Changes for version 4.4.1 |
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1  Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:57 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
OK. This thread is for you guys to let me know of any alterations that I have missed from the main change log. You can find the up-to-date list of alterations to version 4.4 to make it version 4.4.1, here:
Change log for version 4.4.1
If there is anything missing from the list above, please post here to let me know. If there is already discussion about the issue, please include a link to the current thread/s.
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 |
|
 |
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:12 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
|
We should also put together a list of changes implied to the EA list by the new codex.
To start us off (even if these have already been mentioned):
Vespids
Sniper Drones
Dont limit your comments to issues from the codex, anything is potential change for the next version. As a 'theme', I would like to spend a fair amount of time looking at the auxiliaries in the list (I saved these for the new codex).
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
CyberShadow
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:18 pm |
|
| Swarm Tyrant |
|
|
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
|
I should also mention... while it may appear that I have been quiet recently, I am still dedicated and working in the background.
As a sample of things to come...
Version 4.4 enhanced - cover
It may be a short while before this is ready for public consumption, but I will get this finished and uploaded as soon as possible.
In other news, I will be picking up the Taros book this weekend! 
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
Tigershark - activation to points ratio (you can get a lot and they stay alive for a very long time)
A-10 - Resilance to flak vs weapons load - keep it 'hard' and long ranged and you have to point it for optimal use (which perhaps it always should be if it does what it says it does) - still prefer more vulnerbale range (30cm main weapon which incidentally the BT guy seems to favour for the thunderhawk) and chassis (6+ save) combined with a two plane formation (bump survivability back up and overall cost for two along with activations, down). I'd not object to 2+ on the weapon - if the flak got a chance to shoot at it (thats code for 30cm range).
Orca - numbers aren't that much of an issue, I'd only want a couple as cheap objective takers and BM generators. Give it a special rule saying it can't take objectives and the problem goes away I reckon.
Pathfinders - sniper ability placed on the weapon not on the unit.
Firewarriors - umm, do something  The pathfinders/humans seem to take all their non suicide jobs!
And I can't help but add, Triscorpitooth! Sorry
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:47 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 20 April 2006 (13:41)) |
A-10 - Blah blah... |
The A-X-01 (or whatever) has been neutered enough, thank you. I no longer use them. I pay 75pts more and use a Moray now.
It need some housekeeping changes, IE the Hunter missile now has no AA, so drop it and just give it the TS 2x Seeker Missiles. Also, give its TL Burst Cannon back the 15cm AA6+ shot, for constancy with the Barracudas version of the same weapon. 1 6+ shot will deter nobody.
Amazingly, this will make the unit stat/look EXACTLY LIKE THE 40K VERSION!
Firewarriors: I think the satats are how they should be, I think perhaps a slight price decrease to make them more wortwhile?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:01 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
| Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 20 April 2006 (13:41)) | | A-10 - Resilance to flak vs weapons load - keep it 'hard' and long ranged and you have to point it for optimal use (which perhaps it always should be if it does what it says it does) - still prefer more vulnerbale range (30cm main weapon which incidentally the BT guy seems to favour for the thunderhawk) and chassis (6+ save) combined with a two plane formation (bump survivability back up and overall cost for two along with activations, down). I'd not object to 2+ on the weapon - if the flak got a chance to shoot at it (thats code for 30cm range). |
I cant help but add: This is the same thing you have been saying for a year now, al the way back to when TRC was running thios list, and it has not changed.
However, the A-X-01 has changed. Greatly.
Seeing as you are (as described by you) unable to play Epic due to location, and we have a new version of the A-X-01 to test, and you are unable to test it, how do you think spouting the same, year-old, no-longer-applicable arguments are going to advance this list?
Because, at least to me, advancing this list is what we are here for, and getting your way is not even secondary.
I suppose I can counter with something I myself have been saying over the various versions of the list, however I think my suggestion remains applicable:
Test first, then test again, then again. Test test test.
This is not the same aircraft you took against minimal-ADA capable armies to get the results you wanted back in the 5-Aces days, therefore those results are no longer applicable.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jaldon
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:39 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.
|
It has been long since I trolled the Tau thread............
I have to agree that something needs to be done between the PF and FW units/formations. More and more the FWs are disappearing from battle lists to be replaced by PFs.
Hena's suggestion is a good idea, and an even easier solution would be to fudge the FWs down or the PFs up, in points.
Either one would work.
Otherwise I really have no other complaints abouot the list, I do like the way it has panned out. Well, Ok I wood like to see some Squat, I mean, Demiurg allies 
My 2 cents anyways CS
Jaldon 
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:28 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (Jaldon @ 21 April 2006 (05:39)) | | Otherwise I really have no other complaints abouot the list, I do like the way it has panned out. Well, Ok I wood like to see some Squat, I mean, Demiurg allies |
Hey, you can always use them as "counts as" humans... (ducks)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:30 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
FW vs. PF :
As I only field what I have bought I can?t saym that the one or the other are too strong, I can only field 2 FW Cadres and 1 PF Contingent with upgrade. So as it stands for me they work good, and I never was tempted to use more than 1 PF formation, the performance was good and in no way abusive for me, the sniper ability almost never come to use for me - the Weapon Range is to short against Marines and versus IG they got obliterated by Artillery almost every game.
If something got to change for me ( personal opinion) the devilfish could use Armor 4+ (or 5+ RA) - same as the HH. They share the same Chassis? Do they?
Vespids:
I?d like to see them. The suggested stats Tactica made sounds ?good for me.
Sniper Drones:
I like the Idea, but the formation seems to be too small for E:A to be of any significant impact, unless you either boost their power artificially or give them a decent formation size and similar stats to PF?s.
Support Craft and co.:
I don?t remember the exact issues at the moment but I think it was about their FF Values and Ini Values;
Morays are about right for me.
Manta should have FF4+ at least AND Ini 1+, IMHO
For the rest I have to think about.....
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:41 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
Am I saying the same thing? Yes.
Am I therefor saying points drop etc etc just like I proposed in the past? Yes. Do you know this would actually be a boost? I know that the A-10 fans have an aversion to taking fire but every time I look at the arguements in its defence they are of the same intensity at every power level. At least the comment in your bat rep - 'A slight price drop and givig it back its 15cm AA, and it should fit in just fine with all the ther near-useless aircraft other armies are fielding.' - does put your position on airpower in Epic clearly.
Why? I don't like the current unit. It may be balanced it may not. So? I'm sure you could balance firewarrior upgrades with Ogryn stats, but why? The current one as you point out is too expensive (probably, I admit to being unable to do much appart from call upon stacks of experience with every races aircraft), but has the problem of being very hard to balance. I believe fundemental problems with its design mean when it hits the right points value to use 1-2 it becomes abusable again.
As for armies with a lack of air defence what a total load of rubbish, want me to go back to each batrep and total the points being spent on units with flak attacks or would this be too embarissing? I seem to remember the high point being Eldar with a 1/4 of their points spent on AA.
It need some housekeeping changes, IE the Hunter missile now has no AA, so drop it and just give it the TS 2x Seeker Missiles. Also, give its TL Burst Cannon back the 15cm AA6+ shot, for constancy with the Barracudas version of the same weapon. 1 6+ shot will deter nobody. |
On a different note I agree with the above. Two seeker missiles instead of the hunter and the AA 360 defence do make sense.
I would just like to see it combined with 6+ armour save, 30cm main weapon (at 2+ or 3+) and a fixed squadron size of two.
At 2+ I'd try at at 375 and 3+ at 300-325.
Incidentally I was unaware we were commenting on each others ideas here - I was under the impression it was to ensure areas of prior discussion were highlighted for CS.
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:50 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
Guys, please calm down. And don?t let us start this over again the same way. 
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:02 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (Hena @ 21 April 2006 (10:03)) | Vespids:
I?d like to see them. The suggested stats Tactica made sounds ?good for me. |
Vespids, save 6+ not 5+. |
Ok, I take them with Armor 6+ as well. I like diversity.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Changes for version 4.4.1 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:40 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Items for consideration
This list contains a list of items and alterations for version 4.4.1. Each item is classified as either 'for consideration' (points remain unmarked), 'under discussion' (with a link to the current discussion), or 'resolved' (with the current resolution).
Resolved items are not necessarily closed, but I consider them at a stage where they are ready for inclusion in the next revision.
- Initiative bonus for Stealth, Moray and/or Manta.
|
I can see the reasoning behind +1 for Stealths as they need something. It's still difficult to field these at the current point cost.
I am ambivalent on the other two as I really don't see a reason to ever take the Manta and the Moray performs as I expect it to.
- Network Drones; allowing further formations access to the upgrade.
|
I'm Ok the way we have it now.
- Knarloc Riders, and the Kroot
You might consider a proposal I put out regarding Kroot and their various roles awhile back. Basically,
Scouting Kindreds featuring Warriors, Hounds, and Knarloc riders
Garrisoning Kindreds featuring Warriors, Krootox, and Great Knarloc
Costed appropriately, they might warrant inclusion. As it stands now, there is no reason to have Kroot in the list at all.
- Vespids
I'm not particularly concerned about these, personally. Taking something that helps turn FW's into assault engines isn't how I intend to play my Tau.
- Tau names for the relevant units.
Characterful, but not critical. If you could get them down to two syllables, then I might consider using them, but much above that and it becomes difficult to recall which one's are which.
- Swordfish: What is the purpose of this unit? Does the upgrade alter the role of the formation? Are these taken in 'all' formations?
I've stopped taking them a long time ago. I needed the points elsewhere and will most likely start including Skyrays in my armored formations, so it's not that likely that I'm going to add additional cost for an incremental return.
- AX-1-0: Formation size and points cost. Increase main armament to 2+?
I think this unit is just fine the way it is.
- Pathfinders (and, to a lesser extent, Fire Warriors): Disrupt on the Rail Rifle? Are the Fire Warriors worth taking for their own value, do these two infantry units perform as expected? Are Fire Warriors worth taking when compared? Should Pathfinders points value be increased?
I still fail to see what the issue is about these units. I continue to take FW cadres, mount them in DF and use them to balance the fragility of the PF units. If there is still strong resistance to leaving them as is because they are
unbalancing the list, then give them a constraint, like below where you can only take a PF contingent for each Crisis or FW cadre purchased.
- Orca: Can these be exploited? Should they be limited to one per Cadre taken?
Yes, they can be exploited. Do I think it is wise tactically to do that? No, however I think the suggestion of being able to pick one per Crisis or FW cadre taken is a reasonable remedy.
- Change the name of the Scorpionfish?
It's fine as it is.
