Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tau Leaders

 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:33 pm 
Brood Brother
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:56 pm 
Purestrain
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:26 am 
Brood Brother
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:16 am 
Brood Brother
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:12 am 
Brood Brother
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:57 pm 
Brood Brother
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Thanks, Tactica.  It's good to see people understand what you're trying to say.

Tank Comanders:  Not really necessary, but maybe some BM management mechanism is.  I need more playtest data to make an intelligent decision.

Crisis Commander unit:  Seems to have gotten lost in the discussion.

'Tau Bonding rule':  Also needs more playtest for an informed decision.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
Quote (Tactica @ 06 Dec. 2005 (15:57))
Orcs:
- ...gretchin special rule to circumvent many effects of E:A BM.

The gretchin mechanic was nicked borrowed for mixed formations including drones so I suppose we do have a mechanic for managing BM's. ?However, this doesn't really answer the point at hand. ?Just saw the comment about grots and the old light bulb lit up.

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Good point Orde.  In fact if we count the Drone rule and the Etheral (fearless formation) rule, then the Tau do in fact have some "morale" type rules.

That said I could see Neal's idea about some/all battlesuits having 1+ initiative as a possibility.  It would certainly make those battlesuits more attractive.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Quote (Tactica @ 06 Dec. 2005 (15:57))
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,

Marines:
ATSKNF

The IG do not have a leader in every infantry formation they have a commander which does nothing in the way of removing BMs.

The IG armour has no commanders at all(similar to tau).

Commissars can make a difference if the IG player rolls well for them,but for BM removal the formations still have to pass an initiative test.

The Eldar are the same they have commanders not leaders (although the spirit stone rule does work for every formation and seems OTT in my opinion)

Marines only remove extra BMs if they take Characters(similar to tau) though it does take 2 BMs to suppress each unit.

I  think that the Tau may need a way of taking of the odd BM from formations without having to add in lots of Leader characters.

Maybe giving the supreme commander(wether its the shas'o or dragonfish) or the force in general a rule to allow it to remove 3(or d3,d6 etc.) BMs from un broken formations at the end of the rally phase(maximum of 1 BM removed per formation).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
Quote (nealhunt @ 05 Dec. 2005 (17:00))
Rather than mucking about with a new special rule, it would be much easier to model improved morale effects with a 1+ initiative. ?While it doesn't directly remove BMs, it does counter the activation penalty and it improves the ability to rally.

Even if it's not 100% right, using an existing mechanic that is close is always a strong choice.

Why not try something along the lines the orks use when making double actions or assaults they get + 2 to activation rolls.

Could certain Tau units benefit from +1 to there activation roll if taking a single move or sustain fire action(just a thought ??? )


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Tau Leaders
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
dptdexy and col_sp,

accuracy of points received and well met.

I think dptdexy and NH both have ideas worth considering.

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net