 
|
Page 2 of 8 |
[ 106 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8 Next |
Changes for version 4.4.1 |
|||||
| thurse |
|
||||
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland |
|
||||
| Top |   |
||||
 |
|||||
| Steele |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| thurse |
|
||||
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| dptdexys |
|
|||||
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm Posts: 1974 Location: South Yorkshire |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
| Honda |
|
|||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
Out of interest what is wrong tactically in spending a 100 points to contest/grab an objective in turn 3 or 4? |
Perhaps its just me, and if we exclude the fact that we are talking about playing with tiny toy soldiers, I expect reasonalbly solid tactics to be rewarded as they would be in Real Life .
That doesn't mean that some "out of left field" play shouldn't be attempted in the desire to throw off enemy expectations (i.e. Doolittle raid in WWII), however, these one time events should be just that, one time events. Otherwise, one skews the overall direction of a war effort to chase potentially high yield, high risk propositions and then wonder why your opponent ends up defeating you through somewhat less inspired tactics and superior logistics. The German approach to the latter half of WWII against the Allies comes to mind.
So how does that apply to the Orca?
Well, I'm not trying to say that in a desperate situation, ?commanders wouldn't do something radical like deploy jeeps out of a C-130 to rescue some hostages because nobody had ever done that before, but do you make that tactic the basis of your entire army? Of course not, because your enemies will eventually figure out that as soon as the C-130 enters into their airspace, then a jeep in coming.
This applies equally to the Orca. In desperation, should we consider deploying some available Orcas to grab an objective because there is a tactical need? You bet. Maybe the Force Commander needs to pick up Tau citizens and rescue them, what ever the reason may end up being.
However, is that the sound military strategy that you want to build your army around?
Now here's the part that may come across as harsh and perhaps a touch idealistic, but the first question that comes into my head is, "does a person really need to win so badly that they feel the need to rely on a gimmick vs. sound tactics/strategy?"
Maybe it's just a reflection on our group, but we don't appear to look at the challenge of winning the game that way.
Perhaps that kind of thinking comes about from our non-tournament and admittedly new playing environment, but the idea of parking what is the equivalent of a Boeing 737 on the tarmac to claim an airport seems...I don't know, a stretch of my imagination.
I realize that all of that analysis (for lack of a better term) is extremely subjective, but I really struggle with the motivation behind wanting to play like that and also wonder whether a person in that situation is well thought of by regular opponents.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
| Tactica |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Tactica |
|
|||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
I think all need it. Short of activation issues sometimes, (thus the init recomendation of 1+) I think the Moray (both variants) are working as designed and intended. The Stealth and Manta are hard for me to justify in my non-test games. They are not nearly points efficient enough for my taste. The Stealths are closer than the manta. The stealths with init 1 will solve their in the field up close and personal activation issues. But the tau's strategy roll risk after these guys have teleported are what make them so "ify" to be used. Losing the strategy roll makes these guys sitting ducks. It means that healthy point investment is tossed away if the strategy roll is lost. The init 1 will atleast allow them to more reliably rally when needed to in the end phase and will allow them to rally if broken in the field (if the enemy leaves anything for us to rally!) Hah! I've not been shy about suggesting that the Stealth Sheild generator work better to make these guys more of the nuisance and hard to kill entities they are supposed to be - i.e. limit shooting at them to forcing the enemy to being in 30cm range. Its a no brainer from core design. How enemy can now see them better in E:A is befuddling to me. Having a stealth field generator that works means you can actually place them in the field where they are supposed to be - and losing the strategy roll doesn't necessarily mean their easy demise from somthing half across the deployment zone sustain firing at them - which they shouldn't even know the Stealths are there, much less be able to see them, much less be able to accurately target them with sustain fire! Bah! The Manta seems like it needs to be around 675-725 in points by all calculations I can come up with. 850 is way way too expensive. That number was knee jerk to the warlord long ago with the vision to revise as appropriate, it was never revised. I'd like to get the Manta the correct points in E:A. Right now the piece is so over priced its not usable on any meaningful scale. My resasoning, its not really worth 2 morays to me in shooting which makes me think less than 600 points, initially. However, the analysis doesn't stop there. Its one large hard to break WE that can also transport... so the 650 number is about right in that regard. Mainly because getting my really big WE up close and personal with chaos or any other H-t-h oriented force isn't really the prime objective of this slow moving E:A unit! (slow being another abstract from 40K, but that's besides the point) So although the transport is of value, its not a great value to me. Couple the transport capacity bonus but also its constratins with our best FF value unit in the game, and it could be a tactical factor in the end. Risky to use those advantages, but a tactical option nonetheless if you are also going to buy a space craft (more points) and planetfall to a populated location of interest - well, one that's not overly populated with enemy (also risky). So the push to 675 and maybe 700 could be justified if Planetfall value vs. risk could be justified on any kind of a consistent semi-reliable basis in games. What I do feel is that its not worth 850 to the Tau army - not at all. My typical use for this thing is shooting. Even with the other factors 725 is a real stretch for me to invest in the Manta. 700 seems a bit high, but with an init 1, I'd be willing to try the Manta at 675-725. 700 with init 1 seems like the right place to start for my investment. As far as the guns, they seem right. - Network Drones; allowing further formations access to the upgrade. |
Scorpionfish, Stingrays, and HH Contingents I'd agree with - but that's probably it. These formations all could justify its use and have an in game need.
- Knarloc Riders, and the Kroot
I like Honda's suggestions here.
- Vespids
Said all I can say about them.
Suprised the sniper drone teams didn't make the short list if Vespids did... however, neither formation is of key interest to me. Short of the few things of interest I mention here, the E:A list is really working well in its v4.4 version.
- Tau names for the relevant units.
As long as legibale and intelligable english names are used in reference to the army list and data sheets first, then fluff names are fine. I don't want to have to remember what a La'shar'i (or whatever) is when I'm building my force though!
- Swordfish: What is the purpose of this unit?
To add AT punch to the formation that has more fragile MBT and smaller numbers than other E:A mbt focres. It also allows fans of the Tau list to play a model they've been teased with in GW's 40K VDR articles they've published over recent years and the vehicle that we've seen on the Mexican GW website. Its also a fun piece not only from play providing that extra 'zing' to a formation, but also a nice conversion opportunity for players. Finally, its a piece that JG always really liked and sold many of us on to convert some of our expensive FW models over too. For those of us that have been part of the Tau dev boards for years - its a nastalgic piece at this point I for one most definitely do NOT want to lose from the list. We've come so far with it - and with the most recent change in points - its actually working and worthwhile finally!
Does the upgrade alter the role of the formation?
To some degree, yes. It does allow it to engage more heavily armored tank divisions with the added AT punch. The lowered to hit value also means you can become a bit more mobile and not have your to-hit chances reduced at much vs. a dug in target in cover. -2 from 3+ takes you to 5+. -2 from 2+ takes you to 4+. Adding mobility, sometimes detering slightly heavier armored and being able to situationally engage slightly heavier armored formations with a bit more confidence if you make the extra investment and sacrifice of the upgrade slot are definitely changing the formation enough to make it valuable some times.
Are these taken in 'all' formations?
Absolutely not. There's great benefit in taking the all ion-head formation. Using up the upgrade slot or additional points to get the upgrades units is also not always fesible - or even desirable. Interdiction mixes of rail-head and ion-head have no need for the Swordfish, however all rail-heads may embrace the upgrade with more regularlity. Ion-head formations that wanted the AA and main AP punch may take the SwF as added AT extreme punch too as playstyles justify. Batreps continue to prove that the SwF is not a 'given' or 'default' upgrade.
- AX-1-0: Formation size and points cost. Increase main armament to 2+?
I'm OK with the formation size at 1.
The points are off now. The weapon ranges are good, but the points don't make sense presently. The to-hit value needs to go down 2+ to start making the current investment worthwhile - even then, it will be overpriced to most.
Regards to AA, I'm on the fence.
- Pathfinders (and, to a lesser extent, Fire Warriors): Disrupt on the Rail Rifle?
Railrifle (not the pulse rifle) should have an AT6+ value. Disrupt works fine and is justified if you want to keep it. It has been the best asset to the PF's in general games. The carbine is so insignificant that I could see that going away. Who is actually making use of the Pulse carbine anyway?
Are the Fire Warriors worth taking for their own value,
2 shots are needed here at 30cm to make the FW worthwhile. Eliminate the pulse carbine and the disrupt at 15cm all together from these stands IMHO.
do these two infantry units perform as expected?
PF's almost - see the AT6+ recomendation.
FW's not yet, see the 2 shots and elimination of PC shot.
Are Fire Warriors worth taking when compared?
Only because they are a cadre.
Should Pathfinders points value be increased?
They've worked for a LONG time at the current points. They have not yet been proven imbalanced from batreps. Adjusting their points would be doing little to improve the army's ability on the field from games posted in batreps thus far.
I say don't adjust their points unless they can be proven to be imbalanced and JUSTIFY the points increase from a proven imbalance in play.
Comparisons of the Tau to other armies does NOT provide the justification needed. The Tau ARMY has many weaknesses other armies do not so formation to formation comparisons are across different army lists does not prove anything normally, here, doing so is even less valuable.
- Orca: Can these be exploited?
Remains to be seen.
Should they be limited to one per Cadre taken?
IF the answer to the previous Orca question proves to be "yes" then I would say this is a possibility. For now, I see no reason to impose a limitation. Its the 'don't fix it if it ain't broke' doctrine.
- Change the name of the Scorpionfish?
Scorpionfish works for me. Trident is the only thing I like better, but no agenda to see that through.
_________________
Rob
| Nerroth |
|
|||||
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada |
|
|||||
| Top | |
|||||
|
||||||
| nealhunt |
|
|||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
I could definitely see the Manta getting a 1+ like the big boys in other armies (well, except Orks). Morays are questionable as they are closer to SHTs. The question on Stealths to me is whether they deserve 1+ initiative per the background. I would not make the decision based on play balance. That's what points are for. - Swordfish: What is the purpose of this unit? Does the upgrade alter the role of the formation? Are these taken in 'all' formations? |
I don't see a need for it and have made the case that the practical difference is so small as to make no difference to actual in-game decisions or play feel (if you exclude the psychological attachment to the unit, that is).
As far as inclusion, I would either field a Cadre with all IC for general purpose or I would kit it out for AT duties, in which case max Swordfish is the obvious choice.
- Pathfinders (and, to a lesser extent, Fire Warriors): ...Are Fire Warriors worth taking when compared?
Pathfinders v Fire Warriors is a no-brainer, imho. They are simply a better value for the points by a significant margin and barring needing a Cadre for army structure I don't think I would ever take FW.
I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for lowering FW v raising PF but either way they need to have a larger difference in point cost if you want to provide internal balance.
When it comes to testing them, I think that it may take a non-army-list test to really determine if PF are balanced. As it stands, it is hard to take a large number of them. Having a relatively small proportion of them means that any unbalancing effect they might have could be masked by the overall army.
For example, if they were 50 points per contingent out of whack (just an example), you're not likely to see more than an equivalent of 150 point disparity between 3000 point armies. That little difference can be masked by an especially good/bad die roll, let alone a good/bad command decision. Even worse, if the FWs are a bit underpowered, they will serve to offset that "bonus" to the point it is undetectable.
- Orca: Can these be exploited? Should they be limited to one per Cadre taken?
I think they probably can be exploited. Another, possibly more accurate or flavorful, way to limit it would be to simply require that it be loaded at the beginning of the game. This is parallel to the way that most armies can't take extra transport. You could simply do a sidebar that their primary purpose is for transport, not as gunships, and they should only be initially deployed with troops on board.
_________________
Neal
| Honda |
|
||||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
Maybe we could also consider that there's nothing wrong with them, other than they don't fit other peoples mental model. I keep hearing that they aren't right, but then we also come back to: 1. You can't take a bunch of them because of how the list is structured (I'm still trying to figure out why that is a problem) 2. Some people take a lot of them, some people don't 3. We don't see in playtesting that those that take large amounts of PF are destroying the opponent's army with them (like they did with Five Aces) 4. They seem to be working as designed through several versions of lists So again, why is their an insistance that there is something wrong with them other than the fact that they appear to be slightly "out of the box" as far as design goes? _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment |
| nealhunt |
|
||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
You might note I used indeterminate language and commented that it might be a valid argument to lower the cost of FW rather than raising PFs in order to address internal balance issues. I was under the impression that pretty clearly left open the possibility that nothing is wrong with them. I'm not sure why the quote you pulled from my post precipitated the your response. All I did in that quote was suggest a playtest technique that could potentially resolve the question of external balance. _________________ Neal |
| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
Thats another limit, and a reason to get non human/pathfinder troops! 
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
|
|
Page 2 of 8 |
[ 106 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8 Next |