Quote:
hopefuly i will test them next week a couple times with the AP4+ carabine...i will give my report then
Gandr: Although I do applaud your efforts, before you run off and start testing something, the proposal on what needs to be tested should be agreed upon. All you are really testing with your proposal is whether or not hitting at a 4+ for the same cost is better than 5+. I think we know the answer to that already. Also recognize that just changing the Pulse Carbine values impacts two other units, Fire Warriors and Pathfinders.
That is why the proposal needs to be agreed upon by first, because of the overall impacts to the list vs. one formation.
Quote:
I didn't think my proposal for 2 disposable units added to a formation was high risk considering it amounts to only 2 BMs soaked....
As Disposable is not on the table for the reasons listed above, then this proposal isn't going to be evaluated.
I think that is Honda's idea from the get go as the ludicrous timeline we have to do this makes the proposal of change moot.
Quote:
Honda, you said yourself - "Getting testing time in has been tough recently". So you know just how impossible this will be. It's disapoointing that you aren't a little more flexible here. I understand you have set a deadline but we aren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "project" that you might deal with in your RL job. We can be given some leeway.
I would have thought that considering this is to be locked for a year, that getting all the units correct first would be the goal, so all units can be utilised/wanted to be utilised so that we have the maximum level of testing for all units under our belt.
Afterall, the biggest problem with "project management" that I've encountered in RL is a stubbornness to produce crap-to-average quality outcomes that have to be changed later anyway, simply because the correct amount of time wasn't allotted to make the project work better from the start. Thus, keeping customers happy immediately rather than sticking them with an crappy-to-average project up front. It's a frustrating business design from a customer's point of view.
The Tau players are your customers. Give us the time to get this correct before you lock it down and stick us with an average project to work with first. Leeway is all I'm asking.
Dobbsy, you bring up very good points. But you also are ignoring the fact that someone will always come up with a reason not to freeze the code and fix one more thing. It stems from never really being sure if you could have made something better or always wanting more for your efforts. I have been on both sides of the equation on a regular basis and it is frustrating sometimes for the PM to not yield, but it is the responsibility of the PM to keep the big picture in front of himself/herself and stay focused so that things get done. That is the purpose of a project leader in any endeavor, to get things done. Thankfully we do not have any budget considerations to manage.
However, eventually everyone has to move on, otherwise nothing gets accomplished and we stay stuck in the present. Whether you believe me or not, I understand your concerns, but I am not going to put the entire project at risk for this one formation/unit. If at the time the list is frozen this is the one thing that everyone hates, then I think we as a community will have made tremendous progress and I will take the hit for the shortcoming.
i think with the 4+AP they are very interesting choice now for their price. i should have write it in the first place that they use twin linked carabine in 40k so it is why i wanted to test them with 4+Ap instead of 5+...sorry, my bad. (and off the record, i dont personaly play Tau, my friend does...so i just wanted to make them more usable, not to make some uber unit just for me 
