This is the next round of testing on the Tau list, some of the changes are significant and so it is likely this version will require quite a bit of testing if it is to move to approved at some stage in the future.

If you want a completely balanced list (some might argue a little underpowered in some metas with a great deal of RA) then use the 6.6 list.

Changes below

1. Manta and AX-1-0 receive an additional seeker missile each mostly for background reasons (but they are expensive enough that one AT6+ shot has little bearing on performance to cost).

2. Stealth Suits receive a special rule to help teleporting (I really didn't like adding a special rule but it shows you how much I am against 1+ initiative on the Stealth and Broadsides which I think changes the list too fundamentally).

3. Any Drones added to a Stealth team get teleport. No reason to take them with Stealth otherwise.

4. Protector goes up in cost by 25pts, it has always just been too good for its points cost.

5. Ethereal - if an Ethereal is killed the formation is now no longer broken automatically, it just receives an additional blast marker. It is too easy to snipe characters and the downside was just too harsh.

6. Bonded Teams - Now a generic ability applying to the whole formation not tied to a single unit, effectively represents a veteran formation of Firewarriors. (more representative of background and a slightly needed boost)

7. Hammerhead - Main gun goes to AT3+, loses Smart missiles system for Burst Cannons. (Fits background and gives a little help to the Tau list in some match ups, needs testing, might require the Railhead to go to FF6+ to justify the continued low cost. Ionhead reduced in price.

8. Broadsides - Railgun range goes to 60cm, price reduced back to 300pts. For background reasons and to move the Broadsides back to a better cost in the context of the list.

9. Krootox made cheaper and reduced to FF5+, No one uses them, just to make them cheaper also FF4+ always seemed a bit high.

I may have missed off some of the changes if anyone catches others I will add to the list. These changes are definately not set in stone and can be removed from this version esily (or perhaps others added) before it ever goes to approved, assuming anyone ever plays it (other than me I guess) to get enough testing done to verify balance.

I'm at a loss really.

In one thread you say you don't want to put in a special rule (Lance) because it breaks the Eldar mould etc etc but when the Tau list is updated you put in an arbitrary special rule for Stealth Suits because you don't like a 1+ initiative scenario which is simpler and not a game breaker (given no other unit in game gets to adjust their teleport dice)?

Also, I have to ask, are these changes from EUK in-house testing? What are they all based on? There's been absolutely no discussion regarding the majority of them in the Tau forum.

Many have received discussion, maybe those threads came to different conclusions with regards what should be done than I have but thats the point of having someone make a decision .

Most others are very minor changes which don't require a huge level of discussion to justify.

I really don't like adding a special rule, Lance would actually require the addition of text in the main rules section and worse would be an Eldar special rule that badly reresents a Railgun and has list balance repercussions.

The Stealth suit special rule is an attempt to fix them (without initiative 1+ which again has large list design and balance implications). I agree I still don't like it and it is a change if people shout at me enough I will drop. mostly shouting doesn't have this effect .

The only large change that is out of the blue is the Ethereal change which again is a boost and I know some players have taken them in the past. I am just going from a tournament play point of view it was always too risky to use. Again it could easily be dropped.

These changes look fine to me, I'm guessing the stealthsuit change is to prevent them from activating on a 3+ on the turn they land? What's the big issue with making them init 1+ - honestly just curious...

The Ethereal change is pretty good too, I'm just starting to see the power of fearless units from playing Tyranids. I would probably have started trying one out before this change, I certainly will now. The change to bonded teams is also quite strong.

In light of railheads not getting lance, which I can live with. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can understand it at a stretch. I does feel a little like one factions fluff is trumping another but I won't lose any sleep over it.

I'm not sure that AT3+ is the way forward, unless Broadsides drop to AT4+ to differentiate, but then I guess we get back into more serious balancing issues...

@Dobbsy - I totally see where you're coming from, they appear to be valid observations, particularly bringing in a caveat to an existing mechanic - I was not expecting that at all!! Anyway, it didn't come across as anything approaching throwing your toys out of the pram, maybe Steve's just having a bad day?!

These all look like positive changes, I look forward to putting them to the test.

_________________
Mickey's Minis Painting Service: http://www.mickeysminis.com
Mickey's Minis on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MickeysMinis
Mickey's Minis Blog: http://mickeysminis.blogspot.co.uk
My Personal Blog: http://mickeysminishome.blogspot.co.uk

A long answer coming up.

It is indeed as you suggest an attempt to fix (or at least mitigate) the problem of Stealth Suits teleporting in and because there are 6 units in the formation often picking up a blast marker and then failing to activate (assuming you even win the initiative and they are not just assaulted off the table, which the blast marker makes very easy for an opponent to do without any prep).

Why not initiative 1+ which in this specifc example achieves the same effect most of the time. Well mostly it is because initiative 1+ doesn't just apply in this specific case. It means no matter how you use your Stealth they now have the massive advantage that comes with Initiative 1+ including rallying, being very good at retaining, knowing that when you have no blast markers and are not retaing you have certainty in activating etc.

Now all of that could in the case of Stealth be mitigated by increased cost, 250pts certainly, maybe even 275pts.

However a number of complex interactions come into play with regards this boost in ability combined with boost in cost.

No matter how good at teleporting or how good their initiative is I am still taking them for markerlights and as their formation cost goes up it becomes difficult to balance versus the cheaper Recon or Pathfinder. 275pts might be what their ability now justifies but I won't take them at that points value because I can get markerlights much cheaper elsewhere.

So balance at a specific formation level is difficult, they are probably forced too be too cheap so people take them.

Another problem is if the Stealth were to get initiative 1+ then I would be forced to change the Broadsides to 1+. Now you could argue why? Just make an exception for the Stealth so they work in their intended role (even if they are now probably either over or under cost because of the nightmare of keeping internal balance of all the markerlight formations consistent).

It just is not consistent from a background perspective to argue they should have different initiative. It is hard enough justifying the Crisis having a different initiative (fire fighting role, likely presence of leadership maybe). But if Stealth and Crisis having initiative 1+, then Broadsides would definitely also get initiative 1+.

Thankfully Broadsides would be easier to balance than Stealth they are a straightforward anti tank formation with very good resilience. Certainly they would have to be much more expensive as the consistency of 1+ initiative both in activating and rallying makes them very good. Probably 375pts (this would obviously need testing, but a value could more easily be determined than the more problematical Stealth).

However now a number of changes have affected the structure of the overall list and at this point it is possible to design a radically different army to before. Effectively a much more elite army is now possible as every element of a Tau list required to function – command (Crisis), anti infantry (Crisis), anti tank (Broadsides), markerlight (Stealth) are available with initiative 1+.

Completely initiative 1+ armies are very powerful and function very differently to an initiative 2+ army. Now of course they can be balanced but at this point we have basically added a completely different army design type to the list of testing requirements just so my Stealth suits can teleport and act.

That then is the essay on why I do not like initiative 1+ as a solution to Stealth and if worst comes to the worst and a special rule doesn’t work or is considered a bad idea they will just go back to being a cheap initiative 2+ formation.

Hope that answers your question, or at least shows why I am trying to avoid initiative 1+ as the solution, even if perhaps many don't agree with me.

Thanks yme-loc, that makes sense, I don't quite see how making stealthsuits init 1+ implies Broadsides should follow, both crisis and stealth suits are supposedly "elite" formations and for me that would be justification enough right there. Certainly init 1+ stealthsuits are far less threatening than init 1+ broadsides...

But given that, for you, one would lead to another that would obviously become pretty broken pretty quickly...

Thanks again for the explanation.

Thanks Yme-loc,

I believe that the hammerheads are a little cheap with the changes maybe they should be 6aa, and thank you for not including Lance.

Regards

From Aus

Overall I very much approve of the changes

You've got the costs for the upgrade Hammerheads the wrong way around - Ionheads shouldn't be the more expensive ones!

Auto-breaking the formation if the Ethereal dies probably was too harsh, but just a single blast marker seems too low and not to reflect his importance. Please could there be a middle way and his death add D3 blast markers instead?

I very much approve of the Stealth's special rule! Excellent idea for a long standing problem and I agree initiative 1+ wouldn't be a good idea. Good to see their drones can have teleport now too. They will need testing, and these combined might call for a small cost increase.

I like using Kroot with my Tau and have never thought much of Krootoxes so good call on boosting them.

I'm interested in testing this Tau list in the coming months (don't get to play that often and like to vary armies) you should get a number of playtests from us in New Zealand.

I've seen plenty worse examples but it would help keep discussion friendly if you could come across a little less aggressively/grumpily in the manner you express your post in this thread.

You yourself have been complaining for yonks that the A-X-1-0 is poor and it has now got an extra missile attack. Welcome the small boost rather than complaining!

Given that Epic-UK change their lists a lot less regularly (they're still using version 6.4 of the Tau list for example) the situation seems to be more that changes are trialed in the Net-EA list (including those willing to playtest it in the UK) with the potential that they may be adopted in a future Epic-UK update. Yme has said these changes are tentative and experimental and that they will need a lot of playtesting if they are to be adopted.

oquote="yme-loc"]1. Manta and AX-1-0 receive an additional seeker missile each mostly for background reasons (but they are expensive enough that one AT6+ shot has little bearing on performance to cost).[/quote]

seems fair


I think 1+ init to be better than adding a special rule, but I see your reasoning.


Good! but with the above new special rule I don't think they will ever taken anyway (at least I wouldn't). They'd be a BM liability. Should the drones benefit as well?


never take spaceships so will not be able to test


A nice boost, but I'd rather see them get Inspiring (Matt has added it in the Viror'la list)




It's nice that your willing to test a change. I think this is in the wrong direction though. I'm in the lance camp. The argument that it's a bad move because it's a "Eldar" rule isn't really valid though. It's the mechanic that's interesting, not the name. It could (and probably should) be called something else that's more in line with Tau technology.


Yeah a lowered cost will make it easier to consider them in the list building stage.

interesting changes yme

on the stealth suit issues maybe pre-plotting their deployment might work (as squat tunnelers) it would allow them to deploy deep in enemy table but avoid the blast marker/initiative problems but limit their arrival to later turns

The ionheads are 2 for 75 points, the others are 50 points each.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Overall like the changes.

Believe me I get that you don't want to add special rules, especially from other armies. But I must admit to finding it odd that you object so strongly to a Lance-like weapon effect (which as an Eldar player I'm not at all precious about), and yet you have added two more anyway: a special teleport rule, and... the Eldar Spirit Stones rule. I don't object to the bonded team change, I think it's logical, but you have to admit it looks odd. I'll admit to having been convinced about HHs and would rather see a "Penetrating Munitions" (Lance) effect but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Ethereal was always something I thought looked interesting, just difficult to justify with both the cost and the downside. There's always a big price pressure on upgrades and Tau have a few expensive upgrades and formations that are must-takes (skyrays, supreme commander, crisis). Given this, at 50 I am likely to pick them.

By the way I expect the problem with gun drones and stealth suits to linger - they still significantly reduce the chance of teleporting without BMs (basically halving the effectiveness of the special rule). Certainly an improvement though, some may take them.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I suspect the teleport rule should carry over to the drones? Not sure if this is too powerful or not?