Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Comments on v5.0

 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Honda @ 12 Mar. 2009, 19:35 )

Please see earlier post. The design changes are frozen.

Am I blind or has the "frozen" updated army not yet been posted?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:44 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (Honda @ 12 Mar. 2009, 17:58 )

If you want MLs in your FW formations, look to the Upgrade section. It should have just about every flavor you might want.  :;):

Sure.  Lots of flavors.  But only if you want to do mech infantry.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Honda, what seems to be missed is that we've adjusted the list in a major way with the change to ML/GM but not taken into account that change on the list. My personal belief is that all tau infantry could use MLs to spread coverage to compensate for the need for them and the cost in building a list now. Pathfinders bring Co-fire now so they do fill a separate role. WHat seems to have been overlooked with the change is that Tau now have to push weak troops forward to use GMs which just hands the opponent easy kills. I don't think I can stress this point enough. Forcing this change means greater coverage of ML is needed.

Of course this needs to be looked at at a later date due to the lock....  :glare:





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 12 Mar. 2009, 21:45 )

Forcing this change means greater coverage of ML is needed.

Agreed. When I originally proposed losing the unguided mode, I suggested it in combination with an increase in the number of MLs in the army.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Am I blind or has the "frozen" updated army not yet been posted?


No, we had a "versioning" error during the clean up exercise. We are currently targeting this weekend.

I'm not speaking about this version, obviously I know that's locked down now, but is there a reason we can't think of ideas for future versions? You've been shutting down every idea lately with "It's not going into this version.". So we can't consider ideas just because they're not going in the current version?

One of the problems that plagued the 4.x series of lists is that no sooner than the code was frozen, then the community started fixing other problems, whether real or perceived.

We're not going to do that.

After we get to the "Freeze and Release" stage, then we're going to playtest...a lot. During that phase, we are going to observe list behaviors, but I'm not going to entertain or necessarily encourage proposals for changes until we hit the back half of the testing period (assuming testing is going on). We're going to know this list very well at the end of this period. That knowledge is going to help us to move forward.

This exercise is not just to see if we can produce a list. The hard work comes from testing to verify our assumptions. If we guessed wrong on something, then that will show up in the testing. But we're not going to chase every design butterfly because it looks pretty. The whole point of this step is to get a solid enough foundation so that after we know how it behaves we can make informed recommendations for change.

The sins of the past have been not testing, just fixing. That process has just about destroyed the list and alienated the rest of the community. We aren't going to make those mistakes again.

If you spend all your time trying to figure out how to make things better, you will have a hard time understanding what you have now, good or bad.

Do you seriously think playtesting hasn't already shown FW are in need of a bump?

My opinion is that there is an indication that they could be better. This was discussed and proposals for change were made. Those have been adopted in this release.

So, it is safe to say that they have been bumped and that how they will perform will be determined in playtesting.

Sure.  Lots of flavors.  But only if you want to do mech infantry.

Fair enough. Perhaps this hasn't been formally stated enough, but I and CS do not see the Tau as a foot slogger army. It is our intention to deliver something that is close cousins to say, an American Armored Cavalry regiment. Mechanization is expected to be a core feature of the list.

To my mind, a foot slogger list is very 40K and it is both CS's and my intention to transcend 40K.  If you were looking for a full foot list, then you may be disappointed in how this list operates.

Honda, what seems to be missed is that we've adjusted the list in a major way with the change to ML/GM but not taken into account that change on the list. My personal belief is that all tau infantry could use MLs to spread coverage to compensate for the need for them and the cost in building a list now. Pathfinders bring Co-fire now so they do fill a separate role. WHat seems to have been overlooked with the change is that Tau now have to push weak troops forward to use GMs which just hands the opponent easy kills. I don't think I can stress this point enough. Forcing this change means greater coverage of ML is needed.

Dobbsy, I don't disagree that a significant change has occurred to the list. It "might" even be a real issue and I'm not trying to minimize that possibility. However, as things stand, right now, all people are really focusing on is what they think they can't do, not what they are capable of.

That's why we are going to play test this...because I guarantee you this, based on past history, something else will come up. Then we'll try to make that adjustment and fix that. Then someone won't like something else, etc.

We're just not going to go there. I think we have a pretty solid list (once we get the freakin' thing out). It won't be perfect. No surprise there. What we will learn about it though is what it is capable of. When we are more confident of how it behaves, then we can have a better idea of the impact of changes.

Right now, there's too many other changes that need to be evaluated in the context of this list.

So, yes. We may have introduced a weakness. It only becomes a real problem if there isn't a way to mitigate the loss. Time will tell.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Fair enough then. I'm trying to organise games as I type


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Honda, I know you and CS both do other things than work on this list, but the tech-edit was supposed to be released 2 weeks ago, in time for a specific event.  Unless the event organizers got a copy that didn't get posted, we missed that window.

Now we're talking about releasing 5.1 or whatever it's getting called, and we still haven't seen the corrected v5 list.  What happened?




_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Pure and simple, some how the versions got mixed up. I don't know how. As I was proofing the final edits, it occurred to me that things that I thought had been changed/removed/whatever, were back in the final copy again.

So, we had to recover from there, in essence doing the task twice. We'll do one more review before we post it again.

The last thing I wanted to have happen is to put something out there that didn't have the edits and then just say, "Oops!" You guys deserve better than that.

My bad for not communicating the snafu earlier. I didn't think it would take as long as it has to recover. So please do accept my sincerest apologies as we really do want this in your hands asap.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Honda, as Moscovian asked, are you going to post a draft before the "final" showing? Might be a good idea


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
We may have introduced a weakness.


Heaven forbid we introduce a weakness into a list.  That might make the army playable.  :glare: (insert sarcasm here)

I don't know how things will turn out but I am glad the development process isn't skipping steps (namely the playtesting step) anymore.  You are about to get a soap party pulled on you, but God love ya for standing firm.

Yes, please post a draft. Many hands make for idle work and all that wisdom...

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
You are about to get a soap party pulled on you, but God love ya for standing firm.


Well, as long as you don't intend to "insert" the soap bar anywhere, I think I can handle the abuse.

Yes, please post a draft. Many hands make for idle work and all that wisdom...

Ok, I don't think we're opposed to putting out the draft as long as the understanding is that we would only correct "technical" editing issues. No design changes would take place.

And for the record, the correct wording of the phrase is, "many hands make for light work", however, "Idle hands are the Devil's playground". So given the choice, I'd vote for the former.  8v)

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Thanks, Confucius.  I got my Far East wisdom mixed with my Roman Catholic admonishments.  Think you'll have the rules done by tomorrow AM?  My buddy is itching to play them this weekend.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
I hoping before Sunday so Hena and I can use them in a vassal match up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:36 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote: (Honda @ 12 Mar. 2009, 22:32 )

Perhaps this hasn't been formally stated enough, but I and CS do not see the Tau as a foot slogger army. It is our intention to deliver something that is close cousins to say, an American Armored Cavalry regiment. Mechanization is expected to be a core feature of the list.

I think this philosophy needs a critical review.  Mechanization is not a core feature as the list stands.

I went back through all the posted batreps for almost a year and out of all of them there was only one Tau army that had more than one mech FW formation, and that was done with the FW list.  You might think that's due to an overall low number of FW formations taken (due to perceived balance issues), however, several of those lists had multiple footslogger FW formations.

I think the reasons for this are obvious.  Working in coordination with battlesuits that move 15-20cm, the speed of Devilfish is a waste.  Obviously, using Kroot has the same sort of restriction.  Working with armor cadres and missile support in a static gunline, the speed of Devilfish is a waste.  If you want to use any sort of GM force (armor gunline or air caste) the need for mobile MLs is better filled by separate Recon and Pathfinder formations than by mech FW with ML units attached and if you have those fast formations, then you don't need fast FW.  You need the FW to provide bulk and holding power (as much as the army has, anyway), i.e. footsloggers.

The only way I see for mech FW to make sense is an army built entirely around them.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Comments on v5.0
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Which is how I build Epic Tau... I used footsloggers in 40k, if I was running heavy on the battlesuits, but if I ran FW-heavy, I used mech FW exclusively.  Every Epic list I've written and gamed has used mechanized FW.  It's why I'd like a smaller formation size, since Mech FW + Pathfinders is really pricey as a formation (400).  6 FW+3 Dfish is 225, plus 100 for PFs makes it easier to have another activation, instead of running about 10 for the 4.4.3 and current 5.0 lists like I usually do.

I picture mechanized FW operating like gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers (the guys in Halftracks).  Drive up, and either assault out of the transports, or hop out and then attack.  gPzG *took* ground, then the leg infantry held it while the gPzG continued to advance.

We may need to bring back the Human Aux (set up as the Garrison troops) and put in designer's notes about how the Tau list is really different from almost every other army list in how you use units.  eg, FW are NOT supposed to be holding ground, and are best when used on the attack (since it's evidently not obvious to everyone).

@neal:  What were these batreps testing?  There was a long discussion the last 6-8 months that non-mech FW didn't work, so unless someone was pulling a TRC 5 aces on us to prove/disprove the theory, there wouldn't be a lot of use of them (since everyone thought FW sucked).  I'm convinced that they are marginally effective *assault* infantry RIGHT NOW with the v5/v4.4.3/v4.4.2/v4.4.1 stats.  They'd be better with a couple tweaks to make their short-ranged shooting almost as effective as assaulting, but that MAY require a points increase and isn't getting discussed right now per Honda/CS.

@Honda:  Ouch... I hate those issues.  Took almost 6 months to fix when I was at my first command in the Navy... buncha idiots before me didn't know that having a folder for each person meant a separate file for each person as well.  Ended up brute-forcing a solution by giving all the admin guys permissions to ONE folder, and nuking all the old files off the computers onto CDs.  I hope that isn't what you have to do...

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


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