Abetillo wrote:
So this is based on UK list and not NetEA's from what i read. Interesting. I am liking so far the direction this is taking, even though i think is going to be hard with so many suits, making them different both when playing and on the miniature, but for now the first part looks well.
Well I see it as bit of both Matts netEA and the UK list. I've borrowed the two core formations structure from the UK list. I think they capture and focus the list in a way that I like and that suits the theme. But the support section and basic stats are from netEA.
Abetillo wrote:
What i don't like is seeing so many weapons whose stats are very similar to existing ones, but i suppose that you want to go with WH40k load out faithfully.
Do you have any examples? I don't think we need to follow 40k faithfully. I look up the 40k stats and have looked att available backrground to get a feel for how strong the different weapons are. So it's a combination to use as a guide for epic stats. But it's just a guide I think playability in epic always has to come first.
Abetillo wrote:
- Good move with the Pathfinders, they were barely used. I love also having 3 core option as 2 is quite restricted. Seems good for them to have Skyrays but i don't think many will try and will put them on FW instead. Only concerns are that 2 Pathfinders are way better than 2 Devilfish due to the unit themselves and infantry perks but because of garrisoning too, so probably better 5 vs 4+2, and that the formation could be used to get more support formations but it is early to think about it.
5 or 4+2 has merit. I agree two Devilfish are not equal to two PF units.
Only Fire Warriors formations unlocks support choices so I'm not to worried about PF spam.
Abetillo wrote:
- About the Manta transport, i don't think that 3 big suits amount to 4 Hammerheads, even more given than they have to be on their knees to fit or even more to the ground as the hangar is supposed to be just the height of a Hammerhead and i would like to see one fully filled with suits, so i would go by that 6 can be taken per Manta, which is a fair number (3 infantry and half a Hammerhead), or 3 big suits and 12 infantry. Nine seems too much in several ways but could be tested. By the way, how about the Ghostekeel? Count as 1 as Broadsides? The wording would go like: or instead they can carry 6 big suits or 3 big and 12 infantry. Find hard to see them with Hammerheads at the same time or adding a count like X line.
I haven't found any guide in the background fluff as to how many it can carry and the 40k rules doesn't mention riptirdes. And to confuse matters more the amount of troops it can transport has changed between editions in 40k.
If we would follow the current 40k rules then it should be able to carry 40 epic infantry units (55 troopers in upper deck, 145 lower deck + four devilfish/hammerhead vehicles).
So I think we have a lot of leeway in how we want to do this. I mean we can co it whatever way we seem fit I don't feel constricted by the 40k rules.
I basically went with something that I thought was easy/convenient. A way not to have to rewrite the transport section so much. Another could be to say they take up all of lower deck. Perhaps let it carry 12inf (upper deck) + 6 heavy suits (lower deck). But the drawback is that the transport note becomes really bloated and fiddly.
Abetillo wrote:
- Don't really see the reason to drop the Crisis, they are fluffy with Tau, with Vior'La and with the idea of this list. Please put them back, as support formations. Also, for this list, Crisis have the right to be in way more than Hammerheads, which don't fit it well, but are Ok as they are more restricted.
I was thinking, FW Cadres are taken a lot while Crisis are barely taken, so why not giving the Cadre Fireblade and the Breacher (or something similar in stats) to Crisis instead and help with balancing both instead of making the more desirable formation even more desirable? They have lots of weapons which would justify it from fluff too.
Making them upgrades was what the uk guys had done. I guess I just copied that. I found it to be a good way to get the Shas'o there. Crisis are the elites where the commanders go and I wanted to make them [commanders] available to the FW formation. I'm not married to the idea though and could see the crisis formation stay, but as a support formation. I don't want to mess with peoples collection.
Abetillo wrote:
- In my opinion, you should avoid like hell making the three Heavy Battle suit formation suits cost the same. There will be always one that will be taken more by a large margin NO MATTER how well they are balanced, like it happens in many lists out there, and in this case it is harder as the weapons on the Riptide need to be balanced between them. How about making the base 3 Y'Vahra for 275 points which are the weaker by a margin now as long as they don't have any deep striking capabilities and an option to replace them with 3 R'Varna for +25 points and with 3 Riptides for +50 points? It will be way easier to balance too.
I agree. The Y'vahra are not as good or versatile as the others. 275 for them or +25 pts each to upgrade to riptide/R'varna
Abetillo wrote:
- R'Varna: If you are doubting on the AT4+ why not make it AP4+/AT5+ (or even AP3+ maybe) instead and leave them for Infantry and light/medium vehicle hunting role like in the fluff you quoted and leave the big guys hunting for the Stormsurge and the general purpose to the Riptide?
wiki wrote:
All XV107 R’varna Battlesuits are armed with twin Pulse Submunitions Cannons as standard. Unlike standard Pulse Weapons, these powerful cannons fire clusters of sophisticated micro-submunitions that detonate in close proximity to their target in a storm of separate pulse-discharges, showering a wide area with deadly effect. Larger targets such as bulky infantry, monstrous creatures and vehicles inevitably suffer proportionally greater harm from Pulse Submunitions Cannons, as they can be struck with a wave of near-simultaneous detonations, magnifying the blast and ripping them apart.
They're described as being better at killing vehicles. So I think a higher AT than AP or at least not more AP is easier to justify from a background perspective.
Abetillo wrote:
- Y'Varna: like them but how about a weak 30cm shoot, if not i think that they are going to be quite restricted and a very niche unit like this.
Both background and 40k rules suggest an extremely short ranged unit, but if we find it to be a to bad/never taken choice after testing then sure I'd think the first thing would be to give it a 30cm shot. Hopefully the lower price will be incentive/balance enough
Abetillo wrote:
- Riptide: like the general weapon load out and more than the previous but i would like to propose some tweaks:
I think that the Ion Accelerator needs to go up to 3+ to balance it with the Burst Cannon and to make it different to the Blaster.
And how about making the Burst Cannon closer in role to the other Burst Cannons, which are an infantry geared and fast firing (AA) at least in Epic? It seems strange that this option has both AT and Lance when the others had none, so what do you think about 4x AP3+ or 3x AP4+/AT6+? Also it would look more fluffy with more shots given that is an overcharged weapon in WH40k.
I retained the same stats as in Vior'la 1.9 for the cannon. I think we can justify the AT shot with it being a heavy and also nova charged burst cannon. The lance part I based on them having rending in the 40k edition before current. I think they need lance to compensate for the loss of the 45 cm MW attack. They should be able to hit hard and get rewarded for closing with the enemy.
Abetillo wrote:
- Supremacy: liking having options for it, as it is the biggest guy, instead of how it were.
Tri-Axis Ion cannon seems weird that it only has AT when a normal Ion Cannon has AP too.
About the missiles, why not make them 5x AT6+ or a powered up Stormsurge with 3xAT5+ and leave the MW for the Pulse Ordinance lke Atension proposed? It is fluffy in that it is a big guy hunter with several shoots and it is not direct fire either while still a fluffy Tau weapon. It will also add to help with seeing more Pathfinders on the games on a list focused on them.
Kyrt wrote:
atension wrote:
I think it was put forward before but I always envisioned the main weapon with a guided 3x 90 cm MW 4+ shots. It has the draw back of requiring something to be marked to fire at it but when it does get to shoot its going to do some damage!
No idea if the MW4+ stats line up but this is my thought exactly - takes care of two issues: the barrage, and the risk-free alpha strike. If you want to do this you have to move/teleport/land some markerlights down first.
One thing though is, the guided missile rule doesnt require a sustain fire order, so this needs to be considered.
Given that they could be used for Overwatch, lowering to 5+ should be considered.
Good luck and congrats on the AC.
Thanks!
Atensions suggestion is basically what I tried to do with the Nexus Missile Array. Both the array and the ordinance driver could be justified to be guided missile attack in epic. Having both do that seems like a bit boring and between the two I find it's the array that fits best. It's also harder to justify another kind of attack for it than the pulse driver.
I belive MW4+ is to strong. The 6+ might be to cautious though, perhaps 5+ is a better starting ground like you suggest.
A lot of other good discussion guys on the list theme will digest and get back to you later in the evening. Glad to have your feedback.
cheers