Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
Onyx
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:04 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Quote: (Honda @ 23 Jan. 2009, 06:47 )

This has never been an issue for me. I like the twist it provides to the list. In all of my games with the RSTs, my opponents never agonize over them at all. They kill them as quickly as they can because they understand what their potential is.

That is the issue.

I have seen an entire Guard tank army waste an entire turn trying to clear Sentry Turrets from the surrounding area and this lead to them being thrashed in the end (LINK Please note, I'm not intersted in a tactical review of the game, just pointing out how much it can hamstring the opposition to have to kill multiple Sentry Towers).

I've always placed Sentry Towers in cover so -1 to hit and usually a better Cover Save.

One of my local opponents just ignores Sentry Towers and thunders across the table (these games are usually much more interesting and close) whereas my brother is so cautious, it usually costs him the game.




_________________
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Onyx, the point is well made about 'agonising' over whether to attack the RST or not. However, I think that the game you cite each turret was treated as an individual formation, and was allowed to be deployed in the opponents table-half, thus requiring a ridiculous amount of overkill to remove them. I agree this was totally absurd.

I think we are all agreed that the things ought to be deployed in the Tau table-half and limited by the usual mechanisms to 2-3 formations for a 3000 point army. This approach will make them more reasonable, because it will take far fewer formations to destroy them should the opponent decide to do this.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Onyx @ 23 Jan. 2009, 00:04 )

I've always placed Sentry Towers in cover so -1 to hit and usually a better Cover Save.

Trying... to keep... quiet... *GAH*

The Sentry Towers are "light vehicles" which means they don't get to take cover saves, they only get the -1 to be hit when in cover and must take their normal save.

If they were getting cover saves for being in ruins or something, I can see how they'd be even more annoying to the opponent!




_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:21 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Honda, PM sent to you and CS as requested, though as a 'non-Tau' player, I am not sure I should be championing this. Should I also post these here as they are largely what people have seen already?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Ginger,

I would rather that once the consensus position has been arrived at, that you wait until CS and I complete our discussion. Then we will post it in it's final form.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
shmitty
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:36 am
Posts: 207
Well, if that is settled, what's next?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:14 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Quote: (Chroma @ 23 Jan. 2009, 07:41 )

Quote: (Onyx @ 23 Jan. 2009, 00:04 )

I've always placed Sentry Towers in cover so -1 to hit and usually a better Cover Save.

Trying... to keep... quiet... *GAH*

The Sentry Towers are "light vehicles" which means they don't get to take cover saves, they only get the -1 to be hit when in cover and must take their normal save.

If they were getting cover saves for being in ruins or something, I can see how they'd be even more annoying to the opponent!

My wording wasn't really accurate there.

They were almost always in woods so there was no difference to the save (5+ either way). It seems I have an uncanny ability to make 5+ saves often...

The -1 was much bigger factor.

There would have only been a handful of times where we got the save wrong. Thankyou for your correction of our mistake.

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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Well, if that is settled, what's next?


Working on that right now as we have accomplished quite a bit of late. I would say, feel free to stand down for today while CS & I sort out where we are.

If we decide that we're good, then we'll probably go quiet for a short bit to update and review the list. From there, we'll submit the list to a peer review for comments/concerns/criticisms. If something significant comes up, we'll address it (we may bring the topic here to be resolved). Then final revisions and release.

Then the fun part...testing.

One thing I wouldn't mind the team kicking around while we are in this phase, is drawing up test cases. By that I mean, one way to start off testing is not to use your favorite list, but to try extremes. A good example of this is TRC's "Five Aces" run.

So, in our case, you might run a couple of games with the Manta in it and see what it does.

In all cases, we should strive to test at a point range of 2700 - 3000 pts. The reason I say that is because it is where a majority of games are played at, but also at much higher levels, the performance of individual units tends to get diluted or countered, thus masking the true effect.

So, what I will do is open up a new thread for test cases. Until the list is published, we'll have to stick to generic conditions (i.e. something like "3 Pathfinders w/Manta"), after which we can post specific lists that were tested.

I would still like everyone to post as many battle reports as they can. Which is the preferred location, the battle report section or the wiki? Remember, we want our efforts to be visible to the general community as well.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Shmitty & Onyx, just sent a revised proposal over which I hope you will like. Could you comment so we can put this to Honda, CS (and Chroma)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:18 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Quote: (Hena @ 23 Jan. 2009, 18:52 )

What happens to move of units with Tau Jump Pack? Dropped to 15cm? This would allow them to garrison which Crisis at the moment cannot.

I'm still not liking that change at all. I think it's not a large problem of balance, but merely just a bad way of representing the ability.

Why would it drop to 15cm?

You know that Crisis Suits presently move 25cm. If you have read zombo's proposal, you would know that only 5cm is to be removed.

25-5=20cm.

No garrisoning and nothing unusual to deployment or maneuverability.

_________________
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Honda @ 23 Jan. 2009, 11:38 )

I would still like everyone to post as many battle reports as they can. Which is the preferred location, the battle report section or the wiki? Remember, we want our efforts to be visible to the general community as well.

Posting battles in the "Battle Reports" section of the forum is probably the best, you'll get exposure and comments from people who don't frequent the Tau section.

Don't forget to use my Battle Report Log Sheets for ease of reporting!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:44 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
I read the one that is available to me.

And the link you posted actually states 5cm reduction.

And at a Double there's no extra moevement at all. It's really not worth rejecting the rule because of 5cm.

Now if you moved this all to offboards where I cannot follow it then ...
Not really sure what you mean by that. I'm not aware of anyone discussing Jump Packs via PM (why would they, the rule is good and it seems that most don't mind it).




_________________
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.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Ain't No Mountain High Enough...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Umm, While I agree it is definitely worth testing, if we really want to cut down on special rules, I would suggest that adopting 'Hit-&-run' as Chroma suggests would work equally as well as this proposal.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 9
  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net