Name some?
(Other than Orks)



As to Fire Warriors, I can only speak from my own experience, and from the experience of tournament-winning players in the UK, which all says that Fire Warriors are now first rate formations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What about giving the Tank mounted version a longer range. It does have a much longer barrel, so is more likely to be more accurate at higher ranges. the range in 40k might be due to them being in a close range skirmish, so they would be less likely to have time to aim to get the most out of their gun ranges.

_________________

My Photobucket

Twin Tigershark Rail cannon > Manta Heavy Rail cannon for one comparison. Is it correct that you already changed the Broadsides' weapon name in the E series to compensate for a change? Is that correct? Were no other weapons changed throughout all the lists over the years to compensate for differences in stats? I seem to remember the Deathstorm weapon having a change too - long barrelled wasn't it? Also, can I ask why orks should be exempt from this design?

In the end, would you prefer to hold rigidly to a design when a simple name change would solve an issue for the .. lol ... "greater good?"


The problem isn't range Ratty. It's the lack of hitting power. Heck, I'd be willing to see their range go to 60 cm if necessary if the hitting power was increased. However, their range is supposed to be 72" in 40K so.. basically keeping the cost steady and giving them a better weapon stat is preferable

Aircraft are a special case, regrettably.


Only so as to properly represent that Broadside Suits in 40k don't have an "AP fire" mode, not in order to make up differences in the AT shot that don't exist in 40k or the background.


Huh?


Because their stats are assumed to collate a dozen different weapon types into each weapon name.


You have convinced me that there is some leeway there if it's really nessesary.

However.

I don't see creating a new type of railgun as being for the greater good if according to the background and 40k rules the weapon should have exactly the same AT type stat regardless of its mounting.

Plus, I don't think Broadside suits with Lance would be the end of the world.


==============

Here are the possible solutions :

A - Drop the points cost on Hammerheads.
B - Give Hammerhead and Broadside suits Lance on their railgun shots, increase points cost of Broadside suits.
C - Give only the Hammerhead's railgun the Lance stat.


Now:

A - Would give you a greater volume of fire, as you would get 20% more Hammerheads in your army for the same cost.

B - Might well balance the Railgun Hammerhead, but leaves the Ion Cannon and Fusion Hammerheads looking distinctly inferior. So then you also have to go in and rebalance the other two turret types, probably by up-gunning them significantly (Creating divergances with their expected Epic stats, perhaps?).

C - Same problem as B, only now you've also created a divergance with the Broadside Suit's weapon name.



=====

So I favour option A.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

E&C, this isn't 40K, this is Epic. Its a better game, where we don't slavishly follow 40K stats and dumbed down reasoning, am I right? The BS and HH railguns are obviously different systems that could be statted differently. It has been done before, and doing so would resolve a conundrum. Why are you so opposed to testing it?

Even from background the Railguns from Hammerheads and Broadsides are the same. The only differences are that generally vehicle mounted weapons are more durable (represented by the vehicles armour value) and specifically that the Hammerhead's single Railgun has submunitions which are effective against Infantry while the Broadside's two Railguns are "only" twin-linked.

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

Also note however that the Hammerhead Chassis has a higher BS than a Broadside due to the fact it has a targeting array built into it as standard

so a Hammerhead hits on a 8/12 in 40k where a standard Broadside hits 9/12, if you add to this the Broadside has far more problems hitting a moving target than a Hammerhead due to the Tau's eyesight. There is definitely an argument to give them a similar AT value.

_________________

My Photobucket

Umm, Why would this be any more 'fiddly' than recording shields on titans? Indeed, you could even represent the 'shields' by using drone models.

Just my 2p as they say.

I seriously wish weapons and stats had a specific base value in this game. It would make fair costing of things, extremely easy. You'd only have to add the cost of racial values etc then.

E&C, to find a common ground for testing I'd be willing to trial Broadsides with Lance at 350 if the general consensus says Broadsides must gain Lance if HHs do. I just feel with a list this tightly wound in terms of effectiveness and costs, a 50-75 point swing makes a big difference as you start to lose activations.

My main concern with adding it to both units means we make a large incremental change instead of a small one with a simple name change.

And what do you propose to do about the other two Hammerhead guns at that point?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't see why the hammerheads have to have the same points costs; railguns are just better than the other options and should cost more.

I'm not sure if that kind of granularity is desirable outside of a tank-themed list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If marine land speeders are allowed to have variable prices then I really don't see it being a problem. Railguns are better in the background, in 40k and in epic. They should cost more.

That is a fair point.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm not sure on the 40K Ballistic skills vs Epic stats. Can the AP stat on the Railgun go down? We've already changed stats in the E series to compensate for the ML situation, so a 6+ to hit base could make the Ion look more attractive for long range AP.

With the Ion turret the way I see it if you need long ranged AP (which the Tau do lack) then the Ion is your tank and its stats are fine as you're paying for privelege of long ranged AP which you don't necessarily have as Tau.

I think I remember you mentioning the Fusion could go up to 4+ to hit as it's twin-linked. I know I mentioned this a while back too.

Just some thoughts anyway.

BTW in terms of option A, 20% more HH means 1.2 tanks in an upgraded formation of 6. How do you intend for the extra tank and a bit to sit in the list? I doubt people would take more than one or two 6-tank formations. It essentially mean 2 extra tanks across these formations....