On the other hand, I'm trying to reduce the number of options in the list, so as to make it easier to balance in a short timescale, and this change doesn't feel nessesary.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Played my second game against the list proposal this evening with Space Marines, it was Ryan(Jstr19)'s fourth game with the list.


Lists used:
- Tau Proposal E1.07
- EpicUK Space Marines


My list was:

Tactical Formation - 300 (BTS)
Supreme Commander - 100
2x Razorbacks - 50
Vindicator - 50
Hunter - 75

Devestator Formation - 250
Librarian - 50

Assault Formation - 175
Chaplain - 50

Thunderhawk - 200

Terminator Formation - 350
Chaplain - 50

Predator Annihilators - 275
Hunter - 75

Whirlwind Formation - 300

Land Speeder Formation - 200
Land Speeder Typhoon - 25

Thunderbolts - 150
Warhound Titan - 275

10 activations
TOTAL - 3000pts (also 3000pts under the original book costs)


Ryan's list was something like:

Mech. Fire Warrior Cadre - 225
Skyray - 100

Mech. Fire Warrior Cadre - 225
Skyray - 100

Crisis Suit Formation - 250 (BTS)
+2 Crisis units - 100
Supreme Commander - 100

Stealth Formation - 300

Broadside Formation - 300

Recon Skimmer Formation (6 Tetras) - 150

Recon Skimmer Formation (6 Tetras) - 150

Recon Skimmer Formation (6 Piranhas) - 150

Hammerhead Formation - 350

Barracuda Squadron - 150

AX-1-0 Squadron - 350

11 activations
TOTAL - 3000pts


I reckon Ryan made some tactical mistakes in this game, including teleporting his Stealth formation to threaten my artillery (I promptly won the first order of the game and broke his Stealth formation, which then never rallied and was ultimately destroyed by some Assault Marines), leaving his Hammerheads isolated and open to a teleport/firefight Engagement from my Terminators on turn 2, and leaving his Crisis & Broadside formations in the open at critical points in the game.

I was very happy with my Terminators winning an engagement on turn 2 (luckily wiping out entirely the Hammerhead formation for no losses, despite me only being up by 1 pre-the resolution dice roll), then being picked up by a now-empty Thunderhawk late in the turn (which handily saved all the flak it had to fly through), then flying them in again on turn 3 to Engage a then-broken Crisis formation (winning, and claiming BTS), then after winning consolidating 5cm to claim his Blitz goal too. A fine move in the gallant traditions of the Astartes.  

I think I played a pretty good game and didn't make too many bad calls, though Zombocom was watching and thinks a few of my tactical choices were pretty stupid.

My Marines won 4-1 on turn 3 (I took his Blitz, took two in his half, took three in my half, and broke his spirit, in return Ryan broke my spirit).


Overall I am pleased to say I had another fun game with this list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Overall I am pleased to say I had another fun game with this list

Oh they were superb actually. I only noted where Ryan went wrong, not where he went right.

We had been debating whether or not to increase both their shots to AP4+ but decided against it after their performance in this game.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ben, have you considered a Broadside upgrade that the FWs on foot could take? Just an idea.

Considered, but at least for the moment rejected.

One of the guiding principles I went for when writing a more simplified list style was in not allowing two identical units to have different Initiative values. For the moment I'd like to stick with that.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Once again I'm going to make this point: Units don't have an initiative value, formations do.

It's a common misconception that they do, but it really needs to be realized as incorrect.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Of course Chroma, you don't need to tell me that. In the interests of finding a way to balance the list style at a rapid pace however, this is what I propose.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just a bit of feedback here E&C...

This may seem odd, but I've been playing with some list ideas in anticipation of playing a game in the near future. What I've been finding is that with your "removal of upgrades" design, a lot of point costs for formations appear to end up being the same. I found an upsized Crisis formation with SC costs the same as a HH formation with a Skyray (450) or an upsized Mech FWs with Bonded team and Skyray, for example. So I end up with multiple BTS formations more often than not. I usually seem to get at least 2 formations with the same BTS cost.


Unless I either throw in stuff I don't want to take (and can't throw in stuff I do want) into the Fire Warriors (the only flexibly upgradable formation type) I seem to struggle to get this to change unless I drop my activations count (by making the FWs a rather bloated overpriced formation) which I am quite against doing with the Tau as much as I can, OR weaken other formations by dropping out needed upgrades. e.g I drop the Skyrays from HH formations - which I would prefer to use in this formation.

In the end, I understand you want to keep the list largely free of "bitty add-ons", but the following two upgrades were, IMO, gems in the previous Tau lists.


1/ The network node for armour at 25 points. Even 25 point options can make a difference when building formations to tip it over the "same cost" factor. Plus it helps the armour formation stay a bit more "solid" with the leader rule. More often than not in the past when I've used HHs without a node in 5.1(minus) games they largely spent the game broken and useless.

2/I had a couple of games with PFs as an upgrade to the FWs in 5.1. This seemed to work nicely for Co-ord opportunites. I would recommend adding this PF upgrade back to your list too, E&C. Seeing as you're all about the FWs being useful this addition could be a nice one. At present I can only add a tetra upgrade to the FWs, not an infatry Co-ord fire unit type.

Anyway that's my feedback on list building anyway. Hopefully you might take it under consideration.

On a separate question, I'm not sure if Clausewitz has mentioned this before, but we had a discussion regarding the Support craft rule as it stands nowadays.

Am I correct that with the latest version of the skimmer rules, that the Always Popped Up design for Support Craft means that the Manta cannot see enemy behind terrain if the enemy is closer yet the enemy can always see it...

Has this debate already been argued? I may have missed it. It seems a bit unfair a design if this is so, compared with the original Support Craft rule....

1/ The network node for armour at 25 points. Even 25 point options can make a difference when building formations to tip it over the "same cost" factor. Plus it helps the armour formation stay a bit more "solid" with the leader rule. More often than not in the past when I've used HHs without a node in 5.1(minus) games they largely spent the game broken and useless.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No you are incorrect.

Here is some ASCII art that may explain how an always popped up skimmer works:

M == Manta
B == Building
E == Enemy


EXAMPLE 1

M   B          E

The Manta is closer to the Building than the enemy. The Manta can see over the building, and the Enemy can see the Manta over the building.




M   B E


The Enemy have moved up close to the Building. Now they are closer to the Building than the Manta. Under the rules of popped up skimmers, the Manta can no longer see the Enemy, and the Enemy can no longer see the Manta.



It works exactly like a normal Skimmer popping up at all times, no funky LOS situations at all.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The manta and the blue blob can see each other. The manta and the red blob can't see each other.

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

We actually voted for a formation of 4 which can be upgraded to 6 (NOT limited to 4 only). So really, Dobbsy could still be fielding Hammerheads in the same size formations (if he wants).

_________________
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.

True, but with 4's available, I have a suspicion they'll become the most common type.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter