Should Crisis suits be Infantry? |
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry?  Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:39 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Thats without even bringing drones into it (mine are 5 to a base, but with two drones). I could see a reduction in armour though if we are having the inclusion of drones bring them to Infantry. Though if oblitoraters are staying Infantry and Ravenors 3 to a base (rather than 5/6) then I suppose they should stay the same.
Forests I could see being on the Suits as LV roles seeing as in a jungle (40K board as a epic forest) would have the suits as a disadvantage - however in ruins or a city the JSJ ability combined with being able to take cover the suits really excell and treating them as infantry far better suits the ability of the unit to make use of scattered sections of solid terrain better than anything else in the game.
Nothing makes use of cover as good as a crisis battlesuit in cityfight (either being a much larger Eldar tank, or a vyper unable to gain a cover save even if they can see you).
Broadsides don't even have the problem Crisis suits do with terrain, I don't see a LV classification based of this being justified on just this. Could see their AT ability reduced to the same as a railhead though to compensate for the fact that they will move often than the railheads to try to get LOS, especially in cover. If we consider an epic turn to last as long as a 40K game the Hammerhead is likely to get about twice the number of useful shots off as it can redeploy after its target moves or is distroyed. The game balance thing not withstanding - though it would be nice to have to force tank armies to pay attention to a unit that can really only be removed with infantry if in cover. Helps with the AT Tank = win against Tau problem people have mentioned.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:44 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
To which I would add to Dobbsy's comments (because I support what he is saying), what we are really trying to arrive at is a set of values to playtest. So far, we've spent endless electrons arguing one way or the other without applying any testing of either hypothesis. Consequently, all we really have are a bunch of "feelings".
Since the decision is so close as to whether or not it should be one way or the other, what great harm can be done in trying them as Infantry or perhaps splitting the difference (because that seemed to be the closest we've been to agreeing) and make crisis infantry and broadsides LV/Walker.
Then at least we could have a position to move forward on. This debate is truly endless and might as well be concluded by the flip of a coin.
My concern about delaying the decision is that we are losing momentum because of the lack of direction. If you look back at the not to distant past, we had just started seeing a significant amount of playtesting with the 4.2.x versions that Tactica put together, but of late, very few appear to be playing.
So, I am asking you CS to do something and let us get back onto the path of progress.
/* RANT OFF I hadn't realized that I drifted into a rant, so all apologies
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:56 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Just wanted to point out that the past several weeks of slowing down in playtesting could be due to an end of the holidays.
Still if anything it encourages us to get this sorted out before Christmas when those of us who are away for the time being can get back to doing what we are supposed to be (which is obviously playtesting epic rather than studying for life changing exams or maintaining a family;))
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:09 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
Yes I agree with Honda that I think we are at the point of either just playtesting it, or having CyberShadow just make a discision (don't worry if you think you will make half the people mad, eventually you need to either ask JJ, or make a call). The rest is me replying back to the debate, so just skip this if you are tired of the whole thread.
asaura: Curious how you keep emphasising that we should not care about WH40K, and how Epic is such a different game. You use this argument to try and de-emphasis many of the main points put forth by the pro infantry crowd. However, you then in turn base your oppinion on Crisis being LV by stating that in WH40K they are just as likely to be targetted by anti-tanks weapons. Aren't you kind of using a double standard in regards to your own arguement? I mean if WH40K is such an entirely different game, then your point of using a lascannon against crisis is just as absurd, as you are basing it off the WH40K game. I think you have no choice but to accept that WH40K is the entire basis for epic.
Also, I would like to remind people that the Tau Jetpack is just that, a Jetpack. All jumptroops are Infantry. All crisis are jump troops. All Drones are Jump troops. They just get the option to use the Jetpack if they want. What does this mean? They can go anywhere infantry can go without any worry, and they can go places that infantry can't go. They do this by "WALKING". Drones can also "walk". They are only "Jumping" when clearing terrain, or when using the extra optional move. Yes they are technically walking the rest of the time. Food for though.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:27 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (RedDevil @ 28 Nov. 2005 (00:09)) | | asaura: ?Curious how you keep emphasising that we should not care about WH40K, and how Epic is such a different game. ?You use this argument to try and de-emphasis many of the main points put forth by the pro infantry crowd. ?However, you then in turn base your oppinion on Crisis being LV by stating that in WH40K they are just as likely to be targetted by anti-tanks weapons. ?Aren't you kind of using a double standard in regards to your own arguement? ?I mean if WH40K is such an entirely different game, then your point of using a lascannon against crisis is just as absurd, as you are basing it off the WH40K game. ?I think you have no choice but to accept that WH40K is the entire basis for epic. |
I'm not aware of ever referring to a 40K rule in an argument in favor of the same mechanic working in Epic. I think you have mistaken me for someone else.
I *have* acknowledged some of the few 40K rules I'm aware of to note why they wouldn't apply in Epic. I have talked about lascannons shooting at Broadsides as well as tank commanders yelling "Gunner - Sabot - Broadside", both of which are references to the fictional battleground we use Epic to depict with. I feel that lascannons should fire at Broadsides with good effect, whether they do that in 40K or not. I wouldn't even know, since I don't play that game.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:59 am |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
|
| Quote (Honda @ 27 Nov. 2005 (23:44)) | | Since the decision is so close as to whether or not it should be one way or the other, what great harm can be done in trying them as Infantry or perhaps splitting the difference (because that seemed to be the closest we've been to agreeing) and make crisis infantry and broadsides LV/Walker. |
You are absolutely right. This has gone on too long, and this is mostly my fault. For that, I apologise. We will set Crisis as Infantry, and Broadsides as LV+Walker.
I would like people to playtest these values and let me know how they perform. If they perform in character or out of character then please do let me know, with examples for the game and we will take it from there.
Hopefully, we can move on, adjust these stats as a result of playtest rather than abstract debate. And perhaps we can inject a bit more fun into the process along the way. 
Thanks guys._________________ 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.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Dobbsy,
I'm not trying to shut off the discussion, but we've really discussed about all the possible positions, so now it's time to decide.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:23 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Crisis = Inf. & B/Side = LV+walker ... works for me !  My next solution, would just make both LV+walker ... But the "C/S solution" should work just fine !
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Sorry CS but in my mind, defining what people who "don't play Tau consider a popular choice", can easily equate to "I wanna be able to shoot at it with everything because it gives me an advantage". |
I picked Dobbsy's comments just because they are recent, but he is far from the only one who has stated such things. His is at least the third I can think of off the top of my head. I find it a disturbing trend.
At the risk of being rude, I would ask that we please refrain from implying that others have malicious motives behind their opinions. It is not constructive and can quite easily give offense.
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
At the risk of being rude, I would ask that we please refrain from implying that others have malicious motives behind their opinions. It is not constructive and can quite easily give offense.
|
Neal, I support your statement fully and I do think we can learn from those who are not as intimately involved in the Tau list as we are.
That being said, I also think it is fair of those who are offering the "other" perspective (what ever that may be for the relevant issue) to support their statements with some playtest experience. General opinions are fine, but don't add that much value as there isn't anything to compare them to other than the perception of the person who offered the opinion.
I have been guilty of the same (different system) of giving/being asked to give opinions without playtesting and was incorrect in my assumptions as much as I was correct. If everyone is that balanced, then at best we have a coin toss on outside opinion.
So rather than continuing the philosophical nature of the debate, let's make a decision, then as a group validate the decisions with playtesting.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:55 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Dobbsy: No sweat. If it wasn't clear, I did not intend to single you out and have no hard feelings. That post was just the most recent in that vein.
My apologies if it was overly harsh. I have been known to cross a line from time to time.
Technically, I agree that it is a possibility, but so is the reverse. In any case, the people I know personally with a long track record in developing lists are split and to me that means this is legit and I don't want to see either side's motivations questioned.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RedDevil
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:56 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
|
|
asaura: Ah, I hope I have not mis-reprisented you then. I was getting the feeling that you were using the 40K reference, that people use Lascannons to shoot at Crisis, as a valid arguement that they should be able to be shot at by them in Epic. This is where I thought there was a conflict in that arguement, where on one hand it was stated that the arguement "they are infantry" was invalid as it is a 40K convention, while the "shoot lascannon" at crisis was for some reason okay, even that that too is also a 40K convention. If this was never your stance then I misdirected my comments.
However, just out of curiosity, if you don't play 40K at all and in no way care how things work in 40k, then what do you use to make decisions in Epic? It seams you would have no choice, but to make decisions out of a vacuum, as 40K is the soul source for mechnics and fluff.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Should Crisis suits be Infantry? Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:58 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
You are absolutely right. This has gone on too long, and this is mostly my fault. For that, I apologise. We will set Crisis as Infantry, and Broadsides as LV+Walker.
I would like people to playtest these values and let me know how they perform. If they perform in character or out of character then please do let me know, with examples for the game and we will take it from there. |
Tactica stretches, wipes eyes, and wakes up on this issue
Wow... percentage wise, we have a huge margin. Interesting. I did figure the 'nays' would be a bit closer by in percentage by now.
CS,
Looks like you've made a stake in the sand decision to commence the playtesting - fair enough.
I'll reflect this change in the WIP list as well.
Cheers for a decision on a place to start,
_________________
Rob
|
| Top |
|
|
