yes...with the expendable rule i would use them again i think.

and one more question...is any one using Kroots? i tryed them a couple times and for their price they never performed any good, just a points sink i think. does any one have another experience?

Anyone tried to use the Drones with the Tiger Sharks?

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

Gun Drones are actually armed with twin-linked pulse carbines (look them up in the Tau codex if you don't believe me!) and so they should have better stats than the pathfinders or fire warrior carbines, not worse. Fixing this long standing error in their armament to give them AP4+ disrupt would make them accurate to the guns they actually carry and should also make them more worth taking than now.

In addition Fire Warriors and Pathfinders are armed with a mix of weapons, maybe 50/50 Carbines and Rifles, so their AP5+ comes from an average of 2.5 of them per stand. Gun Drones are solely armed with carbines, so with them that's 5 per stand firing to make their shot so it makes sense for it to better from that perspective too.

If they are still not good then knock the points down a little, the old expendable was not true to the Tau background/W40k.

Drones are not going to change before the freeze. The risk to the list is high and the payoff is not that significant. There are always going to be "dogs" in a list. Everything cannot be equally attractive.

Do not expect any changes to drones or Kroot.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I understand that drones are not going to change.

That said, I can't see myself using them until they are Expendable again. There are way more Tau players calling for Expendable than not (really only looks like 1 person to me and that's based on fluff, not game mechanics).

If a Tau Firewarrior had to choose between saving a fellow Tau warrior or a Drone I think the choice is obvious. Tau and drones are not of equal value. Expendable does fit in with how they are used in EPIC.

I used to use Kroot as a garrisoned speed bump/picket line that the enemy had to break thru before they could get to the softer missile launchers and Hammerheads. Since E&C's list started the new style of play, I find that picket line is of little value as I'm often moving much more offensively into the opponents half of the board.

_________________
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.

That's incredibly disappointing. guess my drones won't see the light of day for a year or more then


Only through poor design. Who came up with this theory? Was it a throw back to the marine list as that has quite a few dogs and it seems to have stimulated this idea that a list has to have crap formations when, really, they just have to be adequate and useful.

i play marines and i dont find any of their formations to be dog. only SM scouts dont fit in to my playing concept, but they are OK. So theory that every list must have some dogs is veeeery bad for me

as for my friend who plays Tau i told him that he can choose one of the following for his drones: 1) add expendables to their special rules
                         2) give them 4+AP instead of their 5+AP

I think part of the problem here is the perception of what drones are and do. In
most cases, the assumption is that drones are just automatons that do what they are
told and when bad things happen, they are nothing more than soldiers that don't
bleed.

According to GW's fluff, the Tau do not waste any resources in needless endeavors. The
game mechanics around drones are very clear about them operating in "networks". When
networks take casualties (disk failures), the operational efficiencies degrade. Yes,
there are failover resources in Data centers, but if enough casualties are taken, the
abilities of networks and their associated resources drop dramatically.

This is akin to walking into a Data center and nominating a bank of servers to be shut
down and then expecting the rest of the servers to operate as if there was no impact.

That's not how networks operate. That is what we are modeling with drones and why they
are not expendable.


As far as whether or not "dogs" exist in lists, what I seem to be hearing you say is
that regardless of circumstances, each selection is equally attractive and effective
to take. Bull.

I'll even be more generous. You seem to be saying that including a given set of
circumstances, all choices are equally attractive. Although I think that is a
great goal to aspire to, I feel it is rather utopian in it's focus. All options
are not going to be equally attractive to all people at the same time. I am not
going to invest time and effort to chase this Holy Grail as I firmly do not
believe that it is possible.

You may disagree with my position, but I am quite confident that anyone of us can
go to any other list and find choices that are less desireable than others. That isn't
because of list design, it is a matter of human nature. We (Tau) still have differing
opinions on this list, which appears to have more acceptance than any before it, so
why would you think that we'll all somehow agree on how to make each choice equally
attractive?

I'm just being honest in stating that I don't believe that is possible.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I don't think he's saying that; I think he's saying that Gun Drones are never attractive under any circumstances at all.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

exactly...i dont see any point at taking gun drones anytime. iam talking about their cost. they are way too expensive to take. just look at their stats and stats of anything in the list worth the same points. the "expendables" rule was one way to make them more playable.

about dogs in lists...i think every unit, when given the rigt cost is usable at some point (even a crapy unit with nothing more then a knife in their hands, just acting as human shileds, will be a usable formation when it costs the right amount of points). i would buy gun drones as fast harras formation. i think they would excel at this role. but i will never ever buy them becouse they are just tooooo expensive for what they can do.

OK Honda, just to be clear here, I'm prefacing this post by saying this is not an attack on you. I'm trying to make my views clear to you. It's written in a very positive frame of mind not in anger or derision.  


Please define "needless endeavours". Would they rather see a Fire Warrior or Crisis suit pilot die in place of a drone? I doubt it very much. If drones can take hits in their place I think that is a worthwhile endeavour, wouldn't you think?


Understood. However, you seem to forget the abstraction in Epic. Sure running around in single formations, a network can collapse and I have no issue with the single formation idea copping BMs normally. In fact, I don't think anyone here does. But when attached to another formation I'm fairly certain that the loss of a gun drone has somewhat less of an effect on the rest of the formation in terms of shock from casualties. It's all about how they are placed IMO. They may be networked but that network doesn't effect the rest of that formation just the drones.

OK you say the Tau don't waste resources, well in terms of game mechanics they aren't. They're simply not as phased by a drone loss as they would be, say, bonded Fire Warriors etc. Think of it like your wife, mother and a robot fighting alongside of you. The robot takes a hit under fire and your mother is saved, sure the robot is toast but I'm fairly certain that the loss would be somewhat lessened knowing the robot saved your mother's ass  


Then you aren't hearing me correctly. I said "they just have to be adequate and useful". Useful being the most important part here.


No, what we are asking is for people to be able to have a reason to take them. Right now Honda no one wants to and that is a big problem with their design.


Seriously we're not asking you to. All we're asking is a slightly more useful unit type - not the King of the Jews to grant us life eternal. Besides it's hardly the holy grail given the ruleset for them has been used previously.


Yes, that's understood. People have personal choice. However, the difference and problem is, most of us who play Tau don't like this unit at all and won't take it. But we want to take them. See the difference?


Then going by this theory, when most of us are in agreement that they are a crap unit, why would you not put it out for more debate and design, when nearly all seem to want the same thing - a more useful unit (and not an uber unit)? If we've gotten this far and this close to a conclusion, how would a Gun drones re-design destroy the foundations?


So then throw your hands in the air and walk away? That's a bit defeatist mate. Let us help you out. Let us come up with something before you kill the groundswell. We've had tons of people of late agreeing on most of the Tau stuff - heck even Hena agrees on this one!    So I think we're now at a point where most of us could get the drones to work.

Can we at least try?

Dobbsy,

I understand where you are coming from and we're all on the same page as far as intent. So no worries there.  



Ok, that phrase is probably a little too literary for what I meant. My bad. What I mean is that as I am interpreting Tau fluff, that at the same time they are attempting to enforce their "will" via military action, they are also concerned with perserving their forces. I am interpreting that philosophy as "all" resources are important and not to be wasted, used without thought, carelessly expended. Those last phrases do not align with a rule that grants disposable to a formation.

Do the Tau value living beings over machines? We'd like to think so. Is there any indication that they do? Not really. All resources are considered important and all resources are used to prosecute the Greater Good. Does that mean that it is "possible" that the Tau would sacrifice a crisis formation to preserve a formation of Drones? I believe that is possible, hence my interpretation.

I don't expect everyone to share that opinion or analysis, but I am putting it out there for you (collective) so that you at least have an understanding of what is guiding my decisions. My position on this subject was laid out in the "Logjams" thread last year when we took the jump to the Series 6.

So where does that leave us? Change or no change?

At this stage in the development, so close to freeze, I am inclined to not change. I don't want to put the rest of the list at risk. I realize that Drones are rather iconic for the Tau, but they are certainly not the key component that makes the entire list work. If this one unit is the only thing that is preventing people from playing Tau, then I am more inclined to think that the problem is not with the list.

Now, having said all that I am interested in hearing what low risk change you might offer to correct this issue, but there are conditions because the "list" is more important than this one formation.

1. Low risk/impact to the list other than making the Drone formation more attractive

2. No Disposable rule. That doesn't fit with the design parameters as outlined in "Logjams"

3. The proposed change must be tested in the next two weeks multiple times, preferably by different people.

4. A consensus on the change. No agreement, no change.

Obviously, I'm setting harsh conditions and on purpose. I would rather leave the unit as is and not risk the list than let a last minute change unbalance all the work that has preceded. If you can't really fathom my conservative approach, then go research the Spirit Stones issue with the Swordwind supplement.

I will not be participating in this exercise as I have bigger fish to fry, i.e. the Manta (sorry just had to work that in there). I haven't had a chance to get any games with this beast and as such, I don't have a real feeling for it as far as balance. It seems Ok, but then I've never fielded one, nor seen anyone else either. So that is a concern.

I think the crisis is going to be Ok at the 1+ initiative, but I am considering reducing the number of added suits to 2 vs. the current 4. I'm not sure, I still need to test that out some. Getting testing time in has been tough recently.



No I think I'm not explaining myself very well. Admitting that perfection is not possible is not admitting defeat or walking away in frustration. By my definition, it means focusing your efforts on what produces the biggest results. It's the old 80/20 rule. A lot of people try to "do it all" and then struggle when they find out that they can't. Other focus on the 20%, not realizing there are greater gains in addressing the 80%, because getting 80% of anything is operationally more effective than trying to do it all.

So, whether you agree with my perspective or not, I base that on a lot of corporate experience and project work. It's how I am wired.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

If significant playtesting AND analysis AND consensus is required within two weeks, I think it's not worth considering. Your mind is made up, essentially, and it's too short a time period to warrant a proper consideration for change.

The deadline makes it more likely that a Spirit Stone issue happens. Rushing something like this is worse than leaving it unchanged. Personally, I never saw them as a problem with Disposable, once they were removed as an option for Crisis.

Just leave them near-worthless. Revisit next time.

Morgan Vening

hopefuly i will test them next week a couple times with the AP4+ carabine...i will give my report then