I disagree quite strongly with these statements. It was only natural that the boundaries for the Tau
palette of units expand beyond the original 40K scope of the Tau. The same comment could have been made
over the IG. At the time this version of EA was created, there were no 40K Shadowswords, Hydras,

Marauders, Bombards, Manticores, Valkyries, etc. in standard 40K IG lists. They were included to provide
spice to the IG. Yes, they existed as FW models, but they were not a part of straight 40K.

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

Just an idea. A badone but an idea nonetheless: How about giving +1 on FF values for units assaulting a lit formation?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just an idea. A badone but an idea nonetheless: How about giving +1 on FF values for units assaulting a lit formation?

_________________
-Vaaish

That's why it would be a "special rule"...  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Actually all this units existed in previous versions of Epic. Only the Valkyrie and Vulture where introduced as new units for Epic.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Well, not really. Its just a bigger version. I get resilance in exchange for activations with simply adding firewarriors, here I would have the same number but the same fragility, making costing slightly harder.

But really - if it makes no change to the way a formation is fielded and the army chosen, whats the difference? Why not just up the base weapon stats?

Since units can include ML's where is the synergy or rather how do you generate it. Currently if ML's give fw/everything a boost, I would simply include more skyrays, since they are excellent enough to start with.

_________________
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

A quick note here: the current Tau list is *ace* in AP fire. Almost everything has AP4+. That, and the ability to claim Crossfire with fast troops + coord. fire is brutal. Hena, you must remember our last game.

May I point out the Tau also have co-ordinated fire, which is an absolutely incredible ability if the army is built to take advantage of it.

I disagree quite strongly with these statements. It was only natural that the boundaries for the Tau palette of units expand beyond the original 40K scope of the Tau. The same comment could have been made over the IG. At the time this version of EA was created, there were no 40K Shadowswords, Hydras, Marauders, Bombards, Manticores, Valkyries, etc. in standard 40K IG lists. They were included to provide spice to the IG. Yes, they existed as FW models, but they were not a part of straight 40K.

Well, from what i remember of the 40k tau they had skyrays, manta, barracudas and stuff in their codex talked about in the background. Really it was a complete all aspect army.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

You will never get this outcome unless you bite the bullet and make them solid engagement formations. People want their infantry to be able to get up close and personal to clear objectives. Shooting alone doesn't do that.

Note: None of the non-codex vehicles are allowed in mainstream 40K tournament play.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As one of the guys who proposed the APGMs, I suggested them to fill the niche of 'beyond-line-of-sight weapons' which the tau flatly lacked before their proposal.  There was ONE source of long-range AP fire:  Hammerheads (which were always shooting at the tanks, not infantry).  Railguns are a direct-fire weapon.

Tau have NO artillery.  No way of affecting a target that's over the hills and behind the trees.  APGMs fill the anti-infantry artillery niche, if you use a ML unit to get close enough to light the target for you.  Regular GMs fill the anti-tank artillery niche.

Should Tau literally be forced to close to assault ranges in order to be able to force targets out of a position?  Not if they can't assault.  ergo, the Tau should have some capability to shoot infantry at more than 30cm.

Honda, the Barracuda was mentioned in the first Tau codex, in the same place as the Manta.  If you want to throw out Stingrays, you should throw out Tigersharks, the command Orca, etc.  Then we need to add Human Aux, Vespids and Kroot as dedicated assault troops.  

"But wait, Tau are supposed to suck in assault," you say?  I say you're right, *Tau* suck in CC.  We know that humans are mean in CC, and Vespid are faster than Marines.  Kroot are better than humans in CC, and equal in shooting!  All the aux troops fill the suck-in-assualt hole that Tau leave in the army.

=====

Haven't we had this discussion a few times before?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

They have aircraft. Lots of rather good aircraft. And a planetfalling titan. Thats a lot of over the horizon shooting to support the main army.

And even without that they have their AT GM's. They can hit the transports and tank and then shot the hell out of the infantry with the firewarriors. Okay so its not a particularily human mindset (bomb, shoot and shell them before we are even in the same district), but they are aliens who have a thing about precision.

Incidentally only Guard and Eldar have good artillary (and the Eldar I suspect weren't supposed to have void spinners be such a mainstay). Marine whirlwinds are... poor, and Orks get sod all, less than Tau even.

You don't need to go and fill every niche. Eventually you question why not just FAE the site and be done with it.

_________________
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

Yup, lack of long ranged AP artilleryesque fire is supposed to be one of the Tau's weaknesses. There is nothing like that in their background.

As TRC says, they get large numbers of excellent aircraft to fill the artillery role instead, as well as AT GM fire.

Having the AP GMs just ruins the point of fire warriors.

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

You might want them to but that's against the background for the Tau;