So, I would like to add my comment to this discussion.

First of all, EA is much more abstract than some want to recognize. In 40K you are quite free to compose your army as you like. But most listst in EA don´t allow this. The old question why I cannot upgrade my Tacticals with 2 stands of Devas or assault marines comes in mind. Codex Astartes doesn´t forbit this for sure.   . Now look ath the TAU compare with other  (balanced) armies and you will see what I mean.

My second concern to the TAU and partially to Chaos: We tend to allow such an big amount of options because we read someting in an Forgeworld book and think this option is generally available to all armies of this race even if it is only used in this special case described. Best example for me is the AX-1-0 or even better the cursed turrets. It´s clearly stated that AX is a prototype design and very rare. I read dozens of stories where sentry turrets not even existed, but they are a mainstay in the EA army list and this mainstay is defended agressivley because somebody read a report where Forgeworld describes them in one particular campaign. If I do this with the Marine list they could really compose as they like and every one-trick-pony would be included, making them completely unplayable.  Nevertheless this is easily overlooked and TAU Fanboys want to include every single unit they ever read about. Wrong way.

The second issue is the package size of the models delivered by FW. We had countless issues where FW changed packacke size of the models (Fighter came in three for example and were downgraded to 2 per pack). But units were designed because of package size not because of playability. (Now we again have the broadside issue   )

Don´t understand me wrong, I really like the TAU design process which Honda and CS initiated now. Some issues where looked at and some critical errors are fixed, but I fear we are not going far enough. We have to loose some units and for sure we have to drop the special rule count to simplify the list (I see the discussions to make some new ones and I get a very bad feeling about this   ) . TAU are not so different to other armies as fanboys want to see them. maybe we should do some more critical cuts...after testing the new list with the recent changes.    

I looked at the french Tyra List and I liked their easy going approach (not perfect but really really nice to play) compared to the tactical command list. Then I looked at the TAU...... I do not want to offend somebody (which is easily done with my bad english grammar) but I want to state that maybe we are thinking too complicated when designing the list.

As always only my 0.0000000002 cent


Have Fun

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

I didn't explain myself very clearly in my reply.

The issue isn't that MoK's observation isn't valid. The point I was trying to make is that "Logistics" is something that is better left off and abstracted at this level of game. If I came off harsh in my comments, I apologize.

However, if you go back and see how much ammunition vehicles carry (when you can find the stats), how much bolter ammunition the basic space marine carries, etc. you'll find that in a real war, everyone in 40K would very quickly end up fighting with las weapons and clubs. Those stated ammounts of ammo are woefully inadequate to support a 40K scale of game, let alone a game of Epic.

So, given the "reality" of our logistics, we are faced with a choice. Are we going to re-work the entire game, because we are out of whack logistically? Do we just pick a few units to penalize with logistics? (and if so, why them?) Or do we suspend our reality meters a bit and accept that logistics (as in many other games) is something that interferes with gameplay and is better left off and assumed. It all comes down to how you want "your" game to play. As it stands currently, Epic/40K have chosen to minimize the effects of logistics for the benefit of gameplay.



40K, and by association Epic, can be a very annoying blend of reality and someone else's perception of war sometimes. It rarely seems consistent. To play 40K/Epic/BFG a certain level of suspension in "our" perceptions is necessary, because it turns out that there are a fair amount of players who have issues with the logic and physics of 40K. Suspension of our perceptions is something that we choose to do in order to play a game with, in this case, very tiny toy soldiers.

So, on this particular topic, I would ask for your indulgence and help us focus on the overall list balance.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Well, next time it might be easier if you go find the information yourself Hymirl...

I was simply linking to the starting point of the discussion (it continued on for a few pages). I had nothing new to add to my posts in that thread so I didn't see any point in wasting space here (or my time), repeating my views.

The fact is that Epic is actually quite a simple game and those that want to play something more complicated maybe should consider playing a different game rather than trying to change Epic...

Sorry for the straight talk but this reply simply needed to be responded to.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

OK. Deep breath, guys, and count to ten...

I agree with Honda that, while we are happy to have discussions, we should look at focussing these developments constructively.

In addition, does that mean that we would also look at units like the Marine Hunter, IG Manticore, Tyranid Biovore, etc. These would also appear to have limited missile ammo.  

_________________
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.

@Hena: We are talking about ONE POOL of several one-shot Seeker Missiles. And NOT that every Tau vehicle receives a one-shot missle.

@CS: Manticories already have a rule to represent this (slow-firing). Hunters have a big drum-magazine for the missiles and Biovores have a big sack under their belly full of spores.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

So far i understand it this debate isn't about an improvement rules wise but an improvement fluff wise.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

By that theory then, why don't all my Marine's Rhinos get hunter killer missiles for the whole game? The situation is exactly the same. Can't we all resupply our weapons mid game? No... only the Tau... right.



Thats right its a simple game, unfortunatly a lot of people seem to be in the mistaken belief that everything available in the 40K codex MUST be represented in Epic. You're the one advocating complications, Devilfish can live perfectly well without GMs available every turn.

This is the second time you've tried to fob someone off with such huffing and puffing, just because of your personal prejudice in favour of GMs being spammed everywhere does not give you the right to act in a condesending manner to other posters, if you can't be bothered to present your views then don't. kthxbye.

_________________
"A good orbital insertion is one you walk away from, a great one is where they can use the Thunderhawk again." Roboute Guilliman.

Its just that I think you're making a few too many exceptions in the Tau's favour. Upgrades becoming a mainstay weapon, supplies of that upgrade becoming sufficent for a whole battle.

And thats not even getting to the stuff about rare or expirmental gear becoming general issue equipment like the AX10 and drone turrets. To me it looks like the Tau are in desperate need of being hit with the simplication stick, theres a lot of stuff that seems to be there just for the sake of being there, not because its needed to make the army work or feel the way it should.

Should every Tau vehicle formation have be able to function as artillery all game? Frankly, No.

_________________
"A good orbital insertion is one you walk away from, a great one is where they can use the Thunderhawk again." Roboute Guilliman.

Do you have a link to the French Tau list?  I thought that their approach to the Tyranids was also pretty interesting.  It might be enlightening to look at, although my french is poor at best.

I see where Al/Hymirl is coming from as regards the proliferation of GM's, perhaps something like a 'pool' of missiles is something for us to consider at a later date.
However, Missile's and Markerlight's do seem to be part of the flavour of the Tau (and you all know how i like flavour...) so I would like to see them stay. Removing them from units at this moment would mean a lot of recosting to go around and i believe limitations on what may be targeted/destroyed via ML's (it's been suggested not allowing missiles to fired unguided, i'd go for that) would be a good idea; and may also support the close up tactics that some are advocating; because to make full use of the points you've spend on GM armed unit's you'd have to stay nice and close with ML armed troops.
What if calling in the GM's were part of ML equipped formations? Though that would require the 'matching up' of GM and ML formations and i see a lot of bookeeping problems.
Again though: let's cool this off for a little while (as it's getting heated) and keep it to casual musings.
R>

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

http://www.esnips.com/doc....ERC-0.1 this seems to be it. I'm trying to find a way to feed it through some kind of translator program now.

A couple points to remember:  In the 3e Tau codex, all vehicles could field 4x Seeker Missiles.  This was reduced to 2x Seekers in the 4e Tau Empire Codex.  Imperial Armor 3 did not specify a number of seeker missiles, but was written to be playable with both the 3e and 4e codecii (Taros campaign came out before 4e Tau codex), and the historical 40k scenarios show one or two Seekers total, when there's the option to carry them.  FW heavily modified a late v3 or v4.0 list to produce their Epic list (completely removing the unguided ability from Seekers, mind you), and yet did NOT make the Guided Missiles One Shot.

Now, Manticores have 4x missiles on the model, and are 2BP Slow Firing as a result.  However, a Vulture has 2x Hellstrikes on the model, and each one is One Shot.  It's not a big deal for someone that only fields one formation of Vultures to keep track of missiles fired, since they're probably going to alpha-strike and kill as much armor to lay BMs as possible before the Stormtroopers land and assault.

Now, the ML/GM interaction is one of the biggest differences between Tau and Eldar (yeah, eldar can Engage, too, but that's a different discussion).  What it forces is fragile units to get close to the enemy so that the sledgehammer of Tau firepower can be brought to bear.

The currently accepted fix for the ML/GM issue is to require firing at lit targets only, add +1 to-hit for all Guided Missiles, and increase range to 90cm for ground-based GMs (45cm for air).  This still requires some testing, but I believe that it will fix most of the issues.  Yep, not having a marked target costs you a third or more of your AT firepower, and ML formations are either infantry or LVs for the most part, and always small, which makes them very fragile.

A couple quick comparisons:
Leman Russ battle tank
AV/20cm/4+RA sv/6+cc/4+ff
Battle Cannon, 75cm AP4+/AT4+
Lascannon, 45cm, AT5+
2x Heavy Bolter 30cm AP5+

Hammerhead (with currently discussed/accepted changes to GMs)
AV/25cm Skimmer/4+sv/6+cc/5+ff
Railgun, 75cm AP5+/AT3+
Seeker Missiles, 90cm AT5+ Guided Missiles
Smart Missile System, 30cm AP5+ Ignore Cover

So, this means that a Russ has a reach of 115cm on the double and 95 on the advance, while an unsupported Hammerhead has a reach of 125cm on a double (since the Seekers CANNOT fire without a markerlight somewhere), and 100cm on an advance.  Note that a Russ' danger range is 65cm (50cm for full effect of 2x AP5+, AP4+/AT4+ and AT5+) on an advance.  The Hammerhead's danger range is 55cm, delivering an AP5+ and an AP5+/AT3+.  Why am I not mentioning the Seeker shot?  Because the Hammerhead doesn't have a Markerlight itself, and we're looking at this unsupported.  

Let's assume that now some ML unit has survived to get within utter death range of the Russ (within the Russ' Engage range, in fact, since a ML is only 30cm).  That means that a Hammerhead has a 140cm reach on the double, but with only one AT6 shot (waste of time with a 4+RA target, only a 1/48 chance of kill).  At 125cm, the Hammerhead has an AP6+/AT4+ and the AT6+.  Better, but still not a shot I want to take.  On the advance, 115cm for a desultory seeker shot, 100 cm for full AT effect, and 55cm to add that AP5+ shot.  Since Tau can't survive that close to an unbroken enemy, you can pretty much ignore that 55cm range, unless the Tau have dropped a co-fire on the LRuss company  with 2x AMHC+Hammerheads+Skyray and a Tetra formation (which isn't necessarily good odds to break, either).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Following that logic, should Marines have Razorbacks available?


Devilfish GM's are the only way that FireWarriors can directly deal with armour. Under the new rules, The GM's will only be able to fire at Markerlit targets (NO unguided firing).
Simple.


This is the second time you've tried to fob someone off with such huffing and puffing, just because of your personal prejudice in favour of GMs being spammed everywhere does not give you the right to act in a condesending manner to other posters, if you can't be bothered to present your views then don't. kthxbye.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.