Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 268 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 18  Next

E&C's Tau proposal

 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I like the FW list's 'half expendable' implementation.

The weapon stat could easily be fixed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Half is a fine compromise, so long as it's not completely expendable.

Would the points need to alter at all for AP4+?





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

1. The whole purpose of this exercise is to provide a framework for "synergy" as E&C is proposing.

2. The purpose of this exercise is not to re-write the existing list.

3. Only units that exist in the current version should be used for the purposes of the model. Why is that? Because we are attempting to arrive at a solution for a working model. The model, if successful, will be considered for integration into the current list. We also need to work from a common baseline to understand the changes. Otherwise you have nothing to compare your results to, i.e. comparing apples to oranges.

4. The Air caste units are not up for discussion at this time. The exercise is to work on synergistic effects of MLs for the purposes of finding a way to improve the performance of FWs.

Let's keep within the scope of the original request gents.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote: (Evil and Chaos @ 28 Jul. 2009, 11:44 )

This list proposal is supposed to enhance synergetic behaviours between formations in the Tau army list. If every formation has cheap access to infantry Markerlights then this element falls down entirely.

I want the Markerlight formations (Stelths, Pathfinders, Tetras) to be absolutely integral elements of the army list, which must be risked (if only for a short time) in order to attack the enemy on the Tau's terms.

Ideally this makes the Tau interesting to play against. You have a choice to hit the exposed ML formations or try and outmaneuver the Tau to hit the (less exposed) FW/Crisis/HH formations. You can force the Tau to use up activations to exploit MLs.

I think this can work.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I like the Mech FW option! And the skyray formation HH upgrade idea. And the bonded team idea.
Thanks for introducing the Fusion HH too. This is much needed MW in close. It really does make the Tau a bit more fearsome up close. It should have been introduced ages ago IMO.

I like the additions to the list.

BTW Chroma , I think as this is a WIP list that E&C should feel free to post any changes. We've already had debate on those ideas so him updating is just advancing the line of though IMO.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
2. The purpose of this exercise is not to re-write the existing list.

So we'll be stuck with it then? That's disappointing as it is fairly naff.

3. Only units that exist in the current version should be used for the purposes of the model. Why is that? Because we are attempting to arrive at a solution for a working model. The model, if successful, will be considered for integration into the current list.
If the model is better why wouldn't we just adopt it wholesale?

We also need to work from a common baseline to understand the changes. Otherwise you have nothing to compare your results to, i.e. comparing apples to oranges.
Can you explain this more. It's a little confusing to me. What is a "common baseline"? Which results are we trying to compare?

4. The Air caste units are not up for discussion at this time. The exercise is to work on synergistic effects of MLs for the purposes of finding a way to improve the performance of FWs.
Barracudas are definitely naff for their points right now. If they have no ML coverage you almost halve their firepower due to the ridiculous unusable GM attack. Aircraft should be able to bring their full firepower to bear anywhere on the table.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Quote: (Dobbsy @ 29 Jul. 2009, 00:18 )

Barracudas are definitely naff for their points right now. If they have no ML coverage you almost halve their firepower due to the ridiculous unusable GM attack. Aircraft should be able to bring their full firepower to bear anywhere on the table.

Oh of course they can't be fired unguided now, forgot that.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote: (Honda @ 28 Jul. 2009, 19:16 )

A couple of points:

1. The whole purpose of this exercise is to provide a framework for "synergy" as E&C is proposing.

Also to provide a framework for a more representative Tau army list, or at least spitball ideas in that general direction.

2. The purpose of this exercise is not to re-write the existing list.

Without a fundamental re-write of the list structure this synergetic proposal does not work.

For example, allowing many units with the Markerlights ability to upgrade to other Tau formations breaks the synergetic style of the list.

You cannot simply introduce my Markerlight rule proposal to the ERC list as it is, because all that will happen is you'll have a list where every formation has a de-facto +1 to-hit, and Synergy is lost, because all formations have organic Markerlight capability.

List mechanics and army rules work hand-in-hand, not in isolation of each other.

3. Only units that exist in the current version should be used for the purposes of the model. Why is that? Because we are attempting to arrive at a solution for a working model. The model, if successful, will be considered for integration into the current list.
And as I say above, integration into the current ERC list will undoubtedly fail. The list needs a full re-write to work with the new style I propose.

This is a completely new direction, one that can be balanced and finished within a few months.

My proposal is not simply another iteration building on existing foundations, but a similar-yet-distinct construction in a bold new style.

4. ...The exercise is to work on synergistic effects of MLs for the purposes of finding a way to improve the performance of FWs.
Then you misunderstand my proposal; my proposal is not simply to make Fire Warriors better, it is a paradigm shift in the nature of the Tau list that affects all components of the list, and makes all components of the army Synergise on the battlefield.

More on this in a later post, I've played a battle using this list against Jstr19 and have some more extensive thoughts to write.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I played a game against Jstr19 (Ryan) this evening, and have some thoughts on how the list played.



Rules used:

- Official Core Rules & Errata
- Steel Legion (1 Commissar per 500pts, and upgunned Baneblade, I will have been 25pts over if the Warhound should be 275pts)
- Tau Proposal version E1.03



My list, Steel Legion:

- Reg HQ Company, with Hydra - 550
- Mech Inf. Company - 400
- Leman Russ Tank Company, with Hydra - 700 (BTS)

- Basilisk Platoon - 250
- Sentinel Squadron - 100
- Storm Trooper Platoon - 200
- Baneblade - 200
- Shadowsword - 200

- Warhound Titan - 250
- Thunderbolt Fighters - 150

10 activations
3000 (or 3025) points


Ryan's list was something like:

Mech. Fire Warrior Cadre with Bonded Team and Skyray - 350pts
Mech. Fire Warrior Cadre with Bonded Team and Skyray - 350pts
Crisis Battlesuit Cadre with 2 extra Crisis Suits & Supreme Commander - 450

Stealth Group - 275
Broadside Group - 300
Recon Group (6 Tetras) - 150
Recon Group (6 Piranhas) - 150
Hammerhead Group (All with Railguns) with Skyray - 475 (BTS)

Barracuda Squadon - 150
AX-1-0 Squadron - 350

10 activations
3000 points


Notable events:

I deployed my Warhound Titan badly (In direct LOF to a garisoned Broadside formation, and within single-move range of a Hammerhead formation), and paid the price for it; Ryan Teleported a Stealth formation nearby, lighting up the Warhound, and for his first activation moved the Hammerheads up and slagged the Warhound with 6 hits (2 shields gone, and I only made a single save of the remaining 4 hits).

I engaged his Stealth formation with a Baneblade (inflicting no kills, but losing two points of damage on the Baneblade) where I should have Sustained Fire instead. Baneblade scuttles off broken and the Stealths shrug off all the Baneblade hits and the hits from Supporting Fire and emerges without any BM's. This formation was ultimately to win the game for Ryan.


After a terrible turn 1 and 2, I started to turn things around, and in turn 3 managed to force a turn 4. At the end of turn 4, I had three objectives in my half, and no unbroken enemies in my half. Ryan had no objectives at all (Although my Russ company was down to a single remaining broken tank at that point!).

His lone remaining Stealth unit rallied (A Leman Russ strike had killed most of the rest on turn 2), denying me one of my two points, and so we went to victory points, with Ryan winning by a margin of 900pts.

============

Initial thoughts:

The list proposal is too strong currently. Not unbeatably strong, but too strong nonetheless. I estimate about 10 unit stats in the army list would need changing, in order to reduce the Tau Firepower a bit (but still leaving most of the army superior in shooting to what they had before, as long as the target is Markerlit of course!).

Ryan, who has been refusing to play the ERC list for months (I'm sure he can and will give a good account as to why this is so himself), is interested in playing the list regularly from now on.

For my own part, it felt like I was playing against a Tau army. The way the formations interacted, supporting each other whilst manoeuvring together in inter-dependent groups felt unique, and tactically complex.

My Brother Barney remarked that Ryan's list even looked more Tau-like than his lists under the ERC rules used to, as he'd taken more than a single Fearless formation of Fire Warriors for one thing!

I'm sure Ryan will be along at some point to relate his own thoughts.




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:46 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
I don't like the idea of reducing the size of a Fire Warrior Cadre to 6 teams.
How is that supposed to make them more appealing?

I'd much rather have a reinforced FW Cadre as my BTS than 6 Hammerheads + Skyray. HH's are pretty easy to kill (even with Guard artilery) whilst a FW Cadre can make better use of terrain to keep safe, is fast enough to keep out of trouble and is just a much larger formation to break.

HH's already have a big bullseye on them for their firepower, no need to give the opponent even more reason to go after them by making them the BTS. I'm not commenting on the list used above as much as pointing out that a larger FW Cadre is preferable.

Expendable is definately suitable for drones. Almost all of us agree on that.

Good onya E&C for having a go at this.




_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
You can still add another 6 units and 3 devilfish though? And a Skyray? That seems pretty bts'y if you aren't having a manta.

Though if the cost has gone down as well its surely a no-no, unless you wish to recreate the Tau popcorn lists of old.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:53 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Fair points TRC. I stand corrected.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I don't like the idea of reducing the size of a Fire Warrior Cadre to 6 teams.
How is that supposed to make them more appealing?

I like the option. plus you can upgrade them if you want. It's also 2 formations to a pack - even though packs don't exist now lol. The smaller numbers aren't ideal but you can essentially put more of the FW on the board.
It won't be everyone's cup of tea i guess...

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Though if the cost has gone down as well its surely a no-no, unless you wish to recreate the Tau popcorn lists of old

at over 200 points each they're hardly popcorn... plus the skyray has gone up substantially

Honda - have you noticed how many people on this forum have actually liked this list so far? That screams that perhaps this is the list we should be trialling.... if most of us can agree on something for the Tau then that is a good sign.





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: E&C's Tau proposal
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I’m interested in the development of this list idea and testing it out, even if it’s just an alternative ‘fan’ style and never official. Many of it's changes vs the official list bring it closer to how I feel Tau army should be and which I would like to play with in my games, though I would likely house-mod some bits further.  

E&Cs notion this proposal could be finished and balanced in a matter of months is probably - I suspect - unrealistic, as well as possibly a little insensitive to the time and effort that has gone into the official Tau list over the years. However, for those that wish to try it out the change could be a good thing and the official Tau list could compare or learn from some things, and/or ignore it as felt appropriate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 268 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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