Page 1 of 5

[ 70 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
Tactica	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:51 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	CS, You made this comment in the ork batrep thread: I would rather make subtle changes to encourage players to take mixed forces (if this is actually what we want to do). For example, if we simply limited the number of vehicles which had Markerlights (and in particular remove them from the Hammerheads) then it would encourage more Fire Warriors without restricting the players choice. I pulled this out of that thread and created a new topic as its something several may have some interest in discussing and I'm not sure all folks read all batreps. Also, RedDevil had some questions regarding your intention in the comment - so instead of carrying on off topic discussion in that thread, I thought the respectful thing to do was for me to create a new thread for my reply. Hope you guys are OK with that. So, I'm a bit confused as to why the hammerheads were selected here in this comment CS. The hammerhead gunships don't have markerlights. I'm hoping/guessing what you were talking about was the STINGray and not the SKYray. Things like SKYray (devilfish/hammerhead chassis but definitely not a hammerhead) and Tetra (LV) already come with markerlights for a reason. They are already modelled in the GW franchise to have these systems and have a history of having them. I don't think you are contemplating removing markers from these two vehicles, but thought I'd ask you to clarify this point so I can clearly understand your intentions. I think you may have been talking about the Stingray (also a devilfish/hammerhead chassis - but definitely not a hammerhead gunship). That is interesting and I've not considered that before. For the same reasons this is interesting, I would further throw in the Scorpionfish for discussion - again, for the same reasons I find the Stingray an interesting candidate for *possible* markerlgiht removal. Removing the markerlights from either the STINGray and Narwhal/Scorpionfish SHT would be worthy of debate IMHO - *IF* you are looking to reduce the number of _vehicles with markerlights_ in the Tau list. First, both of these vehicles have no GW developed history in the game. Their first appearence is in Epic. So we may have a bit more creative license here than we do with the Skyray and Tetra. Also, these two pieces are basically meant for a significant distance support role. The tau ad-hoc solution (with relative effectiveness mind you) to the gap of having absolutely no indirect fire Barrage Support. Therefore, these two vehicle units (STINGray and Narwhal) *may* be good candidates IMO for vehicular markerlights removal *IF* thats a direction you are looking at CS. For reference, there's only 4 vehicle units in our list that have markerlights anyway so there's not that much to consider. Vehicles Tetra Skyray Stingray Narwhal [Caveat: Drone Sentry Tower currently in the Tau WIP collectors section also is an immobile vehicle with the sole purpose of teleporting and providing markerlight support - but left that out of the conversation as its in collectors models section at the moment] And for further reference, in regards to infantry, there's 4 units that have markers there as well. So although we may remove up to 2 vehicles with markers, whether or not Firewarriors themselves are used as the primary marker source in the ned will remain to be seen. Infantry Firewarriors Pathfinders Heavy Gun Drones XV15 Stealth Battlesuits Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

Nerroth	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:58 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	I had assumed that the Stingray didn't have markerlights anyway - it's intended to launch long-range strikes from beyond visual range (I usually hide a formation behind a hill or whatever near my home objective, and use my Tetras-plus-Piranhas formation as the markers of enemy formations) It's in character with the unit, plus sice it'll be hidden usually it's unnecessary. Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

CyberShadow	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:07 pm
Swarm Tyrant Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm Posts: 9348 Location: Singapore	Thanks for pulling this out. My statement was more of a blanket one, rather than aimed specifically at a vehicle. As I see it, the issue that occurs in a number of threads is that the Tau tanks are very good, particularly compared to the infantry, and that this may see a reduction in infantry taken in the list. I think that this would be a shame. I think that cutting back on the number of vehicles with markerlights would act as a balance to this and encourage mixed forces without imposing restrictions on the player (as the vehicles would benefit from better tragetting and the infantry would actually have access to heavier firepower). This would also address an issue which was raised about how the seeker missiles should be acting to help out the infantry by dealing with heavier targets, rather than the infantry helping out the vehicles by acting as scouts and marking targets. A subtle distinction, sure. Removing the markerlights was something that I mentioned regarding the Skyray, for the same reasons that you raise about the Stingray. Conversly, I would not remove it from the Tetra, as this is one of the common (and in character) roles for the vehicle. _________________ 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

Tastyfish	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:31 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm Posts: 120	I'd reccomend looking at the Everything Markerlight thread's recent idea, there was quite a good markerlight/seeker idea there that would encourage a much more balanced force of infantry and tanks Its spelled out better there but essentially, a markerlight equiped unit can add the seeker missiles from another formation (or from itself, not both) to its own firepower. Though this is a one for one basis - one markerlight unit calling in seekers from one seeker equiped unit.
Top

Nerroth	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:32 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	I'd keep the ML on the Skyray - to match the model - but I hit on the idea of only having the +1 to hit from Pathfinders and Tetras, so all the Skyray could do by itself is mark a target, granting no to hit bonus. Fair? Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

Honda	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:33 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	I am not in favor of removing the ML's from the Stingray or Scorpionfish. In fact I might go so far as to say that I am strongly not in favor of removing them. Now, I'm not just saying that because I am a heavy user of both vehicles, but because you are taking away a self-defense mechanism for each formation. The ML allows each of those units to defend themselves when that all too nasty CC unit starts getting too close, by pouring in fire to reduce what is most likely going to be an unfavorable exchange from the Tau perspective. If you force these two units to be so dependent on other units ML's, then you are building a weakness into the army, in that if an opponent can just get past the front line (which isn't that hard to do in this game), then the rest of the forces can be easily dealt with. I don't know how other people use these vehicles, but my standard method of operations is to use them to support other attacks, in defilade to protect them, flitting back and forth to lend fire where needed. I am already paying for the risk of exposing FW's to an opponent's troops to gain the benefit of ML's. However, it isn't that uncommon for someone to figure out that if they can just get a unit within range to engage, then they have a pretty good chance of destroying, driving them off, or placing blast markers on that which annoys them. What softens up this strike back is the ability to hit the unit with a somewhat enhanced chance of doing damage in a self-defense action. Note, this means not firing at what I'd really rather fire at, because now I am trying to save/extricate the unit. Also, removing the ML's from these two units is not going to cause people to suddenly start buying more FW's. What they may end up doing is just buying more HH formations (i.e. unintended consequence). Taking ML's away doesn't make FW's more attractive, it only degrades two formations that are working pretty well. JMO. Also, I would like those who have an opinion on the subject to please define what they mean by "infantry". Are they talking about foot infantry or mechanized infantry. The reason I ask is that it almost sounds like there is a desire to move the list back to "Dark Ages" tactics where everybody marshals their forces in long lines and then have a go at each other. That is not the model of modern warfare, which on a certain level, we are attempting to emulate. There is a reason why, excepting specialist units (i.e. SPECOPS, Lt. Infantry, etc.) that modern armies have evolved into the mechanized monsters that they are. Mechanized forces are more capable of waging war than foot borne infantry forces. And if you want to bring up Vietnam or Afghanistan (the Russian version), just substitute Airmobile for Mechanized and you come to the same result. Mobility and firepower are king. So, if you want people to take more infantry, then make infantry more attractive, don't make other units less attractive. Also keep in mind that some people are attracted to this list because it is (in it's current form) a tanker's dream. Don't penalize people because that is why they are attracted to the list. Sorry if there is a little emotion in my comments, but this list has so much potential...it would be a shame to start shackling parts of it. /* SOAPBOX OFF _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top

Nerroth	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:21 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm Posts: 573 Location: Canada	Honda, what do you think of my idea for keeping the Markerlight on the Skyray, but only letting Pathfinders and Tetras grant the +1 to hit? Gary _________________ Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdf Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top

Tastyfish	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:23 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm Posts: 120	Tanks I say = MBTs and the like, Hammerheads, Leman Russ etc Infantry = infantry, including their transports who in our case don't do a lot of traditional tank roles. I think most people here would tend to agree, rather than counting devilfish as 'tanks' given that they only appear with infantry. IG I see as the tankers dream armour, Tau is the Mechanised/Airborn infantry. We've only just got a tank cadre in the last few weeks, and wouldn't say its as typically Tau as the mech infantry, which is pretty much how every 40K player plays (or hybrid but we'll pretend its mech for the time being:p). Surely people play Tau in epic more for the models and threat of drowning in money if they don't? As for Stingrays and Scorpionfish, can't say I've used them (though I've ordered a detachment of the former) but from a the Fio point of view - Skyrays have been a sucess, such a sucess that they are being incorperated into more cadres in a much wider role than just AA. It seems to be going back a step to remove an ability from that on designs inspired by the Skyray, just because your ethos is combined arms doesn't mean you can't throw out a punch on your own if things turn against you.
Top

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:49 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	The fluff from IA3 has Skyrays getting pulled from the air-defense role to extra-long range AT fire support in the desert.  There'd be some hidden Pathfinders to mark an IG convoy, and the first indication that there was anyone out there was when the Seekers hit.  Then the Hammerheads would crest a hill line, into range, and blast the remaining members of the convoy.  As soon as the IG started to get shells on/close to target, the Tau would break away.  The only way the Imperials could really counter this tactic was to shift Basilisks to be 'assault guns', ie, ad-hoc tanks firing directly. The Stingray had markerlights mostly because the Skyray did, but I still think that the Stingray should retain them.  It allows for the unit to select it's own targets, at close range (remembering how the ML/GM combo works in fluff), and the weapons are tied into the wider markerlight network, allowing others to call for fire from the Stingray, as well as to come to the aid of the Stingray if/when someone gets in position to threaten it.   Given FW's like to add markerlights to the newer heavy fliers, I'm starting to think that the Scorpionfish should also have them. _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

Tactica	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:55 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (CyberShadow @ 30 Nov. 2005 (17:07)) Thanks for pulling this out. My pleasure. ...Tau tanks are very good, particularly compared to the infantry, and that this may see a reduction in infantry taken in the list. I think that this would be a shame.

I agree.

However, the problem isn't the tanks from my perspective.

Our tanks have been dumbed down in FF potential to falsely represent how we would fair in a E:A firefight for a valid game purpose to make sure the Tau don't succeed easily or even usually in a typical combat. No problem. In return, the list as a whole has been bumped up a tick to make it more viable in the shooting game. Not a problem their either.

But when you look at a Leman Russ co - consider their survivability in a ff, shooting damage potential, survivability including RA of the lemans, manouverability in, over, and around terrain, point for point and include considerations for Reinforced armor longevity, the hammerhead tank points out within an acceptable margin of error.

The problem, IMHO, is that the infantry is basically ap only infantry with a marker. Its also relatively low range (no 45cm shooting, we have a lot of 15cm and 30cm shooting).

IG, Eldar, Orcs, Marines, Chaos - all have infantry that also can deal AT damage, many (if not all) have infantry that can deal 45cm AT damage, and all can also engage in combat better than Tau. Oh, in addition - each of these units also has AP damaging weapons that are quite valuable.

So all of these infantry choices have far more flexible uses and options that our Tau in the E:A game. As a result, the Tau infantry just isn't as appealing as these other infantry types unless you are solely focussed on a markerlight oriented list. If you don't want to be predictable, then you are going to have to veer from this path from time to time - so what other uses are their for the infantry when the enemy's infantry can do so much more *IF* you are not going to use our infantry for AP or markerlights?

I think that cutting back on the number of vehicles with markerlights would act as a balance to this and encourage mixed forces without imposing restrictions on the player (as the vehicles would benefit from better tragetting and the infantry would actually have access to heavier firepower).
I would say we are talking about 2 vehicles then. I do not encourage the Skyray and Tetra losing their marker lights as franchise history and precident - not to mention actual models already have the markerlights on these units.

I do not wish to see the STINGray and the Scorpionfish lose their markerlights, but I think you would have an easier time convincing me that they need to go from these two units more than the previous. However, I don't think removing the marker lights from these two units is the way to go either.

If the tanks in the list are working, and the infantry are less favored, then one has to wonder first if that's not a typical trend in Epic anyway. For me, I like tanks and vehicles regardless of the list I'm playing. The only exception to that is maybe orcs and chaos but that's because they are sooooo good at hand to hand that the vehicles are simply means to get the units to do their jobs... but even in those lists, I take a heavy amount of vehicles - because I for one like tanks.

So if the tanks are working, and the infantry just don't do much, and the tanks that have markers have them for a reason, then the infantry seems to be the problem... not the tanks, not the markers.

This would also address an issue which was raised about how the seeker missiles should be acting to help out the infantry by dealing with heavier targets, rather than the infantry helping out the vehicles by acting as scouts and marking targets. A subtle distinction, sure.

I've just recently responded to RedDevil's post and thread on this topic. I would encourage you and all to read my response. I've presented a solution that may be worth considering to make the tau marker light equipped infantry solve this problem. In addition, it will also solve the problem of them not being as appealing as they could be. I'll look for your thoughts over there for those that have the time to digest and respond to that rather lengthy, but I feel necessary, post.

Removing the markerlights was something that I mentioned regarding the Skyray, for the same reasons that you raise about the Stingray. Conversly, I would not remove it from the Tetra, as this is one of the common (and in character) roles for the vehicle.
See above, as the SKYray model has it, and GW/Forgeworld have a model in 40K with markerlights using the same name, I think we would be remiss to diverge from that path unless at all necessary... and even then, Jervis and/or designers may shun such a prospect. They may ask us why we didn't make our marker light rules work vs. changing their model they want to sell LOTS of.

Afterall, they are in this for the profit, not the rules.

Cheers,