Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Commentary on version 4.4.2

 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:34 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
OK, here is a general list of the changes made for the current version of the list, along with the occasional justification... or at least rationale behind my thoughts.

Special Rules and Force Structure

The restriction on embarking/disembarking on the first turn of a support craft drop has been... dropped!

Also, added the Mantas self planetfall note.

The Networked Drone rule has been dropped and folded into the organisational list and model notes. One special rule gone.

Changed the drone rule to drop the ability to shield AT hits, making drones infantry protection only, but not getting any blast markers for destroyed drones. Added the drone rule to heavy drones and sniper drones.


This is a fairly large change from the previous version. However, since the initial reason for this was to protect the infantry and not the tanks, this now only impacts on the Broadsides. And, this has drastically cleaned up the rule and clarified it.

Cant combine the Tau Supreme Commander and Coordinated Fire rules.

There was a suggestion to combine Tau Supreme Commander and Co-Ordinated Fire rule into a single rule set. However, since there are units which have Co-Ordinated Fire but are not Supreme Commanders (the Shas'El) this is not possible.

Clarified Sentry Turret deployment.

Clarified the Jet Pack move - not into an enemies ZoC. Additional changes to the Jet Pack rule have not been made as the discussion is ongoing.

Changed the alien auxiliary formation to one per Fire Warrior Cadre. Limited the Ethereal to FW Cadres only.

Added a brief note on Tau firefight values. I welcome feedback on this.[QUOTE]

I will be adding more 'designers notes' as they come up. Feel free to let me know your comments on this note, and other notes that could be added. I also want to play around with the introduction section and general look of the list.

[QUOTE]Force structure - to reiterate, while there is a case for the 'pick and mix' Tau force by the background, I simply dont think that this is a viable option for the Epic game. I will need some serious convincing to change the current organisation and force list.

Unit Stats and Details

I have not changed the cost of the Devilfish. They are currently sitting at Chimera equivalent level, and are costed at the same grade. I have not added the SMS to this vehicle. Every time I look at the potential stats with an additional SMS, it seems to have more anti infantry power than many MBTs.

Have not created a mechanised formation with the FW, giving the player the choice Human Auxiliaries have changed to 7+1 units for 150 points, with no further units possible.

This puts a significant restriction on the Human Auxiliaries, since they are now more fragile. Lists with more alien auxiliary/Human auxiliary units will need to be more specialised and specific lists will need to be written for them later.

Crisis Suits
- dropped MW small arms FF from Plasma Rifles
- merged the plasma rifles and fusion blasters into a single 15cm MW4+ strike

This may not put me on a lot of Christmas card lists!  :D  I have slightly downgraded the Crisis suits. The MW FF attack was removed as if we have a theme of no assaults, we should try to reinforce it as much as possible. Even after this, the stat line for this was too busy, having three attacks for an infantry unit. I looked at the viability and presidence of MW for the Fusion Guns, and found that both Fire Dragons (with a very similar weapon) and Wraithlords get MW attacks. Therefore this is justified.

The loss of the 30cm strike should (I hope) make the unit have to decide between holding back and remaining flexible, or jumping forwards to take out tougher targets such as heavier tanks, relying on those jump packs to get them out of danger again. If so, I think that this reflects their background well. Besides, both Plasma Rifles and Fusion Guns are short ranged in 40K.

Note that I have not changed the points cost of this unit at this time. By eye, the points remain about right, but feedback will prove or disprove this.

Changed RailHead to AP5+/AT3+ and IonHead to AP4+/AT4+ (also Swordfish IonCannon changed).

Broadsides at 300 points for 6.

Tetra - left at LV, not changed to infantry.

This is one of those things where I would love to go back and change. If I could start from about four years ago, so that people didnt have to rebase, and persuade FW to change their packs, I would have Tetra as Infantry. However, I will just base mine as LV, but in pairs and move on.

Sniper drone armour increased to 4+.

Orca - objective note in unit stats, increased transport capacity to 12, one per cadre.

The issue of the Orca and objectives can be summarised in three points:
- Orca cannot capture objectives
- transported troops must disembark to capture objectives
- Orca can contest objectives

The aim here is to make them an annoyance to the enemy, but one which doesnt have the ability to end the game by capturing objectives.

Transport capacity has been increased.

While I have to say that I dont like it, I have made the Orca limited to one per Cadre. I would rather have this than forcing them to begin the game loaded, and I agree that they are otherwise open to problems.

Dropped Sentry Turret armour to 5+.

Hunter missiles reduced to 60cm on Skyray and Scorpionfish.

Stingray submunitions halved, support group of 4 reduced to 225 points.

I did this rather than dropping the Seeker missile, to keep the unit flexible. I did consider changing the submunitions to 2xAP6+ to decrease it, but went with the reduced dice instead.

Barracuda - no changes.

I will revisit the thread started by Chris comparing the Barracuda and TigerShark. However, it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Barracuda is better for AA missions, while the TigerShark is better for ground attack, although neither seem too far pushed in either direction. This actually seems exactly what we are looking for.

OK. So those are the general changes. Please feel free to let me know your feedback and comments on this.

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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
I really like the clarifications you did. To be honest there are too much choices anyway, but we already had a discussion about it, so I don?t want to warm it up.

The Orca Issue is not solved well I think. It should go align with all similar transports in this class like Vampire, Landa or even Thunderhawk. No special rules should cut them out or prefer them. Their capacity of 12 seems a litte bit much for that point costs, even larger and more specialized transport never reach 12. (and there is a reason for this I think) They are always designed to get a single cadre without upgrades to the enemy. And so it should be with the Orca Transport, so limit it to the size of 8. All other things are simply not fair.

Drop sentries completely. They have a bunch of special thingies and this 2 per 1000 is not as plain as it should be.

The thing that nearly everything can have nearly everything as an upgrade annoys me. TAU are flexible, sure, but this is a little bit over the top.

I cannot say more to this, because I do not host a TAU army, but this things above seemed quite obvious to me.

But nevertheless nice work.

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:00 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

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

(Soren @ Nov. 23 2007,16:20)
QUOTE
I really like the clarifications you did. To be honest there are too much choices anyway, but we already had a discussion about it, so I don?t want to warm it up.

The Orca Issue is not solved well I think. It should go align with all similar transports in this class like Vampire, Landa or even Thunderhawk. No special rules should cut them out or prefer them. Their capacity of 12 seems a litte bit much for that point costs, even larger and more specialized transport never reach 12. (and there is a reason for this I think) They are always designed to get a single cadre without upgrades to the enemy. And so it should be with the Orca Transport, so limit it to the size of 8. All other things are simply not fair...

The thing that nearly everything can have nearly everything as an upgrade annoys me. TAU are flexible, sure, but this is a little bit over the top.

Thanks. To address two points.

I will be cutting down on the upgrades (and maybe even the support group options) available depending on the core cadre selection.

As for the Orca capacity, normally I would agree with you. However, transport is really all that this can do now - it is undergunned and cant capture objectives. I dont necessarily think that 12 is too much, although I wouldnt increase it any further than this.

Further feedback welcomed.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I'm just about to play a game today and will report back on the new rules. Understandably unhappy with the crisis suits change as it was, as Hena mentioned, unnecessary. My regular opponent doesn't even feel they were over the top.

Other changes seem fine so far except the drone rule change, as now Broadsides become quite vulnerable again which makes me question whether I will take them anymore. Which is a big pity, as I had just begun to use them more regularly. 6 in a formation is still fairly weak CS so if you hamstring them again by changing the drone rule - which people seemed generally happy with - they will again go back to the shelf to gather dust. Change for sake of change is not a great way to write a list.

If you're going to barge on with this rule i would suggest you switch the Broadsides back to Infantry. I find it funny after all the arguing about Broadsides as LV/Inf that when we finally got a decent stat line for them and cost that most people agreed on in principal that you go and nerf them again, thus unbalancing them....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:28 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Thanks for the comments. Please let me know how the game goes. Regarding the Crisis, please play them and let me know what you think. If this turns out to be a mistake, then we will simply put them back (I am not proud!  :D ).

As for the Broadsides, this was debated and it was decided that the Drone rule needed simplification and that the Broadsides would be the only unit affected. I dont want to change them to Infantry, but am willing to up the save to compensate for the loss of Drone protection.

In addition, please note that all of these changes were debated in various threads. I dont necessarily make 'change for sake of change', nor do I 'barge on' with rules or 'nerf' units intentionally. The Broadsides are a consequence of Drone changes, which were well supported. If this fallout requires that we look on the unit again, then I am happy to do so if it simplifies Drones and makes the army as a whole work better. I think that this is a small price.

Feedback welcomed.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Well after our game CS I can ease up somewhat on the Broadsides. I ran them without drones and on foot. They took 50% casualties when assaulted by the raptor formation but almost destroyed a Decimator in a single salvo. The reinforced armour actually held up in the assault eventhough ?I rolled no hits in the engagement! I took an orca but didn't use it to transport them as the need did not arise. I wouldn't up their save either. 4+ Reinforced is fine.

The orca as anything but a transport now is a pretty plain option. 1 AT attack and 1 AP (+ 1 short ranged AP) attack means it does very little than put a blast marker on a formation and possibly give your opponent's fighters a fairly easy kill with no AA attacks in it's rear arc.

The crisis suits. Firstly, combining the two weapons to one weapon makes sense. It also seemed fairer as they dont pack so many attacks now. They performed almost the same way they've always performed for me (minus one shooting attack). However...
The MW FF attack was removed as if we have a theme of no assaults, we should try to reinforce it as much as possible.

I always believed from these lists that it was artficially lowered - NOT removed. They aren't good in assault but that is reflected by their FF/CC roll, NOT their weaponry....

Having a MW shooting attack and not making that a MW FF attack makes no sense really because if the weapons are MW at range why do they magically stop being MW at assault range? Your analogy of Fire Dragons and Wraithguard seems incorrect as both have MW small arms...

All this said however, I didn't get to assess the loss of MW FF as the Crisis suits never got to engagement in our game. Losing a MW FF just seems silly from a point of "it looked too busy" when all it needs now is "small arms, MW" added to one line....

Drones... they worked well with the crisis suits. they helped keep them alive from a Decimator barrage attack. Again, I think they should still be used to bolster broadsides, as this is their purpose - but you've chosen a ruling so I have to abide by it.

The Network Drone ruling is a nice simple adjustment.

One thing that came up in our game was a question regarding Sentry Turrets. They have no ZoC. What happens when the opponent puts a garrison right on top of them thus putting them inside their ZoC?? We played that they make no attack so they didn't need to worry. The ZOC rules state that the unit caught inside an enemy ZoC must attack or move away. ?The armour change on the turrets seems fair.

Hammerhead (railgun) weapon stat changes were fine. It focusses them more which worked well.

Barracudas are a good aircraft but fragile as hell. They seem fine as they are. My Barra's didn't die this game as my opponent's rolls for intercept weren't good but I worried when they did approach.

That's all for now. I'll post the batrep when time permits.

After all this, my opponent regarded this list version as the best he's played yet.

edit - I also forgot to add that I think the number of MLST groups should be reduced by half. 1 group per 1000 points not 2 per...

Coverage should be fair to both sides and having 18 units in a 3K force albeit costing 300 points is a bit too much I think.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

Looks like all I need to change is the cost of the Stingrays (though I miss the better submunitions, not least because the Stingrays are relatively more useful for the Kleistians than for a Hunter Cadre) and to add the 0-1 per Cadre rule for Orcas (Hmm, maybe I need to state 0-1 per formation which can be deployed via Orca, since a Grenadier company can fit in one, but an Infantry company can't).


To be honest, I'm not happy with the Stingray change - the damned things were hard enough to use effectively as they were, and without the additional shots they are becoming even more difficult to use well.

So cheers on that one.


I like the Orca change, though.


Oh, and while I think it's a shame that you have cut the gue'vesa down to this - which is a step too far in the wrong direction - you have made a more tailored Dal'yth list more likely to show its distinction...

...and you've made it just that bit easier to say 'wanna be a tau-allied human? Come to Kleist!' so I guess I'm not that bothered.


And everyone - sorry for being the only one looking at the changes from my awkward perspective.


(One last question - can Orcas transport Kroot kindreds too?)





_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:06 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
To be honest, I'm not happy with the Stingray change - the damned things were hard enough to use effectively as they were, and without the additional shots they are becoming even more difficult to use well.


To be brutally honest, it was not my favourite change. But, the general concesus was that the Stingray was too powerful, and I am recently very mindful about the overall power of the list.

Oh, and while I think it's a shame that you have cut the gue'vesa down to this - which is a step too far in the wrong direction - you have made a more tailored Dal'yth list more likely to show its distinction...

While I am not keen on specialising the list greatly, the human and Vespid parts are probably best limited as much as possible. While they are a great addition, and wont disappear, any auxiliary heavy list builds are probably best consigned to variant lists, such as yours. I hope that this will keep the core Tau list characterful, and avoid the problem of the auxiliary doing exactly what they are supposed to ( :p ), and plugging the holes.

(One last question - can Orcas transport Kroot kindreds too?)

From the Orca stat box "Transport (may carry up to twelve of the following units: Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, Stealth, Gun Drones, Heavy Drones, Kroot Carnivore Squads, Kroot Master Shapers, Crisis and Broadsides; Crisis suits take up two spaces each)"

It is specifically designed that the Orca may transport Kroot (in fact, at one point, transport capacity was increased for exactly this reason), while the Manta cannot.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Why can't the Manta carry Kroot?

It can in 40k.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
The reason why I asked about the Orca is that the current version of the list says 1 per Cadre - but not '0-1 per Cadre, Kroot Kindred, Vespid Swarm or Gue'vesa Company'.


The auxiliaries need a way to get dirtside, too - and Kroot can't always depend on burrowing a Warsphere or two into the soils of target worlds.


Oh, and would Krootox and/or Knarlocs share the Crisis suit's issue of taking up two slots each?


Also, maybe an option of adding 4 more stands of gue'vesa might work - even with 12 stands, it's still smaller than a basic company of Guardsmen or Kleistian Infantry (and both of those can be augmented size-wise, not to mention they can have heavy weapon squads and other goodies, too).


I'm surprised to hear the Stingrays get such a rep - but I guess maybe I'm just bad at using them compared to others (or I have a lower proportion of markerlight troops to work with them anyway...) - sigh.

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(Nerroth @ Nov. 30 2007,12:56)
QUOTE
The reason why I asked about the Orca is that the current version of the list says 1 per Cadre - but not '0-1 per Cadre, Kroot Kindred, Vespid Swarm or Gue'vesa Company'.

You don't assign the Orcas to specific Cadres, it's just that the number of Cadres in the army form the upper limit of Orcas allowed.

So, if you had two Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadres, you could have up to two Orcas for your other transportable formations.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
I guess that makes sense - though in that case, I'll have to figure out if 0-1 per Company, or just 0-1 per Grenadier/HQ Company, would be more appropriate for 7.5...


(Probably the latter, as the other Company types can't fit in an Orca anyway, and I want to keep the numbers down to a reasonable level.)





_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(CyberShadow @ Nov. 23 2007,18:34)
QUOTE
I will revisit the thread started by Chris comparing the Barracuda and TigerShark. However, it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Barracuda is better for AA missions, while the TigerShark is better for ground attack, although neither seem too far pushed in either direction.

First off I still think the Barracuda is overgunned compared to the Eldar. An Eldar fighter gets 1/2 normal, 1/2 lance 30cm hits, a Barracuda gets 5/6 normal 30cm hits and 1/3 15cm 360 degree hit. You'll either agree or not :)

But i still think the balance is way out of whack purely for survivability reasons.

The barracudas have one advantage, they can deploy like this
 v
> <
and get 270 degree main weapon aa cover (as well as the 360 defence).

Weapons wise ground attack is worth more than air defence (especially since you will have skyrays everywhere to use their markerlights). I would gladly suffer a small drop in AA to get more ground attack capability (and the toughness here boosts both abilities)

The Tigersharks are just so much tougher.

The multi DC means they degrade slower. Suffering one point of damage does nothing to firepower, but reduces the Barracuda's by a third. 2 points can do nothing if split between the two planes, but does 2/3's to the fighters.

The resiliance to hits is a lot greater to. Most of the time units take one AA hit (unless you are nuts/unlucky). That will kill a barracuda 5/6's of the time on the attack. Whereas you have only a 1/9 chance of killing a tigershark. As pointed out elsewhere thats a 433% (I think) increase in survivability.

Finally in case you ever need it coherency for the formation is 10cm instead of 5. Which has helped once when deploying drones for a cross fire.

As this is one unit and not feature as a major factor in bat reps it is very hard to show in playtesting, all you can notice is they live a lot more, and that only after a lot of games (which is simply what you would expect them to do).

I do think its a problem and if you face 'powergamed' lists it pushes Baracudas out. I would far prefer several things to happen.
1) the save drops to 6+.
They still have some toughness advantages but crucially the chance of killing one is now 5/36, almost the same as a Barracuda.
2) drop fighter bomber and become bomber.
Affects jink saves and removes the whole AA fromt he equation.
3) As apparently we are getting drone fighters (L4 says so!) allow them into the game as an upgrade to tigersharks that makes them fighter bombers.
4) Optional, give said drone upgrade AA6+ all round, but reduce one of the 5+AA attacks to 6+ to compensate.

As a bonus the changes can carry over (or not, it could be better armoured) to the a-10 making it a bit cheaper as well.

At the very least the save should come down to 6+ and the points by 25-50 for the squadron.

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Commentary on version 4.4.2
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
do think its a problem and if you face 'powergamed' lists it pushes Baracudas out. I would far prefer several things to happen.
1) the save drops to 6+.
They still have some toughness advantages but crucially the chance of killing one is now 5/36, almost the same as a Barracuda.
2) drop fighter bomber and become bomber.
Affects jink saves and removes the whole AA fromt he equation.
3) As apparently we are getting drone fighters (L4 says so!) allow them into the game as an upgrade to tigersharks that makes them fighter bombers.
4) Optional, give said drone upgrade AA6+ all round, but reduce one of the 5+AA attacks to 6+ to compensate



So all this is just simple theory TRC, not actual playtest...? Have you had any games with the Tau?

Actually looking at the Drone fighter thread it doesn't look like we'll be getting them anytime soon TRC...






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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:  


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