Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Updated force list, phase one Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:47 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I would be okay with Broadsides as AV/walker, but I still prefer LV/walker.  If a Termie squad with more troopers and the same save is vulnerable to AP, I'm not sure that making Broadsides immune to it is a good thing. Still, if it becomes a play balance issue with LV, I would prefer AV over infantry. I think the Crisis Suit definitely needs to be considered carefully both ways.  Both arguments are solid. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Updated force list, phase one Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:17 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

Quote (dysartes @ 18 Nov. 2005 (07:52)) clausewitz> As a matter f fact, chief, War Walkers are normally selected as a squadron, with a unit size of 1-3 (in 40k)or in Epic as a Tropue of six - ie, two full squadrons. Units of armourd walkers with a size restriction of 1-3? Mounting powerful weapons? And iloted from within the chest cavity (or equivalent)? Sounds like a LV to me again..... Warwalkers, like warbuggys, ork trucks, space marine land speeders, many dark eldar vehicles - are all armour 10 vehicles in 40K, have been defined as light armored vehicles, and have moved over into Epic as light vehicles. No suprise there - warwalkers are indeed LV. Based upon what we know from Tau codex and FW IA3 descriptions, backgrounds, and 40K rules: Stealths = power armor. Crisis = power armor. Broadsides = terminators. Tactica> Fact #1: While Battlesuits all have an infantry profile in 40k, so does the Wraithlord - does this mean it should be of type INF as well, instead of AV?

The basis of these development efforts should be to make them what they are - infantry. However, if through playtest they could NOT be made to be what they actually are due to balance, then I would agree that they needed to be converted to whatever afforded them balance. For all I know, a champion could have made the decision to give them more E:A 'power/effectiveness' intentionally, and comprimised that with LV status intentionally.

Fact #2: If there's no balane issues with it beingINF instead of LV/Walker, why shouldn't they stay as LV/Walker, other than to appease people with buckets o' rhetoric?
D,

That was a shot - I'm a bit stunned by that from you... but OK, I'll answer.

Its simple - their not WE, Aircraft or play-doh for that matter. They are infantry. I think we owe it to AMTL fans to keep a warlord a Titan, a Knight a WE with 1 DC. Making the Knight a tank would offend many people unnecessarily - because its not a tank at all.

A crisis and broadside are infantry just like stealths, marines, terminators, obliterators, ogryn, roughriders, etc.

Furthermore, battlesuits are based upon 2-3 crisis troops plus drones - not just a single crisis - they meet all requirements of E:A to be infantry.

If their not broken as infantry, not broken as LV - then why would we NOT try to make them what they are? That's the question. Why would we try to make them anything BUT what they actually are - if we can?

Do we not owe it to the fans of Tau to make a unit what it actually is - if we can?

Fact #3: Those who are a fan of the "Tau franchise history" have obviously not read all the source material.
I'll admit that I haven't studied IA3 properly yet myself, but from a skim-read, I haven't seen anything that contradicts what was presented in Kill Team.

And that's part of the problem. Everyone has an opinion, each has varying amounts of merit.


Side question - as I don't own IA3 (but will be trying to borrow it next week), what does the FW Epic list class XV8 & XV88 as?

That's easy - LV. Its also a loaded question, I applaud your politics. As its been posted on the E:A board more than once - the E:A tau list is very very flawed. Example: the manta is a support craft and an aircraft. there's also no rules on how to use this. I could go on, but I'll spare you.

If you were aware of how that Epic list go into IA3, you would know that it was simply a cut and paste of v4.0 Tau with FW's attempt to make rules up for their models. Its a joke of list that has so many problems that it hasn't been allowed in several tournaments.

The E:A list in FW is little basis for much anything.


Fact #4: Agreed.



Fact #5: The franchise history (as you keep putting it) is out there - it just doesn't say what you think it does.

What? Then enlighten me - what does it say. I think its been expressly documented here - in detail. It says exactly what it says - it says they are infantry in armor. That's as of yet, undisputed.

I'll save you the time of digging - here's the verbatum reference - it starts on page three of this post that's here. Sorry you couldn't wiegh in during the debate at the time:

Epicomms battlesuit INF vs LV


In fact, the main reason you seem to be arguing this point is so you can gain more in-game benefits from the unit type by being able to more efficiently make use of cover.

LOL - no, no, no. First - its not a matter of fact. Its your assumptions and speculation at best.

I'm not trying to make a unit gain more in game benefit. I would just like them to use what they are supposed to be able to use. I firmly believe there's no reason to give the unit a negative all other infantry don't recieve for no reason. I defend the stance that we make it what it is - not arbitrarily make it something else for no better reason than satisfying people whom want them to have some unnecessary weakness in the game.

You see, its a perspective thing.

I say - make them what they are, they will have the weaknesses and strengths for being just that - infantry.

You say, make them something their not, LV - because you like the weaknesses - even if unfounded.


Fact #6: Is not strictly a fact, and shouldn't be treated as such. There are those of us who haven't had chance to post on this subject due to other commitments
Its good to see the nay-sayers are rallying the troops. We can have a good large public debate.

- are you trying to say our voices shouldn't be heard in this debate just because we disagree with you?

Yeah - that's it, you got me... heh, good job.