Tau Leaders |
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241
|
NH,
+1 init would work to satisfy the concern in those units probably. It would also work to avoid any benefit by BM removal in combat.
Hmm... it may have the desired effect.
However, please note that all infantry units in the Tau list has access to bonding _in 40K_.
On the other hand, as Epic is much larger scale and whole E:A formations may have some 40K units that have bonding, but may not have enough units with bonding to make the entire formation effectively have the bonding ability in EA.
Example, you could say all battlesuits have +1 init. However, not all firewarrior units have bonding, so the net result in E:A is that only battlesuits have the E:A bonding (+1 init) equivilent.
Therefore, I could see why we wouldn't give it to certain infantry formations in epic and why others would not get it in epic - even though all can have it in 40K.
That would help explain why we could say certain base formations/contingents have the +1 init, and why other formations made up with the same 'units' as upgrades onto those other formatons - still operate at a less appealing or current inititiative.
Hmm... I'll have to think about this one some more NH, definitely an idea worth considering.
Cheers for the suggestion,
_________________ Rob
|
|
Top |
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:56 pm |
|
Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
Example, you could say all battlesuits have +1 init. However, not all firewarrior units have bonding, so the net result in E:A is that only battlesuits have the E:A bonding (+1 init) equivilent. |
That's pretty much the angle I was coming from. The idea was that majority-elite formations should have it due to a (likely) higher proportion of bonded individuals. It's obviously not perfect, but it's much easier to simply say "Crisis Cadres have 1+ Initiative" than it is to write out contingencies based on formation composition.
Another option would be to allow a "bonded" upgrade for formations that simply improved the formation's initiative for X points. Again, this would be simple and clean, but might emphasize larger formations (to pack more units under each upgrade).
Anyway, still just brainstorming - trying to stick with the conventional options rather than going with special rules.
_________________ Neal
|
Top |
|
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:59 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
If we go down the path of the "hold" action wouldn't you just take a Marshall instead and remove a chunk of BMs?
I'm a little confused. Is the issue though "how" we put in more BM management into the list or "should" we? Or both?
As far as I can see, Tau have similar "command" possibilities as the Eldar do. Only the Eldar infantry get Commanders. However the Eldar have their Spirit Stone special rule for BMs. My question is why do they get this? Is it because they need it or is it for fluffiness? Ok it's contentious, but beside that?
In the end, we do have precedence for a special rule, afterall why should Tau be disadvantaged in comparison to other armies? Tau infantry do get commander upgrades but their armour gets no help for BM removal as the Eldar do. All other armies (with the exception of maybe Orks) get some ability of BM for their armour.
Does this make sense to you guys?
|
|
Top |
|
|
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:26 am |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455
|
More to the point, there's actually no army that follows the 'standard' BM rules. IG Commissars, ATSKNF, Implacable Advance, Hive Mind, Spirit Stones, Mob size...
Tau only have the standard rules. While some of this discussion should wait until Tau Empire arrives (end of February?!?), there's at least one point I'd like to see addressed:
Shas'O and Shas'El crisis suit command stands. A full third (2 of 6) of the example Hunter Cadres in IA3 had just a 'Command Stand' of Crisis suits. A 'Battle' is an ad-hoc formation of multiple Hunter Cadres, and a Shas'El typically commands a Hunter Cadre. There should be several Shas'El in an Epic battlegroup, but not necessarily a Shas'O.
_________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
Top |
|
|
Nerroth
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:11 am |
|
Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada
|
Hang on:
You want to make Crisis, Stealth and Broadsides 1+ initiative?
Is that really justified? are they not effective enough as it is?
Are we not getting a little convoluted at this stage of the game?
(I'm noticing a similar phenomenon over at the BFG fleet development...)
As regards the AV formations, IG use tanks as terrain-grabbers and giant hammers in a way that - despite the Hammer part of the tanks' name - isn't matched by the equivalent Tau formation. Tau tanks are more suited for providing fire support to the chaps the Tau call on in a crisis... Ahem.
And the Eldar have Spirit Stones because their formations are small compared to Tau formations (and even more fragile) and that.. well... when you're a dying race, plugging your dead pals' souls into that Fire Prism seems like a half-decent way of keeping the thing in the fight!
(The spirit stones thing was a way to stop the Eldar formations being too fragile - I remember the arguments back when it was being thrashed out...)
I can't escape the feeling that we're trying a little too much to get away from what is a (mostly) working list by worrying about units or formations in isolation - if I wanted formations which aped those of every other army, I'd stick with chess! - when the whole point is that they are designed to complement each other, working in unison for the greater good.
Gary
_________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdfHuman armed forces for the greater good.
|
|
Top |
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:16 am |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
As far as I can see, Tau have similar "command" possibilities as the Eldar do. Only the Eldar infantry get Commanders. However the Eldar have their Spirit Stone special rule for BMs. My question is why do they get this? Is it because they need it or is it for fluffiness? Ok it's contentious, but beside that? | Tau have the advantage of having access to larger formations than the Eldar generally do (especially vehicle formations). For example, Tau don't have the easily breakable 3 tank formations. Thus the Tau (IMO) don't quite have the same need for a freebie rule like spirit stones.
I know they are not finished yet but the AMTL, CSM & L&D lists don't have special BM rules (ok demons, but not in vehicle formations). So, I don't think its a requirement that every list have such a rule.
|
Top |
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:12 am |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
I can't escape the feeling that we're trying a little too much to get away from what is a (mostly) working list by worrying about units or formations in isolation - if I wanted formations which aped those of every other army, I'd stick with chess! - when the whole point is that they are designed to complement each other, working in unison for the greater good.
|
I would agree with Neal on this. I think we're Ok on the BM issue and in fact, it would be very un-Tau-ish to be able to fly in the face of BM's. We need to keep in mind that Tau warfare does not support heavy casualties, sieges, nor static warfare. Adding Blast Marker Management as a feature of our list feels like we're getting away from a Tau guideline.
Our list should be able to support mobile warfare that seeks to not take casualties because we aren't made of iron. Instead, we maneuver to place accurate firepower to degrade and defeat our opponents, always attempting to slip away at a moments notice when it looks like the situation is going to be unfavorable to our way of fighting.
I always try to keep the old Mohammed Ali phrase, "Floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" in mind as a guiding principle.
_________________ Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
Top |
|
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:40 am |
|
Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Tau tanks are more suited for providing fire support to the chaps the Tau call on in a crisis... | Sorry, which formations are you talking about here Nerroth?
if I wanted formations which aped those of every other army, I'd stick with chess! - when the whole point is that they are designed to complement each other, working in unison for the greater good. |
I don't think we're talking aping here at all. We're trying to work out a different mechanism aren't we? So they
don't ape others. My point was, if every army has some mechanism for it (and IMO each one seems it's more based on fluffiness/feel of a list) and Tau don't, doesn't that leave the Tau unbalanced in some way?
Tau have the advantage of having access to larger formations than the Eldar generally do (especially vehicle formations). For example, Tau don't have the easily breakable 3 tank formations. Thus the Tau (IMO) don't quite have the same need for a freebie rule like spirit stones
Okay good point. Only thing is, IG do have large formations and they get commanders to add to those.
I'm not saying Tau need a list verbatim of the IG, I'm using them as an example for balance, but I suggest that Tau should fall somewhere between IG and Eldar (which IIRC, Neal Hunt said is how they "feel" in play). IMO if this is the case then maybe BM management for Tau should fall between each of those armies. Does this sound possible to you guys?
This is of course is only if the majority of people have had major issues dealing with late game command and control "fade". If not then it may not be required after all.
Otherwise the balance of forces should always try to be maintained with rulings - even if some don't like the idea of "special" rules.
Personally, after trolling through this discussion so far, I think I can swing either way on this one at present. I'm not 100% convinced either way.
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau Leaders Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:57 pm |
|
Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241
|
My perspective,
In Epic game play, I notice Tau spend a qutie a bit of time rallying from broken status or at least spend a lot of time with blast markers on their formations once applied. BM as we all know not only affect combat, but affect our firing effectiveness of suppressed units, and worse the activation discipline of formations.
At this stage of the game, Tau have no way to effectively manage the E:A blast markers. The precident appears to be that all other armies finished or near finish do encorporate BM management.
BM represent units going to ground and individual unit breaking. In 40K, bonding is taken to rally what would effectively be suppressed units in E:A. Furthermore, in 40K, ethereals are taken to manipulate whether a unit breaks or doesn't if he's present on th efield anyway - he doesn't have to be part of the unit.
Maybe its a good thing that some armies don't have BM management in E:A - but since all infantry can have bonding in 40K, and we have the influence of the Etehereals in 40K, is Tau the right list to have no BM management in E:A?
Personally, I'm leaning towards - no. Tau is not the list. Tau do seem to warrant E:A BM management from both fluff and actual game play results.
Orcs: - have a mob size rule special rule and gretchin special rule to circumvent many effects of E:A BM.
IG: - leaders in every infantry formation. 2D6 commissars special rule to be applied to any formation in the army as you see fit. Both work to mitigate and manage BM effects
Eldar: - leaders in infantry, spirit stones for the entire army, mixed great initiative also works to minimize the impact of some BM effects,
Chaos: - fearless units, deamons are completely immune to BM effects and screen units, good initiative also works to illiminate the effects of BM
Marines: ATSKNF
So personally, there is precident to make all approved lists incorporate BM management into their list. Tau have a game play impact to them effectively rallying once broke and dealing with BM effects when trying to activate as they are a base 2+ initiative across the board, and their fluff supports a suggestion to incorporate some amount of BM management into E:A.
*IF* or how that should be administered, *IF* the masses agree with this perspective, is up in the air.
Just my vote.
Cheers,
_________________ Rob
|
|
Top |
|
|