Quote:
Well your list design already lets people take an all crisis suit army - Like you say, a "possibly dumb" design in a list. A design which reduces initiative for all other formation of the same unit type while one doesn't, just to deter people from doing this seems, well, artificial.
I need to clarify. I am not against all crisis suit armies, because as was pointed out, in a standard 40K list you can take a lot of crisis suits.
What I am against is an all crisis suit army that is all 1+ initiative. That would provide an army that has the same initiative as Space Marines and significantly better firepower and mobility/unit. So we're not going to go there.
As stated in the earlier post, I want to test the SC + probably 2 Shas'el, in a suit heavy list. As I observed in last night's game, the +2 initiative had zero effect on the second crisis unit. That doesn't mean that it's 100% right, but given the amount of fire power the formations field I'm not going to just "kick the door down". It is too critical a decision at this point in the testing.
Do not expect high risk, big changes that could have the potential of unbalancing the list. We are at the stage where fine tuning, where appropriate, is all the list is  going to get.
Quote:
A way to stop all 'suit' armies is to make the Fire Warriors the main asset.
Fire Warriors have already been given a stronger emphasis along with the de-emphasis of the armor cadre. There is no need to enhance them any more. I don't want a list that is that constrained.
Quote:
Locking this list down at the end of the year (although I understand the reasonings) is a mistake. Playtests and final decisions should go until March 2010. As the list was silent for so long, going like a 'bulldozer' to have it completed by eoy is just going to disenfranchise people.
I respect your opinion, but disagree. There is no benefit to dragging this exercise out. In general, people (not just the Tau community) avoid deadlines because it forces them to commit. Communities don't like to commit, because they're never really sure whether or not something better will come along.
That's not how I am wired. I am task and results oriented, for better or worse.
The previous versions had many long testing periods and did not produce better lists. In fact, they only gave the various participants time to become entrenched in their positions and the list and community were the ones that suffered...for years, not months, but years.
Look to your own efforts (which are significant) and then multiple the time and effort you've expended by 3-4 years. I believe you'd come to the same conclusion with the same level of investment.
There will never be a right time to freeze. Players can always test longer. However, any project owner needs to be able to recognize that when the slope of the "bugs" curve starts to flatten out, you're getting close to your release date. We're very close to our release date.
I don't mean to imply that the list is perfect. It's not. It
is pretty darn good and it does not appear to cause great "ripples in the force". It's fun to play and opponents enjoy the challenge it presents them.
We could do a lot worse.
