Tactical Command | View topic - Comments on version 4.4.1

Page 2 of 3

[ 36 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Comments on version 4.4.1

CyberShadow

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:16 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Oh, I agree that it should be considered... just to clarify: Are we saying that the above list is perfectly fine if all of the Orcas start the game with at least one formation on board, and that the above list is open to abuse if the Orcas are empty?

The whole issue of AP fire inflicting a blast marker is one of those rules that I just dont like and cant seem to get my head around. This example is typical of the strangeness that it can throw up - with Pulse Rifles (even lots of them) threatening a Warlord! *sigh*

(As an aside, in the above situation, the Fire Warriors inflict enough blast markers to break the Warlord, the Titan doesnt rally and the Fire Warriors stick the boot in next turn... broken formations take hits for each additional blast marker... but even if those blasts are due to 'ineffectual' weapon fire? This may have been clarified in the past, but I cant remember!)

Are we heading towards limiting the Orca to one per Fire Warrior cadre, or to forcing it to be loaded up at the start of turn one (and would this restriction even make a difference)?

_________________
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

nealhunt

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 09 2007,14:16)

QUOTE

just to clarify: Are we saying that the above list is perfectly fine if all of the Orcas start the game with at least one formation on board, and that the above list is open to abuse if the Orcas are empty?
...
Are we heading towards limiting the Orca to one per Fire Warrior cadre, or to forcing it to be loaded up at the start of turn one (and would this restriction even make a difference)?

I'm not sure what the appropriate remedy might be, but I think the difference in starting loaded versus unloaded is huge.

It drops the first turn activations to 9 instead of 20+ and it makes all the early activations include ground units. Both of those make it vastly harder to "stall" the enemy and react en masse after they are done.

It also requires that all of the Orcas hit the ground at some point. That stops them from having free reign through the entire game to hit any target they like and also gives the enemy an opportunity to hit them while on the ground. The Orcas could avoid that by keeping troops loaded until the objective grab but that has its own (hopefully obvious) disadvantages as well.

I seriously doubt that such an air assault force would be a problem.

broken formations take hits for each additional blast marker... but even if those blasts are due to 'ineffectual' weapon fire?

Yep. Hackdowns are hackdowns. It doesn't matter for Fearless units, but those broken Russ Companies are still going to break apart and flee if pressed.

_________________
Neal

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:56 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 09 2007,14:16)

QUOTE

Are we heading towards limiting the Orca to one per Fire Warrior cadre, or to forcing it to be loaded up at the start of turn one (and would this restriction even make a difference)?

Since Orcas are dedicated "transport craft" and not gunships like the the Thunderhawk, perhaps a limit of 1 per Cadre in the army. Not that a specific Cadre would have to be assigned to each Orca, just that it would provide the cap on the number of Orcas available.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:52 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186

Hi CS,

I've not been there for a while, and I'm glad to see the time we get a revision is approaching

I'm fine with the vast majority of changes and find them worth playtesting. I appreciate that you try to define the role of various units a bit more.

Seems you need some advice about the ionhead...

I'm fine with trying to remove AA from the unit and see how it works. But I don't think it deserves for any significant increase of the ground abilities.
- 2x AP4+/AT5+ makes the ion cannon as good as the railgun at tankbusting and is therefore too good.
- AP3+/AT4+ (ignore cover) seems really powerful (maybe AP4/AT4 ignore cover?).

Well, pesnonally, I'd stick to the current 60cm AP3/AT4 and see how it works without AA. Having in mind SMS are being toned down to AP5 across the board, I'd think the ionhead's AP3 will be more appreciated as a result.

At last: I'd like the ion cannon stats on aircrafts are consistent with the ionhead's.

By the way, where do you stand about adding SMS on the Devilfish?

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:23 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

I agree with Baron P. Can we keep the stats as is, minus the AA? I'm guessing it will be the best way to go as it requires the least amount of change. To me losing AA doesn't mean it needs an upgunning. CS, I know you felt from the fluff that it has a high rate of fire but we can argue that that is why it has a 3+ to hit ...

On the Orca, why don't we just assign it as a 100 point transport to various units like FW Cadres and Kroot, Broadsides etc? Make it an additonal upgrade like the Devilfish is written for FW and you also pay the same points as 4x DF, which sounds like a beautiful balance to me, as your average FW formation then still costs the same maxed-out(300 points) but you don't increase it's size too much either.

This way we remove the +9 activation boogieman that people seem to think will occur and units that need it can buy it as usual. This way, at maximum, you could buy only 10 activations (10 FW Cadres + Orca transports)in a 3k game, which doesn't seem too harsh to me.

What do you guys think?

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Orcas

So, I guess that we are heading towards a limit of each Orca starting the game with at least one formation on board. Limiting the number of Orcas to one per Cadre would partially work, but with the above force list it would still allow five Orcas and may restrict players who actually wanted a 'drop force'. It remains to be seen whether an additional rule prohibiting the ability of an empty Orca to take/contest objectives is required.

The problem with making the Orca a 'standard' transort option like the DevilFish is that is causes a problem with units like the Broadsides.

IonHead

Thanks for going with me on the IonHead lack of AA, guys. When first suggested there was concern voiced that it would not be competitive compared to the RailHead. That said, I would be happy to simply drop the AA ability of the IonHead, as long as it doesnt preclude players selecting it. I am strong on making each unit say something about the way in which the force plays, rather than one option being 'better' in some way.

I was worried that the double shot made the Ion Cannon too strong. I think that making the Ion Cannon identical across the board on ground and air units in unworkable at worst, and extremely difficult at best. I am also not convinced that it is necessary. The trouble is that ranges mean a lot more in the air, where the craft can hit where it likes. Actually stats are possible, but the ranges could prove difficult.

DevilFish

I am happy to upgrade the DevilFish with SMS, but only where this would replace the Burst Cannons. I dont necessarily think that it makes a huge difference. For me, this comes down to the actual model provided... and the FW DevilFish has a Burst Cannon, so I would be inclined to stick with that. And, every DevilFish in the Tau Empire Codex has a Burst Cannon.

(As a side note, it just came to me that while the RailHead has Burst Cannon Drones, the IonHead has SMS! Argh, that irritates me!)

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:31 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(As a side note, it just came to me that while the RailHead has Burst Cannon Drones, the IonHead has SMS! Argh, that irritates me!)

WYSIWYG is a good thing.

Speaking of which, have you given any more thought to allowing players to go fully WYSIWYG with the weapon choices on the Broadsides and Crisis suits, even if only for non-tournament play?

Love me some acronym.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:04 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Well, I am certainly not going to knock on peoples doors and tell them not to put WYSIWYG stats to their battle suits, but I think that this is beyond the scope of the list. I can just imagine players peering at the miniatures trying to tell the difference between a 6mm Fusion Blaster from a Plasma Rifle!

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:09 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

*shrug*

The different weapons on the different suits was the first thing I noticed about them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:40 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Can I ask what the problem with broadside orca transports is, CS? I can't seem to see one. If you want to use it for Broadsides then they keep their transport with them - the huge target that it is....

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:16 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 11 2007,14:18)

QUOTE

Not to be pedantic, but maybe this current list is not a 'drop force' list at all; a different Tau army list may reflect that tactical doctrine and it doesn't need to be represented here.

To me, the best solution to the "Orca issue" is "one Orca per Cadre" in the army, but that they can be used to transport any formation(s) that fit in them.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

Nerroth

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:46 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada

Hmm.

I'll have to sit down with the new list to see what I make of it - and to see what I need to change in the Gue'senshi list to match the new version.

Gary

_________________

Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.

Top

colonel_sponsz

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:55 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 11 2007,14:18)

QUOTE

Limiting the number of Orcas to one per Cadre would partially work, but with the above force list it would still allow five Orcas and may restrict players who actually wanted a 'drop force'.

It would limit tournament players who want a drop force. Balancing the army for tournaments is one thing but when you are fighting scenario battles then the list restrictions and grabbing objectives with unladen transports aren't really a concern.

My drop force will never be tournament legal but, as I've no intention of playing in a tournament or using the tournament rules, it's hardly something I lose sleep over.

Orde

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

Tau Army List Archive

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Comments on version 4.4.1

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:51 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 11 2007,14:18)

QUOTE

DevilFish

I am happy to upgrade the DevilFish with SMS, but only where this would replace the Burst Cannons. I dont necessarily think that it makes a huge difference. For me, this comes down to the actual model provided... and the FW DevilFish has a Burst Cannon, so I would be inclined to stick with that. And, every DevilFish in the Tau Empire Codex has a Burst Cannon.

Yeah. All 8 devilfish in the 40k scenarios, and the (16? I loaned out my IA3 :blush:

) fish in the Epic scenarios are not necessarily a representative sample.

Except that the SMS is in addition to the burst cannons, replacing the drones, not replacing the BC.

(As a side note, it just came to me that while the RailHead has Burst Cannon Drones, the IonHead has SMS! Argh, that irritates me!)

That really depends on which basic hull you get - since FW makes 2 different versions of the HH hull (model-wise)!

And how's that different from a Predator? Pred A has all lascannons, and Pred D has Autocannon/Heavy Bolters

Same different tactical uses, similar armament patterns.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 3

[ 36 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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

Jump to:

Comments on version 4.4.1

Who is online