I think we are just trying to get a clear idea of what we're getting Chroma.

E&C stated he would want to do two.  His pdf contains the two lists.  So people's reaction to his proposal is affected by its inclusion or not.

I would also hazard a guess that people with effort-intensive converted models etc will be more interested in the "armour" list as those are the units that would only appear in a varient (Suits, Drones, Pathfinder and most Aux are alreay available in the 1.06 list).

Why should people playtest though - mephiston, clausewitz, hena and several others have put a great deal of effort in testing 5.1. They have reported that, with a few tweeks, it is a usable list.

However now we appear to be starting, basically, from scratch as a few people very loudly don't think the list fits the background.

I might try this process with a list I don't like - make up my own list (whilst stating that I'm not seeking to rival or detract from the official list - when of course that is what I'm doing), get a couple of people to support me, get a 'no' from the AC, threaten to walk away, and then have my list adopted.  

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

I think the issue comes from the idea that although 5.1 might be nearly balanced, it really isn't tau. It's an extreme example but its akin to taking the IG list and changing the names of the units to Tau units and saying why not use this as Tau?

to follow that, E&C's proposal gives the Tau a more "tau" feel than just renaming something.

_________________
-Vaaish

Hello Steve.  

I've put forward my idea after Honda asked me (and everyone) to. It was not unsolicited, and certainly not an attempt to usurp Honda's position; I've said repeatedly that this is just my proposal, if some people like it then that's their choice, not me having a secret cabal dedicated to the overthrow of Honda.

I've played the ERC Tau list for years, and have had issues with it for years. It is only after years of watching the ERC Tau list meander backwards and forwards without ever getting close to being finished, and my regular Tau opponent finally refusing to use the ERC Tau list due to its non-Taulike 'feel' that I have been moved to propose what I would like to see done.

I did not 'threaten to walk away' because I 'got a no', I stated that my proposal could 'go no further under the AC's development structure and the AC could do with the proposal as he wished' because it was essentially (over) complete under the development structure as I understood it.

You are, as usual, misrepresenting my intentions, and it is starting to look a little silly.

-----

As to "walking away", the only people who have done that are your gaming group (EpicUK).

Doubtless in the fullness of time you and your gaming group will create an EpicUK Tau army list, which adopts whatever style you and your gaming group feel would be coolest, just as you've created independent Marine lists and are (apparently) working on Ork lists... and I wish you all the best with  that endeavour.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Isn't it the Orca, instead of the Tigershark, that had "unconfirmed reports" of variants equipped with "multiple missile racks and bomb bays"?  Wouldn't that be a more likely candidate for a "missile boat" aircraft?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I could see a missile-heavy Tigershark configuration being similar in power (and therefore points) to the Tigershark AX-1-0, meaning you wouldn't have to deal with many of them, and they would still just be 4+ save bombers with pretty weak AA.

Also, it would have no Markerlight, so would require Markerlights in position on the ground first (giving the opponent a chance to knock out the Markerlighting formation before the Tigershark came on, unless the Tau player retained the initiative which has its own attendant risks and consequences).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I read these posts and realize there seems to be a "failure to communicate". Think a moment, if the BASIC testing of the army as a whole is designed to do just that test the components to determine the viability of 'plain vanilla' formations. We are then arguing over the future ramifications of our consumption of vanilla ice cream today.
I worked very hard on a particular list in another system , tested and supported it through this type of situation. I had well defined ideas of how the list would operate and why particular combinations of units were REQUIRED. The list is now in the world and I have learned quite a bit from the years of play by other gamers. The list is not as exactly the same as I envisioned it, bits have been added and bits have been removed. I personally discovered a better application of specific units I was "sure were perfect" after this time and advocate currently changing the unit's use to conform to the new ideas.
This all comes back to agreeing on a unified doctrine for the Tau. In modern warfare units are not fixed. Current armies flexibly attach or mix units into combat groups or task forces designed to address the current situation. We cannot think of this army, in particular, as though it is a rigid TO. (table of Organization)
Take the leap, with the proper doctrine there can be a tank heavy task group,a infantry heavy task group, a recon/scout task group and air drop automated  group. Perhaps some permutation of the all of the above. It would then be up to you to mix the units to achieve the goals of the scenario.

Bear

If we're talking about trading the Scorpfish (sans C&C equipment) for a missile-armed Tigershark, that's not necessarily the end of the world.  I am a little leery of diluting the focus of the Tigershark variants, however.

We currently have 2:  The regular TS is primarily AP-focused, while the AX10 is a WE-killer (with commensurate AT abilities).

The real question is how does the TS-MB be enough different from the classic TS, but not step on the toes of the AX-10?

A missile-armed tigershark would have some AP ability (from the Burst Cannons) and a decent amount of AT.  It *can't* have MW missiles, that's the AX10's turf.  It doesn't need AP missiles, it's got twin-linked longbarreled burst cannons (roughly 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF) and missile pods (45cm AP4+/AT5+).  6 missiles in 40k got translated to 2x shots in Epic, so the TS-MB would have at least 3x if not 4x Seeker missile shots.  I can make arguments both ways for a markerlight on the beast.  That's better than the regular TS against mixed targets, so it's got to be another 350-point (ish) formation.

As it is, I seem to see a lot of army lists around here with a TS formation, an AX10 formation, and a flight of 'Cudas.  That's 800 points of Air.  Adding a third TS formation isn't possible in a 3000-point game, while the Scorpfish actually comes from the regular army allowance.  With no Stingray and no Scorpfish, the Tau need more air.  Either increase the percentage of the army that can be air support or reduce the air support's cost.  I don't see the cost of Air going down, so Tau need a higher support percentage.  2/5ths is a fairly easy number to compute, but Tau may need to go as high as 1/2.  

Continuing the 1 'Cuda/1 TS/1 AX10 example, adding just one Scorpfish and and one Stingray+Skyray formation makes 1350 points spent on 'Artillery'.  1350/3000 is .45, so that's a good argument for 50% air support for the Tau.  That's the same as having 2 Scorpfish, one Stingray+Skyray formation, and then 1+1+1 air support.

For sake of argument on this point, how many points do you spend in your normal Tau army on Scorpfish, Stingrays, and Air, combined?  If that is usually about half your army point total, I've made my point.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Well true to weapons options in Wh40k and taking E&Cs aircraft proposals into account the three TigerShark variants could look like this:

EDIT: Forgot Titankiller on the AX-1-0. Now fixed.

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

I like BL's proposed stat set, which gives each Tigershark a unique role (Transport/Harassment , AT , TK).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

BL's AX-1-0 is not accurate to the background (Fact - the Railcannon is the same as that mounted on the Manta) and couldn't kill a Warhound in one volley as described in IA 3.

I MUCH prefer the present stats for the AX-1-0 (although I've not had much luck using it for killing War Engines...   ).

*Edit BL just changed the stats...  

_________________
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.

Forgot the Titankiller(D3) on the AX-0-1. It is now fixed and matches the V5.1 stats for the Twin-linked Light Railcannon.

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

BL Your AX-1-0 still couldn't kill a Warhound in one attack as described in IA 3.

_________________
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.

If it is unshielded it can. Even with Wh40k and/or Wh40k Apocalypse stats it couldn't kill a shielded Warhound.

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