Page 1 of 4

[ 55 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

CS - v4.3.4 Topics?
Tactica	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:19 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	CS, Things have went a bit quiet as a few frustrations have seemed to rise. That's unfortunate on both accounts. I thought I'd ping you on v4.3.4. The 5 aces (AX-1-0) topic ?has clouded other issues which could all be additions/changes in v4.3.4. Just to summarize the items I'm aware of... 1. Init bumps for elites and titans a. Stealth b. Moray c. Manta 2. Network Drone beyond AMHC for Tau BM Management a. HH Contingent b. Stingray Contingent c. Scorpionfish Contingent d. Firewarrior Cadre Devilfish e. Pathfinder Contingent Devilfish 3. IA3 allows Kroot in Orca transport, can we? a. Drop one unit from current formation size b. Modify Orca transport notes to include Kroot formation 4. Drone Sentries a. Add to main list b. Formation of 6 @ 75 pts in contingent section c. Armed with no weapons d. Markerlight Tau rule e. No CC or FF values f. Immobile g. Zone of Control h. Teleport 5. Swordfish a. Remove 1-2 for 25 points each b. Replace with "swap out 2 for 25 points total" 6. Tiger Shark AX-1-0 a. Whatever you want to do here b. Should solve 5 Aces situation at 2700 point games Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:11 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9348 Location: Singapore	Hi. Thanks for the summary. I have all of the issues which you mention... a few comments: Init Bumps - I may let these hang over for another update. I mostly agree with the Manta and Moray, but I am caught undecided on the init increase for the Stealths. Networked Drones - Again, this issue will probably hang over to a subsequent update. I want to give this time to settle down so that players can get used to the idea and integrate the changes into their games. Orca and Kroot - see my reply in the relevant thread, but generally no problem. Drone sentry turrets - see above.   Swordfish - again refer to my post in the thread, but this will most likly be changed to two Swordfish at 25 points. Tiger Shark - Close to a resolution on this, at least in my own mind! (Less arguments with myself here, at least.    ). I also have marked for a look at (not necessarily changes, just a re-examination): Knarloc Riders - possibly another issue to be discussed later, and not for inclusion in the next update (but I want people to know that I have not forgotten). Taking a second look at the stats for the Scorpionfish and Dragonfish. Can we simplify or clarify the Jet Pack rule, and do we want to? (Remeber that?) Then there is the issue of adding 'proper' Tau names to it all... 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

nealhunt	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:32 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Is it intended to allow multiple Leaders in a Tau formation?  According to my understanding of what is supposed to change in the new list, this would be a viable formation: Firewarriors in DF  300 Ethereal 75 HHIC  125 Networked Drones  25 525 points, 2 Leaders, Fearless Not a complaint, just an observation.  Of course, I bowed out of a lot of the debate and haven't been following it closely, so perhaps I misunderstood. === I agree that all the special rules/tech need to be examined for simplicity and clarity. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:27 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	NH, Interesting observation that I don't know if its really been explored - so I'm glad you mentioned it. Rhetorical "If someone really wanted it, is 2 "Leader" abilities a problem in the Tau army? Hmph... In your question, the base is already legal... so, do you consider that over the top already? 8x FW cadre ? ?4x DF -- Ethereal (Leader, Fearless) 2x IC-HH Assuming no, the only addition would be "Network Drones" to a FW Cadre Devilfish on top of what's already leagal in v4.3.3... Hmm... are you considering this broken or over the top for 525 points? Is that the best use of the remaining upgrade slot? Seems like there are some better remaining upgrade choices to make use of that upgrade slot personally - especially since there's a fearless Ethereal in there. Although I don't know if anyone's thinking about the potential for character + network drone, now that I start to ponder it - I'm wondering if there's even a problem there. I wonder how many tourny lists you'll see encorporating that design. Just thinking out loud, I wonder what other ways you might get 2 leaders in the current v4.3.3. More importantly, are any of those combinations going to be over the top? If they exist, are people taking them now - if not, why? If they are - is it working? It would have to be a combo of formation with AMHC + network drones + character with leader. SO... 1) AMHC + network drones + FW cadre w/DF + Ethereal 1) AMHC + network drones + crisis + SC Something to chew on I guess. Nothing over the top comes to mind by adding network drones to either of the above formations though. They are both legal in the current v4.3.3 list. Personally, I doubt I'll be playing two leaders on any formation as any kind of staple (if ever). If I have a spare 25 points and upgrade slot AND leader is already on the formation in question due to a character... I'll go for swordfish before I add a second leader. If its not a question of points, there's still a question of that final upgrade slot. I typically prefer to have models for an upgrade slot. Especially if I already have one leader in the formation. Afterall, you still have to *successfully* regroup to make use of the leader bonus. Interesting observation, it will be interesting to see how others and CS feel about it. My gut reaction is its not a problem - but I reserve the right to change my opinion.   cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	As I said, not a complaint, just an observation.  I didn't know if it was intentional and I'm uncertain of how reflective of the background it is. With broader access it might have more impact on overall feel.  For example, Stingray contingents don't seem to use up their upgrade slots, so it would probably be SOP to network them if it were available. _________________ Neal
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:58 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Neal, the issue arose in this thread..Network Drones I noticed that the Network Drones were listed with all the other upgrades, and since FW and Crisis Cadres can take Any upgrades I asked if that was the intention.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:09 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	NH, Observational caveat well met and acknowledged. No worries here. Thinking about your statement... Regarding reflective of background, I'm convinced that the Network Drone upgrade itself is very Tau'eque. So would a network drone equipped unit within a larger formation that might be lead by a character really be all that improbable? Ehh... Technology on a unit with character in a unit both in the same E:A formation. Seems within the realm of plausible in my make-believe Greater Good Totalitarianism pacafist society. Seriously, we definitely have a precident in core design to have 'bonding' vs. 'Ethereal' impact vs. Leadership bonus of a character joining a unit on a 40K battlefield. In the absence of Bonding's influence as we scale from 40K to the larger expanse of the E:A battlefield, the Network Drone seems to pick up where Bonding left off admirably well. I think there's an argument to be made that E:A character plus Network Drone impacting the same formation is flavorful and in character for the E:A Tau. Ultimately CS and the community's decision of course. All that said, personally I don't plan to have 2 leaders in the same formation in my E:A Tau on a regular basis... Seems like an unnecessary waste of points and an upgrade slot. So whether flavorful or not, if CS wants to strike the possibility, I don't think its going to impact me one way or the other. I think its simply a consequence of having other flexability in the list. If it's not damning of any formation or combination - what's the harm? Regards to Stingrays, I think you will find that Stingray + Stingray upgrade + Skyray + Piranha may be a pretty decent formation. I could see myself replacing the Skyray with a network drone upgrade though. That's more to do with my value of the additional units and AT potential the piranha's add... well... and my still lacking appreciation for the 75 point single Skyray. The Tau E:A list has a recognized BM management issue list wide. At the E:A scale and in absense of bonding at this level of game play, I think the network drone moves in to impact the Tau right where the bonding leaves off as we expand out from 40K scaled battles. If Network Drone was going to be paid for by a particular player whom which always gave it to his Stingrays - I don't see that as a charcter or design flaw, I see that as a tactical choice and a technology upgrade he's paying for. In 40K, how many consider Targetting array a staple choice for their tetras? How many people consider Decoy launchers and disruption pod a staple choice for their hammerheads? To me, network drones will become a staple for many that have the same perspectives. I think that's OK in both games. I think your questions are good ones that should be asked and discussed. Be assued, I take no offense to your questions and observations. Should CS choose to go forward, any changes - including any expansion of Network Drone access - needs to be play tested if adopted. We definitely want to find abusive and/or list imbalancing combinations if the potential exists. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:25 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Neal - I agree it would be SOP for the Stingrays but I don't think that is a bad thing IMO. They are a fairly brittle formation as is - whether that is intended I don't know. I know I would most likely use NDs with them.
Top

Nerroth	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:38 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	2 things to add (again!) *2 Piranhas or 3 Tetras per vehicle slot on the Manta, *6 Tracer Missiles for the Hero! Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:55 am
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9348 Location: Singapore	Lots of good and very interesting observations, guys. I will read over this in more detail later, but I will just point out that there is a grey area over the formation (in the current list): Battlesuit Cadre (250 points) + Fire Warrior/Devilfish upgrade (+150) + Ethereal (+75) + Shas'El (+50) (Lots of eggs, one basket!) Does anyone take it? I think that this needs clarifying. _________________ 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

Honda

Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:03 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Battlesuit Cadre (250 points) + Fire Warrior/Devilfish upgrade (+150) + Ethereal (+75) + Shas'El (+50) (Lots of eggs, one basket!) Does anyone take it? I think that this needs clarifying. Ok, I have a better question for you. Why would you do that? "It's fearless!" Big deal. It's 8 units of which half are +5 to save and are near useless in an assault. "It pulls off two BM!" Again so what. Even if you do pull off the BM, they are more than likely to have come from the FW, so now you have a really excited Crisis formation that will get swamped in an assault. To get this really excited Crisis unit, you risk three leader types. To what purpose? Maybe I'm not looking at this the correct way, but it seems like one of those, "Well, we don't keep you from doing things that are the opposite of smart, but you can if you want to". _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:51 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm Posts: 186

Cybershadow Battlesuit Cadre (250 points) + Fire Warrior/Devilfish upgrade (+150) + Ethereal (+75) + Shas'El (+50) (Lots of eggs, one basket!) Does anyone take it? I think that this needs clarifying. This formation seem quite cost inneffective. Tau jetpacks and mechanized infantry just don't marry well. It is also contradictory to mix-up elites & core troops, and still claim 1+ initiative. I think it could be worthwhile to limit upgrades available to the Battlesuit Cadre. Removing useless options would make sense and would make the army-list more accessable to new players. Battlesuit cadre upgrades shortlist: - Commanders: Sha's El or Shas'O - Jetpack equipped troops: Crisis, Stealth, Drones, Heavy Drones - Skyray? thougts?

Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:50 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9348 Location: Singapore	Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that it is a great idea, or that we should get in the way of this kind of 'original' design. I was just stating that, under the current list, this was a possible formation. I would like to clarify the upgrade list for the cadres, listing them explicitly rather than the current 'all'. I would also prefer to keep the upgrades restricted, so that (for example) an Ethereal can only be added to a Firewarrior Cadre. 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

nealhunt	Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:16 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I think if I were going to try it (not that I think it's a stellar idea), I would base it off the FW Cadre instead.  I think the extra bulk would work better despite a lower Initiative. Again, it still doesn't look very strategic. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS - v4.3.4 Topics? Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:59 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Battlesuit Cadre (250 points) + Fire Warrior/Devilfish upgrade (+150) + Ethereal (+75) + Shas'El (+50) (Lots of eggs, one basket!) Does anyone take it? I think that this needs clarifying. CS - not something I really consider in my bag of tricks. This is a rather ineffective formation IMHO. Using two upgrade slots for what - BM removal? SLowing crisis down for what - DF and FW ML? Although you can do it - one can do a lot of things... doesn't mean we should NOT allow people to make mistakes in building a list. I don't think we want to get into a situation where we are trying to protect people from themselves... that gets too wordy and is ultimately a lost cause in some cases. _________________ Rob

Top

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 4

[ 55 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net