Which was done at the beginning of this test period. It was not implemented at the end and suddenly sprung on everyone just before the code was expected to be frozen. We are closing in on the end of a three month testing period. There were no surprises about the aggressiveness of the schedule. That doesn't mean that everyone agreed with the schedule, but it wasn't just sprung on you.



Perhaps they have been 1+ forever in your memory, but that doesn't mean that they've been 1+ forever. In fact, over the history of the lists, the opposite is true. The fact that no one has complained about this (other than those that complained that the list was unbalanced, un-fun to play against, etc.) does not mean that the unit/formation was properly balanced. In the Version 4 lists, none of the Tau players complained about the AX-1-0, myself included. It took TRC's and Ginger's efforts to prove that there was a balance issue...and grudgingly, we made those changes, but it was the right thing to do. A lot of Tau players complained about those changes as well. It was still the right thing to do.



The whole purpose of the series 6 lists was to create the framework that allowed the Tau to better represent their racial characteristics within the 40K universe. Players and opponents wanted the list to more accurately reflect their perceptions of how the Tau should play. These perceptions are borrowed from the 40K fluff and married to our experiences within the Epic framework.

1. As stated in an earlier post, there is nothing inherently wrong with fielding a force composed entirely of crisis suits. There is nothing in the existing fluff to support that at all (ref. IA3, latest 40K codex), where it appears from GW's perspective that just based on bodies, Crisis suits are on the order of 10-20% of the total bodies in a cadre (ref. Pg 22 of the Tau Codex), but since we are not obligated to strictly adhere to their guidelines, we are allowing for the ability to field all crisis.

2. Now here is where I think the real rub comes in. The assumption seems to be that because the Crisis suits are the best that the Tau have to offer (my personal opinion is that it is actually Stealth, but that's another discussion), that that should translate into equivalent characteristics of other race's best warriors. I don't subscribe to that belief. Everybody's best doesn't mean you are equal. If it did, WWII would have stopped at the French border in 1939.

3. So, what in fact do the Crisis represent? More experienced warriors with access to more powerful weapons systems. There is no disagreement with that representation and I think we are modeling those aspects fairly well. Crisis are able to do things that no other unit in the Tau army are capable of doing, though Stealth are close.

What we are really debating is the Crisis ability to enforce their "will" upon opposing forces, when faced with the best that someone else has to offer. In that framework, how should the Crisis perform? (Rhetorical)

As a race, should they be able to match moves with the best in the universe? In my opinion, "no". Should they be able to bring unholy amounts of firepower where ever and when ever they want? Again, my opinion is "no".

Should they be able to blend those capabilities into action a large percentage of the time? "Yes", they should. However, using the above framework, that does not necessarily mean that the bog standard crisis suit is a better overall warrior than say the gold standards of other lists.

So, there will be limits. I will be testing how the list will behave with three of these 1+ formations. You are free to do the same. Just add a Shas'el and the SC to three crisis formations.



I recognize that this is your opinion. What I have been asking for is empirical data to support yours and others request.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Okay, only for the last two years of playtesting.

Honda, I believe you are alone on this issue. Not a single community member appears to support your position on Crisis Suit units.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Maybe a vote would help?

_________________
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.

+1


Honda, in your re-arranging of the E-series to 6.0 didn't you spring the 2+ crisis suits on us without consultation? Can I ask you roughly where and when you came up with the 2+ initiative theory? Other than your own opinions/drive to change them was there any other factors that lead you to make the change? e.g were there many people asking for it etc?


It's as close as can be IMO. We don't truly "playtest" a list by just providing Batreps. Other testing needs to be done that just never gets done by "playing games", so what we do provide is the best we can get. Thus, 1+ crisis suits have been as close to balanced (e.g everyone but you agreeing) as we're likely to get without overhauling the unit entirely.

Seriously, Honda, we all want this to be brought to a conclusion, but standing your ground on things that no one else, so far, has come out and backed, seems pointless if you're the only one asking for it. The "empirical data" you ask for has already been provided over the previous years/versions. Tweaking the unit in the end stages (i.e arbitrarily changing them to the 2+ when no one asked for this) was unneccessary in what seems to be many folks' opinions.

OOh I forgot to ask about this E&C. Do you have confirmation on their return?

I am certain that FW will return some of the Tau range, and for the infantry... I am certain suitable proxies will become available to fill in for the OOP models.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This is not about your opinion or my opinion. It is about what is the right thing for the list. Period.

Let me state again, a decision has not been reached.

I, and I would encourage others who have an "opinion" on the outcome should test. I am not going to "give" the list anything at this point, it has to be earned. The risks and follow consequences regarding balance for the next year are significant, if incorrect.

If the community is truly as concerned about this issue as it states it is, then back up your concern with playtesting. Demonstrate that you have some skin in the game. Anybody can render an opinion.



Respectfully, Onyx, this issue is not about the consensus position.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

The problem with this "aggressive schedule" is that you, Honda, haven't followed it, re: timely updates/corrections.

It seems absurd to me to think that people are playtesting the v6 series correctly if the corrected documents have not yet been posted and that "freezing the code", despite people working from "faulty docs", just seems to be a bizarre stance to me.

---

Now, on to Crisis Suit formations: people have been asking for a reason/rationalization for your, honestly, "out-of-the-blue", change of their initative value since you released the documents and, other than a "well, they've got poor initiative in 40k, and I know it's not the same thing in EPIC" explanation, you haven't answered the question.  As far as I can recall *no one* had complained about Init 1+ Crisis formations, neither players nor opponents, and it was possible to take "almost all Crisis" armies in the past, but that aslo didn't rear any kind of ugly head.

What kind of "empirical data" are you looking for to gauge what Crisis suits should be?  Unfortunately, no data is going to really come out of my local circle as people, especially our power-gamer, are only bothering to take a single Crisis Cadre and putting the Shas'O in it, because a four unit formation that activates on a 3+ if it's taken fire and has a hard time shedding Blast markers is a waste of 250 points.  If a formation is not worth taking, it won't get taken, it won't get playtested, no comments will be made on it, and, thus, no complaints... that does *NOT* mean it's balanced.

And, from a "flavour" view: Battlesuit wears are the Tau equivalent of Aspect Warriors.  They are hardened, experienced, veteran troops using some of the Tau's best war technology; they are completely *elite* soldiers.  Are you honestly saying that you feel failing to do what they're supposed to 1-out-of-3 times is representative of the effectiveness of Stealth Battlesuit teams? (Six units, teleporting in, average 1 Blast marker, now activate on a 3+).  Or that Crisis Teams in a hot zone only respond correctly to said crisis on two thirds of the time they're called on?

As a similation of what Battlesuits are supposed to represent for the Tau, a 2+ Init makes them inferior to the other formations in the Tau army; instead of the creme, they are the crumbs.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Big difference; once those changes were made the majority came out in favour of them. Noone has come out in favour of 2+ suits.

As Chroma has said, freezing the list soon is a bad idea because the last 3 month period has been spoiled by not having a proper list. There are a huge number of typos in the list currently, many of which were pointed at as soon as it was released. If we don't know the correct stats for many units, how are we supposed to playtest them?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

You do also realize that this is coming on to the Christmas season for a large portion of the playtesting community?  Free time will be at a premium and getting games in will be difficult.

The local group has gotten in three Tau games vs a visiting Dobbsy this past week (batreps to be posted eventually) and we may get one or two more in, but once holidays kick in, I don't see myself having a lot of time to play any wargames, let alone make time to playtest Tau, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people will be in the same boat.

And, empirically, a single formation of Crisis to get the Shas'O in each army, that's it.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Honda, please, we understand you want playtesting but if those who have already playtested and said that 1+ inititive is poor and you ignore/override it, what point is there in playtesting? a few of us have posted batreps with this in mind already and you still require us to keep posting this conclusion. I have three batreps with Chroma coming up and it's one of the issues on Battlesuits across the board that came up in all three games. If this data is posted will it make any difference to you? How much playtesting of this issue do you reuqire before you will actually act on it? 20 games? 100 games? The problem I see with this is that

A/I don't think we need 100 games to show this as there's a ton of games in previous versions that already back this up and

B/your time frame does not provide us with the ability to give you this amount of data in the first place.

I agree that Stealths (as long as they recieve a price increase) could go to init 1+ as well as the Crisis units.

The background can justify it.


+1



I would note that the consequences of changing the stat at the last minute before fixing the list in place are even more dire... instead of being left with an underpowered list (2+ Crisis formations) there is a technical possibility of leaving the community with an overpowered list (a theorised 1+ init Crisis Horde).

Currently opinion in this thread appears to stand at 1 against (Honda) and 8 either for, or neutral.

I would note that the E series of proposals (which proved so popular as to ultimately change the direction of the ERC list) were largely formed by testing the temper of the community on each proposed change issue, sometimes with actual democratic votes in cases where my opinion stood at odds to the flow of discussion (the change in speed of Devilfish hulls comes to mind, I was in favour of keeping them at 25cm speed but the community voted for 30cm and the E series followed suit against my own opinion at the time... with hindsight I believe that the community was correct), and not simply by writing down my own opinions.

Obfuscation aside, it is the avowed opinion of one man at this time that Crisis formations should be initiative 2+.

=====

To be task-orientated:

The Task is to provide a balanced Tau list for the community to use.
The majority of the community appear to want initiative 1+ Crisis Suit formations.

Should not initiative 1+ Crisis Suit formations therefore be tested in order to ascertain whether or not adhering to the community's desire will result in a balanced list?

The task is not just to provide a balanced list, but to provide a balanced list that provides what the community wants.

Init 1+ turns out to be overpowered? (I don't think it will, because I think the current 2+ suits are underpowered)
Fine, increase points costs to balance things.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wow. As Neal once said to me, "It is amazing how fast the hobby turns into work."

I shouldn't have to remind anyone out here that we are all volunteers and -as long as the Army Champ is alive and posting every month- there should be considerable leeway granted to them regarding timetables.  You can't criticize that Honda hasn't been upkeeping the Tau in the same breath as saying you don't have time to playtest.  Starts with an H... ends with an E.

People in grass huts shouldn't throw spears or something to that effect.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Moscovian, you've completely misread the situation:  Honda has been the only one setting "deadlines", most pertinently, that Tau development will be "frozen" at the end of December 09 and left locked for one full year.

This was announced approximately three months ago, with the proviso that Honda would be producing monthly updates/correction during that time, at the start of each month.  We're in the last month before the freeze, soon into Christmas holidays, and none of these updates have been presented, despite there being glaring mistakes in the playtest documents that have caused confusion in testing.

Additionally, changes where made to certain units/formations that had not really been proposed before and people have been seeking clarification, again, not much has been forthcoming.

So, essentially, the deadlines for updates have been missed, yet the "final" deadline remains, *that* is what people are complaining about.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

And I say, "Oh well."  Raiders 2.0 was supposed to be done 7 months ago and it hasn't been.  People said they were going to playtest the Necron changes and I haven't seen any batreps.  

The U.K. and the U.S. have been hit very hard by the recession and many of us are working longer hours for less pay.  I assume from my reading the same thing is happening in Canada (although to a lesser degree).  People are stressed.  Free time is at a premium.  And the pay here at Tactical Wargames sucks.    Face it, there is no sense of urgency from the community and WHY WOULD THERE BE?  Real life trumps all.  

Things will not always be ideal and if a schedule has to be changed to meet the Army Champ's needs, then so be it.  Maybe he needs things to be frozen because he is going to be busy for the next x months?  As lone as x doesn't equal TWENTY, I think we should just take a deep breath.  If you don't like how something is written, play it with your own house rules until things get sorted out.  Then throw out the batrep with how you played.  The data is valuable no matter what.  

When the Necron & Squat / Demiurg discussions were going on I was miserable and everyone knew it.  The best thing I ever did was take a month off from the forums.  I am a changed man; a leaf on the wind.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.