Of late, there have been comments regarding the length of time that has been allocated to testing this version.

The testing schedule is viewed by some as aggressive and I openly acknowledge that, but I also want to explain the reasoning for the decision.

1. We're all human and for the most part, have lives outside of our hobbies.

2. There is never a "correct" amount of time for testing any product, hopefully, only a reduction in the frequency of bugs.

3. You never find all of the bugs. We'll just do the best we can. I'm not going to allow perfect to get in the way of good.

4. Let's be honest with ourselves. Most people don't get motivated to do something extra unless they are forced or obligated to by a deadline. It's just the way we're built.

So, given the above assumptions, I have set an aggressive schedule. I have observed that without pushing the community to closure, that there is no drive to complete the task, i.e. no testing. If you've ever been on a project team (of any kind) you understand the desire of the project manager to reach a conclusion.

So, I am pushing us to make the time and get this done. The Tau community and Epic community at large deserve this level of effort. It won't be convenient and it probably won't be easy to get the games in or "a" game in during the 90 day test. Even if everyone in the community only played one game between now and the end of the year, it would provide a wealth of knowledge.

All I'm askig is that you do the best that you can.

There will always be someone who isn't going to be able to meet the schedule. That's just how life works out sometimes.

Now I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I intend to drag this scrum across the goal line. Even if I have to do it all by myself.

But I'd much rather do it as a team.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Well I'm stuck with vassal, which is just a bugger for infantry that isn't rare like say marines (and thats what I'd like to do Tau wise), so until the new year when I'm back with flesh and blood opponents I'm a fat lot of use

_________________
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

Actually, you tend to see things in lists that others (myself included) don't. At a minimum, I'd appreciate it if you looked at the list with an eye towards breaking it and see if you come up with any "5 Aces" type of builds.

If you did, then we could test them to verify your assumptions.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I'm trying to get in as many playtests as possible, though the last couple of weeks have been very hectic for me I plan to have some more games soon.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm happy you are trying to push the agenda of completing the list Honda. it needs to be pushed.

My only problem with these statements however:



and



... are that the level of feedback per person is minimal, is unlikely to provide any decent results, and that when you are in a project and the manager pushes you, you often end up with flawed results that need to be redone, thus wasting a lot of time that could have been avoided by being more cautious instead of going at it like a bull in a china shop.

With the level of posts in this army forum I doubt very much that we have a "lack of drive to complete" it. We've been bashing heads for years now, we're almost there but we still require accurate results to make it work ina final locked-in format. A batrep here or some theorising there alone because we don't have time to thoroughly test 6.01 will be detrimental in the long run and set us right back to where we started.

Just some food for thought.

Dobbsy, this is a very valid concern and the risk does exist. If I gave you the impression that I'm just trying to slam this in, then I apologize. I do care what the results are. I want the final product to be as good as it can be.



And this is probably where our opinions differ. Unfortunately, the Tau forum loves it's debates, which in and of itself can and has produced some good solutions. It has also, unfortunately, wasted a lot of time. Years by my count.

Although individual reports by many people may not seem a worthwhile exercise, what it would show me is the evidence of any patterns. How are people approaching the list when they build an army. How did it fair? Were the issues due to skill or inexperience or a real issue. Individually, I agree with you, they may not offer much information. Taken in whole, they could speak volumes.

I have also embrace another belief that perfection is not possible. This list, regardless of the level of testing and involvement of the community, will not please everyone. If we have learned one thing in the past it is that. Everyone has their own opinion and very few appear to be willing to give a little in order to get. So in some regards, I'm being a hard case about the timeline, but I am very confident that if the deadline were extended to March or April, nothing would change, in fact we would most likely lose ground because as long as no one's feet are held to the fire, then everything is open to discussion/negotiation/argument.

It has to stop so we can make progress. So I am drawing a line in the sand.

The train leaves the station at the end of the year. Some will choose to be on it, even to shovel some of the coal in order to get the engine going. Some will decide to stay at the station and complain about the color of the caboose.

Either way, the train will move on.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

As an observer who does not play Tau, this sums it up from my perspective. I will make an assumption and state that posters have the feeling that they are beating their heads against a wall. In fact it is at a point where some of those same individuals are no longer willing to post...

To have so much involvement is both a blessing and a curse I guess.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Fair enough.


I don't think anyone here is of that belief either.


You'll never please everyone - agreed.
For interest sake, I have to say that with every list that's been produced since I collected my army, I've noticed a pattern that things bog down and people get more irate in the debates when things are changed or added without any consultation - the most recent example of this is the Skyray formation (not trying to salt a wound here just using it for a base example because it springs immediately to mind).

As far as I can tell, it was added without anyone's input (I assume for simple background/fluff from 40K reasoning) and now it has triggered issues with the list's air war metagame (in some people's view at least). If this formation had been proposed first before it was blindly added, the massive debate and arguments that have sprung up could possibly have been avoided. Time would have been saved and we would have discarded the idea, or all agreed that it was a useful addition - either way we would have moved on.

My point is, things have not been run in the most effective way - this is not an attack on anyone (as many reasons have forced this on the list over the years - changes of ACs; lack of the simple ability to post due to RL issues from ACs, minimal playtest results and maximum theory applied to debates etc. - the list goes on), it is however a perspective I've come to recognise. People don't like change for the sake of it and this factor has hampered a lot of the work on the Tau list over the years by drumming up opposition to proposals. Obviously other factors bring about this problem too but this is just one I'm highlighting.


Well from my own perspective at least, I have to say that I used to feel this way. Since E&C proposed the E series, however, and apart from a couple of niggling issues, I've had a very good feeling about this list actually coming to a conclusion (for a year at least).  I've also really enjoyed the 6.01 list so far and the games I've played with it have, from my point of view, seemed exciting from both sides of the table.

As I've said however, I am worried about rushing it too much to complete it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who shares this concern. A small extension for more results would be beneficial.

I will note that noone's actively set out to break the list using this formation yet, and it could very well be a storm in a teacup. We're gonna test it en masse soon.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Dobbsy, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I would like to point out that the Skyray formation was inherited as part of the E series proposal, which was received so enthusiastically, not any of the earlier Tau lists v1-5. It didn't just appear, it had been part of the parallel path, so I'm a little surprised that it appears to have snuck up on anyone.

In any case, as stated earlier, I like the formation. Along with the synergy I think it adds to the list, it also ties in very nicely with current 40K Tau Apocalypse forces and how they operate in their metagame. I know that the two games play much differently at their various levels, but I see it as a bonus that 40K Tau players can recognize similarities in their smaller more powerful cousin.

As always, if testing proves this issue to be troublesome, then I will re-assess my stand. To date, the evidence points to the contrary.

@E&C: If you are of a mind, please do PM me on how you were planning on testing.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment