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

TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5456		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  Tactica [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Tau WIP v4.2.8 - Now Available - Here's the link:
================================
Tau WIP v4.2.8
================================

Note: Tau 4.1 to 'Tau WIP 4.2.8' changes are in red. Please provide feedback if you see something I missed. Thoughts, comments, critisism etc encouraged! :alien:

This is _not_ a replacement for CS 4.3.x list. This is meant as a utility for CS and is a stop gap for players in lieu of updates and typos waiting to be fixed in the 4.3.x list as it gets refined. It also serves as a testing ground list. Its creation comes from the loss of JimmyGrill and stands to serve the significant majority and vocal of the Epicomms Tau player community's wishes as I understand them.

I will continue to update this list as long as players are getting use out of it, and as long as CS doesn't mind the WIP list's existence.

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.8 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/29/2005 10:27PM CST + + +
1) Tau Deflector - text reworded to have save come first, not after armor saves
2) Option for bonus unit if no Alien Auxiliaries are taken has been removed due lack of need now that armored cadre and other changes fill the gap that was previously there.
3) Stingray fluff text straightened out in formatting, not in context.
4) Crisis remains Infantry, Broadside changed back to Light Vehicle with Walker ability added - per CS decision to playtest this combination.
5) Added Scout to the Collector's model Drone Sentry Turret
6) Army List referenced Ta'ro'cha, teams, and battlesuits when it came to stealths, crisis, and broadsides. As all three are battlesuit teams, cleaned up army list and unit datasheets to simply reflect "X[whatever suit] TEAMS" for consitency
7) Added some text to the broadside fluff to remove the Ta'ro'cha' name and put it into the fluff like the crisis. Also added text to account for the movement that broadsides will/do have with the new slow and steady ability the IA3 and new tau codex afford the unit today/tomorrow.
8) Made Human Auxiliaries Command instead of Commander and eliminated the Gue'... name, plus made the recommended change of 'VRE instead of 'UI as its meant to be a stand and command, not a single sergent. Tau name moved to end to be consistent with the rest of the list.
9) In similiar fashion to number 8) above, Human Auxiliaries Team instead of "[Gue'... name] Auxiliaries Team" The Tau name was moved to the end to be consistent with the rest of the list.
10) The army list section was revised to reflect the Human Aux names instead of the Gue'... etc names and was made to match the datasheets for accuracy.
11) Tau name added for; Kroot hounds, Krootox, Great Knarloc
Ethereal, Gun Drones, and Heavy Gun Drones.
12) Custodian Gravatic Tracer Salvo reduced to 6x per Nerroth and following the BFG guidance.
13) As a result of 12) the name for the Hero and Custodian Tracer salvos has been simplied and now matches between the two vessels. The army list was also updated to reflect the naming simplification of the upgrade on the Hero.
14) Manta FF value dropped by one to 4+. Tau historically have the path of dropping all FF values by one more than what they should to further exaggerate their ineffectiveness in Epic combat. Its possible that the manta should have a 2+ FF, but at least has the armorment to have a 3+. Reducing that value by 1 would take it to a 4+. The 5+ value is too reduced and thus - an increase was made for testing. We are not planning on jumping further to FF 3+ as the tendancy to planetfall and combat would be too great.
15) Margin refit and several painstaking row adjustments allowed for an 18 page document now!! (whoo-hoo!)
16) last, but not least I tweaked a couple things in addition to 15) (like moved the "FW Cadre Upgrades:Any" and the Hero Tracer upgrade to the same line so that... wait for it... THE TAU ARMY LIST IS NOW ALL ON ONE PAGE! Big "WHOO-HOO!" Many of you asked for this - hopefully this will look good and be what you were looking for!

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.7 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/20/2005 10:27PM CST + + +
1) Added Nerroth's Tau unit names in parenthesis that CS agreed upon
2) Updated Tiger Shark Description to add last sentence to description as per CS
3) Added a Drone Sentry Tower to the Collector's section for folks to playtest
4) Moved the Skyray datasheet after the Stingray datasheet, changed page breaks utilized wasted space in SkyRay description to conserve space and thus remove one page from overall Tau WIP document from 20 pages to 19.


+ + + EDIT: 4.2.6 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/20/2005 6:36PM CST + + +
1) Slow and Steady added to Custodian
2) Gary / Nerroth duplicate recognition squared away
3) Skyray 2x Hunter instead of weapon name change for same effect - fixed.
4) version update to 4.2.6

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.5 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/18/2005 12:42AM CST + + +
1) L in EL'LEATH fixed for Nerroth
2) made some things red that should have been all along
3) removed striked through Walker from broadsides and G. Knarloc
4) Changed Dragonfish to be +100 and as scorpionfish + Tau Supreme Commander as thats the way many wanted to playtest it and +100 seems more balanced
5) Skyray "Networked Hunter Missle" change to 2x and no points change because was previously too expensive
6) Added Orbital guided Missle language to ML and GM special rule section per Nerroth
7) Changed "Drones" to "Gun Drones" stealth available upgrades in army list section
8) Revision change from 4.2.4 to 4.2.5

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.4 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/8/2005 3:25PM CST + + +
1) Misclaneous non-rule related typos fixed in the spaceship sections.

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.4 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/7/2005 10:00PM CST + + +
1) Points increase for Stealth Contingent back to 275
2) Teleport added to Stealth Datasheet
3) Moved stealth, piranha, and tetra up on Tau units list to use sheet space better.
4) Removed 'markerlights' from the weapon section of all datasheets
5) Updated spaceship fluff per Nerroth's uncontested recomendation

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.3 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/4/2005 6:59PM CST + + +
1) Custodian spacecraft Fluff revised

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.3 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/4/2005 4:49PM CST + + +
1) Tiger Shark Notes revised to eliminate 'Shark Cannon' text previously missed.
2) Last rev date updated (no versioning Change)

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.3 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/3/2005 1:07PM CST + + +
1) Misclaneous typos fixed
2) Collectors Model section added

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.2 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/2/2005 12:49AM CST + + +
1) Versioning Change from "WIPv4.2.1" to "WIPv4.2.2"
2) Eliminated the free Stingray or Swordfish tank upgrade to the Armoured Hunter Cadre as command tanks are an Imperium thing and it was popular opinion to do so.
3) Added descriptive text/fluff to all units
4) Reformated page breaks
5) 'Shark Cannon' weapon name changed to 'Light Railcannon'
6) Added text to Tiger Shark to support the merger of White Shark and Tiger Shark into 1 choice as per FW's lead.
7) Long Twin-Railcannon on Manta changed to Heavy Railcannon
8) By majority opinion, removed special rule "Field Craft"
9) Added Scout to Kroot Shaper & Kroot Carnivores
10) Created fluff text for Custodian from Nerroth and FW's lead

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.1 REVISION POSTED AS OF 11/1/2005 5:12PM CST + + +
1) Versioning Change from "WIPv4.2" to "WIPv4.2.1"
2) The many pages of intro fluff is completed - "Whoo!"
2) Swordfish _Contingent_ removed and replaced with...
3) Swordfish _Upgrade_ increased from 1 to 1-2 @ 25 each
4) Dragonfish moved up in List to follow the Commanders

+ + + EDIT: 4.2.0 REVISION POSTED AS OF 10/31/2005 3:10AM + + +
1) added special rules
2) made to special rules changes that JG wanted (drone combat and refined coodrinated fire
3) fixed issues Nerroth noticed with spacecraft
4) created a simple field craft rule for Kroot as previously discussed
5) put in future proof version of deflector
6) started filling in fluff

+ + + EDIT: TAU v4.2 POSTED AS OF 10/29/2005 + + +
1) Consolidation of older July 2005 suggestions and newer developments since those considered back in July.
Author:  Steele [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Quote (Tactica @ 29 Oct. 2005 (11:26))


Worked on this all night guys. Had to retype everyting into excel and then convert to PDF. No special rules fluff or collector models. JG changes plus ours are incorported - with exception to GM changes as that never solidified, and Ion cannon Hammerhead changes as the desire was not to change that either. Everything else made it (I think!)

Changes are in red.

I can explain all changes as needed. (just not tonight!) But didn't want to leave you guys hangin' any longer than necessary.

Tau WIP v4.2

Please provide feedback if you see something I missed. ? :8):

Much aprecciated. I?ll give it a try at sunday.

Thanks a lot.

Cheers!
Steele
Author:  Honda [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Myself as well.

Thanx for doing this Tactica.
Author:  clausewitz [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
My thanks too, a sterling effort Tactica.
Author:  Tactica [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Glad to be of service gents.

Should be able to get the rest of the rules, background, collector's models, and fluff built into it as well. All of that was a tertiary concern for me.

Should get a good chunk of time to put into the remaining tasks this eve.

Now... let's get some playtesting! :)
Author:  Nerroth [ Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Hi!

Mice work on the list, but remember, as Xisor said, the Custodian is a BB. not a cruiser...

EDIT: Also, Or'es El'leath is not the configuration of the ship (for the Hero, it's called the Vash'ya configuration because that weapon fit on the ship was pioneered at the Vash'ya Sept), but is the translation of the word Custodian - the way that Lar'shi is for Hero - you should drop the configuration bit, as aside from the name issue there are no variants of the ship anyway!

EDIT 2: And you have the salvo for the Hero at 4 points in the rules for the ship, but 6 points in the army list - which one were you intending to go with?

EDIT 3: it's Gravitic, with an I (sorry to nit-pick!) Also, I wasn't intending for the missiles to be able to hit a non-WE target without said target being marked, do you think it doesn't matter either way?

Gary
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:19 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Nerroth,

Hmmm... Well, sounds like I messed up what you had intended.

Sorry for all the errors. :down:

I was getting tired when I got to the vessels.

You asked me to go with  6 on the Hero and I was attempting to do so, guess I had the 4 in the back of my mind as I was wondering if that would be the better starting strength in development. I did look at the ship in army builder and noticed that they had 6 - which is what ultimately had me agree with your recomendation of 6 to start... guess my cautious subconcious took over as I got tired. :) I'll fix it.

...at least... that's my excuse. ;)

Grav... I instead of E... noted.

I'll address all changes err... my mess ups now.

stay tuned.
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:18 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Steele & Honda,

Did you get a chance to try out the WIP 4.2 version Sunday? If so, how'd it go?

Nerroth, your requested tweaks have been made.

g'night all,

:zzz:  :zzz:  :zzz:
Author:  Steele [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Quote (Tactica @ 31 Oct. 2005 (10:18))
Steele & Honda,

Did you get a chance to try out the WIP 4.2 version Sunday? If so, how'd it go?

Nerroth, your requested tweaks have been made.

g'night all,

:zzz: ?:zzz: ?:zzz:

Sorry, couldn?t play. May opponent had to go to work surprisingly. A collegue went ill. But ASAP I?ll do the game. At Saturday latest.

Steele
Author:  Honda [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Just saw 4.2. First off, great job!

It'll be a little bit before I get to proof the text changes. I do have a couple "why'd you do that" questions:

1. Reasoning behind forcing the upgrade in the armored cadre? You have built in a cost that I'm not sure I would assume that everyone wants. I would suggest making it a purchasable upgrade only.

2. Somehow the HH contingent creeped up to two Swordfish and two HH and is now very expensive. I was expecting to see a base unit of 6 + 2 HH + Swordfish or Skyray to get us to a 8-9 sized unit. Did I miss something?

3. For completeness sake, we probably ought to move the Dragonfish upgrade into the commanders section.

4. What was the "take additional contingent if no alien auxila" added for? I hadn't seen this as a shortcoming. Your thoughts?

5. I don't think we talked about this yet, but should we add a Knarloc riders contingent for the Kroot? It's only a matter of time before FW come out with them.

Again, this is ugly work and you should be commended for taking this on.

Thank you.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Field Craft - A classic design pricnipal of EA is to keep the special rules to a minimum.  This is a bad, bad idea.  There are already a bunch of units in the game that would deserve a stealth-based defense every bit as much as the Kroot.  What was done for them?  Along with various other kinds of special defenses, stealth and camo abilities are abstracted into the armor save.

Realistically, chances are that they will not be deployed without cover anyway.  Even if they are deployed without cover,  the fact is that "open" terrain in Epic isn't necessarily open and includes minor features that just don't rate a full piece of terrain.  Those minor terrain features could just as easily be used by Kroot.

Give them a better armor save or drop their points or whatever, but don't make up a special rule.
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:41 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
[quote="Honda,31 Oct. 2005 (18:33)"][/quote]
Honda,

I would first ask that you take a look at the dated, but sticky post from JG (back from July 2005) regarding _possible_ v4.2 changes. Now granted, a lot was learned since this post and its last edit in late July 2005 - however, most of the concepts were tended too. The only 2 items from this sticky post that were not adopted was 1) the ion-head change as it was later deemed that no change was necessary and 2) the guided missile change was also not favored or necessary as they poved to be less powerful vs. more powerful.

Here's a quick link to the thread:

JG's dated sticky post, last updated in July 2005

Now I'll move on to your post:

Just saw 4.2. First off, great job!

It'll be a little bit before I get to proof the text changes. I do have a couple "why'd you do that" questions:

That's perfectly understandable - and encouraged!! I want us all to be on the same page - Lem'me hav' it! (Broken T'au) ?:p

1. Reasoning behind forcing the upgrade in the armored cadre? You have built in a cost that I'm not sure I would assume that everyone wants. I would suggest making it a purchasable upgrade only.

1) HH gunships & Stingrays in a contingent are 62.5 each.
2) Swordfish in a contingent are 75 points each but you are also buying two HH gunships at 62.5.
3) Swordfish taken as a singular upgrade are purchased at a premium of 62.5 for HH gunship + 25 for upgrade = 87.5 points! They are the least cost effective.

Therefore, you are not paying a premium for the Stingray or Swordfish upgrade and there are no further costs being forced on anyone. 6 HH Gunships x 62.5 / HH = 375 for Armoured Cadre. There's a built in bonus that you have an option for either a free Stingray or a free swordfish at no additional cost as this is a Armoured Cadre. This 'discount' or 'bonus' upgrade is the same mentality taken in various 'CORE' formations across several lists.

PS - this was also an original design concept when the formation was suggested. Now, if you want an additional swordfish in the formation - you are going to pay the premium price!

2. Somehow the HH contingent creeped up to two Swordfish and two HH and is now very expensive. I was expecting to see a base unit of 6 + 2 HH + Swordfish or Skyray to get us to a 8-9 sized unit. Did I miss something?
Nope: Those are two different formations. The legacy HH contingent still exists. 4 HH @ 62.5 each = 250 points.

The new Swordfish Contingent, as previously proposed and agreed upon has a base of 2 Swordfish @ 75 each and 2 HH @ 62.5 each = 275.

You'll notice either contingent can have the same upgrades. That actually may be a problem. We are discussing that in the Swordfish Contingent thread. However, its possible to have 1 formation with no swordfish + none or some of the upgrades ... or its possible to have a Swordfish formation with 3 swordfish and 1 hh + 2 more upgrades.

So, two very different potential formations in the end. The old one you are referencing is unchanged, has proven to work as designed, and will remain in the list. So no worries there.

For those that want to pay a premium, the new Swordfish contingent gives a little more bang for a little more buck. However, it may not be enough Buck for the Bang provided as NH and Cw pointed out. I'm thinking the 75 per Swordfish tank in the Swordfish Contingent should be upped to the 87.5 per tank premium or 175 for the 2... that way, the formation is no longer under costed. A further change of loss of piranhas will allow this formation to have some hard hitters, but be limited in size and thus, very precision / roll focused formation - i.e. experiemental tau tech formation. See the Swordfish Contingent thread for more on this topic. Love to have you wiegh in over there:

Swordfish Contingent Thread

3. For completeness sake, we probably ought to move the Dragonfish upgrade into the commanders section.
Well, 'Commander' is the upgrade type. The only two formations allowed to take a 'Commander' upgrade are the FW cadre and the Crisis cadre. Each of the 'Commander' choices are not models but characters that are applied to the base of either a FW or Crisis stand.

The 'Dragonfish' upgrade type is a WE with a Shas'o commander on board. It cannot be added to the FW and Crisis Cadres. It can ONLY be added to the Narwhal contingent.

I think they should remain seperate considering how they are purchased and which formations they work with.

However, I do think you have a good point in that the Dragonfish upgrade should be closer placed to the 'Commander' upgrade on the 'Upgrades' section. Perhaps it should follow the commander upgrade on the list?

So you would see 'Commander' in grey row, then you would see 'Dragonfish' in white row, then 'Firewarriors' in grey again ... and so on.

Would that work?

4. What was the "take additional contingent if no alien auxila" added for? I hadn't seen this as a shortcoming. Your thoughts?
See JG's thread I reference at the beginning. This was something discussed quite some time ago and was from his July post. It was meant for those that want to take a 'no alien auxilia' force. The reason being that alien auxilia gave you a contingent without having to buy another core formation... but if you didn't want to buy any alien auxilia, should you still be penalized to have to buy another core? In other words, do no auxilia armies get penalized? The single bonus formation for taking no alien auxila was meant to satisfy this concern. The concept has never been playtested, but seemed harmless enough to conclude and didn't generate any protest some time ago when originally presented as a solution for the concerned. Personally, I'm not sure that its needed - however, I'm not apposed to trying its inclusion either as its a relatively minor bonus.

5. I don't think we talked about this yet, but should we add a Knarloc riders contingent for the Kroot? It's only a matter of time before FW come out with them.

You and NH both have a more or less linked question here - I'll try and address both points made:

Knarloc riders - hadn't ever considered it. I think you are right though, just a matter of time before the unit is produced.

Let me ask, would you see them doing anything significantly different than the existing kroot? More importantly, would they help fix the formation and make it usable?

Kroot in general - The 'typical' consensus is that the kroot don't work in v4.1.. we kicked around giving all of them scout (probably too powerful) given them all guns (to uncharacteristic), giving them all armor (too uncharacteristic) and ultimately settled on a cover save bonus.

Field Craft - I took the liberty to create the Field Craft rule to try the previously agreed upon 'cover save bonus' for kroot to see if it helped them become more appealing to the Tau community in general. Again, this solution was by popular opinion the last go around (before the epicomms boards got hosed). In creating Field Craft, I pulled all the flavor text straight from the Tau Codex. The bonus they now recieve is in effect the one they receive in 40K. Their is no 'move through cover' bonus in Epic for infantry and a simple +1 is pretty easy to work with.

Reasoning as I recall - They really die in troves in combat, but they do fight better than a Tau. So to Tau, their combat 'prowess' has some merit if it can be used - even if only sacraficial and counter measure oriented. Worse than that though, they were not making it to combat with no armour save. Furthermore, with no significant guns, they are of no threat from afar. So if the formation can't move, assault, or shoot - the formation as a whole was really broken to say the least. We've struggled making the kroot valuable since their inception.

Until we get the kroot working in general, would you say that 'more kroot' are worth exploring? (karloc riders, great knarloc riders, etc) Do you think they will help 'connect the dots' so to speak to make the formation work as a whole. Perhaps Field Craft will make the kroot formation more valuable in general to the average tau fan and then additional unit types for the formation will be embraced...

The cover enhancement won't allow them to move out and engage the enemy any better, that's for sure... but it may afford them a way to last longer and make the enemy come for them. Ignore cover weapons are still going to be just as effective on them as they are IG infantry though - so we'll see I guess. :/

I personally was not a big fan of the Field Craft rule solution before, however, I don't know what else to do for them to make them of value. The rule is definitely in context with what they do on the field and seems better than actually giving them an armor save - which seems way out of character to me.

I'm interested on your (and others) thoughts here.

We could even take this conversation further to the point of Vespids and the Human Auxilia as 1) we know the vesipids are in 40K and 2) we know the Human Auxilia in epic are less than appealing.

You know what - a seperate Alien Auxilia thread is in order the more I sit here and type away on this topic... thanks for touch on this issue NH and Honda. We need to discuss this whole area more. ???

Again, this is ugly work and you should be commended for taking this on.

Thank you.
I appreciate the recognition of the compilation effort - or more to the point - the recognition of time! (up till 3:00am last night!) I now have a new and growing appreciation for actual Epic champions - I'll tell you that much! The effort (however limited I've contributed compared to seasoned Epic champion veterens) is worth it. No doubt about it. To hear feedback and have several folks from different continents working on a labor of love together is rewarding - regardless of whos compiling the data! The results are already showing from a great group effort IMHO. You guys all keep up your part, and I'll keep up my part!

We're lucky to have the luxury of building off of a great base list instead of starting from scratch. Even starting from where 4.1 leaves off, this list creation task is not something that can be done 'well' by one person alone or even a closed group IMHO. We've had some great playtest over the past 4+ months. I personally feel like WIPv4.2 puts us very close to where the list needs to be. I look forward to more playtest so we can put the icing on this cake by or prior to whatever deadline Jervis is to set for us!

Cheers for all the great pre-test feedback folks,



Author:  Tactica [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:44 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
Quote (nealhunt @ 31 Oct. 2005 (19:06))
Field Craft - A classic design pricnipal of EA is to keep the special rules to a minimum. ?This is a bad, bad idea. ?



Give them a better armor save or drop their points or whatever, but don't make up a special rule.

NH,

I respect your opinion here. Please see my response above back to you and Honda both. Let me know if you feel the same way.

I think Alien Auxilia needs to be a seperate thread overall probably.

I'll plan on starting that thread, regardless of your response post reading the above.
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:07 am ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
OK, 3 threads on the Alien Auxilia opened up for general consumption.

Human Auxilia

Existing Kroot Auxilia

Other Auxilia Types
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  TAU WIP 4.2 - Here - See Link in post
You know - I'm surprised nobody commented about Markerlights being moved up into the datafile summaries. I personally like this as it shows which units have markerlights without digging through the Notes section of the datsheets. I figured there would be some comments on this one - but nobody even threw me a bone! ;)
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/