EA Tau Version 4.3.2 |
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:40 am |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
Sorry for the delay, guys. I have finally got around to an update.
EA Tau V4.3.2
Comments on version 4.3.2
- I agree that there is no point in differentiating between the Plasma Rifles and missile systems. We should probably leave the description as it is
- Slow and Steady removed from the Hero
- Moved the maximum of one restriction from the Shas?El to the Shas?O (D?Oh). I have also rearranged the commander options to make them clearer (I hope)
- I have kept the Tiger Shark (note the space here!) a ?strike craft? as while it carries missile, it does not actually have bombs
- Changed the Narwhal back to Scorpionfish? I don?t like this name either, but I prefer it to Narwhal!
- Dragonfish ? a lot of suggestions were made on this. I have changed my previous error on the battle matrix as the only Supreme Commander (this was the impression that I got from the discussion). I have kept the deflector shield in this, as it seems in keeping, particularly with the increased cost of +100 points. Is this fairly up-to-date at this point? I am not so sure about the Hunter Missiles, and would like to open the suggestion of replacing them with a Railgun.
- Great Knarloc ? I have put this at Infantry, as I agree with Tactica in that making this a LV would make it a fire magnet in an infantry formation. However, I would like further comment on this.
- I have changes the Gue?Vesa weapons to Pulse Blasters? it was either that or Pulse Guns, Pulse Pistols or Pulse Muskets!
- I think that I have corrected the Collectors Bombardments stats. Please let me know if this has not rectified the issue.
- Removed any bonus for all Tau forces
- Prohibited Markerlight use against aircraft or spacecraft, for logical reasons
- The current system lets the player, for example, take a Fire Warrior cadre, and in addition both the Crisis upgrade and the Supreme Commander (which would then be applied to the Crisis upgrade rather than the Fire Warrior Cadre). I have no real problem with this, but does it seem OK?
- I have left the missile pack Hammerhead in the collectors miniatures, although this is marked as a possible removal and its use as the Stingray
- Drone rule changed to remove bonus in assaults
- I have allowed any upgrades for the Armoured Hunter Cadre. Any objections?
- Increased the stopping power of the IonHead against infantry targets to make this more of a tough choice. I just want to try this out for a bit
- Tau names have not been added at this point. Nerroth, can you please email me your list?
- Changed the Skyray and dropped the cost, my version has lost the Seeker Missiles but we should run with that and see if they need adding back in as Tacticas suggestion
- Markerlight Sentry Turrets have not been added, as I feel that they need more discussion and I will need a bit more convincing. General markerlight mechanism has not been changed? keep the discussion going guys!
_________________ 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.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
asaura
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:37 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (CyberShadow @ 12 Dec. 2005 (01:40)) | - Prohibited Markerlight use against aircraft or spacecraft, for logical reasons
- Changed the Skyray and dropped the cost, my version has lost the Seeker Missiles but we should run with that and see if they need adding back in as Tacticas suggestion |
No markerlights against aircraft is a severe blow against the Skyray.
I really want to keep the Seekers on the Skyray. The only reason is that each Devilfish chassis vehicle has them, and any exceptions to universal rules like this are evil.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:38 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (CyberShadow @ 12 Dec. 2005 (01:40)) | | - The current system lets the player, for example, take a Fire Warrior cadre, and in addition both the Crisis upgrade and the Supreme Commander (which would then be applied to the Crisis upgrade rather than the Fire Warrior Cadre). I have no real problem with this, but does it seem OK? |
It's quite OK.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:47 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
Hi Cs,
can you please tell me the logical Reasons for prohibiting ML against Aircraft? Do you think that people abuse it? Why did we get the whole discussion about the Skyray or other if you change/add something anyway? But you are Champ. 
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:42 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
|
Thanks for your comments guys.
The Skyray clearly needs more testing. I will start a new thread for that.
The issue of no markerlights on aircraft is a logical one, as I just cant see how they would be used against a bomber so high and screaming in towards you or past you. We could up the AA value of units to compensate, perhaps this should also be in the Skyray thread.
I can see why the Seekers on the Devilfish chassis would be consistant, but I just dont see what they acheive and what the point of them being there actually is. I could be convinced on this.
The existing Skyray discussion dealt with a number of issues with this unit, consisting of almost a redesign and certainly a rethink of where it fits into the Tau force. This is still valid and should be ongoing. The issue with the Markerlights against aircraft is wider than the Skyray issue alone, and was impliments partially as a response to the issue about the IonHead as an AA unit. Nothing in the list is sacred or set in stone, and I dont want anyone to think that decisions have been made without an ability for others to have an input in the process. The no-markerlight issue was something that I felt was a by-product of a number of issues, coupled with a logical argument of how this would actually work.
Thanks.
_________________ 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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Soulless1
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:01 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Leicester, UK (termtime). South Essex, UK (holidays).
|
|
I'm not sure about that markerlight against aircraft thing - I mean even though an aircraft is moving quickly, they aren't exactly hard to follow with a beam of light - its not like you have to lead fire...
All it requires is fairly precise aiming technology capable of optical targeting...which isn't exactly beyond the Tau.
Surely since we know that the skyray uses markerlights to target aircraft (in every piece of fluff and rules made for it), we can assume that tau have found a way to do it. I don't think we have to worry about feasibility by this point.
_________________
'Of course you should fight fire with fire; you should fight everything with fire!'
'Those who live by the sword, die by the rifle'
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:23 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Dragonfish ? a lot of suggestions were made on this. I have changed my previous error on the battle matrix as the only Supreme Commander (this was the impression that I got from the discussion). I have kept the deflector shield in this, as it seems in keeping, particularly with the increased cost of +100 points. Is this fairly up-to-date at this point? I am not so sure about the Hunter Missiles, and would like to open the suggestion of replacing them with a Railgun.
|
First, I can see from previous comments that ML should be back vs. aircraft. Is that correct?
Skyray comments in the other thread.
Now are you planning on adding a rail gun to the existing complement of weapons or replacing a weapon system? Are you also planning on upping the cost?
My Responses:
1. Adding a RG, no increase in cost: I don't necessarily think the ScrF needs this, but if others think the vehicle is undergunned, I would yield.
2. Replacing a weapon system: Would not be in favor of this as the most likely candidate would be the MW missile and we need that.
The Dragonfish is a command vehicle used to support other units with C3 and firepower. It makes very little sense to have your general up front where he will get shot down because he's attempting to use his gun.
The Scorpionfish is a missile carrier that supports other units. It is quite likely that a Dragonfish will be teamed up with a Scorpionfish to provide a single hard hitting unit that can also call on CF to supplement any attack.
As currently configured, these vehicles can use terrain to protect themselves (except from artillery and aircraft) and remain a viable formation through most of the game (BM management technique).
The Tau already have multiple platforms fielding RG/RC, I don't see where adding it to the DrF, especially if you're thinking of increasing the cost or replacing a weapon, adds value.
Is it your perception that there is an imbalance introduced by this unit?
My two yen...
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Drones: We need to clarify whether these things are effectively LVs, always being targettable by AT fire, or if absorbing AT fire is a special ability that they can choose to ignore, allowing them to accompany an all-infantry formation without being vulnerable to AT fire.
Deflector shields: Just a technicality, but Lance weapons don't ignore basic armor saves. They ignore re-rolls. Some wording about special anti-armor effects would be good, though I can't think of any non-bulky wording off the top of my head.
Master-Shaper: I don't think that it will be a problem for most people, but having two "Assault Weapons" entries is just begging to have someone claim 2 basic CC attacks.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Nerroth
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
|
Hi!
Copy this link into your Address bar for those Tau names!
Now, about that list:
*The Hero unit title should read like this:
HERO CLASS CRUISER (LAR?SHI), VASH?YA CONFIGURATION
(The Hero entry in the army list should also read like this)
*The Custodian's Tracer salvo should go down to 6xMW6+, to match the current forum BFG stats (though bear in mind that the CPF is still being worked out, so it is possible it may go back to 8 before it's done...) Also, it should be Or'es El'leath, not Or'es El'Leath (as in no capital L for leath!)
*I like Narwhal better...
*The Human Aux command stand should be Gue'vesa'vre, as the Gue'vesa'ui would be the sargeant at stand level, while the 'vre would be the formation Leader (in both senses of the word).
*All upgrades for HH Cadre = bad idea. The formation is ill served (and potentially too large) if you even let it take Stingrays - which are better suited to be used as a separate long-ranged support formation - let alone anything else. It should be kept as seen in 4.2.8, with Skyray, Swordfish and Hammerhead upgrades only... with the possible exception of also including Piranhas and/or Tetras (although they are better of as separate formations, too)
*In the SC entry, you don't need to repeat 0-1 per army, it's clear enough just saying it once - as it would be for the Aun.
*Gun Drones should really be referred to as Squadrons, not squads, suits their kor'vesa title (and their inability to perform things such as Ta'lissera) more aptly!
*The Explorer unit title should read:
EXPLORER CLASS CARRIER (GAL'LEATH), VASH?YA CONFIGURATION ? counts as Custodian Battleship
*The Basing Unit Types section should read:
Basing Tau Units: Crisis and Broadside Battlesuits, Heavy Drones and Krootox should be mounted 2-4 to a base. Firewarriors, Pathfinders, Stealth, Gun Drones, Kroot, Kroot Hounds, Kroot Master Shapers, Human Auxiliaries and their Commands are based like regular infantry. All other units are based individually. Feel free to add a Drone to infantry stands, light vehicle bases and armoured vehicle bases, as I have incorporated the devensive benefits of drones into Tau unit's saving throws.
That's all I can think of for now.
Gary
_________________  Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdfHuman armed forces for the greater good.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
CS,
Glad to see that 4.3.2 made it to availability. I've not looked yet as I'm swamped at work. Just no time today yet...
However, without beating the Markerlight and aircraft issue to death (which I hope the masses have made the point without my weighing in)...
AMHC = all upgrades = contraversial.
This is a contraversial idea. We tried giving it all upgrades before but err'd to the side of caution.
The number 1 concern was, it was seen as allowing the formation to get too big. That had several implications.
It was also taking the formation out of character. It's meant as a tank busting formation and very mobile formation. As soon as infantry start walking or running around all over, the formation really starts to lose one weakness which is remaining realtively small. It loses another weakness if things like drones are allowed as they become ablative for vehicles some how, it also can hinder it with infantry running around without vehicles making the formation very disjointed in overall intended use.
That's why we settled on the upgrades and size.
Also, deflector shield on Dragonfish in the end seems very unwarranted.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:31 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
|
AMHC = all upgrades = contraversial.
This is a contraversial idea. We tried giving it all upgrades before but err'd to the side of caution.
The number 1 concern was, it was seen as allowing the formation to get too big. That had several implications.
It was also taking the formation out of character. It's meant as a tank busting formation and very mobile formation. As soon as infantry start walking or running around all over, the formation really starts to lose one weakness which is remaining realtively small. It loses another weakness if things like drones are allowed as they become ablative for vehicles some how, it also can hinder it with infantry running around without vehicles making the formation very disjointed in overall intended use. |
This crossed my mind as well. However, at the same time I didnt want to dictate and limit this formation more than I have to. For example, the obvious upgrade choices are more armour to round the formation out, but what about the player who wants to add some Fire Warriors for a buffer or Markerlight protection, or adding Crisis suits to the formation for more flexible attack options?
How much do we want to dictate the use of this formation?
_________________ 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.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
Hi,
wouldn?t that be IG Style? Don?t think that we want any allrounder. Although I understand your willingness to let the crowd choose by themselves. Besides that the formation becomes Hordestyle big it would make them susceptible to AP Fire and become somewhat unflexible/slower when the FW are dismounted/on Foot same goes to a lesser extent when upgrading with Crisis.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: EA Tau Version 4.3.2 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:29 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (CyberShadow @ 13 Dec. 2005 (11:31)) | |
This crossed my mind as well. However, at the same time I didnt want to dictate and limit this formation more than I have to. For example, the obvious upgrade choices are more armour to round the formation out, but what about the player who wants to add some Fire Warriors for a buffer or Markerlight protection, or adding Crisis suits to the formation for more flexible attack options?
|
Firewarriors as a buffer can be purchased seperately and act as a seperate formation in combined arms but utilizing mulitple formations.
If a player wants to blend some elements, then we say buy crisis cadre and upgrade with hammerheads or firewarriors cadre, or buy firewarriors and upgrade with crisis and hammerheads. These are mainstay troop oriented formations.
The Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre is a hard hitting and and core vehicle element. It will most definitely require other formations to keep it protected and usable.
How much do we want to dictate the use of this formation? |
If you want to round it out with a few more tank bodies - OK, thats a comprimise if you must. If you want to have some AP support - I would consider doing that via more hammerhead bodies - the stingrays would be the logical fit. But please stop there. No LVs... no infantry for this formation. These are weaknesses (max size and lack of alblative) that keep it as a balanced tank choice and further keep it from becoming a mirrored or competative IG choice.
We don't want our AMHC to become a large tank formation with 1) an _upgunned lead tank_ and 2) potential to swell its ranks with every upgrade we have... not only does it become game imbalancing and make the formation unfluffy from its intended use, but because it would be an IG skimming tank company at that point - well, if we give it a commissar.
CS - if you think it needs one more upgrade, I'd suggest you consider Stingray with it. That is not a forgeworld piece so does not make it into the fluff. Its the most logical 'tank body' piece to fit into the role of the formation and would perhaps deliver the AP element via an upgrade that you might be looking for.
I would hope that you would leave it at that - if you feel that is warranted.
Just my opinion and vote.
Cheers,
