Make all Tau units -1 on engagement orders (makes the 1+ Init on the Crisis valuable and means you have to be sure you really want it for the others.)

Oh man! That is a brilliant idea. Why hasn't his come up in the past? This would make perfect sense. So much better than the artificial way we do it now

So, what about this:

Keep the FF values low on vehicles and drones.
Improve the FF ability of FWs (either FF4+ or 2x FF5+)
Give Crisis suits a MW FF attack

_________________
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.

The -1 on Engage order had come up in the past.
I really like it.
I wouldliek to give the Firewarriors a boost in FF. Would it hurt the Tau feel SO much if the FW would be the one and only unit type which is good at Engages?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

HH's would have to retain an upgrade to 6 tanks

I think I first brought up the -1 to Engage in the thread on Chroma's list.  I think it could work and help to give the FWs a nice role.

What about Pathfinders and Stealth suits?

They could become FF4+ I suppose, it depends on their envisioned role.

I was nudged to toss in my 2c, so here goes For reference, I'm relatively new to EA; having only played 11 or 12 games with the Tau.



I like many of the changes to the new list. Although I sympathize with those who had modeled up Vespid or Moray, I'm happy I no longer need to worry about how to effectively convert them (and don't have to suffer the raised eyebrows when I announce that this AX10 is going to be subbing as a *insert fish name here* this game). I also like the new Markerlight cut-backs and GM restrictions; in previous games, I always tended to load up on GMs and just fire them unguided ... the cost of getting MLs close was just too high (without towers ... which I had no easy way to convert   ) and generally not worth it when the missiles could be delivered unguided via pop-up without fear of retribution and only a slight reduction in efficiency.

I'm a fan of the new Jet Pack rules. I'm not an expert at the nuances of EA tactics by any stretch, but I don't think I used the old Jet Pack rule once. I was always either too close or too far away for it to matter. If you're going to bother making a special rule, it should at least have an impact on the way the army plays!

On the topic of Firewarriors, I was mentally composing a response in my head ... and then I read Honda's post. IMO, that's the crux of it. Firewarriors are not supposed to be good at camping objectives. They don't fill that role in the fluff and they don't fill that role in 40k ... it's one of the things that defines the Tau in the 40k 5th ed environment (lack of a good objective claiming unit) and one of the great challenges of playing that army well. So giving the Tau a bit more killy-ness in compensation for their lack of campy-ness seems to me to be both fluffy and fair.

Perhaps this has been discussed before; what if Marked targets could not claim the benefits of cover? I could see how this could be overpowered in previous versions of the list, but given that Markerlights are now harder to come by (no Markerlights in FWs and no more towers), I think it would be more balanced. It would give well-designed (diverse) FW cadres a bit more self sufficiency if they included a Markerlight carrier. If people started including Markerlights for cover negation, it would be an indirect boost for GMs as well.


Thanks for your hard work on this folks, I'm hoping to get in a few test games in the coming weeks.

I'm a fan of the new Jet Pack rules. I'm not an expert at the nuances of EA tactics by any stretch, but I don't think I used the old Jet Pack rule once. I was always either too close or too far away for it to matter. If you're going to bother making a special rule, it should at least have an impact on the way the army plays!

Can I ask you Onyx, what your main problem with this idea in the first place was? i.e If you can still take 6 HH what the diff between an AMHC and a 6 HH formation as support - other than it not being core (you already take crisis suits afterall...). I'm just trying to see why you were against the removal of AMHC when you can still make armoured formations using Crisis.

_________________
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.

The trouble is, that while Firewarriors have 30cm range weapons, they cannot attack the enemy without exposing themselves to assault and FF in return.  So, you cannot avoid FF with FWs if you want to attack with them.

What is the purpose of FWs in the Tau list?  They can't hold objectives.  Aren't supposed to assault.  And if they attack with their pulse rifles they expose themselves to assault in return.

Not true, it works quite differently. The jet pack unit has to move away before any engagement is called, meaning they don't know which direction the engagement is coming from if near multiple formations.

While the ingame effect is not huge, it's much fairer and less gamey.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Tau is supposed to avoid getting into FF. This has the problem that now you put your formations into position for enemy to assault them (eg. camping on objectives or blocking movement). I didn't like this when it first came up and I still don't like again.

It's not a big change. It's a similar mechanic just with more limitations, and moved in the player's own turn rather than retrospectively once they know what the opponent intends. The end result is similar, but the process is much fairer.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread