One day this is really going to force me to buy some Tau models... *sigh*
Keep up the good work!
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Comments on version 4.4.1 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8611 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
There are a number of changes which have been implemented in this, the latest version of the Epic Armageddon force list for the Tau, version 4.4.1. Rather than try to highlight these changes in red, as I have done in the past, I have decided to create a narrative thread, to outline the alterations and my thoughts behind them. Firstly, there are a number of mutually agreed changes pulled from discussion here, which have been added to this version. - Gravitic Tracer Salvo changed from 6xMW6+ (Guided) to 2x(3xMW6+, Guided) on both the Custodian and Hero. - All Smart Missile Systems reduced to 30cm, AP5+, ignore cover. - Broadsides armament and description (including Orca transport note). - Drones able to garrison if the formation would normally do so. - Markerlight Sentry Turrets? just all of the changes! - Auxiliary formations also count as a Contingent for force building. - Kroot Master Shaper added to Orca transport list. These should all be fairly obvious and clear. I wont go on about them, as they have already been debated here. However, if there are any questions about this list, just post in this thread and I will dig out the discussion which lead to these conclusions. The Networked Drones upgrade has been added to the Hammerhead and Stingray Contingents. The Networked Drones upgrade was designed to allow the armour to shed blast markers easier, a problem which hit the list in previous versions. Initially, this upgrade was only applied to Hammerhead Cadres, and while I do not want to see this bonus being able to be applied to liberally, I do feel that these two contingents warrant it. My current opinion is that this is the limit of the places that this upgrade could be allowed. Manta initiative increased to 1+, critical hit changed to deflector shield failure. This should be a fairly popular change. Support Groups/Contingents I have started a new thread to examine the use of the terminology for the force list and structure. Notes in this post keep to the previous version (using ?contingent?). Future threads will use the update terminology (using ?support group?). Tiger Shark I have changed this to Fighter Bomber status. This allows its use of AA attacks, and makes it more flexible, fitting the background better. However, I have also reduced the range of the twin linked Ion Cannons to 30cm range. There are a number of reasons for this. It stops the Tiger Shark being too powerful, it stops it out classing the Barracuda as the main interceptor, and it actually brings it into line compared to the Barracuda armament (which is also 30cm, while the Tiger Shark gets a +1 across the board for twin linked weaponry). OK, now for the more? debated changes. Deep breath? Fire Warriors I have made some changes to these guys, as I simply did not feel that they were selected by players enough or for the right reasons. Bad news ? they have lost their Pulse Carbines and Markerlights. Good news, their Pulse Rifles just got more dangerous with twice the fire power. I found it almost comical that the background material for the Pathfinders states how they use the Markerlights, which were previously available to the line troops as well. I hope that these changes simplify the Fire Warriors and give them a more defined role, as well as not requiring that they get within 15cm to use their full firepower. This should make them formidable against similar line troops in defence or longer range sweeping actions. I suspect that they remain correctly pointed. I will keep an eye on this, but they seem in line compared to Dark Reapers (which are more 50% more expensive but have longer range and much better firefight) and Storm Troopers (same cost, but they have shorter range and anti-tank capacity). They also intuitively compare to an Imperial Guard Infantry Company. I have also updated the entry for the Pulse Rifles on the human auxiliary command squad in line with the Fire Warriors. And this brings us on to? Path Finders Just minor changes. The first, and largest, is the loss of the Sniper ability. Path Finders are forward disruption units, not snipers. With the loss of Markerlights on the Fire Warriors, these guys should have a stronger defined role on the Epic battlefield. This, combined with the shorter range of the Pulse Carbines means that they need to be careful, but the disrupt ability should get them out of trouble. I went backwards and forwards over the Rail Rifles. I wanted to drop the Disrupt from this weapon, but that would put the weapon equal to half the Pulse Rifles on the Fire Warriors. That doesn?t seem right. The 40K Rail Rifle has ?Pinning? so I think that this is justified. (To be honest, I almost dropped the Rail Rifle completely, but after going back to the Codex for a while I reversed that decision.) IonHeads The AA ability on these tanks has not sat well with me for a long time. I don?t think that it is justified or representative or the background. However, the rest of the list has become reasonably balanced around this feature. But I don?t want the status quo to halt any decisions that need to be made, particularly since I feel that this is a big one for me. Therefore? deep breath? I have removed the AA fire from the IonHead. (Pause for flak? Incoming!!!) I played around with two stat lines for this gun. It came down to either 2x AP4+/AT5+ or AP3+/AT4+ (ignore cover) ? I also thought about ?disrupt? but that didn?t seem right. I went with the double fire power since the weapon in 40K does have a serious rate of fire. I am open to further discussion on this, but please, please do give it a try for a game or two, construct a couple of lists. With the drop of the AA attack to Fire Prisms, and the absence of any background which indicates that the IonHead can even attempt to know aircraft out of the sky, I honestly felt that this little ability was dictating force construction too much. There were many arguments against any change to the IonHead, and I accept and have considered them all. There were also issues regarding the SkyRay, and its cost. Some people stated that it was too cheap, while others said that it was fine as is. I have left this and do not intend to change the stats to this unit right now. One opinion about this change was that it place a lot of emphasis on the SkyRay as the sole ground based flak unit? which leads on to one of the last changes for this version? Scorpionfish Taking the above comments into consideration, I looked around for somewhere to spread the load a little. The Scorpionfish is an obvious choice. It is already a missile boat, and it is well protected and so your AA attacks will last longer. I have currently opted to issue it with an identical load to the SkyRay, as a separate missile system (I did think about integrating the AA missiles into an existing system) and not raised the cost of this unit. I am fully aware that this is not an accurate ?pound for pound? replacement to the AA fire on the IonHeads, but I would like to try this out and get feedback from the development community here. So, please tell me what you think, and in particular any experiences that you have with these changed units. Finally? - Vespids - Sniper Drone Teams These changes represent the initial entry point for these units, and so I have created additional threads to discuss them. In other news, I have decided to actually catalogue that EA Tau stuff that I have. It is depressing to see just how much I have spent? and also to see that I really need a lot more! Especially a couple of those new AX-1-0?s. I will post the final role call when I am done. Thanks. I look forward to your feedback. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
CS, I like your changes. I will be more than happy to playtest them and will report back with results. Thanks and keep up the good work. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
One day this is really going to force me to buy some Tau models... *sigh* Keep up the good work!
|
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
Chroma, how have you resisted this long? 
|
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
(Moscovian @ Feb. 07 2007,18:53) QUOTE Chroma, how have you resisted this long? I got engaged... *LAUGH* |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
I like the sound of all the changes but I'll take a while to review and digest after looking at a hard copy. The items of concern listed in the 4.4.2 Change Log thread are pretty much the ones I had that weren't addressed - massed Orcas and huge stinkin' piles of drone squadrons. |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
Thanks guys. I think that there are some controversial changes in version 4.4.1, but I think that some strong discussion and playtesting and the list will come out much stronger and more focussed. My only doubt is with the IonHead. I was thinking after the upload that I may have over-gunned it slightly. The new stats may be marginally too powerful and lead to more IonHeads being taken. If this is the case, then I can entertain the possibility of changing to the other option put forward, of even reducing the range to 45cm... or something else that someone suggests... but, as I say, if disucssion and playtesting leads to the conclusion that it is too strong. Thanks, everyone. Oh, and Neal, the Orca issue has been carried over partially as I believe that there were discussions within the ERC about the viability of transport craft holding or contesting objectives. If this is outlawed, it will impact on the Orca possibly more than any other craft. I didnt want to move on this too quickly until the landscape is clear. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
Aircraft grabbing objectives is probably not going to be changed. The way I remember it, Greg is against changing it due to concerns over the SM list and Sotec does not have a strong opinion either way. Since Greg is the Rules champion, that means the most likely version will reflect his views. I would proceed as if nothing will change in that regard. Personally, I'd like to go with the more extensive "immediate disengage" rewrite that I worked on, but c'est la vie. ==== I thought of this: Crisis w/ SC 4 FW formations 8 Drone formations 9 Orcas 2650 points, 22 activations, all of which have ranged fire and can claim objectives, with no LV or AV targets for AT fire It might be okay, but it is the single most extreme "popcorn" list I've seen so far. Normally, they are self limiting, but 22 activations at 2700 points... |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
(nealhunt @ Feb. 07 2007,23:14) QUOTE It might be okay, but it is the single most extreme "popcorn" list I've seen so far. ?Normally, they are self limiting, but 22 activations at 2700 points... Now that's some SPICY popcorn! |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
(nealhunt @ Feb. 07 2007,23:14) QUOTE I thought of this: Crisis w/ SC 4 FW formations 8 Drone formations 9 Orcas 2650 points, 22 activations, all of which have ranged fire and can claim objectives, with no LV or AV targets for AT fire It might be okay, but it is the single most extreme "popcorn" list I've seen so far. ?Normally, they are self limiting, but 22 activations at 2700 points... At first glance, this does look frightening. However, I am not sure firstly that it is a scary as it seems, and secondly that it is 'unfluffy'. I can imagine all units starting in the Orcas (FW+Orca x4; Crisis+Orca; 2xDrone+Orca x4) and the entire force acting as a drop assault. If so, you have nine targets on the board at some point, and taking down one will score a lot of points. Not only that, but the BTS formation consists of four infantry units. I agree that if the ground units do not start loaded, then it is a different game, but even then you have no Markerlights, very limited range on your weapons and the only dedicated armour are the Orcas, which will still get every heavy weapon pointing in their direction. Yes, you totally out activate your opponent, but how would this force fare against an AMTL? I wouldnt put too much money on the Tau in this case, even if they do make almost every activation after the Titans have finished. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that this type of force should be ignored and is totally balanced, but I do think that we should be careful as I dont want to simply 'ban' someone that wants a drop force. |
|
| Author: | colonel_sponsz [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
(CyberShadow @ Feb. 07 2007,21:30) QUOTE Oh, and Neal, the Orca issue has been carried over partially as I believe that there were discussions within the ERC about the viability of transport craft holding or contesting objectives. If this is outlawed, it will impact on the Orca possibly more than any other craft. I didnt want to move on this too quickly until the landscape is clear. Thanks. My reading of the fluff in IA3 puts the Orca as a lightly armed and armoured transport bus that is not intended as a combat unit so, regardless of the ERC, I think we should rule that an unladen Orca cannot contest an objective. That's a fluff based view, not game mechanics. Orde |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
CS: I don't know that it's overpowered. It might be perfectly okay. I just think it's the kind of thing that should be considered. Just to clarify, the idea is to start unloaded, not as a drop force. FW garrisoned in cover, 3 of them on OW with the revised garrison rules. The list doesn't need MLs because there are almost no GMs and the few present (on the Orcas) will always be able to get LoS, so the difference in firepower for a marked or unmarked target is modest. It doesn't need AT because it can either pile huge numbers of BMs for coming under fire or it can assault with drone formations clipping to bring in FF attacks over and over - it has the formations to suicide. Specific to the AMTL, I think this list would gut it. But in any case, I don't think considering AMTL for a GT environment is all that important at the moment. The AMTL list will have to be balanced as its own animal if it's going to work at all. In general, though, a big WE target like an enemy titan is not an issue. Big WEs are vulnerable to BMs whether or not they take any actual damage. 8BMs breaks a Warlord titan even if you never strip a shield. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Comments on version 4.4.1 |
(nealhunt @ Feb. 08 2007,14:09) QUOTE In general, though, a big WE target like an enemy titan is not an issue. ?Big WEs are vulnerable to BMs whether or not they take any actual damage. ?8BMs breaks a Warlord titan even if you never strip a shield. And, with 22 activations, you'll be able to take out 2 Warlords a turn! *laugh* |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|