Page 4 of 6

[ 86 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire
The_Real_Chris	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:48 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Quote (Xisor @ 01 May 2006 (21:19)) Cheers, Xisor Variables - Good idea, harder to balance (not to say it shouldn't be tried). Firewarriors as core - You certainly ensure there are a lot more firewarriors around! Do you think though that its very similar to marines? I.e. The core marine unit is the Tactical marine, going to every battle etc etc. Okay he does most of the time in Epic too but thats because hes a good deal. They still have seperate Pred, Land raider etc formations even though these guys are in direct support in the fluff and only occasionally is a Land raider squadron mentioned (with no mention of pred or vindie squadrons). And what, you don't like all Hammerhead formations? The problem with this is that formations based on infantry get shredded by things like Leman Russ companies. Many a time my heavy tanks have let rip at a mech or infantry formation at 30cm. Really there is nothing left (plus you get to throw 40 different coloured dice and left a psycological scar on the opponent). The best thing to job a Russ formation (other than cheap TK planes ) is another armour formation. You need speed to intercept the tanks, you need weapons to scrap them and you need AV armour to reduce incoming fire and give you a chance of saving if you've made a mistake setting up the attack. 4 Hammerheads, 4 Swordfish and 2 Skyray for 700 points have a grand chance against 10 Russ and a Hydra (though probably a Russ company plus Hydra and 3 more russ is more common vs 8 Hammerheads 4 Swordfish and 2 Skyray). With the chance for co-ordinated fire from another formation (the old pathfinder double, mark, sustain sustain) or and great mobility allowing pop ups and better chance of cross fires they are ready to rock and roll. Add in Firewarriors instead of tanks the AT firepower drops and the Russ have a target to use their heavy bolters on. Surely based on their mastery of modern tactics the Tau would tell the infantry to go and secure the nearby town, then mass their armour and ambush the tanks? _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

Xisor	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 7:13 am
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm Posts: 515	Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 02 May 2006 (06:48)) Many a time my heavy tanks have let rip at a mech or infantry formation at 30cm. TRC, There's a reason Hammerheads have a range of 75cm.   On a more serious note: That's a perfectly valid point. However, Tau must surely have better ways of getting the job done. Matching the Imperium 1 for 1 doesn't seem the Tau 'way'. A couple of formations sitting a good 50cm back trading railgun shots[from their broadsides and hammerheads] seems feasible. That is: 8 Fire Warriors +  2 Broadsides + 2 Hammerheads[475pts a piece] in v4.4 would become a Cadre more suited to, as I proposed: 4 FW + 4 Broadsides + Swordfish. Put a couple of these things down in a 'rough' style to the army and you'll have a force that is essentially a rival of your Leman Russ'. Great AP fire in close, exceptional AT fire at range. Obviously for such a thing the costs would go down due to the 'exposed' nature of such formations[as you note: vulnerable to AP/AT rather than just one]. As an aside, to accurately represent the 'core' of a Cadre[on thinking] it'd require: 1 Crisis Unit 2 Fire Warrior Units Anyhow, I'm dead-beat tired just now, and likely not making any sense! I'll be back soon... Xisor _________________ "Number 6 calls to you The Cylon Detector beckons Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 12:48 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9348 Location: Singapore	OK. Let me see if I understand this correctly. The proposition is that there is a core Cadre, and upgrades are added to this. In addition, Contingents (as they now stand) are scrapped. This would mean that the Tau player then tailors each Cadre, based on the core, for a specific task. Xisor: Is this correct, in a simple form? If so, the main problem that I can see here is that it would erase the armoured formations (in your example, the core Cadre is four FW and a Crisis - w/Dfish). Again, we have a balance decision between background/40K, and EA playbility. By removing the option of a purely armoured Cadre (which, by the way, was the last Cadre to be added and was done so out of a requirement within the list), we restrict the way that the Tau list will actually play on the field. As an opponent, you would know that every Tau Cadre will have four FW units with Dfish, and you force the Tau player to use the list that way. I am certainly open to 'theming' the Cadres, in fact one change in the last version of the list was to remove many of those 'any upgrade' comments and be more sepcific about it, but I do think that an armoured Cadre is an important and flexible addition. From what I can see, 'downsizing' the core Cadre size (particularly in the case of the FWs) and restricting the upgrades/Contingent would achieve the suggested result. However, I do feel that some Contingents are required, for example the Piranha, perhaps the Pathfinders... _________________ 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: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:57 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	Ok, I've stayed out of this thread and just caught up and was quite surprised at the direction this has taken. A couple of comments: 1. Just because we are empowered to change, does not mean that we should change, just for changes sake. One reason for wholesale change in a list is if it just doesn't work or like the Tyranids, doesn't fit design guidelines. Xisor: Are you proposing that the current Tau list does not meet any of those conditions? 2. I'm struggling to see where the new proposal improves the "play" of the current list. In fact I see it taking us back to earlier versions which we have spent many months moving away from. I personally did not like the state of those earlier lists because they literally codified weaknesses and inflexibility into a force. As CS pointed out, one of the reasons the AMHC was introduced to the list was to address an area of weakness that the Tau were facing against armored opponents. TRC also made similar comments. 3. Fluff is a guideline. It should be used to provide a framework for development. Basing all of our work on specific fluff text is unworkable. After all, quite a bit of fluff describes events that are unworkable from a games mechanism perspective IF the overall goal is to provide a balanced game system. If you ever referred back to WD 300 (US version) GW posted a copy of what they called "Movie" Marines. In those rules (which were a lark), they showed you what abilities SM's would really have to have to fit the fluff and even then they were toned down. They were also unplayable within the context of the existing 40K fluff. So be very cautious about hanging your hat (Texas term ? ) on fluff. So in the end, this is a somewhat interesting exercise, but I really question the value. Perhaps you could take this effort and develop a Sept specific list and drive the development from that angle. My two yen... _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 3:13 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	For once, Tactica and I actually agree on translating 40K stuff to Epic, including background material. Someone alert the media! Xisor:  There is no need to make an organizational element according to the background a single EA formation.  Even forces that are intended to operate in close proximity and might be portrayed as part of the same "unit" (common military parlance, not EA term) need not necessarily be in the same formation. Basically, even if a Shas-whatever is supposed to be the leader of every cadre/contingent that does not mean he orders them all to work in his immediate area under his immediate supervision and command.  Now, I haven't seen IA3, but in all the stuff I have read there doesn't seem to be anything that would prohibit a Shas-el from saying "you guys go hide behind those buildings over there and pick off targets of opportunity until we call in fire." Aside from that, it seems simply a matter of changing the army list terminology to fit the background material better. _________________ Neal
Top

Xisor	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 3:17 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm Posts: 515	Quote (Honda @ 02 May 2006 (13:57)) Perhaps you could take this effort and develop a Sept specific list and drive the development from that angle. Folks, First off, it's not a sept specific issue. The terms in the codex indicate this is the case for *every* Tau formation with only minor and obscure exceptions. Secondly: As the problems concisely listed by CS demonstrate, a Tau force without dedicated armoured formations is a weak list. A weak list such that it is not a productive list. However, to detail the more *acceptable* comrpomise: My current 'standing' proposal that I genuinely think is a workable proposal is as follows 1- Superficially rename the current components Army becomes Contingent or Battle, Cadre becomes a 'Core' Cadre and Contnigent becomes a Cadre Specialisation 2- Stipulate, superficially again, that a Cadre as organised by the Shas of the Tau Empire consists of one Cadre Core and up to two specialisations, each being a seperate formation 3- Make upgrades more suited to minor variations. It shouldn't be *too* restrictive per three formations. 4- Take a look at the compositions of each individual formations. In this manner I mean that they should be viable formations to make up an Epic Army. This is where I feel I put most people off in my 'all in one' suggestion. Splitting it into a possible three smaller formations seems the best idea. 5- Between the three 'component' formations[core+ 0-2 specialisations] there should be a possibility to both represent and account for player choice & game viability *AND* to help stay close to the fluff. That is, to represent a Cadre you have a Crisis commander *somewhere*. In the same form, a small portion of firewarriors should always be available. That is, the should perhaps be an option that *fills* the Cadre's the size by providing the 'minimum' that always makes a cadre[2 FW + Crisis Commander], but it doesn't cost you if you simply leave them back at base. 6- My main concern about an ''Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre" is that you simply wouldn't get an all-hammerhead cadre. That said, by my new proposal[which sticks closely to the current list options] accounts for the possibility of an AMHC that consists of two 'divisions', one being the actual 'all hammerhead/AV formation', the other being the rest of the Cadre. This is in a similar manner to the current list format, but the specific options and formatting would be closer to the one I propose in the Cadre.pdf. The difference from that document is that it can consist of up to three constituent formations, not a single 'all in one' formation. Again, if that makes sens. {Apologies for question dodging, but I think I'm more concise if I put my altered position as one rather than account for what I said before!} Xisor _________________ "Number 6 calls to you The Cylon Detector beckons Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 3:51 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (nealhunt @ 02 May 2006 (09:13)) For once, Tactica and I actually agree on translating 40K stuff to Epic, including background material. Someone alert the media! Xisor: ?There is no need to make an organizational element according to the background a single EA formation. ?Even forces that are intended to operate in close proximity and might be portrayed as part of the same "unit" (common military parlance, not EA term) need not necessarily be in the same formation. Basically, even if a Shas-whatever is supposed to be the leader of every cadre/contingent that does not mean he orders them all to work in his immediate area under his immediate supervision and command. ?Now, I haven't seen IA3, but in all the stuff I have read there doesn't seem to be anything that would prohibit a Shas-el from saying "you guys go hide behind those buildings over there and pick off targets of opportunity until we call in fire." Aside from that, it seems simply a matter of changing the army list terminology to fit the background material better. I'll second Everything NH has said here. We do actually agree 100% here. Which... maybe a first Neal. _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Most significant implication of Codex: Tau Empire Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:01 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland

1- Superficially rename the current components Army becomes Contingent or Battle, Cadre becomes a 'Core' Cadre and Contnigent becomes a Cadre Specialisation Changes.. Cadre->Core Cadre Contingent->Cadre Specialisation Ok its a superficial change but... those new names are just not "nice", they dont sound good.  Obviously thats just my opinion but they both use the word cadre, which opens up possibiliies of confusion.  And Cadre Specialisation is just too unwieldy and doesn't sound very Tau-ish to me.  Besides these words are the English translation of whatever language the Imperium uses translation of Tau-ese.  How important is it that those "translations" are correct?  I'd say its more important that the names we use are not confusing and sounds good and Tau-ish. 2- Stipulate, superficially again, that a Cadre as organised by the Shas of the Tau Empire consists of one Cadre Core and up to two specialisations, each being a seperate formation

Since we already have a one cadre allows two contingents rule this concept would appear to have been present all along.

3- Make upgrades more suited to minor variations. It shouldn't be *too* restrictive per three formations.
The Tau list is already quite flexible in its upgrade choices.  That said I am sure that if there are suggestions for alternatives we could consider them.  Example?

4- Take a look at the compositions of each individual formations. In this manner I mean that they should be viable formations to make up an Epic Army. This is where I feel I put most people off in my 'all in one' suggestion. Splitting it into a possible three smaller formations seems the best idea.
The "all in one" idea most definately put people off.
Three smaller formations.. again it seems like we already have this.  Or is it just the size of those formations that is at issue?

5- Between the three 'component' formations[core+ 0-2 specialisations] there should be a possibility to both represent and account for player choice & game viability *AND* to help stay close to the fluff. That is, to represent a Cadre you have a Crisis commander *somewhere*. In the same form, a small portion of firewarriors should always be available. That is, the should perhaps be an option that *fills* the Cadre's the size by providing the 'minimum' that always makes a cadre[2 FW + Crisis Commander], but it doesn't cost you if you simply leave them back at base.
Going to disagree with this.  I have mentioned before that it is simply not viable for a large army to be commanded by a single person on the ground (Crisis Commander).  Thus in EA the Tau need further command options that are not represented in 40k. [And it's not surprising that those commanders are not mentioned in a 40k codex.  Otherwise I would imagine 40k players would complain that there were no rules and models for these commanders.  Don't mention them in the codex and the 40k people avoid those awkward questions.  Besides I bet there is no mention of Morays, Scorpionfish, Stingrays etc]

6- My main concern about an ''Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre" is that you simply wouldn't get an all-hammerhead cadre. That said, by my new proposal[which sticks closely to the current list options] accounts for the possibility of an AMHC that consists of two 'divisions', one being the actual 'all hammerhead/AV formation', the other being the rest of the Cadre. This is in a similar manner to the current list format, but the specific options and formatting would be closer to the one I propose in the Cadre.pdf. The difference from that document is that it can consist of up to three constituent formations, not a single 'all in one' formation.
Surely a result of the scales involved.  In 40k there is no need for an AMHC, so there isn't one.  Just because the fluff in C:TE is written to support the material presented in it does not mean that we should be tied to it in EA.  Basically we are picking up where C:TE left off and taking things from there.

[RL analogy (that may or may not help): when learning physics at school I was first taught that the universe was made of "these things".  I learnt that and moved on.  Then the next year I was taught that in fact that wasn't quite true, "these things" were actually a bit more complex and in fact the closer you looked the more complex in became.  But the point of teaching it the first way was to make it easier to understand the basics before moving on.  I envisage the information in C:TE in the same way.  For the purposes of 40k the information is fine, and if you only play 40k then thats all you need to know.  But in EA we deal with a greater scope and thus there differences.]