|
Whew. OK, so as far as I can pull things together, there are two issues here.
1. The naming convention is out of kilter with that used by 40K conventions. On the one hand, this is an easy issue to change, but on the other hand wont make a huge impact on the list. The terminology could be changed in the list, but I am not sure that this would adequately address the issues raised initially in this thread. If this went ahead, would it make the list in any way 'easier' to use or fit in better with other systems?
2. The force structure can be changed, but this is a question of degrees. I am initially opposed to fundamentally altering the list structure in a move which would bring it back towards that laid out in E40K. This would place the emphasis on unit selection, and reduce the character of the 'building blocks' of any EA force.
The next stage along would be to limit some units as upgrades only (as suggested in a previous post). The question here is - if the 40K 'formation' runs something along the lines of '8 Fire Warrior units, Devilfish, 4 Tetra and 4 Pathfinder units', do these units actually operate together in battle? That is, they may be initially assigned as a single unit, but do they remain within a certain operating distance or battlefield role? (Personally, I doubt it, since it would allow a huge flexibility in force selection, which was then totally countered by forcing the constituant units to function in a single role.)
I have to admit that a similar train of thought occurred to me with the new codex. That the Tau operate as a very fluid set of formations which are selected at a low level in a 'task force' mentality. The fundamental question here is one of the size of the building blocks which are used for this. In some ways, there is always a sense of scaling up these building blocks. In 40K, the standard Marine block is the squad, which would be represented by two Marine units and a Rhino in Epic... but this is doubled in EA. Inperial Guard formations undergo similar, more extreme scaling. So, when we take on board that the 'cadre' is a fluid formation with members and uits dispersed on the battlefield, often operating as if they were independent formations, and the fact that most core building blocks are scaled up to about double size in EA compared to 40K, I dont think that we are actually too far wrong on this.
That said, I am perfectly happy to put questions, comments and questions to Jervis, but it may be advisable to form them concisely and in a way that suggested a short (if not one word) answer. I only suggest this as it may help us to get a response faster. Secondly, I would not like to see Fire Warriors marginalised any further than they already are. The core infantry type in any EA force is an important definer of the force. Even if limiting the FW numbers would conform more fully to established background, I would think at least twice before pushing them a step further back into the shadows.
_________________ https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond. https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
|
?
]