Again too much upgrades for support formations. You can make Support formatuions even bigger than core formations which is not my understanding of "support"

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Re support size - I think the biggest support/core mismash is the Siege list where a support formation can cost up to 3 times as much as a core one.

Also the core/support isn't about main battle/supporting formations but rather about force org construction. Take a modern mechanised formation. Some armies will have an MBT company in it. It is there in a 'support' role with infantry being the reason for deploying such a force, but undoubtedly is worth the most. The construction tries to give the owning player (and opponent) of a list centred around firewarriors. But they don't have to be the game winning or key formations.

Saying that do people really think 800 points for a hammerhead formation with hammerheads, skyray and firewarriors is to much? This is as far as I can tell the only big support formation, and you can't make it fearless like you can for the armour list. Or are there any other support formations that can do this as well?

Perhaps support needs another name

The drones are there for everyone as an upgrade as I do think they should have a lot floating around. They are also effectively discounted to encourage this.

Stealths get drones because everyone does. However its for specialised reasons as you would no longer be able to teleport them (so say if you want to drop them out of an Orca).

The slightly cheaper upgrades would have to get a serious roadtest to see if they unbalanced the main formations. Certainly the idea is only certain units would not want to take drones or heavy drones.

Of course do people think drones should be so much in evidence? In their favour is they are easy to scratchbuild!

The cheaper Manta means a bit of airpower can be fielded as well, something I don't think the Tau should be without.

Combining Piranha and Tetra is an option. However the pack size is odd (2 Piranha, 3 Tetra) so I'm not sure what role the formation could fill and allowing Tetra upgrades to Piranha means they go and act on their own in threes coordinating themselves to fire. You can do that in the armour list however as that's more into stand off weaponry. Tetra also almost replace Pathfinders there.

_________________
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

I Think that the recon pack is to represent a recon in force by the Pathfinderswith the Tetras to recon and the Pirahans to supply fire support if needed.

_________________
Tyranid air marshal

Only problem with that is its a complete duplication of pathfinders with Devilfish (well baring they can't be cc'ed). Maybe replace pathfinders with it instead of a tetra formation in the Armour list? Still to make 2 tetra and two piranha formations its two packets, so it works out that way. Alternatively you can use them as upgrades in both lists.

_________________
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

I still think that the Tau should get a watered down version of skimmer.  Is their any referance of their vehicles being able to pop up to the heights that vultures and eldar vehicles can?

If not they should have the movement rule of skimmers but not the pop up or FF only in engage bonuses.

_________________
Tyranid air marshal

I still think that the Tau should get a watered down version of skimmer.  Is their any referance of their vehicles being able to pop up to the heights that vultures and eldar vehicles can?

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow

I think its not necessary. With a firewarrior centric list you can't do the all skimmer horde, so that's less of an issue. An armour list you could and that would be accounted for in the formation costs.  Also with good rather than excellent 75cm fire skimmer is a useful tactical tool reinforcing the Tau's manoeuvrability advantage somewhat more subtly than being really really fast and assists a shooting game. Tau are ultimately all about the shooting game - they should just be doing it closer than they currently are. Far more exciting and risky.

_________________
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

Some good ideas TRC. There's a change or two to the list that I have in my proposal(that I'm hoping will get posted soon). Actually I don't mind the move of Crisis suits to Support and the price of additional Devilfish for Pathfinders included in their costing. I like the Barracuda squadron design of 2-3 - it's nicely done. I like the bomber, 4+ armour for the Sharks too. I don't mind the adjustment to the Hero tracer numbers. I quite like the inclusion of the turrets and the hammerhead variants in the list. It makes sense. I don't mind the change to pack size etc. purchasing. I don't mind the adjustment of the special rules - it is a smart reduction while keeping them in the list.


However..

Fire Warriors don't need 4 different options. You can already do pretty much everything you outline for them in the current list design. Why change it? It's just added lines on a page. Also, 18 mechanised FW teams + transport?!! holy crap that is a ridiculously large formation. It's way too unwieldy. That's 27 units for just 675 points! Even the walking FW formation = 17 units! I'm hoping I misread this design...

Crisis Suits. You ask if there are too many weapons? Just because you believe that the number of suits per base doesnt take into account the number of weapons - it's all abstract! You might have a mix of weapons in the formation. As usual, it's forgotten that Epic is abstract   And still no MW FF? that still makes no sense for a weapon that is MW - will crisis suits hold fire with the fusion guns in an assault?    Geez!

Broadsides - do we really need to be told "solid shot" railguns?

Heavy Drones - do we really need these? There's no model. They seem superfluous. I can't find any in the GW range either. Do they actually exist? Why not just have standard drones with MLs?

Hammerhead (RG) - 4+ to hit and a speed drop? I agree with Onyx. If you implement this you better drop the price mate. 375 for a formation that has been pretty much found to be, over time with playtesting, priced correctly is a bit steep if you then gut the unit. I agree with Scarik on this, I think they should stay 3+. They need to be the hard hitters the Tau are supposed to have. If the artificial 5+ assault value remains then they need to be scary shooters at least. I can live withthe speed drop somewhat.

Sentry Turret - you might want to add Fearless to them if you want people to take them in this incarnation. NOt sure if expendable is a replacement for this....

Deflector shield - I did have a big rant on this until i saw the DC 10 change. I'm not sure about a 5+ inv save basically. I'll reserve judgement on this I think. Not sure people wil be happy about the gun ranges on this baby. E&C jumps to mind here for some strange reason   105cm? Why not just 100?

Support craft - oh man! what is the problem with adjusting this rule?! Is it sooo difficult to say it still adheres to LOS rules in the MRB in regards to 10cm-in rule? Good grief!

A-X-1-0 - 30cm Rail gun shot? Eldar aircraft pulse lasers have a 45cm shot. Why make the Railgun any less ranged? You've removed the Moray - the Tau cheaper version TK platform. I can understand focussing the aircraft into the TK support. But why force a short range on a long range weapon - one that out ranges pulse lasers on the ground?


All in all, some stuff needs adjusting while other stuff is good. It's a decent list if the changes needed get made.

You've removed the Moray - the Tau cheaper version TK platform

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Just for a laugh TRC, why don't you try making stats for these as just about (please note I did not say ALL) everyone who already has a Tau army, already has models for them?

_________________
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

TRC,

I'm sorry if this is going to come off as sounding like a wet rag, but we do not have agreements on key issues in the current list and now you're proposing two lists?

I appreciate the amount of thought you have put into this exercise, but I don't think this is the right approach.

We should correct the existing list, then play test the dickens out of it, then we have something to talk about.

All these proposals have been made before from various people at various times and the list has been doing nothing but going in circles.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Man I missed this. I didn't realise you had split it in two!

No thanks TRC. I can tell you flat out I WILL NOT PLAYTEST A SECOND LIST. Your first list is playable with adjustments. Making a second, and thus dividing the Tau community, doesn't fly with me. I don't have the time to play two armies and I don't have the inclination. You can playtest your armoured list till the cows come home. I won't.    

FW are redundant in any list with AP markerlights.

The splitting it in two is slightly exaggerated, more accurate to say one is a limited form of the of the current list and teh other is the current list.

The 'armour' list is essentially the current list. It makes no bones about being a War engine/GM/stand and shoot force and is designed to try and balance the type of lists that currently break it. The 'infantry' list is one that tries to match the stated background of the Tau as being FW centric. The nearly all the new units added make Firewarriors - essentially a source of AP fire - redundant unless priced in such a way to be red herrings. I can't see any way round this, so one list stops it and one list embraces it.

You may skip entirely the infantry one and stick with the current list, here renamed the armour list.

_________________
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

No other serious army has 2 official lists. Think about it. It makes no sense. The Armoured list may be what you call the "current" list but it's different enough that people who dislike the current list won't like it either. We are better served to come up with a new style of list and playtest that or stick solely with what we have already put so much effort into creating. Dividing our time is basically a great waste of time...

Its pretty much the same.

Orks have 3 currently.
And Imperial Guard have two lists, three if you include the Minivans and 5 if you include teh two sige varient lists.
Marines come Marine month will have at least a half dozen, most already majority done.
Eldar I think have Ulthwe and Saim Haine ready? Though I don't follow the pointy ears much.

I wouldn't see it as dividing time as lessons from one hold for the other as the major changes (Manta and the like) apply to both. By removing the 'combo's' from one and embracing them in the other both groups are appeased and it will be a darn sight faster to get the ball rolling again and finish off.

Have you had a chance to look at the armour list? Tis a rough draft bear in mind.

Those that don't like the current one should really have no grounds to dislike the 'armour' one as their no fluff or power arguments against it. It would be balanced for the styles of play that the current list finds hard to deal with.  If you go with anything that 'makes' you pick firewarriors whilst retaining the firewarrior redundantfying options the fans of the current lists would see their armies change significantly and be forced to play with what they see as millstones.


Well I see you spotted it was actually a bit different to yours after all

and the price of additional Devilfish for Pathfinders included in their costing.