BM Management |
|
Honda
|
Post subject: BM Management  Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
OK, seriously... if my C&C is well planned, and principly followed, but my strategy is limited to the formation level focus and individual flexible fighting elements are making their own calls, that is a lack of cohesive strategy in comparison to the marines who are fighting under a single warmaster ultimately.
|
I realize that we are debating a topic built from fiction, but I do think we need to take into account all the "facts" we have at our disposal and not try to recreate or mold the list to campaigns that occurred in the distant past.
Consider:
1. In the Taros campaign, the Tau recognized that their fleet would not stand up to the Imperials (despite superior technology) and so developed a quite sophisticated campaign approach to stretch the Imperial navy so that the Tau fleet could exert influence on the Imperial logistics, which in the long run was the deciding campaign factor. The Tau even went as far as sacrificing one of their brand new capital ships (i.e. A'Rho sp?), while other segments of the fleet preyed upon the defenseless transports.
In my mind that is a very clear indication of their capabilities and thorough understanding of their opponent. I think any naval buff would characterize that as being quite clever.
2. The Tau approach to the invasion. The fluff specifically states that there were two camps developing the response to the Imperial invasion, one proposing a decisive one shot attack while the initial forces were disembarking and the strategy that they did employ, which was let them land and fight a battle of logistics. The first approach any idiot could have come up with, the second took superior insights into how the campaign would be waged.
3. During the entire ground war, the Imperials were consistently out-thought and in most cases out-fought. Even the Space Marines suffered (e.g. Govenors Palace).
So, based on "historical" information of current operating procedures and strategies, I would say that the Tau have elevated themselves to quite a high level.
If shas'whatever is in charge of formation and Shas'blah is in charge of formation 2, and we are both working towards the same goal (a win for the greater good), but doing it in our own way... that is a strategy, maybe not the best one, but its a stategy that appears to be fairly centric to the Tau in IA3 when we start looking at multipe force orgs or multiple formations on the field of battle. C&C is therefore impacted by that view or principle of battle strategy IMHO.
Adeptus and Imperial and chaos all have warmasters and his/her clergy, retinue, staff, administratum, etc... that are all working to strategically coordinate much much much larger fronts from a single source or office. Tau just don't work in that manner.
|
What I am inferring from your statement is that "different" isn't good or to use the corporate term, "best practice". I would have to say that I'm not agreeing with you at this point.
Planning and practicing what you know is one thing. Ability to control your troops and follow your orders is another. Innovative development and adaptation to environment is another. The list goes on... Ability to take all these _and more_ elements of a battle into consideration and apply your guiding strategic vision to that while expecting exacting execution is another.
Don't disagree with what you are stating, however, I don't see the Tau portrayed as suffering in these areas. In fact (using IA3 as the source), they displayed a high degree of discipline in holding back on their attacks and only prosecuted the war when the (to borrow a Russian term) "force ratios" were in their favor and the Imperials were beginning to suffer from logistical failure. In fact, I might offer that the Tau took the "long" view of the campaign with their strategy, which indicates sophisticated strategic capabilities and reasoning. That they were able to fight the battle on their terms for the majority of the conflict also indicates extremely strong C&C.
We can obviously debate this ad nauseum, but I think a fairly strong case could be made for elevating Tau command. Now whether or not, from a game balance perspective, we can do that is another issue.
My two yen...
|
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:06 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
|
I don't think there's any debate anymore about the need for some small tweaks (well, I hope they're small) in the way Tau deal with BMs.
Tasty: The whole 'bonding' think actually strikes me as funny. I'm active duty military, and the phrase 'Band of Brothers' is not a joke. Your squadmates are your brothers-by-choice.
(to paraphrase 'My rifle') "This is my squad. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My squadmates are my best friends. They are my life. I must master them as I must master my life. Without me, my squad is useless. Without my squad, I am useless. From now until the end of days. Until there is no enemy, but peace." That may not quite be right, it's been a long time since I've said the rifleman's prayer. But it should be very close. If that's the way someone who volunteers for this job can be taught to think at 18 (OK, I was 21), how do you think that someone who's been taught from birth that he is the shield of his people would think. The Fire Warriors are like the Samurai (or Knights) of old. They live and breathe war, for the purpose of waging war better than their opponent. They are possibly even more single-minded than Marines. Marines at least are encouraged to find other outlets (Puppies party, IFists scrimshaw, BlAngels paint, etc.) There's no fluff that mentions any kind of break for Fire Warriors (that may just be a lack of development on GWs part, though).
Nonetheless, the effect is the same if all units are bonded individually vice bonded at a 'company' level. Both IA3 and all the Tau battle reports in WD had every unit bonded. I don't bond Crisis suits in 40k, but I run pairs of suits. I'm not real sure why, if GW assumed that they would all be bonded, they didn't just write a racial special rule and be done with it. 
_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:04 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Tasty, 2+ CF with a SC reroll is effectively 1+ init. In most games, you are not going to see multiple CF in the same turn, so the point about CF is relivent, but lessor of a concern at the typical tournament level.
Marines ahve 1+ init and can take two other squads into combat with them. CF is modelled on the same rule.
CF has its own limits in the tau list as taking three of our formaions to do a task gets expensive and can really put you behind in an activation race.
I'm not going to get into a CF debate, but its just not all its cracked up to be.
If our only concern is +1 to CF attempt, that's a concern - I'll agree - and it needs testing, but in the end, its really not that big of a concern... not enough to keep us from trying it anyway - should the masses decide to go forward with it.
Regards to the special rule proposal of bonding, how it works in 40K (squad level) and how the majority of squads that are bonded (in E:A) may definitely impact the game differently.
However, special rule creation - unless desired by CS, is really a futile effort.
If CS was all for it, and got JJ's initial response on the topic, that could propel us forward... however, without a 4.3.2 list in the vault for JJ to reference the new proposal against, and without feedback on that 4.3.2 list, I think JJ is going to obstain from any feedback on a special rule at this time.
We would further our cause by working within the existing rules at 'this' time considering the status of outdated v4.1 list in vault.
Just my thoughts.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
OK, to move on here and hopefully get to decision... here's what I propose go into the next Tau WIP list...
1) Shas'el upgrade down to 25 points. Would be purchasable for FW, crisis, broadsides.
2) Drone Vox Array (DVA) 25 points. Would add leader to a vehicle unit in the formation. Would be purchasable for Hammerhead, Stingray, Dragonfish, Moray, Manta.
3) Initiative adjustment to 1 for Crisis, Stealths, Dragonfish, Moray, Manta.
Whatcha think?
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:29 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
CS,
bringing these comments over here as the other 'leaders' thread is specially talking to various leaders that people want and all kinds of stuff.
From your other post...
Blast Management - I would like to put this to bed and ask for playtesting experience on the following:
Shas'o (+150 points)
Type: Infantry - Speed: 25cm - Armour: 3+ - Close Combat: 6+ - Firefight: 5+
Twin-linked Missile Pods - 45cm - AP4+/AT4+
Twin-linked Plasma Rifles - 30cm - AP4+
Twin-linked Fusion Blasters - 15cm - MW4+ and (15cm) Small Arms - Macro Weapon
Commander Plasma Rifle - 30cm - AP4+
Notes: Tau Jet Packs, Invulvnerable Save, Tau Supreme Commander (Bonded Leader instead of Leader, Coordinated Fire instead of Commander)
Shas'el (+100 points)
Type: Infantry - Speed: 25cm - Armour: 3+ - Close Combat: 6+ - Firefight: 5+
Twin-linked Missile Pods - 45cm - AP4+/AT4+
Twin-linked Plasma Rifles - 30cm - AP4+
Twin-linked Fusion Blasters - 15cm - MW4+ and (15cm) Small Arms - Macro WeaponCommander Plasma Rifle - 30cm - AP4+
Notes: Tau Jet Packs, Invulvnerable Save, Coordinated Fire, Bonded Leader
Bonded Leader - Any formation with at least one unit within 15cm of a unit with the Bonded Leader ability may count that 'leader' unit as part of its formation for the purposes of the 'leader' ability.
Dragonfish - The Tau Supreme Commander ability would be changed to match the one described for the Shas'o.
Adding these to the force - The points values are approximations right now, and possibly a little undervalued. These two upgrades would be available anywhere that the Crisis upgrade is available (in addition to it), and still count towards the maximum number of upgrades permitted for formations.
*Deep breath* OK, I realise that this is a departure but I do feel that it will help to address the blast marker issue which is clearly something that is a problem. It relies on mostly existing mechanics and rewards a combined arms style, not just when selecting the Tau force but also on the battlefield.
I nervously await your comments, but I would like this playtested to see if it flies. |
CS,
Hmm...
These will add a significant amount of cost to exisiting formations. They will also add additional models to legacy tested formations. You are effectively affording an option to increase old formation sizes.
As a result, we'd be adding a lot of cost all over the place to bolster formation sizes. We'd also add in 'bonded leader' special rule/concept...
We would be doing all of this for what? _ To simply satisfy 'leader' and 'initiative' needs in the list?
With all due respect, I really don't like this suggestion.
Furthermore, I think we are going to encurage the importance of a single stand and its command radius irrationally at this scale. We are going to encourage a 'gathering' mode of fighting when tau are historically very indvidualistic fighting formations of elite.
This has a very VERY 40K IG feel to it. If IG in E:A don't get command radius, I cannot see how the masses are going to accept this.
Furthermore, I thinks its a special rule that doesn't need created.
See above in this thread.
We can solve certain formations not recovering from being broke by an initiative bump to certain formations.
We can solve the need of leader by gear upgrade for limited vehicles.
We can solve infantry leader need by affording a leader to the formations.
I think special rules are unnecessary for solving our problem. I think IG-ish feeling special rules are in bad taste and a bit of an insult to the IG in E:A (as both an IG and Tau player).
Just my feelings CS,
_________________
Rob
|
