a list perspective.

I could probably come up with 3-4 reasons why not, but let's just say "no" for now and move on.

I'm not trying to be harsh about it or to discourage discussions, but I don't really see this amounting to anything.

Cheers,
Author:  Ginger [ Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Just a thought, but you could perhaps use this to amalgamate the AHMC cadre with the HHead support formation:-

Make the AHMC cadre 5x HHeads for 325, with additional HHeads +50 each.

Just a thought as they say.
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Quote: (Honda @ 07 Mar. 2009, 12:02 )

I could probably come up with 3-4 reasons why not, but let's just say "no" for now and move on.

I'm not trying to be harsh about it or to discourage discussions, but I don't really see this amounting to anything.

I'd love to hear these reasons!

Especially when you refer to "pack size" in the AMHC thread:

Quote: (Honda @ 18 Mar. 2009, 13:35 )

Not to steer this either way, but do keep in mind that they come in packs of 3.

Yes, which means if you start with four, you can easily have six with the upgrade... so, you've got options.

The "Hammerhead Upgrade" is just +2 Hammerheads, so you're still got a "spare" if you start with a base of six... or wish to add Hammerheads to a different formation.

These "spares" are the heart of my desire for "variable" sized upgrades... example: with the current (mistaken?) packaging of the Recon skimmers, I've got two spare Tetras that I can't use at all.

If the "Recon Skimmers" upgrade was "add 0-3 Tau Piranha or Pathfinder Tetra Light Skimmers (can be mixed) for +25 points each" instead of the fixed "3 for +75", I could use those Tetras.

The limit of "three upgrades per formation" would still stand, so I'm not sure how this would harm/break the list; all I can see is it allows people to use *all* their models.

EDIT - Heck, if you even take the Forge World listed pack sizes for the Recon Skimmers, you're *still* going to have spares.
Author:  Honda [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Ok, let's slow down a little bit.

1. We are not adding any design changes to the list.

2. From my perspective, this sides more with activity vs. productivity. Yes, we could do this, but why? What is really gained? It doesn't add anything to the list.

3. Looking long term, this is the sort of thing that makes maintaining a list a pain in the neck. It's fiddly for those using the list as well as those who aren't as familiar with it.

So, to be nice about it, interesting idea, but no. We're not going to go there.
Author:  Moscovian [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Quote: (zombocom @ 06 Mar. 2009, 08:41 )

Given the number of people already complaining about the number and complexity of the Tau upgrades (most of which are rarely used anyway), making them more complex and more customisable seems counter-intuitive.

I agree with Dobbsy and Zombocom.  Sorry, hombre.

Chroma, one thing to remind everyone of is that these are tournament lists, nothing more.  I am sure the Steel Legion doesn't ALWAYS field their tanks in 10's.  A list like that should have smaller formations that represent battle seasoned companies.  Yet that is what you are stuck with every time.  The 'rigid' blocks (and other restrictions) help balance the list which IMO trumps most other concerns at this point.  The Tau were too flexible which allowed for min-maxing, arguably the #1 complaint about their overpowered status.  

While I could care less if the formations match the package sizes, I am glad that things are settling to a fixed number finally.
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  [Army List] Why no flexibility in upgrade sizes?
Quote: (Moscovian @ 18 Mar. 2009, 16:14 )

Quote: (zombocom @ 06 Mar. 2009, 08:41 )

Given the number of people already complaining about the number and complexity of the Tau upgrades (most of which are rarely used anyway), making them more complex and more customisable seems counter-intuitive.

I agree with Dobbsy and Zombocom.  Sorry, hombre.

I think the primary complaint about Tau upgrades is that there are so many of them as "line items", and that each formation has its own "sub-set" of what are allowed... that 'complexity' what was the problem.

I really don't think adding two Tetras instead of three Tetras to a formation is adding "complexity"; it's adding flexibility.

And Orks seem to do fine with near infinite numbers of upgrades.   :laugh:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/