Page 1 of 4

[ 57 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

BM Management
Tactica	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:59 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	The goal of this thread is to seperate out all other topics/issues being raised in the Tau Leaders thread and deal with the sited problem at hand that most appear to agree on... that is: Problem in the list: BM management is lacking in the Tau list. We do have drones, but that doesn't help recover from blast markers applied, it doesn't help vehicles at all either. So compared to the IG commissar, the orc mob size and grot, the eldar spirit stones, the marines ATSKNF, the chaos daemons ignore BM, and the armies that just have a low initiative so activation is easier even with bm, the tau seem to be missing something on this front. Question 1 - Do we want to address that? Answer 1 - I understand that the overwhelming, and thus far, vocal majority has responded with, "yes, something needs done." Question 2 - How do we address the problem without complicating things? Answer 2 - The general consensus seems to be to solve the problem with the Leader ability in some way shape or form. Caution: we don't want to add in a bunch of other changes in doing so. The list is basically working now. So in fixing BM managment, a guiding principle should be to avoid new unit types and new abilities unnecessarily. Basically - isolate the problem and work to fix the problem. Suggestion A - Bonding rule: would provide 'eldar spirit stones' to tau. - this was ultimately shot down by the masses. It would fix the problem, but may do too good of a job at doing so. The rule is arguably too powerful in the Eldar list and has at minimum, been a contencious point since its inception in the Eldar list and remains a thorn in many sides to this day. Bonding (spirit stones) especially if free, across every model on the board, even though bonding would be fluffy, is a bad idea and should be avoided. Suggestion B - allow shas'el to join more than just crisis - this was ultimately shot down because modeling changes would have to happen as shas'el fit into crisis and don't ride in tanks. They also don't tag along with FW, PF, Stealth, etc... logistically and fluff wise, this is a problem. Suggestion C - Targetting Array technology creation (see the post) a piece of tau tech that can be given to whomever or whatever we deem necessary, at 25 points per upgrade. Its an upgrade, so only one upgrade per formation. Its currently given in example to only add leader, and it would fit on vehicles or infantry or LV as we seen fit. - initial feedback seems lacking and mixed at best. Suggestion D - create a Shas'vre character upgrade that can go into various formations, but it would have leader and CF. Points for this upgrade seem to be suggested at 50 points, but I could be mistaken. - the opposition here seems to be that adding CF to the leader type clouds the issue. This is basically the Command Array idea, but adding CF to the list. We want to address the problem (BM management) without adding a bunch of other rules at this time. Suggestion E - offer a tank upgrade with a character in it that had leader. Example, commanding swordfish for the hammerheads. - like the Shas'vre suggestion, we are adding leader, but adding in a command tank with weapons change. This is the realm of the IG, so its in poor form for us to take the vanquisher upgrade feel for a commander away from the IG. Its also clouding up the issue because tank upgrades in formations are already working. Finally, logistically, our leaders don't take the big guns, they take the tech and leave the big guns for others to wield and follow orders. Suggestion F - More or cheaper access to commanders F.1 - reducing Shas'el and possibly Shas'o to 25 and 75 points. - As our shas'o comes with the supreme Tau commander ability, there may be a general reluctance to reduce the shas'o to below 100 points, and he's limited to 1 per army. We've visited this in the past and it didn't pan out. This will not work to affect the army, more a single formation anyway. F.2 - adding a Leader-only version at 25 points - this is essentially Command Array, but stated as character upgrading a unit rather than technology upgrading a unit. This and command array are semantics more than game impacting difference. Suggestion G - Increased initiative for "elite" formations. Initiative upgrade would make it easier to activate them, even with BM, thus circumventing actiation issues, but not reducing the BM count faster. Initiative is a form of BM management though. It will not help in recovery once BM are allocated. - No feel for acceptance on this one yet. Suggestion H - ?"Bonded" special rule that simply gave Tau a +1 to rally would be a small but potentially effective boost. Special rules seem to make people cringe and never seem to pick up much steam. - no real feel for acceptance yet Suggestion I - Making existing Shas'el a seperate stand. Instead of being an upgrade to an existing crisis formation, it would be a command unit in itself that could be added to a host of formations as yet to be determined. As a seperate stand, it would just be an upgrade. The weapons load out and abilities and points of the command stand would need to be created. - This brings change to the way the list currently workins. It will add some combat potential to some formations, and it would slow other formations down. It would also cause situations of a single crisis unit to various other units in a formation. Although crisis upgrades are allowed to various formations today, in order for this 'leader' solution to have the desired 'BM management' effect on a fair amount of the list, further odd scenerios, issues, and combinations may arise. So far, this solution has not received much steam. Desire in the list Some appear to desire more CF in the list. This is a relatively new request. Others think there's enough CF in the list already. This is a relatively long standing view point. The suggestion to add more CF to the list _does not_ work to solve the BM management issue at all. I would prefer *personally* to keep BM management an issue that's addressed seperately from any case made to add more CF to the list. If CF is an issue for some, I'd recommend a thread dedicated to its discussion with supporting detail for its proposed increase in the list from the availability level today. Back to BM management. For the interum, I would suggest we agree on the ability and unit(s) to be tested with it. Even if the name is ad-hoc for now... if we can agree to test something without compounding the BM Managment issue, we can move forward. [EDIT: added in additional suggestions] _________________ Rob
Top

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:18 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	Thank you, tactica. ?This is part of what I had wanted to bring up in the other thread. I'm generally opposed to a 'Command Array' outside of the tanks, IF we also change the shas'o/'el upgrade from a Character to a Stand (I think a lot of people missed this point). ?If there's no support for throwing a single, slightly meaner crisis stand into a bunch of fire warriors (or Pathfinders/Stealths/whatever), then the Command Array is the way to go (although maybe with a different name). As I pointed out in the other thread, 2 out of the example 6 Hunter Cadres had the equivalent of one stand of Crisis suits each (A Shas'el and his bodyguards). ?That seems to imply that the Shas'Commander should be a separate stand, not an upgrade to a Crisis unit. ?Granted, those examples are written from a 40k perspective, but there are IG Companies shown that are not legal 'armies' under the IG codex, either. I really think the Tau Bonding rule could use some tweaking to make it less 'Tau Spirit Stones', too.  Just what, I'm not sure, although limiting it to just INF and LVs would be a start.  Obviously, this needs lots of playtest. [edited for clarity] _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:24 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Suggestion F - More or cheaper access to commanders F.1 - reducing Shas'el and possibly Shas'o to 25 and 75 points. F.2 - adding a Leader-only version at 25 points Suggestion G - Increased initiative for "elite" formations. Suggestion H - While I don't favor special rules, a "Bonded" special rule that simply gave Tau a +1 to rally would be a small but potentially effective boost. ==== I would prefer simply dropping the points for Leaders. [Note:  NOT intended to open a CFA debate.  I only comment on it because more commanders would affect that also.] While I don't have a strong opinion on volume of CFA, it seems that the large majority of feedback is that it's not that valuable.  Increasing the Tau army's access to it is probably not a great risk to balance. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:04 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Lion and NH, Good points. Sorry I left those comments/points/suggestions out of the original post. If you like, I can add those suggestions into the root post as well. All good suggestions. Hopefully we can come to a grand decision here. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Tactica	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:39 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Here is suggestion C above. I wanted to seperate it out from the main post. Tau Technology Command Array Some fluff - probably leveraging the previously posted research on radio value to Tanks (good research whoever posted that... Steele I think) The Command Array upgrade may only be applied to one of the Core units of a Tau formation. A Core unit is any unit found in the formation prior to any upgrades being applied to the formation. For example, a Command Array upgrade for a Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre could only be added to Hamerhead Gunship with Railgun or Ioncannon. It could not be added to any units, Swordfish or Skyray purchased as an Upgrade. Tau Cadres Formation Type       Units:                                 Cost                 ,... Command Array     Tau Upgrades Upgrade Type       Units                     Cost Command Array     Command Array       +25 points Note: I used AMHC (Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre) but we could add Command Array to whatever this way. Note 2: Whether Command Array is the right name or not is kinda moot. We can call it whatever we want. It could also be commander Shas'vre - or whatever if we wanted to make this a character upgrade for units. The points is - simple tech (or character if need be) for 25 points with 'leader' ability is option C. _________________ Rob
Top

Steele	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:35 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	I take option C. Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:11 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	Suggestions I, then H.
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:49 am
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9350 Location: Singapore	Good thoughts here, thanks. My comments: A) I am not so keen on a special Bonding rule in this way. I feel that we could not selectively apply it easily, and therefore it would need to be applied to most, if not all, infantry formations. I am also wary of taking this in the direction of the Eldar. The Spirit Stone rule was created to address an Eldar-specific issue, and to follow that path may be to dilute the feel of the Tau list (in my mind). B) I have fluff issues with this really. It seems uncharacteristic. C) I must admit that I like this idea, but it would be difficult to impliment as we would need to have a clear differences in the model which have been given this upgrade. Perhaps a colour change at the least... D) Again, fluff issues. Would a Shas'vre be added to armoured formations? E) I am sorry, but I will take a fair bit of convincing for command tanks. On one level, it just doesnt feel right to me. The Imperials have this feature, sure, but this is an 'Imperial thing' and it doesnt seem to fit the Tau philosophy of applying their technology to the problem if resources are restricted by rank in this way. I would rather have a standard Hammerhead with a command flag/insignia, than a different tank such as a Swordfish. F) This seems very similar to suggestion C. G) This could be promising... H) While I am usually hesitant to add yet more special rules, I prefer this option to A, as it seems to take a smaller step and be more reasonable. I) I like the image which this presents, as I can see a single Crisis unit in with the tanks, guiding the way. I dont think that they would necessarily slow units down, but being the inly infantry unit in a tank formation may hurt. Still, I have an un-natural liking for this option. In conclusion, I like G, H and I, and could possibly live with C. How about something along the lines of an addiiton to the Crisis suits which allow formations within a certain distance (say 15cm) benefit from a blast marker removal benefit (maybe calling it Bonded)...? Thanks. _________________ 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

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:16 am
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	Option A. ?I disagree with blanket 'spirit stones', although a more limited version may work. Option B I do not agree with. Option C I mostly like. ?Caveats noted in a previous post. Option D I obviously prefer, it's my idea. Option F doesn't seem to be worth it. ?I build units, then mix&match units to make points, generally, so most every unit that can have a leader already does. ?The problem is the need to burn lots of upgrades to get leaders in several formations. Option G, without playing, seems to merely be a patch, not a real change. Option H. ?Earlier, Jervis had expressed a desire for the minimum number of special rules. ?However, this does seem to be the closest thing to the effect of bonding in 40k. ?I need some playing time to get a better opinion. Option I. ?'nuff said. [edit] For BM management, I prefer option India, with a 'command tank', followed by Hotel. ? Option Delta I'll drop for the time being, as it seems to add a more problems, vis-a-vis co-fire, than it solves. _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

Tactica	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:20 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	CS, Thanks for comments. I actually like H as well, but I know what happens when special rules hit the masses - they get crapped on. I think we are more than justified to have this rule as bonded is a special rule the race uses in its fluff and in 40k historically speaking, but who knows - it becomes a battle we may or may not want. So - ultimately that's going to be a call of whether or not we want to justify a special army rule. If all are on board - I'm right there with you. If there's a lack luster feel for this rule, it will never fly in the masses. So - I leave that in the groups capable hands. C (or  F2), and G... I like them a lot the more I think about it. I feel these have the most promise. I'm not sure they are independet concepts that we couldn't apply a bit of both. Example: I think we could have a C (command array) and offer it to battlesuits(all 3), hh contingents, Stingray, and AMHC, - your going to pay 25 points for it each time, so its not like you won't be paying for it... and still give stealths and crisis (elites) the +1 init rule found in G. If you wanted to spend the points, your Infantry FW stands could take take Stealths or crisis and react quicker with the better init but you'd be paying for that luxury. Furthermore, if you wanted to bolt on a command array, you could, but that would even be more points.... on the other hand, you could just throw in a shas'el or shas'o to get their bump ups too... so as long as you are paying for it, you can do it. Definitely would give more dynamic feel to the way certain formations acted. Things like scorpionfish, aircaste, stingrays, pathfinders, tetras, piranhas, etc... would alwasy be at init2 as they wouldn't have the option to get the crisis or stealths in their formations. Then again, applying both may just be considered over the top once you see it on the field and use it. Could be just the right combo, but probably better to start out with 1 or the other and go from there. You could also say you don't ge the init bonus of the elites unless all in the formation have the same init bonus and maybe allow them to take the drones too though. Suggestion I. is really a list change. That unit would work differenent and we'd have to really playtest the impact of that change to each and every formation. In the end, I like combined arms, but a commander and his retinue with a bunch of tanks without supporting infantry looks really bizzare to me. I think 1 infantry unit with vehicles will be less appealing tactically as its going to receive the infantry shot no matter what... so I doubt its going to be embraced by the vehicle formations and thus - really doesn't work to solve the problem in the end IMHO. I like C and G. ~ _________________ Rob
Top

Jaldon	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:51 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.	F and H And I do agree they do need something for BM management, it is a problem. Jaldon:p _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:10 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	C and/or G - easy to implement.  G should only apply to the Crisis Cadre and Stealth contingent, not to any formation with a XV8/15 added. I wouldn't mind H, but the new rules antipathy would apply.
Top

HecklerMD	Post subject: BM Management Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:10 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201	Suggestion A - Bonding rule: would provide 'eldar spirit stones' to tau. No, thanks.  It would be even more contraversial than the Eldar having it. Suggestion B - allow shas'el to join more than just crisis

Shas'el I think are fine where they are, though I would take them with a Stealth Contingent for sure. (If Possable)
Suggestion C - Targetting Array technology creation (see the post) a piece of tau tech that can be given to whomever or whatever we deem necessary, at 25 points per upgrade. Its an upgrade, so only one upgrade per formation. Its currently given in example to only add leader, and it would fit on vehicles or infantry or LV as we seen fit.
I would prefer a third "Commander" rather than a piece of gear.  I believe Lion in the Stars suggested that Shas'vre would be appropo.

Suggestion D - create a Shas'vre character upgrade that can go into various formations, but it would have leader and CF. Points for this upgrade seem to be suggested at 50 points, but I could be mistaken.
Ooops.    Either Or.

Suggestion E - offer a tank upgrade with a character in it that had leader. Example, commanding swordfish for the hammerheads.
No, for reasons stated in the "Tau Leaders" thread

Suggestion F - More or cheaper access to commanders
F.1 - reducing Shas'el and possibly Shas'o to 25 and 75 points.
Hmmm..  Neutral
F.2 - adding a Leader-only version at 25 points
Yes.  Shas'Vre

Suggestion G - Increased initiative for "elite" formations. Initiative upgrade would make it easier to activate them, even with BM, thus circumventing actiation issues, but not reducing the BM count faster. Initiative is a form of BM management though. It will not help in recovery once BM are allocated.

Neutral.  Perhaps only formations that took Shas'XXX commanders?
Suggestion H -  "Bonded" special rule that simply gave Tau a +1 to rally would be a small but potentially effective boost. Special rules seem to make people cringe and never seem to pick up much steam.
Cringing.  But better than "Spirit Stones"  Neutral towards "No"

Suggestion I - Making existing Shas'el a seperate stand. Instead of being an upgrade to an existing crisis formation, it would be a command unit in itself that could be added to a host of formations as yet to be determined. As a seperate stand, it would just be an upgrade. The weapons load out and abilities and points of the command stand would need to be created.
Then you might not be able to pack a Crisis Cadre + Commander on a Orca.