Note that the Steel Legion army list also technically allows such combinations (Russ company with added infantry, or added Snipers, etc), but noone ever takes them because they're silly.

There's no need to restrict such self-evidently unviable list builds, it just creates a more complicated army list page for very little in return.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well how about proposing something yourself, something that is a clear direction change for the Tau army list instead of just another minor tweak to a list that clearly has unstable foundations?

Continue with the minor ajustments and the Tau army list will never be finished. The list needs some bold and responsible decisions to be made. With those decisions, the list can be finished in months (after all these years of gradual meandering). Without bold decisions, the list will continue to roll ever onwards, never becoming balanced and never properly representing the Tau way of war.


My proposal here is not balanced, and it needs ajustment in focus to re-set the stats of some weapons (like the Guided Missiles), but it is a major re-think as to how the Tau can be more accurately represented in the Epic game, it has a different fundamental style, one based on 'movement and synergy' instead of 'raw firepower and markerlight spotters'.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think the list needs some changes(all of which have been said by others) but overall i like the idea, it's something i think should have been done years ago, take the list back to basics and make the Tau a finishable idea not just a work in progress, which it's been for to long.

Other Hammerhead variants would also be an idea i like.

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Honestly, i'm a fan and very much respect your push to get this list back on it's feet E&C.

Quick question for you:

What Stats are the FWs?  Sticking with 2x AP5+, 30 cm? (I like this one best tbh.)

I think i'd very much like to see the Ramora introduced.  

As a list completely lacking in engagement power and TKs or for that matter MWs, i don't really think the markerlight buff is too much.  To be used at range requires a rather fragile ML unit (With a pretty low I rating) and if the fm has an attached ML carrier (Such as a Skyray) then they must be within 30 cm to use it - which as previously noted, should be killing range for Tau where they are absolutely brutal.  4+ for GMs is the pay off for good play, getting those MLs into position early doors and having them live long enough to use them.  This is especially important in a list that lacks any kind of indirect artillery.  Background wise, doesn't the "To hit roll" also include accuracy as well as hitting power?  In 40K, guided missiles VERY rarely miss and are the same strength/AP as a battlecannon which also has 4+ and a much lower to hit ratio.

The ML changes also reinforce the effect of fire and maneuver as the Tau way of warfare. Units who use their MLs well can double into range/crossfire positions and have all the shooting power of an advance action which is a masterstroke and IMO makes the list different and actually interesting to play.  It's something new and different but isn't just a "Free" ability.  You must plan around the ML carriers and work them into your play and army list.

I actually feel like i want to play this list and that i want to take some ML units and think there's a good chance i might actually use Co-ordinated fire during a game.  TBH this is a massive improvement over the current list.

I feel a playtest coming on  

I approve of the removal of the Stingray and the AP missiles. I also like fact markerlights are now helping make Tau shooting more accurate as they should

There are lots of changes here though, which will definitely need a lot of testing and balancing and tweaking.

I am dubious as to why Pathfinder Groups should have initiative 1+ what’s the justification for that? Isn’t it internally inconsistent too that a formation of all Pathfinders in manoeuvrable Tetras would be only 2+?

Seeker Missiles must require targets to be marked to be launched, but they certainly should not be also eligible for getting the +1 to hit on top – this is not how they work in W40k. I’m also don’t think Seeker Missiles should get +1 to hit if the vehicle they are on is on Sustained Fire orders – they are in limited supply and not controlled or aimed by the vehicle in any way. Could the Guided Missiles rules be amended to disqualify Seeker Missiles from the +1 to hit from either markerlights or sustained fire? Basic AT5+ requiring targets to be marked should be fine for Seekers. Markerlights are already much more useful, without needing to push things too far.

What are the stats for Human Auxiliaries? I like them back but please could we have the proper ones from the Taros book, where the basic infantry has lasguns and only the command stand Pulse Rifles? (even if it makes them a bit rubbish! - it’s as they should be) I dislike the made-up Pulse Blasters the ones in the Collectors Stats section of the Tau list have. Lasgun Guard also don't require fiddly converting of invented tau-like guns on them which would inevitably look rubbish next to FWs super-detailed infantry.

My biggest bug-bear I have with this and the current official list is the Hammerhead core formation and the possibility of basing an army around mostly or purely Hammerheads. Please make them a support formation and loose the Hammerhead core!

The Imperial Guard have all-tank regiments, the Orks do with their ‘endless lines of gunwagonz on Armageddon’, but the Eldar – who are similar to the Tau in the sense of being a higher-tech limited number race – do not have access to a core formation of Falcons. Not every army needs to.

An all or predominantly Hammerhead army is against the Tau background; they background is quite clear that their armies are composed of mixed Hunter Cadres of predominantly Fire Warriors and that they do not have specialised tank armies. On the subject of Hunter Cadres the Tau Codex says:
“The Cadre is a standing formation, and includes a number of infantry and vehicle units within it including battlesuits and Hammerhead tanks. In this regard, the Tau are very different to the Imperium in the organisation of their military, for the different ‘arms’ are fully integrated at the tactical level.â€Â

In 40K, guided missiles VERY rarely miss and are the same strength/AP as a battlecannon which also has 4+ and a much lower to hit ratio.

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

I've not proposed any new Fire Warrior stats ; I would prefer to see a straight 2x 30cm AP5+ I guess.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sure but as Ordnance the Battlecannon penetrates armour easier (it rolls 2D6 and picks the highest then adds Strength while the Seeker Missile rolls only 1D6 and adds Strength). The Seeker Missile is more like a Krak Missile (the AT6+ part of the MissileLauncher in Epic)which hits on a 2+.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sure but if it shows to be too powerful we have a perfect excuse to make it weaker  

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

Lol, I'm actually so inspired by this that whilst i've sat here i've written an army list using your proposed changes:

Crisis suits + Shas'O + Drones - 450
FWs + DF+ HH+ Skyray - 500
HH + Skyray - - 675 - BTS
Broadsides + Drones - 400
Stealth Suits - 275
Recon - 150
Recon - 150
Pathfinders - 175
Barracudas - 175

3995

With the support section forming the patient hunter, maeuvering into position to target the enemy with MLs and slowing the enemy, and disrupting their maneuver and the core secion forming the killing blow, which is where all the bad ass units are.

I've a game lined up for tomorrow, so i'll check if my opponent minds playing against E&C Tau.

= win!  

Good point, one or the other should give.

Could the Guided Missiles rules be amended to disqualify Seeker Missiles from the +1 to hit from either markerlights or sustained fire?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Here is version 1.02 of my proposal, incorporating some of the concerns from this thread, specifically:

- Hammerheads moved to Support Formation
- Seeker Missile loses a pip of to-hit
- Pathfinders lost initiative 1+
- What stats to use for the Human Aux


Plus some of my own concerns:

- That the list could be too popcornish (raised a limited number of formation sizes & prices)
- That due to adding certain upgrades to certain formations you could have two identical units with different initiative ratings (fixed by denying certain upgrades to certain formations).
- That due to the Hammerhead formation moving from Core status, there should also be an 'armoured' themed army list, which can be found on page 2.


Yeah that last one's a biggie... welcome back Moray, Swordfish, Scorpionfish, Stingray...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Is still don't get why there needs to be two Fire Warrior Cadre options when one with the option to add the Devilfish will do.

- That due to the Hammerhead formation moving from Core status, there should also be an 'armoured' themed army list, which can be found on page 2.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well why is there a Regimental HQ formation in the Steel Legion armylist when you can easily add a Supreme Commander upgrade to the Mechanised Company?

Answer: The armylist document looks better this way.

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