Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 7
  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Tau vs Infantry
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Reading the Taros Campaign gives a good demonstration of the Tau way of war. Not once are Anti-Personel missiles mentioned, TRC's right in that such a thing would be far too indescriminate for the Tau way of war.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Tau must exists in it and not suck

This says it all for Epic Tau FWs....

:laugh: And you wonder why FWs don't get much of a show in this list? Stay blindly on one track and they will still be unappealing. That's a winning option Hena.  :disagree:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
asaura
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
How to make FW attractive? - Lose the widespread AP4+ stuff. As it stands, FW Tetras are about as good as FWs in AP work. Both cost 25 per unit and both have a 30cm AP4+ shot. The extra AP5+ shot on the FW is marginal compared to the long-range shot.

30cm AP4+ (or even AP3+) could be a defining FW feature. If everyone else did not also have it, that is. It would make FW the primary anti-infantry tool the Tau have.

Currently, the good AP tools in the list are:
- Tetras
- Stingrays
- FWs
- Piranhas
- (Crisis)
- (Scorpionfish)

I believe we'd want it to look like this:
- FWs
- Stingrays
- Crisis/Scorpionfish

As it stands, Tetras and Piranhas are relatively too good for AP work. They make the FWs redundant, like Pathfinders used to do. Solution: nerf the Tetra and Piranha AP shots to 5+. Then FWs and Stingrays are your best AP tools.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
GlynG
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Quote: (asaura @ 23 Jul. 2009, 09:06 )

Currently, the good AP tools in the list are:
- Tetras

Solution: nerf the Tetra and Piranha AP shots to 5+. Then FWs and Stingrays are your best AP tools.

I definitely agree on the Tetras - they really should not be a good AP tool. They are markerlight vehicles and negligibly armed. Yes they have a twin-linked pulse rifle, but that's one single twin-linked gun which should be less effective that two normal such guns and one stand of Fire Warriors carries 5 guns. AP6+ would be quite appropriate, AP5+ would be rounding up a little. AP4+ is ludicrous.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Who cares about those unbalanced nonsense tournaments anyway?

40k is designed to be played by kids in a relaxed environment, not by adults in a tournament setting. The game simply isn't balanced (or tactically complex) enough for that.


I guess I'm a little surprised at this statement. I know you have played 40K (at least in the past), so to pass off 40K as something for children and non-competitive seems to be ignoring or denying what 40K does bring to the table.

Why tournaments are a factor in the discussion is because 40K comes with a forced set of constraints, very similar to Chess. It comes with a limited palette as far as unit choice goes (codex), it assumes a fair fight (unlike its bigger brother Apocalypse or even historical games), enforces unrealistic physical constraints (4' x 6' board). It is what it is and you can make it as enjoyable or as painful an experience as you want.

Do immature people play 40K and spoil the game for other players? Yep. The same could be said for any other game system or sport where competition is the focus. Competition doesn't always bring out the best in individuals.

Why all this is significant is because 40K is the baseline for Epic and the foundation from which Epic lists are extrapolated from. This is true for all races in Epic.

Other items:

1. If we work towards producing a synergistic effect on the list via Markerlights, then it would probably make sense to evaluate those units that possess them. Tetras would be in that list.

2. I am confident that the Recon Cadre (Tetras/Piranhas) is not going to be dropped.

How do they (FW's) fight a game of 40K then?

Some players like to set them up like Longbows in an 100 Years War army, which is basically a static gun line and hope that they can cause enough casualties to prevent or minimize any HtH engagements. From my experiences and observations, that just doesn't work well enough to plan an army around. The other major build is to put them in Devilfish and work to isolate a part of the enemy, unload and shoot, then scoot when done. This is known as Mech Tau. As pointed out by many, this level of gunfire is usually not dependent on GMs, though MLs can be used to effect.

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

Yes, and a commonly accepted solution has never been arrived at. So, think hard, the solution is out there, we just haven't found it yet.

Reading the Taros Campaign gives a good demonstration of the Tau way of war. Not once are Anti-Personel missiles mentioned, TRC's right in that such a thing would be far too indescriminate for the Tau way of war.

I strongly agree with the first statement. The second not as much. Although there is no mention of Seekers being used specifically as AP weapons, my interpretation of that is that the Seeker is just a very good weapon that can have multiple uses. It takes out a marine just fine. It takes out lightly armored vehicles just fine. It can give heavy armor trouble. It will kill a normal person quite well. I just think that given the long range of the missile, it will be used to focus on the most important threats first, then be used after those have been removed.

If all AP were removed from GM, that would infer that SM tactical troopers could stand up and give a ML/GM unit the "raspberry" without fearing any retribution. That would not be an accurate representation.

So, although I acknowledge we may be light on some specifics, that doesn't preclude them from performing this role. Now, having said that, if the ML synergy solution created a compensating need to "focus" the GM attacks, then I would say that should be open for discussion.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Jeridian
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:15 am
Posts: 461
Location: UK
I hope 5th Ed 40k isn't the only way Epic armies and rules are designed, shudder.

Things happen in 40k because you have too many big models on too small a battlefield and the burning desire to sell them all the kids.

Deathstrike in a 40k Guard list...need I say more.

What Epic needs to do is take the names and descriptions from 40k, consider their background story application and try to do them proper justice in an Epic army list!

It always makes me a bit ill when people try to translate units directly from that abomination 40k, not just because GW constantly churns out BaneStormShadowHammerStorms with slight weapons changes to dupe the 'Pokemon, gotta catch them all' mentality, but also because the 'football field' battlezone creates absurd unit types and rulesets- where there are no aircraft and artillery pieces must sit within 100m of the enemy...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Vaaish
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:16 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4234
Location: Greenville, SC
If all AP were removed from GM, that would infer that SM tactical troopers could stand up and give a ML/GM unit the "raspberry" without fearing any retribution. That would not be an accurate representation.


I think it depends on if the GM firing is representative of a single missile or multiple. If it's a single missile then it would follow the 40k aspect where it would kill one marine model. Taking it into epic that would be one guy dead out of a stand of five models which isn't enough of an impact to warrant an AP value.




_________________
-Vaaish
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote: (Honda @ 23 Jul. 2009, 14:45 )

I guess I'm a little surprised at this statement. I know you have played 40K (at least in the past), so to pass off 40K as something for children and non-competitive seems to be ignoring or denying what 40K does bring to the table.

The army lists are most definatively not designed for ultra competitive tournament play, instead they are better at friendly competitive play. Epic luckily can so far do both.

Why all this is significant is because 40K is the baseline for Epic and the foundation from which Epic lists are extrapolated from. This is true for all races in Epic.


I would dissagree. The armies 40k background does, not the way they play a game of 40k. Indeed its impossible in many ways to do a direct translation, 40ks troop density is massivly higher than Epic in most cases.

40k also has no sense of how things get to the the little battle they are fighting. How do Dreds line up with the marines? How do all those footsloggers get there without a mechanised force cutting them off from support and caving a flank? Why would you have a preponderance of close range tanks when any larger battle shows they would be used a fraction of the time and most likely be picked off by MBT's before ever seeing the enemy?

The other major build is to put them in Devilfish and work to isolate a part of the enemy, unload and shoot, then scoot when done. This is known as Mech Tau. As pointed out by many, this level of gunfire is usually not dependent on GMs, though MLs can be used to effect.
From what I've seen it was 6? man squads in transports zipping all over the place, hence why I didn't think ML's were used much.

It takes out a marine just fine. It takes out lightly armored vehicles just fine. It can give heavy armor trouble. It will kill a normal person quite well. I just think that given the long range of the missile, it will be used to focus on the most important threats first, then be used after those have been removed.

That is a key difference between Epic and 40k. What you have described could also be a lascannon. In epic the loss of a man does not effect a unit, so the lascannon is an AT weapon. I've seen lots of 40k games where shooting up marines made perfect sense with lascannon and actually seemed to effect things. In Epic you might kill a man, so you get a blastmarker layed for coming under fire - but you don't affect the odds much.

Also I would have thought with a limited amount of GM's availible you wouldn't be firing them at infantry, instead reserving them for their primary targets. Another reason behind some weapons being forced to be AT only.

If all AP were removed from GM, that would infer that SM tactical troopers could stand up and give a ML/GM unit the "raspberry" without fearing any retribution. That would not be an accurate representation.

Currently I could face a formation of lascannon toting sentinels and laugh till the cows come home - its the same situation. Its just an Epic thing. Point weapons are somewhat tweaked to ensure they is a clearer feel of what does what on a battlefield.

Think of it this way - without AP seekers do you think you would be using more firewarriors?

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
The army lists are most definatively not designed for ultra competitive tournament play, instead they are better at friendly competitive play. Epic luckily can so far do both.


I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The armies 40k background does, not the way they play a game of 40k. Indeed its impossible in many ways to do a direct translation, 40ks troop density is massivly higher than Epic in most cases.

Note, that I carefully used the word, extrapolate, because I agree that there won't necessarily be direct translations. The game mechanisms are too different.

Also I would have thought with a limited amount of GM's availible you wouldn't be firing them at infantry, instead reserving them for their primary targets. Another reason behind some weapons being forced to be AT only.

I don't necessarily disagree with these comments, in fact, stated a very similar point earlier. Beating ourselves up over how things were designed isn't going to get us very far in this exercise. We are here to tune the list and get it to it's "happy" place.

We are currently using a list that has been cut down a fair bit, is still in the discovery phase for quite a number of its users and we all agree that we're not there yet. It also appears that at this point that the list is regarded as underpowered. So, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to to just rip systems out of the list just for the sake or the ability of doing so.

What this thread should be focusing on is how we arrive at this "AP" issue in regards to the FWs and what we are currently playing with. There were some interesting suggestions early in the thread and we should continue to develop those ideas.

Think of it this way - without AP seekers do you think you would be using more firewarriors?

No, I don't think that would happen without other changes. I do not subscribe to the theory that if you make everything else crappy enough, that the one remaining choice will suddenly become magic and then the list will work. The interactions on the Tau list are more complex than that.

Also, I would point out that approach was taken in earlier versions and all that accomplished was introducing further imbalances.

As far as 40K goes, some people like it (I'm one) and some people don't. It's not relevant to what we are doing here. Like 40K or not, it is still the foundation for determining, in general, how Epic plays. 40K is the universe. How that universe gets translated to Epic is the ACs job.

So as my friend from New York would say "Enough with the 40K already!"   :))

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote: (Honda @ 23 Jul. 2009, 20:33 )

I don't necessarily disagree with these comments, in fact, stated a very similar point earlier. Beating ourselves up over how things were designed isn't going to get us very far in this exercise. We are here to tune the list and get it to it's "happy" place.

We are currently using a list that has been cut down a fair bit, is still in the discovery phase for quite a number of its users and we all agree that we're not there yet. It also appears that at this point that the list is regarded as underpowered. So, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to to just rip systems out of the list just for the sake or the ability of doing so.

What this thread should be focusing on is how we arrive at this "AP" issue in regards to the FWs and what we are currently playing with. There were some interesting suggestions early in the thread and we should continue to develop those ideas.

And we have a fundamental disagreement over that - you think you should have a weapon system that I think makes FW redundant. We have other units to act as infantry as nessecery, unless you can think up a different use for FW that doesn't involve shooting up enemy infantry something firing from a long way away and blowing them out of cover will be superior - unless you simply degreade it relative to FW in which case you end up not using that instead (remarkably similar to taking it out).

I Have infantry in guard armies to hold ground, the Tau don't need expensive FW for that, they are better with high armour being aggressive mobile troops, taking the fight to the enemy, but while there are better options at that, that aren't as risky, I am better off using them. And the Tau list is supposed to have a daring, short ranged, mobility based play style - at least thats what I've always thought.

No, I don't think that would happen without other changes. I do not subscribe to the theory that if you make everything else crappy enough, that the one remaining choice will suddenly become magic and then the list will work. The interactions on the Tau list are more complex than that.

Also, I would point out that approach was taken in earlier versions and all that accomplished was introducing further imbalances.


Not crappy - removing it full stop. Of course you have to use an alternative then. And when has it been done before? As far as I can tell we have been stuck with AP GM's for ages, they have never been taken back out.

Like 40K or not, it is still the foundation for determining, in general, how Epic plays. 40K is the universe.

I think its the 40k background more than game :)

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yes, and a commonly accepted solution has never been arrived at.

And we won't because there's too many people with an opinion and the ACs don't play enough games to get a clear view of the formation and aren't willing to even contemplate a radical change to the list. Until that changes I don't see it ever becoming a universally accepted formation. We haven't even tried some options. NOT EVEN TRIED.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I've been here a long time now and nothing has changed. It's very disappointing.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Tau vs Infantry
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Yeah, thinks seem to have dragged on a bit. Really the damn things should be a core, if not the best, Epic army.




_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 7
  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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