Hey,

I used to be involved in helping create this little list (and due to Real Life have been out of the loop for a loooong time.~around V3/4 i think was the last time I was doing useful things :S ...)

Firstly, I just wanted to say I'm glad you guys are continuing to work on it and improve it

I've just been looking at the new list and had a few questions,

What happened to the Scorpionfish, Stingray and Swordfish? The Scorpionfish in particular I loved, and I was just wondering why they were dropped?

The Tetra/Piranha support cadre seems a little open to abuse (There seems to be no reason to take anything other than 1Tetra and 5 Pirahnas)

The twin mantas burst cannons seems quite a clunky name, maybe drop the manta from it (which would also bring it inline with the rest of the list)

Similarly you have twin-linked missile pods on the manta and twin everywhere else.

Love the addition of the missile strike variant for the manta (i never used to carry drones in mine, so this is a bonus )

I also miss the collectors bit at the back, it was a nice feature of original army list and considering all the variations that forgeworld put out, it was a nice place to include all the different rules without cluttering up the 'tournament' list.

All in all though, looking good

Welcome back KivArn!

These units were dropped as it was argued by some that since they didn't exist in the fluff they should be removed. It was also felt that they created balance issues.

I've never used the Recon Support group as you've suggested. I always use a 50/50 split between Tetras and Piranhas. This allows them to garrison on Overwatch and also provides more Markerlights (something that the new list really relies on).

I've mentioned these issues before, they're just minor spelling issues. It's the stats that need to be right .

I've never used the missile variant of the Tigershark, not when there's more than enough guided missiles already available.

Looking forward to seeing how the list plays for you.

Cheers,
Steve.

_________________
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.

Hello,


I've long been a proponent of seeing an "Armoured Cadre" variant list that would have all the variant tanks/war engines that used to be in the list. Hopefully after the current Tau list is finalised (In 4 1/2 months time, I believe) we'll start up on the armoured list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The units you mentioned were removed because we should attempt to rely on GW fluff to create epic army lists. New units should only be created if a major gap in the list is identified such as it having few units, or little AT firepower or AA etc (the Necron list is a good example). In the Tau list the Moray, scorpionfish and stingray did the same jobs as core parts of the list and did it so well they completely replaced those formations in list building. Why would someone take a formation of FW's if they could take a war engine that can shoot from a hidden position with a superior to hit value, AT as well as MW shots and have AA as well? The Moray led to Ax-1-0's and Mantas not being taken and so on.

I agree with your point on Recons. 5/1 Piranha/Tetra split is the optimum selection in my opinion. I rarely start with recon on o/w as broadsides are better in that role and when I take more tetras I prefer to take 1/5 or 2/4 (Piranha/Tetra) to take full advantage of scout and ML. That is why I think a hard cap on the number of piranha's allowed in the formation is a better idea than a point rise.

The TS Missile boat and indeed TS's in general IMHO are not very useful. There are cheaper ways to get a larger number of missiles in the list and much better ways to get AP/AT. Lets be honest a TS has the same firepower as a Barracuda just a slightly better AA shot in its forward arc. Combine this with the fact that the list almost forces you to take an AX-1-0 or a Manta (now a much more attractive option) to deal with super heavies or titans leads me to the conclusion that both of these units need a rethink.

Thanks

I had a feeling it was going to be something like that, it's a shame I think especially since we were encouraged to bolster the existing fluff since Epic is where much of the more interesting stuff has come from (in fact the AX-0-1 was originally made by us IIRC forgeworld nicked it when they nicked our list for IA 3

I'll have to check on the constraints on Garrison etc, it's been a while... I can see that Markerlights are quite abundant (along with Seeker missiles) in the current list.

True, though the spelling needs to be right at some point too

Sounds interesting - Also what happens when the list is finalised? Is there a (semi-)official book(pdf) being put together which includes Tau soon then?


I can understand that, and it makes sense. However since we are increasing the scale of the game (no longer small squads of 40k) we need to consider the strategic gaps within the army as portrayed by the current Games Workshop fluff.

To elaborate, i'm thinking along the lines of if we only have infantry and heavy support we're missing a cavalry element, we might be able to do with out the cavalry element as other units may over lap in those areas, but ideally a cavalry element should exist..


These are not necessarily problems with the ideas behind the units but with their portrayal, stats and costing, ie. their balance and synergy with the rest of the list. There should be a choice to take certain units instead of others, but not an automatic one due to another's imbalanced rules. Similarly you should not be forced to take a certain choice because no other option is available. The list looks a little light on MW/TK which was a big issue before the introduction of these units and the reason there in, although the AX-0-1 has been officially adopted, it seems that this is also the default choice for meeting those needs with the manta the only other contender. And in small games, this is a pretty big chunk, especially as it removes from the Aircraft/Titan allowance.


Yup, some form of capping or just a solid 3 Tetra 2 Piranha cadre breakdown would be best.


A fair comment, i've only briefly had a look at it, hopefully get to study it more carefully soon and make some suggestions


Also couple of other points/queries.

I think the support cadre/upgrade listing for pathfinders should probably read
as it doesn't force you to take the devilfish then, and hence gives you the option of manta/orca deployment of pathfinders.

Any particular reason the Mech Cadre looses 2 units of firewarriors in order to be mounted? It seems a little odd to say the least. Surely 8 firewarriors for 225 + 4 Devilfish for +100 would work fine.

Last sentence of the second paragraph of the Tau jet pack rules


Seems a bit unnecessary and repetitive (also misses the fact you can move extra on a march order too...)


Cheers, Tim Coates

Definitely agree with this.

_________________
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.

I still don't understand (never have) the need to make an armoured list.

The argument that the Fire Warriors were not being used because the Stingray replaced their AP ability so there was no need to take them is moot if you then make an armoured list which lets you take Stingrays. The only thing that will happen is that people will play the armoured list and the infantry list will barely be seen. An all in one list let people do what they wanted - take FWs or Stingrays or both. It was a pretty simple equation to me and it avoided the unnecessary two list theory which only detracts from the numbers of people playing each list.

And I'd also like to reiterate that I agree with the hard cap on pirahnas.

When the list is finalised it won't be seeing any more updates, unless massive balance problems are later uncovered.

There may well be a supplement in time that uses the Tau list.


The Tau list is pretty well served for MW/TK, in that the AX-1-0's have some excellent TK (To which LOF cannot be blocked), whilst Crisis Suits have some good MW shots.



The two formation types have turned out to be about equal in value.

The number of Devilfish also fit the (erstwhile) pack sizes that FW used to sell.


IIRC the inclusion of extra movement on a March order is a typo?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The main need is so that people can use all those models they've converted over the years.


Not really. The core list should represent the most common styles of Tau warfare. Those styles which have never been heard of in the background (Such as the "Buckets 'o missiles" gun-line style that died with the Stingray and Scorpionfish) can and should appear in variant army lists (That's the only point of having a variant list).


Except in practice, the Stingrays and Scorpionfishes combination was so good it overshadowed everything else. They need a dedicated list with notable weaknesses where their strengths (Especially the strengths of the Scorpionfish) can be mitigated through inbuilt weaknesses.

There was no weakness to the combined list, the Stingrays and Scorpionfishes complemented the rest of the list so well that they created a perfect (And honestly quite boring) playstyle.

As to the core list never being seen... Minervans (IG Armoured List) quickly became a very popular list (Probably the second most popular IG list)... but they never became more popular than the core Steel Legion list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Personally I think the list is very close to finished. My recent run of games has convinced me of that. The only little niggle I have is recon and HH's I would be very reticent to add any more units to it. In previous versions core units were not being used because created units did the job better. It is not part of army design to say the list has no long range AP fire lets give it some or it has no cavalry lets invent a unit. You may as create a new game for that. We should rely on what GW gives us in terms of play style and formations. Most of the time created units fill gaps in the list which were a conscious choice to design in a weakness (such as marines have no long range fire power, tau being bad in engagements etc.) and succeed in only overpowering the list.

KivArn: Most of the Tau formations have been designed as they have to keep costs of formations low to increase activation count. So the size of the mech cadre was reduced to 6. In game terms they appear to be of about equal value. You can still have large formations of FW's if you want but experience has shown that you would be better off simply taking a second formation for not many more points.

Fair enough was just wondering about the rationale behind the choice, I've missed about 2-3 years of development discussions, and the last list I looked into (V5ish) was pretty similar to the one that I left on, a fair bit has changed in V6 and I'm just trying to catch up . The aim has always been to keep activations high (though this is lowered with the use of co-ordinated fire.

from the recent discussions that i've read, that seems true and considering that there hasn't been that big of a change in the stats of units since I was last involved, it's seems the list has been pretty stable

that be a problem in the design and balance of the unit, not the conception

We should indeed rely on what GW gives us in terms of playstyle, what I am suggesting is not that all weak areas should be bolstered, but from a play style and army style there may be a need for new units, similarly GW/SG gave us the go ahead to introduce new units and JJ approved the inclusion and background of the ones that we had developed.

Since there is very little fluff for Tau above 40k size units (where-as much of the Superheavy scale fluff came from Spacemarine/Adeptus Titanicus/40k) the concept of adding new units that re-enforce the nature and playstyle of the army should not be feared (however nor should they displace the positions of current units).

The Tau are an adaptive force that use manoeuvrability and combined arms to eliminate their targets, they rely on supporting one another and do not value ground, hence rarely employing a static defence. One significant short coming in the tau warmachine was discovered when facing the imperium of man and the prolific use of war engines end titans. This was impart solved by the retro fitting of tigersharks to incorporate heavy railcannons.

This has been taken up officially, and consequently is the only SG-forums created unit that has stayed in the current epic list, my concern is that so many of the other units created to bolster the tau, both from a fluff perspective, and from a gaming perspective have been removed.

I freely admit that I am coming in to the discussions cold, having taken a long hiatus, and therefore am not fully aware of the current workings of the Tau, but seeing so much of the anti-warmachine/titan removed does concern me somewhat. and not just in a rules/gameplay environment but also in a background view. There is no reason that the tau wouldn't develop support craft to bolster the line. The scorpion fish was a good example of this, it does will a similar role to the skysweep formation, as it's AA and provides guided missiles. However it is slower, and provides less AA, but boost the abilities to lay down a bombardment to decimate an approaching horde, a useful development against the tyranids/orks from a background point of view and does not detract form the playstyle and vulnerabilities of the tau.

One other possible solution is to re-include the collectors section, a couple of the converted units had already been relegated there

¬_¬ I'm looking at you mr swordfish... it also allows us to give rules for the more obscure units that could be useful in scenario gaming and adds a bit more flavour. Like with the robotic sentries.

(To be honest I see no need to have removed this section from the current list anyway, unless there's a specific desire from somewhere to not have it. The collectors sections are, afterall, included in the rule book.)

A collector's section could go back when the list is finallised, I don't disagree.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No. The extra move is available on a March order aswell (have a chat to your brother when he gets back from holiudays).

_________________
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.

Ok, I wan't greatly involved in the debate that hashed out the exact details on that rule, just the initial concept stages.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter