PDA

View Full Version : Tau?



Panzerkanzler
27-09-2007, 16:10
Hi!

I love the FW Tau minis and since I pay them in 40k it'd be really cool to have them in BFG and epic as well. I've been looking at the Tau minis but I can't find any rules for them. Where are the rules?

mistformsquirrel
27-09-2007, 16:30
www.specialist-games.com

Go there, click on the language you prefer; then hit Experimental Rules I believe >.< Thats here I found the Titan Legion list!

Panzerkanzler
27-09-2007, 17:34
Thank you. It says in the Tau rules that Tau models won't be produced until the rules for the army are finalized. Until such a time there is only the expensive FW models. So my question is how long it usually takes the guys to finish army specific rules. A year? Two years? A few more months? Someone who has been into Epic armageddon could perhaps shed some light on this question?

Epic was my first game of all the GW table top games. I began playing it some 12 years ago and had slightly over 9000 points eldar. Then they introduced the rectangular bases and horrible rules and I quit. I'm quite excited by the prospect of returning to my very first love! I have so many awesome memories of the game.

HiveFleetJomama
27-09-2007, 17:40
Never?

As far as I know, Specialist Games will not be doing any new models any time soon. And they don't seem to be too inclined to support any new rules either.

Panzerkanzler
27-09-2007, 17:52
Never?

As far as I know, Specialist Games will not be doing any new models any time soon. And they don't seem to be too inclined to support any new rules either.

Oh man...if this is true then they suck major hairy donkey balls. Perhaps I'll stick with only 40k then. It's a pity GW doesn't support their minor games better because several of them are pretty awesome.

Hena
27-09-2007, 17:59
Note that the FW models are almost complete to the army. So there is very little extra that you would need in the list itself. So you can make a quite workable army with the FW models.

Panzerkanzler
27-09-2007, 18:23
Note that the FW models are almost complete to the army. So there is very little extra that you would need in the list itself. So you can make a quite workable army with the FW models.

I know that. I just imagine that FW's minis are more expensive thasn the minis specialist-games would release?

Brimstone
27-09-2007, 19:32
I know that. I just imagine that FW's minis are more expensive thasn the minis specialist-games would release?

You'd be surprised,for example GW Leman Russes are approx £2.22 each and FW Hammerheads are £2.33, not that much of a difference.

Troops are more expensive from FW but not absurdly so especially if you mix in drones etc. to bulk out a stand.

IA3 also has an epic Tau list but I don't own it so cannot comment on how valid it is.

Chaos and Evil
27-09-2007, 20:07
As Brimstone says, FW's Tau models aren't that much more expensive than SG's models.

The Tau list on the internet is quite balanced, but includes several new units for which there is no model (You have to convert your own), and doesn't include rules for several of the tanks that FW sell.

On the other hand, the Forgeworld army list that comes in IA:4 is less balanced, but does have rules for every model type that FW produce.

HiveFleetJomama
27-09-2007, 20:48
On the other hand, the Forgeworld army list that comes in IA:4 is less balanced, but does have rules for every model type that FW produce.

Do you mean IA:3 (Taros Campaign), or did FW release an update of the list in IA:4?

Chaos and Evil
27-09-2007, 20:50
My mistake, I meant IA:3, sorry.

CyberShadow
27-09-2007, 21:47
Hi. I am the guy in charge of the Epic Tau list.


I've been looking at the Tau minis but I can't find any rules for them. Where are the rules?

You have already found version 4.4 of the Epic Tau list on the SG site. Version 4.4.1 is currently available from the forums in my sig - Tactical Command. Also here is the discussion of development and rules for the Tau in EA.


It says in the Tau rules that Tau models won't be produced until the rules for the army are finalized. Until such a time there is only the expensive FW models. So my question is how long it usually takes the guys to finish army specific rules. A year? Two years? A few more months? Someone who has been into Epic armageddon could perhaps shed some light on this question?

There are two issues here.

The list itself is close to finalised. There are a few additional points to get sorted out, but largely I am happy with the way that it plays.

I seriously doubt that we will see any EA Tau minis from SG. Ever. As noted, while many of the infantry from FW are pricey, the vehicles can actually work out cheaper than SG metals. You can use proxy infantry (DRM Andrayada work quite well) if you dont want to pick up the FW units.


Note that the FW models are almost complete to the army. So there is very little extra that you would need in the list itself. So you can make a quite workable army with the FW models.

Many of the units have been designed with the FW packs and range in mind. We are all gamers too! Where additions have been made to the list, they have been done because there was a need for the specific unit to be added from a game perspective.


IA4 also has an epic Tau list but I don't own it so cannot comment on how valid it is.

Yes, this is IA3 - Taros Campaign. This is a can of worms, so I will simply say that the IA3 list is very similar to a previous version of the official SG list (around version 3). Personally, I feel that it is not as balanced and has not benefitted from as much rigorous playtesting as either version 4.4 or 4.4.1. That said, the easiest way to think of it is that the IA3 list is for the specific Taros campaign refight, while the current SG list is a more general third sphere expansion force.


The Tau list on the internet is quite balanced, but includes several new units for which there is no model (You have to convert your own), and doesn't include rules for several of the tanks that FW sell.

This is, generally true. However, there are 'recognised miniatures' for all of the units in the EA force. For example, the Scorpionfish is often represented as an Orca, sometimes with a Skyray missile rack added, and the Moray is often represented by a FW BFG Protector vessel. Probably the most difficult is the Swordfish.

Generally, the main units which dont have rules in the list are the Hammerhead weapon variants, although the dual missile pod version is termed the Stingray in the list.

Anyway, let me know if you have any further questions, and you may want to have a look at this threads on the EA Tau development board.

Epic Tau pictures:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=23;t=5636

Panzerkanzler
28-09-2007, 06:59
Wow, that was hugely informative! I still have lots to ponder though. Whether I'm willing to pay the price for the minis, if I have time for it and most importantly, are there enough opponents in my area? Time will tell. And my bank account as well!

CyberShadow
28-09-2007, 07:46
and most importantly, are there enough opponents in my area?

Have a look here:
http://www.epic40k.co.uk/cgi/players.cgi

All the best.

Hena
28-09-2007, 08:09
Wow, that was hugely informative! I still have lots to ponder though. Whether I'm willing to pay the price for the minis, if I have time for it and most importantly, are there enough opponents in my area? Time will tell. And my bank account as well!
Also check this

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=10;t=3809

There is couple of swedes there. But unfortunately not very near (if I remember malmös location correctly).

jdp
23-10-2007, 17:51
As Brimstone says, FW's Tau models aren't that much more expensive than SG's models.

The Tau list on the internet is quite balanced, but includes several new units for which there is no model (You have to convert your own), and doesn't include rules for several of the tanks that FW sell.

On the other hand, the Forgeworld army list that comes in IA:4 is less balanced, but does have rules for every model type that FW produce.

So what exactly about the IA list is unbalanced? Is it over or under powered?

Also, exactly how fragile is the infantry? I wouldn't relish pinning 6mm legs!

Hena
23-10-2007, 18:13
For list, well there has been few iterations after it. And the variant weapon loads (for Hammerheads) are certainly untested. I would suggest using the latest from Tactical Command.

For the infantry, it is quite fragile. For example dropping them from table to floor can cause a rifle to snap on Firewarrior or Pathfinder. Careful handling can keep them safe, but certainly you need good way to transport them. I have a friend who is quite careful with them, but still has some snapped rifles and models.

Jow
24-10-2007, 13:19
I still strongly disagree with what some of the Tau weapons are listed at in that list. I don't think there is anyway that a pulse rifle or a pulse carbine should be anything but small arms in E:A, but thats just me. I wish more things were compared to the original guard, space marines, or orks AND stuck to using just the special rules in the core rulebook instead of army specific ones.

The list is definetly a drastic improvement over what the Tau list used to be, and a zillion times better than anything in Swordwind...which typically makes me want to puke.

CyberShadow
24-10-2007, 21:16
OK. Just to justify these points...

If we gave the Tau infantry Pulse Rifle and Carbines as Small Arms, then the infantry would have no ranged attack. This would mean that they could only strike in close combat or a firefight. This would put the emphasis on close range and close combat, and make then a powerful close ranged force, which is totally against the background for the Tau.

I am always happy to take suggestions and comments on the list.

Thanks.

Jow
26-10-2007, 18:49
OK. Just to justify these points...

If we gave the Tau infantry Pulse Rifle and Carbines as Small Arms, then the infantry would have no ranged attack. This would mean that they could only strike in close combat or a firefight. This would put the emphasis on close range and close combat, and make then a powerful close ranged force, which is totally against the background for the Tau.

I am always happy to take suggestions and comments on the list.

Thanks.

No, it would play to their background as an outstanding Firefighting force. Many of the weapons in the Tau 40k army are not very long range(burst cannons), but for whatever reason are given a huge bump in range for epic so that they can be a shooting/damaging force instead of a maneuvering/firefighting force in epic. While this helps maintain the playstyle of the 40k army, this is not characterful nor desireable for the epic army.

Take this for example:
Space marine tactical marine
-BS 4, 24" range, strength 4, ap 5 rapid fire in 40k
-15cm range, small arms in epic(FF 4+)

Tau Firewarrior
-BS 3, 30" range, Strength 5, ap 5, rapid fire in 40k
-30 cm range, AP 5+
PLUS 15 cm range, AP 5+(disrupt)

Considering each 15cm in epic is about 24", you've given then Firewarriors a significant increase in range and killing power, over a space marine, one that they do not actually possess when looking at their weapon power and shooting prowess. Hilariously, the Firewarrior team only firefights on a 5+.

Next, lets compare a lascannon in 40k/epic to a railgun in 40k/epic. This is equally as silly.

Lascannon
-48" Range, Strength 9, AP 2 in 40k
-45cm Range, AT 5+ in Epic

Railgun
-72" Range, Strength 10, AP 1 in 40k
-75cm range, AT 3+/AP 4+ in Epic

I mean, wow. The range on the railgun actually increased fairly significantly in epic over its 40k equivelents, and it gets a +2 to its AT for a simple +1 strength in 40k. Its things like these that make me wonder where you guys get your ideas.

I'm sorry thats its such an uncomfortable idea that the tau should be firefighting with its infantry, moving to get objectives with its transports, etc instead of just sitting back and screaming "OMG Sustained fire!!!!." Tau infantry have no heavy weapons, and therefor should not have a shooting attack in epic. Thats just how the game works. Firefighting is NOT closecombat, and their are numerous tactics that a Tau unit with a 4+ FF value could use to smash units of Orks or Nids from that range.

Armies in Epic DO NOT work like they do in 40k. Everything that has a shot in 40k does NOT need a shot in Epic, its just not how the game works.
Spacemarine armies are a great example of this as they are very shooty in 40k, but in epic they have practically no long range shots. They have to play in a more characterful manner, like moving to get objectives and carefully firefighting. Its different, but not worse. The Tau are no different. Their infantry do not have heavy weapons and therefore should not fire as if they do in Epic.

The ranges and weapon powers of the Tau weapons are drastically overstated in the epic rules in the current iteration, while the FF capabilities are horridly understated. IMO, it should almost completely be scrapped and reworked, or it will end up a complete failure in the eyes of both the fluff and the gameplay.

CyberShadow
26-10-2007, 19:39
Armies in Epic DO NOT work like they do in 40k. Everything that has a shot in 40k does NOT need a shot in Epic, its just not how the game works.

Exactly. The aim of the system is to convey the feel of of the force, more than the specifics of the weapons. Leave aside your specific examples for a second, you need to remember one fact - for a unit to use its firefight value, one unit must engage. This means that, if your suggestion is taken up (and believe me, you are not the first with this) then the Fire Warriors would have a good firefight, poor close combat and no ranged fire. So, to get the best out of this unit, the entire formation has to approach within 15cm, and at least one unit needs to jump into close combat. So, now we have a Tau force changing towards the enemy in an attempt to make base contact!

In the end, something had be altered for the Epic list. We have chosen to (sometimes artificially, I admit) increase weapon range in order to stay true to the doctrine of the force.

With your examples, you are using version 4.4.1 from the SG site. Version 4.4.2 has changed the Fire Warriors a little - although I dont think that it is 'better' for you since the Pulse Carbines are dropped and the Pulse Rifles now get two dice.

Now, while I accept that the range of the Pulse Rifle is increased in Epic, its offensive capacity has not. Yes, it is currently AP5+. However, if you equate the Bolt Gun as the Marines firefight ability, this makes it 4+... against all targets. The Bolt Gun is is a 'better' weapon in this comparrison.



Next, lets compare a lascannon in 40k/epic to a railgun in 40k/epic. This is equally as silly.

Lascannon
-48" Range, Strength 9, AP 2 in 40k
-45cm Range, AT 5+ in Epic

Railgun
-72" Range, Strength 10, AP 1 in 40k
-75cm range, AT 3+/AP 4+ in Epic

But, as we have already agreed, you cant compare Epic with 40K. For example, lets take your Railgun, and compare it the Vindicators Demolisher Cannon.

Demolisher
-24" Range, Strength 10, AP 2 with large blast in 40k
-30cm Range, AT4+/AP3+ with Ignore Cover in Epic

In 40K, the Railgun has three times the range. In Epic the Railgun has 2.5 tims the range.

In 40K, the Railgun has an extra one point in Armour Piercing. In Epic, the guns are similar - only the AP and AT values are reversed. With this comparrison, the Railgun appears about right.

In addition, you need ot look at the list as a whole. How do the weapons compare with other units? How do the weapons and units fit together to create an appropriate force and theme?


The ranges and weapon powers of the Tau weapons are drastically overstated in the epic rules in the current iteration, while the FF capabilities are horridly understated. IMO, it should almost completely be scrapped and reworked, or it will end up a complete failure in the eyes of both the fluff and the gameplay.

Do the units in the Tau force play the same way as the 40K units? No. Does the force behave in the same way? In my mind, pretty much. I think that you are being over-harsh on the list based on a first look of the list. Epic lists should not follow the 40K lists. Epic lists AND 40K lists should both follow the background. It is a subtle distinction.

Jow
26-10-2007, 20:09
From your post, I take it that you probly think I don't know anything about Epic. Well, I've spent a long time on the SG site on the old epic forums arguing with the likes of those that designed the Eldar, and refuse to admit that certain things with the game simply need fixed. I merely have no faith in any of the Army Champions to write a good army list, the ERC to fix broken rules, or SG to really do anything. You may be different. I guess I'll have to wait and see.


Exactly. The aim of the system is to convey the feel of of the force, more than the specifics of the weapons. Leave aside your specific examples for a second, you need to remember one fact - for a unit to use its firefight value, one unit must engage. This means that, if your suggestion is taken up (and believe me, you are not the first with this) then the Fire Warriors would have a good firefight, poor close combat and no ranged fire. So, to get the best out of this unit, the entire formation has to approach within 15cm, and at least one unit needs to jump into close combat. So, now we have a Tau force changing towards the enemy in an attempt to make base contact!

Why would one unit need to end up in close combat anymore than a formation of spacemarines would? You just have to be careful about how close you get and avoid a 5cm countercharge. It actually makes people want to bring kroot to keep the units off of the firewarriors, which is exactly how it works in the fluff! They are in no way "Chargine toward the enemy anymore than a spacemarine army is. They are trying to use their superior speed, transports, and initiative value to force a firefight that is advantageous to them.

WIth your method, all they do is sit there and say "BAM." Thats not supported by the weaponry or the way they fight.


In the end, something had be altered for the Epic list. We have chosen to (sometimes artificially, I admit) increase weapon range in order to stay true to the doctrine of the force.

Except that doesn't "stay true" to the force. Its just an easy way out for a player to be able to stand and shoot when they should be manuevering their forces. I'm sorry, but you've taken the Tau away from the way they should play just to make it a more comfortable playstyle for 40k Tau players. Well, Epic isn't 40k, and the armies shouldn't neccesarily play the same.


In addition, you need ot look at the list as a whole. How do the weapons compare with other units? How do the weapons and units fit together to create an appropriate force and theme?

I think that this is the dumbest argument from any of the Epic developers. But I won't get into that other than to say there is noone forcing me to take crappy options, so putting them in teh list doesn't do anything to make the list better. This, however, has nothing to do with the current arguement.


Epic lists AND 40K lists should both follow the background. It is a subtle distinction.

Except yours does NOT follow the background in any way. Tau maneuver to gain advantageos position through superior leadership and mobility, while engaging their enemies in firefight situations. They choose not to use man carried heavy weapons to add to their mobility, but have a significant amount of heavy weapons on their vehicles to compensate for this.

They are not a standing and shooting force as you have made them. I think you and the others who are designing the epic rules for amny of the armies are being dishonest with yourselves just because you want soemthing to work a certain way. There is not a single instance in the list where you all erred on the side of weakness instead of the side of strength.

I'll say this again. Your army, as it stands designed, has tons of speed, armor, deadly heavy weapons, drop troop capacity, cheap fodder troops, and a good initiative. Its Eldar all over again. Weeee.

Chaos and Evil
26-10-2007, 21:30
Railgun
-72" Range, Strength 10, AP 1 in 40k
-75cm range, AT 3+/AP 4+ in Epic

Leman Russ Battlecannon
- 72" range, Strength 8, AP3 in 40k
- 75cm range, AT4+ / AP4+ in Epic.

I think that's a better comparison than the lascannon (Which admittedly is comparatively underpowered in Epic).

Oh, and I do actually agree with you Jow, just not to the same extent; I also believe that Firewarriors should have FF4+. :)

Patriarch
27-10-2007, 14:53
So, to get the best out of this unit, the entire formation has to approach within 15cm, and at least one unit needs to jump into close combat. So, now we have a Tau force changing towards the enemy in an attempt to make base contact!
.

Just a quick one CS, but why on earth does one Tau unit have to get into base contact? To start an engagement, at least one of your units must get within 15cms of an enemy unit.

At no stage does anyone have to charge into close combat.

High FF for firewarriors seems very fluffy to me, if anything they should have something like FF3+, CC7+ (they have better sidearms than space marines or Eldar guardians, but are worse than IG in CC). This would necessitate careful positioning of FW teams in order to carry out a ranged firefight without it descending into a brawl, probably using skimmer transports to shield the FWs from CC charges.

That seems to be entirely in keeping with the fluff. Tau infantry have to get down and dirty like everyone else, but not within punching distance.

If you wanted to keep the ranged shot for FW, I'd reduce it to 15cm (disrupt) as they do have the range over all other basic weapons.

CyberShadow
28-10-2007, 14:17
I apologise. I really should no type while I am tired! My head said 'assault', but my hands typed 'base contact'. I was staring at the rule book at the time, in my defence! :angel: I even got the version numbers of the Tau list wrong! :eyebrows:

To work through the points...


From your post, I take it that you probly think I don't know anything about Epic. Well, I've spent a long time on the SG site on the old epic forums arguing with the likes of those that designed the Eldar, and refuse to admit that certain things with the game simply need fixed.

My comment was simply that your recounting of the Tau and my experiences dont seem to match up. You seem to have the view of them as a static gun line. While there are elements of the list that you can play this way in short bursts, I have found games to be very fluid with the Tau - and that includes the Fire Warrior Cadres.


I merely have no faith in any of the Army Champions to write a good army list, the ERC to fix broken rules, or SG to really do anything. You may be different. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

I certainly hope so! We actually agree on two of the three points (I will let you guess which two!) However, I do think that you are close to discarding a variety of people (a category which includes the ACs for Orks, Eldar and Chaos in a single sweep), who have put a lot of work into keeping the game alive, just because their ideas seem to conflict with your own.


Why would one unit need to end up in close combat anymore than a formation of spacemarines would?

You wouldnt. The point is that Marines can and do close combat a lot. This is fine, as it fits them. I am not saying that Tau would end up in close combat more, but that they should persuade the player to actively avoid close combat, rather than accepting it if the situation requires, which the Marines can.


It actually makes people want to bring kroot to keep the units off of the firewarriors, which is exactly how it works in the fluff!

And the current rules dont, for the same reason?


WIth your method, all they do is sit there and say "BAM." Thats not supported by the weaponry or the way they fight.

That is simply not true. The Tau in Epic dont play like that... or at least not with me or the reports that I have got back. An infantry unit with a 30cm AP5+ weapon does not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for the enemy.


I think that this is the dumbest argument from any of the Epic developers. But I won't get into that other than to say there is noone forcing me to take crappy options, so putting them in teh list doesn't do anything to make the list better.

:wtf: Why, thank you! If you are so easily reduced to slinging insults, then I wonder what you have to contribute. You think that you can take a single unit, in isolation, develop it (based on...?), and then put a collection of these isolated units on the table and magically have a cohesive force? Good luck!


They are not a standing and shooting force as you have made them. I think you and the others who are designing the epic rules for amny of the armies are being dishonest with yourselves just because you want soemthing to work a certain way. There is not a single instance in the list where you all erred on the side of weakness instead of the side of strength.

I dont want the Tau to work in any 'certain way' except one which captures the feel and style of play that the Tau are 'supposed' to have. As for not erring on the side of weakness, you have clearly not been following the development discussions. Since taking over the Tau, I have made myself unpopular in a number of areas ( :p ) - from making Broadsides LV, cutting back the AX-1-0, and streamlining the Fire Warriors. That is fine, and I am certainly not saying that the list is 'ready for totally balanced games'.


I'll say this again. Your army, as it stands designed, has tons of speed, armor, deadly heavy weapons, drop troop capacity, cheap fodder troops, and a good initiative. Its Eldar all over again. Weeee.

You do realise that, as it stands, you proposition to take away the Fire Warriors ranged weapon makes the list even more like the Eldar?

Exactly what, out of that list would you remove? The drop troop capacity, which has a strong flavour in the Tau books, or the speed, while you state that the force is currently 'stand and shoot'?

What doesnt it have? A central close combat capacity, area effect weapons or artillery, 'super units' (the Tau force works in mutual support).


If you wanted to keep the ranged shot for FW, I'd reduce it to 15cm (disrupt) as they do have the range over all other basic weapons.

This is what we currently have for Pathfinders/Pulse Carbines. I dont think personally, that the Pulse Rifle warrants the disrupt ability.


High FF for firewarriors seems very fluffy to me, if anything they should have something like FF3+, CC7+ (they have better sidearms than space marines or Eldar guardians, but are worse than IG in CC). This would necessitate careful positioning of FW teams in order to carry out a ranged firefight without it descending into a brawl, probably using skimmer transports to shield the FWs from CC charges.

It probably comes as no surprise, but this issue occurs fairly regularly. To quote some responses after a quick search:


As FF4+ seems to come up every six months or so, here's a quick reminder about why it is the way it is:

Tau Fire Fight values are lower than both the background and 40k stats suggest. This is a deliberate abstraction and is offset by Pulse Rifles 30cm range - note that they are not 'small arms' like most races' main infantry weapons (boters, lasguns &c.).

The design goal behind this was to discourage Tau players from getting thier Fire Warriors into fire-fights but instead to use the superior range of their pulse rifles to out-shoot opponents from a distance without engaging, as per the fluff. By contrast, the low Fire Fight values encourage other races to close with the Tau and engage on their own terms which is where the Tau are less comfortable and weaker, again in line with the fluff.


Agreed. There are some ranges boosted in Tau to avoid raised FF's.

FF's have been artificially deflated to avoid past problems encountered.

In reality (heh...) tau would convert to E:A to have unbelievable FF values if you really look at the weapons. It just doesn't make sense in the end.

FF is only used in engage actions. The guiding vision is that Engage actions are to be avoided by Tau in E:A as well.

Therefore, you go back to shooting and some abstractions to make certain units viable and account for the artificial removal of their FF potential.

If you look across the board in tau, their FF values are about 1 less than one you would expect in MOST cases. Some exceptions are made. In some areas, they are 2 less than what you would expect (manta).

And, as a response to the suggestion that FWs have FF4+ (although note that other changes have occurred as this point relates to a previous verison of the list)...


You could just go hardcore Tau assault. For ~500 points you'd have an air assault force that would rival Space Marines.

Thawk, Assault, Devs - 625 points before characters, 6 1/3 hits in an assault on average, 10 units

Orca, FW, Crisis, Ethereal - 500 points, 5 normal and 2/3 MW hits on average, 12 units

Fearless v TSKNF. FW will degrade faster due to slightly lower armor and the fact that the Assault Marines are the first, "cheap" casualties for the SMs. FW are cheaper.

I am not blind to the issues and comments being raised here. So, if someone (Jow?) wants to throw together some sample stats and suggestions for the list, then I am happy to discuss them.

Patriarch
28-10-2007, 15:13
This is what we currently have for Pathfinders/Pulse Carbines. I dont think personally, that the Pulse Rifle warrants the disrupt ability.


I'd bow to your experience CS, and your commitment as an AC, and I certainly distance myself from some of the hostile comments above.

It just seems to me that an engagements are as much about shooting tau-style as they are about HTH. The pulse rifle has slightly better range and power than other light arms, but they don't appear to work game-wise in a completely different way to other races' rifles. Effectively you seem to be suggesting that the Tau have a way to use their small arms in a way that the opposition don't get to shoot back. Apart from having a slightly longer range, I don't see how they could do that.

With the Tau "withdraw" rules in assaults, a careful player will be able to launch engagements at a suitable range to ensure his FWs never get dragged into BTB. This could take a bit of care but why deny Tau players the opportunity for this kind of tactical play?

Limiting the "shooting" range to 15cm means that the Tau player will have to be vary careful about when and where he carries out a drive-by shooting, as if the target formation is not broken/wiped out it will be in position to assault when it takes an action.

Sorry, I had sort of assumed that the FW teams had a mix of PRs and PCs as per the WH40k lists, so shots/FF would be a "blend" of these weapons. The PC "effect" would be more concentrated in PF teams as these don't carry PRs.

Hena
28-10-2007, 20:00
For me the assaults are "kill or be killed" situations. It's the match where one side comes out victorious and one side is crushed. A brutal battle at short ranges. This is the stuff that Tau don't want to end up in. So from the background point, avoiding assaults suits Tau very nicely. For them it would way too costly in lives to do so and they should avoid getting into it.

Simply because 40k cannot avoid is no reason why E:A should be restricted as well.

Patriarch
29-10-2007, 00:20
For me the assaults are "kill or be killed" situations. It's the match where one side comes out victorious and one side is crushed. A brutal battle at short ranges.

Yes, but E:A firefights are not blasting away at point blank range. They take place up to the effective range for light weapons, including pulse rifles.


This is the stuff that Tau don't want to end up in.

You're right, but it is the exact same thing that eldar and IG don't want to get in either. I don't see anything in the fluff that gives the Tau a unique ability to pepper the enemy with short range fire but not get shot back. Stealthsuits maybe, but these are FW. They aren't super fast, they aren't invisible. Giving them long range free shots isn't fluffy, because in the background there's nothing that enables them to do this.


So from the background point, avoiding assaults suits Tau very nicely.

It suits them, but why should it be possible? A silly example, but it would really suit Genestealers to have a 60cm engage move.

Tau don't avoid assaults in the fluff. Not "assaults" in the E:A sense. Tau avoid hand to hand combat. An assault can be a protracted long range firefight, and if the Tau player is doing it right that's exactly what Tau assaults will be.

Here's how a Tau assault should work, assuming your actual long range units have already softened the enemy up with blast markers first:

Use the transports to place the FW teams at the extreme of FF range (15cm) from the enemy. Annihilate the enemy using your FF3+ or whatever. Use the withdraw rule to keep backing away from the Guela as they try to close. By the time you've been backed into a corner, you have eliminated the foe using your superior technology. Back into your transports and fly off to the next target, repeat until the stupid Guela have seen the light or are all dead.

That IMHO is exactly how Tau do it in the fluff.


For them it would way too costly in lives to do so and they should avoid getting into it.

No it wouldn't, and no they can't avoid doing it. Because apart from all-hormagaunt/daemon armies, everything else in the galaxy shoots back!

And come on, are you telling me that a round of close-range shooting from the Tau is no better than that of Striking Scorpions? HTH troops??

Chaos and Evil
29-10-2007, 09:32
And come on, are you telling me that a round of close-range shooting from the Tau is no better than that of Striking Scorpions? HtH troops??

It is undoubtedly incongrous that Fire Warriors are rated the same in Firefights as Imperial Guardsmen, and worse than Tactical Marines.

I've long been a proponent that if a formation with a markerlight is provinding supporting fire, then Fire Warriors should get FF4+.

Hena
29-10-2007, 13:23
You're right, but it is the exact same thing that eldar and IG don't want to get in either. I don't see anything in the fluff that gives the Tau a unique ability to pepper the enemy with short range fire but not get shot back. Stealthsuits maybe, but these are FW. They aren't super fast, they aren't invisible. Giving them long range free shots isn't fluffy, because in the background there's nothing that enables them to do this.
Not exactly. IG can and will attack with war of attrition. Eldar aspects wouldn't mind getting in close and personal. They are trained for all aspects of the war and should be assumed to handle the situations. Eldar Guardians ... they make no sense anyway. (Come on, race dying out won't give proper body armour to their troops! They really must want to become extinct.)


It suits them, but why should it be possible? A silly example, but it would really suit Genestealers to have a 60cm engage move.
No it wouldn't. Genestealers aren't that fast. At the current system they can be assumed to assault farther than bikes, which is quite good enough.


Tau don't avoid assaults in the fluff. Not "assaults" in the E:A sense. Tau avoid hand to hand combat. An assault can be a protracted long range firefight, and if the Tau player is doing it right that's exactly what Tau assaults will be.
Tau should avoid losing life as much as possible. This means that starting a fight where most units are killed should be avoided.

In E:A assaults are very destructive on both sides. Shooting allows you to inflict damage without retribution. So Tau should have good values is shooting at short ranges, but not when they forced into assault.


No it wouldn't, and no they can't avoid doing it. Because apart from all-hormagaunt/daemon armies, everything else in the galaxy shoots back!

And come on, are you telling me that a round of close-range shooting from the Tau is no better than that of Striking Scorpions? HTH troops??
When it comes to aggressive close range fights sure. When it comes to careful attack at range (longer than Striking Scorps can fight), of course not. Remember that assault isn't as static as the models have it. CC and FF values aren't automatically what the units can do at 6" and 24" in 40k respectively.

They can avoid by using Sustain Fire, Advance and Double. Engage isn't what Tau should try to get happen. Except perhaps Suits, but with the current stats Crisis don't have problems in assault (MW FF and regular FF attacks and 3+ save). Never mind first strike on Stealths.

Patriarch
29-10-2007, 15:04
Eldar Guardians ... they make no sense anyway. (Come on, race dying out won't give proper body armour to their troops! They really must want to become extinct.)

Definately agree there! Especially when you use your precious few civilians as meat shields for your heavy weapons, which seems to be how Guardians are used...



No it wouldn't. Genestealers aren't that fast. At the current system they can be assumed to assault farther than bikes, which is quite good enough.
That's my point. Stealers can't, even though they'd "like to". Tau can no more get free sniping shots than Genestealers can outrun jetbikes.



Tau should avoid losing life as much as possible. This means that starting a fight where most units are killed should be avoided.

As above. Tau infantry don't have a way of starting shooting fights without putting themsleves at risk. They'd like one, but they haven't got one, not in the fluff. Therefore they have to have to get into assault firefights like everyone else.



In E:A assaults are very destructive on both sides. Shooting allows you to inflict damage without retribution. So Tau should have good values is shooting at short ranges, but not when they forced into assault.

No, because Tau Infantry don't have a way to inflict shooting damage without retribution. As mentioned above, they would really like to have one, but they haven't got one.



When it comes to aggressive close range fights sure. When it comes to careful attack at range (longer than Striking Scorps can fight), of course not. Remember that assault isn't as static as the models have it. CC and FF values aren't automatically what the units can do at 6" and 24" in 40k respectively.

"Aggressive close ranged fights" is, in E:A terms, the only thing you can do with bolters/lasguns/shuriken catapults/shootas/pulse rifles. Tau should be better at it than everyone else, they should not be encouraged to avoid it.



They can avoid by using Sustain Fire, Advance and Double. Engage isn't what Tau should try to get happen. Except perhaps Suits, but with the current stats Crisis don't have problems in assault (MW FF and regular FF attacks and 3+ save). Never mind first strike on Stealths.

No problem with any of those. BTW those units are better candidates for some kind of "free shot" attack on enemy formations than FWs are, because they have the technology to do it. Tau FWs are regular grunts with more powerful/longer ranged weapons than everyone else's grunts. They are not super-snipers with invisibility cloaks who can shoot at enemy infantry with no risk of being shot back.

TBH, if you are worried about Tau not volunteering to start FF engagements, let them have first strike on FF to represent the range advantage they would get over all other races.

Hena
29-10-2007, 15:36
As above. Tau infantry don't have a way of starting shooting fights without putting themsleves at risk. They'd like one, but they haven't got one, not in the fluff. Therefore they have to have to get into assault firefights like everyone else.

No, because Tau Infantry don't have a way to inflict shooting damage without retribution. As mentioned above, they would really like to have one, but they haven't got one.

With other orders than Engage they have one. That's the whole point. The list is geared for shooting, not assaulting. Heck the whole Coordinated Fire is to allow "combined assault" without needing to assault (or intermingle your troops).

The E:A system allows you to design the army so that it's geared to shoot not assault. So it requires some differences in ranges compared to 40k, so what. 40k does not and cannot do the differences that E:A can. Again why restrict to the mind set that each army must be same, when it doesn't have to be that? Other armies don't have such a preference so they use assault a lot more and have FF values geared for it. Tau is specifically changed to allow the shooting without getting into destructive assaults.


TBH, if you are worried about Tau not volunteering to start FF engagements, let them have first strike on FF to represent the range advantage they would get over all other races.
You misunderstand. The vulnerability to assaults and being poor in it is what I like to see on Tau. I like that they have a vulnerability. CC is quite a rare occurance (outside of Tyranids) so if Tau would be better in FF than rest, they'd be way too good. And also much more boring.

Jow
29-10-2007, 20:29
Why, thank you! If you are so easily reduced to slinging insults, then I wonder what you have to contribute. You think that you can take a single unit, in isolation, develop it (based on...?), and then put a collection of these isolated units on the table and magically have a cohesive force? Good luck!

I don't really have time to fully reply to all of your points right now, but I do wish to say that I did not mean to insult with that. I type things quickly while I'm at work, and it sometimes comes across as an insult or something outa left field, but its usually just because I don't have much time to actually write my post.

But I do wish to say that the arguement that any option in epic should be less useful for its points is one that I wish was completely thrown out. I still wish to barf whenever I hear that unit x in one army should be over powered because it was fluffy, while unit y in the same army should be underpowered...it all ending up balanced. In 40k or fantasy, with a force org chart and more stringent requirements, that may work(although many think that it does not). But in a game like Epic, were you can more or less take what you want and were certain aspects of the game are clearly more powerful than others, it leaves people with no reason to take certain options unless they want a handicap(space marine dreadnoughts/armor FTL).

I think you are short changing the Tau as far as engagements go, and also are falling into the same trap that Eldar fell into. You seem to be designing a list balanced as far as killing goes, but fogetting that the point of the game(atleast 80% of it) is NOT to kill. Its to take the 6 objectives or control the table. Your list is good at killing and controlling, and that makes it too powerful.

I'm with Patriarch on this.

Hena
29-10-2007, 21:20
I think you are short changing the Tau as far as engagements go, and also are falling into the same trap that Eldar fell into. You seem to be designing a list balanced as far as killing goes, but fogetting that the point of the game(atleast 80% of it) is NOT to kill. Its to take the 6 objectives or control the table. Your list is good at killing and controlling, and that makes it too powerful.

I'm with Patriarch on this.
I don't get it. You first complain that the list is too good and then immediately want to make it better? You do realise that the most effective way to destroy targets and take control of the objectives and hold them is assault. So the Tau downgrade on it is quite nasty.

That doesn't mean that some units/formations aren't too good. Stingrays need to be toned down as do the Humans. AMHC is still too good as well. However all that is known and most likely the next iteration of the list will do something about then. CS of course knows best on what the next version will hold, but I'm basing that to the threads in the TacCom.

Jow
30-10-2007, 12:48
[QUOTE=Hena;2045844]I don't get it. You first complain that the list is too good and then immediately want to make it better? You do realise that the most effective way to destroy targets and take control of the objectives and hold them is assault. So the Tau downgrade on it is quite nasty.
[QUOTE]


Actually, assaulting is more decisive but not neccessarily more effective. Its far riskier to assault than it is to shoot because you have to take "return fire" when you enter into a firefight, and you also have other factors influencing combat resolution such as outnumber, blast markers, inspiring, and a dice roll. Unless an attacker wins by 6+, he always has a chance to be broken if he rolls low enough and the defender rolls high enough. But when a unit shoots, it is taking zero chances at immediate retribution(especially with this two shooting attacks business). And with this coordinated fire rule(a possibly broken addition to the rules), shooting is every bit as decisive in knocking units off of objectives or simply breaking them as combat is.

I don't understand this argument that Tau units would be "advancing toward the enemy as fast as possible" if they only had firefight weapons. Killing the enemy is not the point of the game, so I don't see why that would happen. They would have to use the commander rule to coordinate an assault with mounted firewarriors, crisis suits, and kroot to win. That sounds fluffy to me.

Hena
30-10-2007, 13:54
That's the whole point. The coordinated fire gives the Tau chance to remove formations from objectives without needing to assault. Firing in general is easier to do, but it has much smaller effect to break target. Generally +4 is quite enough to win resolution unless you throw abysmally bad. In practice assaults usually are the turn points of the game.

Besides, Patriarch wanted a way for Tau to remove opponents without resorting to assaults. The current rules gives them that. Why should it be changed to remove it is beyond my understanding.

Patriarch
30-10-2007, 17:30
Besides, Patriarch wanted a way for Tau to remove opponents without resorting to assaults. The current rules gives them that. Why should it be changed to remove it is beyond my understanding.

No! I do want the Tau to assault. FF assault, not CC assault. I am not expecting Tau to rush into hand to hand combat. I am expecting Tau to rush into pulse rifle range, trade shots with the enemy, probably win, then withdraw. The Tau would intend the enemy to be blasted apart before they get close enough to CC. This will add an extra layer of tension to Tau assaults (can I break the enemy with shooting before he gets me?). There is no such tension if the Tau can blast away from safety.

Background-wise, I believe (MHO) that is how they should work in E:A. Pulse rifles are sidearms which "should" work like small arms in assaults.

I admit there are 2 major problems with my approach here.

The first, as Hena points, is that good FF is more useful in E:A than CC is. Partly because its easier to get in position to use it, but mostly because it is used in supporting fire and CC rarely is. So formations of FWs punch well above their weight in the game. Get stuck in no-mans-land between three of them and your marine formation is toast (good). This means that FWs will be comparitively expensive points-wise. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that. After all, they should be priced according to their gaming potential. Also, Tau infantry from FW aren't exactly cheap, so players will struggle to put a horde of them together.

Second problem, if CyberShadow has been doing/arranging all the playtesting with the current approach and gets exciting, balanced games for both sides out of it, then fair enough. After all, you are going to all the trouble!

My complaint, such as it is, is that this approach to the Tau is counterintuitive, and goes too far in terms of abstraction. The E:A rules and lists appear to guide us as to how we should expect certain units to act and perform, (i.e. FW having good FF) but this aspect of the Tau list seems to go against this.

Jow
01-11-2007, 20:03
My complaint, such as it is, is that this approach to the Tau is counterintuitive, and goes too far in terms of abstraction. The E:A rules and lists appear to guide us as to how we should expect certain units to act and perform, (i.e. FW having good FF) but this aspect of the Tau list seems to go against this.

A few issues I have real fast.

1) This is one of my main problems with it. It feels like the way the game works is being broken just so the Tau can be different. Which I hate.

2) I also think that you all grossly underestimate the power of shooting units, especially combined with your "coordinated fire." Coordiated fire allows a unit to double move, while two others sustain fire. I hope you realize that this essentially guarantees the Tau a crossfire with three units that allows the opponent almost no chance to counter. That -1 to save and three additional blast markers can break a unit as sure as any assault I've ever seen.

3) I'd also like to point out that a huge number of assaults end in both formations being broken, so even a "won" assault doesn't yield a possitive outcome.

Hena
01-11-2007, 21:28
No! I do want the Tau to assault. FF assault, not CC assault. I am not expecting Tau to rush into hand to hand combat. I am expecting Tau to rush into pulse rifle range, trade shots with the enemy, probably win, then withdraw. The Tau would intend the enemy to be blasted apart before they get close enough to CC. This will add an extra layer of tension to Tau assaults (can I break the enemy with shooting before he gets me?). There is no such tension if the Tau can blast away from safety.
Umm... There is no CC assault and FF assault, but assault which has both. So what you describe here is just how the list works. Are you able to stop the enemy with shooting, before he gets to assault? That's how IMO Tau are. They don't want to get to situation where casualties start mounting up if possible.


Background-wise, I believe (MHO) that is how they should work in E:A. Pulse rifles are sidearms which "should" work like small arms in assaults.
This side is partially correct. Pulse rifles could easily be included as small arms. However they have longer range than regular small arms and the range conversions are not always direct. For example assault cannon has 30cm range in E:A.


My complaint, such as it is, is that this approach to the Tau is counterintuitive, and goes too far in terms of abstraction. The E:A rules and lists appear to guide us as to how we should expect certain units to act and perform, (i.e. FW having good FF) but this aspect of the Tau list seems to go against this.
It depends on how you view things. I didn't expect Tau to be good at FF when I first encountered the Tau list *shrug*. As to why I explained already in this post :).

Hena
01-11-2007, 21:34
1) This is one of my main problems with it. It feels like the way the game works is being broken just so the Tau can be different. Which I hate.
Nothing is really broken for Tau list. Only additional rule is made (the Coordinated fire). It's just balanced a bit differently.


2) I also think that you all grossly underestimate the power of shooting units, especially combined with your "coordinated fire." Coordiated fire allows a unit to double move, while two others sustain fire. I hope you realize that this essentially guarantees the Tau a crossfire with three units that allows the opponent almost no chance to counter. That -1 to save and three additional blast markers can break a unit as sure as any assault I've ever seen.
Don't think so. I was at one point a big complainer about coordinated fire. But after few games came to conclusion that it's not the coordinated fire that was broken, but the units using it. Some are fixed by now (Pathfinders were a lot better in earlier lists) and some still require work (Stingray for example is way too good).


3) I'd also like to point out that a huge number of assaults end in both formations being broken, so even a "won" assault doesn't yield a possitive outcome.
I must say that most of my assaults have resulted in one side broken. Some (perhaps 5 - 10% but this is quite huge guess so could be wrong) have resulted in both sides broken.

Patriarch
02-11-2007, 11:50
Umm... There is no CC assault and FF assault, but assault which has both.
Agreed, I meant "Tau should be prepared to initiate the kind of assaults which will be settled by FF shooting, not the kind of assaults which will become bogged down in close combat." It is for the Tau player to use his or her tactical brain to decide whether an assault is likely to be the former case or the latter.




So what you describe here is just how the list works.
Not quite. I said "trade shots with the enemy". That means the enemy gets to shoot back. In E:A terms, that means an assault engagement which is mostly/all settled with FF. It is not a "shooting" attack, i.e. Sustained/Advance/double.



Are you able to stop the enemy with shooting, before he gets to assault? That's how IMO Tau are. They don't want to get to situation where casualties start mounting up if possible.

The E:A rules allow this to happen if Tau have good FF. When the Tau initiate the assult, they position all the FWs 15cms from enemy units. For the first few rounds of the assault the enemy will (usually) consolidate 5cm towards the Tau, and have their own FF attacks back. The Tau have that many rounds in which to break/wipe out the enemy by shooting, before the enemy reaches base to base contact with Tau units and starts CC.

Fluffwise, that's how the Tau are supposed to do it. If it was supposed to be the way you describe Hena, then FW would be universally issued with sniper rifles to pick off the enemy at long range. They wouldn't be issued with pulse rifles that inflict more damage at short range than long range (rapid fire shots at 12" in WH40k). I know these are two different games, but they are the same weapon we are describing.

Tau don't avoid "casualties" in war any more than the other races. What they avoid is "hand to hand combat." They are rubbish at it and think it uncivilised, and know that they will lose if it takes place. That is not the same as saying "Tau don't assault", when they do.

Hena
02-11-2007, 13:11
Not quite. I said "trade shots with the enemy". That means the enemy gets to shoot back. In E:A terms, that means an assault engagement which is mostly/all settled with FF. It is not a "shooting" attack, i.e. Sustained/Advance/double.
That's semantics I think. Regular maneuvers of fire are done with advance and the rest. Enemy can shoot back by activating it's formations. Engage is when you aim to rush the enemy and overwhelm them in closer ranges.


The E:A rules allow this to happen if Tau have good FF. When the Tau initiate the assult, they position all the FWs 15cms from enemy units. For the first few rounds of the assault the enemy will (usually) consolidate 5cm towards the Tau, and have their own FF attacks back. The Tau have that many rounds in which to break/wipe out the enemy by shooting, before the enemy reaches base to base contact with Tau units and starts CC.
Hoohum. You do realise that in most cases (~90%) there isn't additional rounds in assaults. And since both sides fire at the same time, a high FF value doesn't mean that you wouldn't be shot to pieces as well. High FF value means that you get to inflict higher amount of damage to enemy, while you still get shot to pieces if they are good as well.


Fluffwise, that's how the Tau are supposed to do it. If it was supposed to be the way you describe Hena, then FW would be universally issued with sniper rifles to pick off the enemy at long range. They wouldn't be issued with pulse rifles that inflict more damage at short range than long range (rapid fire shots at 12" in WH40k). I know these are two different games, but they are the same weapon we are describing.
Unfortunately there isn't fluff anymore on individual weapons (like RT times). So it's very hard to comment on how some weapon should work. However since 40k causes you to define the type of the weapon, rapid fire is closest equivalent for Pulse rifle (heavy or assault it sure is not). But it has 30" range over the regular 24 so it's meant to reach farther. So for that reason I'd be inclined to give it actual range in E:A as well.


Tau don't avoid "casualties" in war any more than the other races. What they avoid is "hand to hand combat." They are rubbish at it and think it uncivilised, and know that they will lose if it takes place. That is not the same as saying "Tau don't assault", when they do.
I dunno. I've always assumed that they care about the individual soldiers a lot more than say IG commanders. So they wouldn't want to lose lives if possible. Though not going as far as the Eldar who think that they have lost if one dies (never mind that they don't have armour 'cause that would be too expensive :D).

Patriarch
02-11-2007, 14:21
That's semantics I think. Regular maneuvers of fire are done with advance and the rest. Enemy can shoot back by activating it's formations. Engage is when you aim to rush the enemy and overwhelm them in closer ranges.
I think that's where we are disagreeing. "Closer ranges" in E:A means "as far as a bolter/lasgun/shuriken catapult/pulse rifle can effectively shoot". Not "point blank range". Since in 40k a PR is like a regular sidearm with a slightly better range than lasguns/bolters, I think it should behave like them. IMO marines in E:A don't restrict bolters to FF assault because of their fighting style, but because the game rules say that's the only way bolters work.


Hoohum. You do realise that in most cases (~90%) there isn't additional rounds in assaults. And since both sides fire at the same time, a high FF value doesn't mean that you wouldn't be shot to pieces as well. High FF value means that you get to inflict higher amount of damage to enemy, while you still get shot to pieces if they are good as well.
Yes. I realise and agree, and furthermore I think that's how Tau should work. As good or better than everyone else at FF, but still have to take their chances with the enemy shooting back.


Unfortunately there isn't fluff anymore on individual weapons (like RT times). So it's very hard to comment on how some weapon should work. However since 40k causes you to define the type of the weapon, rapid fire is closest equivalent for Pulse rifle (heavy or assault it sure is not). But it has 30" range over the regular 24 so it's meant to reach farther. So for that reason I'd be inclined to give it actual range in E:A as well.
Agree with what you are saying. My point was that in 40k the Pulse Rifle can blast away at short range only, which leads me to think the Tau are not supposed to be a "sniping army". They are depicted as a highly mobile shooting army, yet in 40k if they move they can only fire at short range as well. They only get the best out of the weapon at short ranges.
Maybe 40k should have come up with a new weapon category for pulse rifles, (non-assault 30").



I dunno. I've always assumed that they care about the individual soldiers a lot more than say IG commanders. So they wouldn't want to lose lives if possible. Though not going as far as the Eldar who think that they have lost if one dies (never mind that they don't have armour 'cause that would be too expensive :D).
Agreed (everyone bar Orks care more about thier own troops than IG! :D ). In E:A those "precious" Eldar guardian defenders only work in assaults. And the Autarch must care about them as least as much as Tau commanders care about theirs. Of course that goes back to our discussion about why Eldar Guardians are such a silly concept. :wtf:

Hena
03-11-2007, 10:53
I think that's where we are disagreeing. "Closer ranges" in E:A means "as far as a bolter/lasgun/shuriken catapult/pulse rifle can effectively shoot". Not "point blank range". Since in 40k a PR is like a regular sidearm with a slightly better range than lasguns/bolters, I think it should behave like them. IMO marines in E:A don't restrict bolters to FF assault because of their fighting style, but because the game rules say that's the only way bolters work.
Yep it seems that we found the root cause :).

For Marines, I think that they really excel in clore range firefights. So it would be understandable that Marines want to get to that. E:A rules represent that well. IG might be bit more iffy, but since they have a lot of heavy weapons, their effect is much more pronounced in longer ranges.

Tau however don't carry heavy weapons on non suit infantry. However they do want to use their range to try to avoid being fired back. Also this takes account that they would rather preserve soldiers than risk them (in my mind anyway). To me that is what the rules represent.

It's good to remember that the system isn't locked into one mode. But it should try to represent many things. So it's not that strict in a sense (at least again to my opinion). One my annoyances is that each weapon has name which forces them all to have same stats. Would be easier to prefix all with unit names and change effects when needed :D.

Chaos and Evil
03-11-2007, 23:06
(in my mind anyway).

They're not keen on battles of attrition because they don't have the numbers of the other races, not because they want to preserve the Fire Warriors lives per se.

CyberShadow
04-11-2007, 11:33
Hi guys. Sorry for the delay in this... it has been one of those weeks - and then my PC ate my post. :(


I don't really have time to fully reply to all of your points right now, but I do wish to say that I did not mean to insult with that. I type things quickly while I'm at work, and it sometimes comes across as an insult or something outa left field, but its usually just because I don't have much time to actually write my post.

No problem. :)


With the Tau "withdraw" rules in assaults, a careful player will be able to launch engagements at a suitable range to ensure his FWs never get dragged into BTB. This could take a bit of care but why deny Tau players the opportunity for this kind of tactical play?

But... the humble Fire Warriors dont get this. :confused: This is the Jet Pack rule... If I understand you correctly.


For me the assaults are "kill or be killed" situations. It's the match where one side comes out victorious and one side is crushed. A brutal battle at short ranges. This is the stuff that Tau don't want to end up in. So from the background point, avoiding assaults suits Tau very nicely. For them it would way too costly in lives to do so and they should avoid getting into it.

Whether assaults are this decisive or not, they do break the losing formation, and inflict serious blast markers on the winner. The result of this is that even the winning formation in an assault often needs to retire and recover, taking hold actions and slowing it down.


As above. Tau infantry don't have a way of starting shooting fights without putting themsleves at risk. They'd like one, but they haven't got one, not in the fluff. Therefore they have to have to get into assault firefights like everyone else.

But, an AP weapon with a 30cm range doesnt mean that they can attack without retaliation. Any formation with a similar weapon can also fire back when they activate, and a long range fire exchange results.


But I do wish to say that the arguement that any option in epic should be less useful for its points is one that I wish was completely thrown out. I still wish to barf whenever I hear that unit x in one army should be over powered because it was fluffy, while unit y in the same army should be underpowered...it all ending up balanced. In 40k or fantasy, with a force org chart and more stringent requirements, that may work(although many think that it does not). But in a game like Epic, were you can more or less take what you want and were certain aspects of the game are clearly more powerful than others, it leaves people with no reason to take certain options unless they want a handicap(space marine dreadnoughts/armor FTL).

I think you are short changing the Tau as far as engagements go, and also are falling into the same trap that Eldar fell into. You seem to be designing a list balanced as far as killing goes, but fogetting that the point of the game(atleast 80% of it) is NOT to kill. Its to take the 6 objectives or control the table. Your list is good at killing and controlling, and that makes it too powerful.

I agree with your first point entirely. Any force list should not have 'soft options'. The thing is, the Fire Warriors were the soft options in the past (although part of this I think is a result of the cost of the minis). One thing I like is that the cost of options remain stable - a Land Raider is the same cost no matter who uses it.

Your second point made me smile, since we have recently had a thread stating that the Tau are having trouble holding objectives - due to no assault capacity and relatively few heavier weapons. In part, I think that the Tau should have trouble... but not being able to hold objectives makes actually winning too difficult. This will be a serious balance, and still needs watching.


That doesn't mean that some units/formations aren't too good. Stingrays need to be toned down as do the Humans. AMHC is still too good as well. However all that is known and most likely the next iteration of the list will do something about then. CS of course knows best on what the next version will hold, but I'm basing that to the threads in the TacCom.

Just to echo, the list is certainly not finished, although I dont feel that it is too far away. But, there is still work to be done, and these discussions are very useful.


My complaint, such as it is, is that this approach to the Tau is counterintuitive, and goes too far in terms of abstraction. The E:A rules and lists appear to guide us as to how we should expect certain units to act and perform, (i.e. FW having good FF) but this aspect of the Tau list seems to go against this.

This may be the biggest issue with the current situation. While I feel that it does have the desired effect, I do think that this counter-intuitive nature is a small problem.


2) I also think that you all grossly underestimate the power of shooting units, especially combined with your "coordinated fire." Coordiated fire allows a unit to double move, while two others sustain fire. I hope you realize that this essentially guarantees the Tau a crossfire with three units that allows the opponent almost no chance to counter. That -1 to save and three additional blast markers can break a unit as sure as any assault I've ever seen.

And I think that you are over-stating the power of co-ordinated fire. Yes, it is a powerful tool in the right situation. However, there were issues when it was first introduced that it weakened the force. In a game with two forces with the same activations, if the Tau player co-ordinates his fire, you pass the activation advantage to your opponent. Now, your enemy will have two formations that can activate after all Tau formations are done, and can do so without retribution (and may even take a second action if the enemy then wins the initiative next turn).

If the Tau had good FF values only, they simply would not last long. The closest unit in 40K to Fire Warriors are Eldar Guardians. But, these two units are used in entirely different ways. Conceptually, if you use your 40K Fire Warriors as Eldar Guardians, they will be destroyed. The same is true in EA. To me, this adds weight to the current system.


Agree with what you are saying. My point was that in 40k the Pulse Rifle can blast away at short range only, which leads me to think the Tau are not supposed to be a "sniping army". They are depicted as a highly mobile shooting army, yet in 40k if they move they can only fire at short range as well. They only get the best out of the weapon at short ranges.
Maybe 40k should have come up with a new weapon category for pulse rifles, (non-assault 30").

I think that this is another issue of semantics. Long ranged fire is not sniping in EA. A group of Fire Warriors, firing with their Pulse Rifles, can take out a unit of five enemy infantry. This is a hail of long ranged firepower. A sniper is a single shot, throwing the enemy into confusion.


They're not keen on battles of attrition because they don't have the numbers of the other races, not because they want to preserve the Fire Warriors lives per se.

I think that it is more of a global outlook than any idea of 'value of life'. Fire Warriors, and any Tau, would happily lay down their lives for the Greater Good, and a Tau commander would use his troops in this way if required. However, the Tau dont believe that the Greater Good is served by wasting lives, and they believe that a life that is saved can be applied to serve the Greater Good numerous times, rather than just once if the unit falls. It just comes down to the fact that the Greater Good is not often served by wars of attrition.

Chaos and Evil
04-11-2007, 12:08
But, an AP weapon with a 30cm range doesnt mean that they can attack without retaliation. Any formation with a similar weapon can also fire back when they activate, and a long range fire exchange results.

Which is a loser's game; This isn't a useful suggestion, as no army in Epic can stand toe-to-toe with the Tau in a ranged-shooting match and expect anything other than quick annihilation.


I think that it is more of a global outlook than any idea of 'value of life'. Fire Warriors, and any Tau, would happily lay down their lives for the Greater Good, and a Tau commander would use his troops in this way if required. However, the Tau dont believe that the Greater Good is served by wasting lives, and they believe that a life that is saved can be applied to serve the Greater Good numerous times, rather than just once if the unit falls. It just comes down to the fact that the Greater Good is not often served by wars of attrition.

I think that that's a misperception, and that noting that the Tau Empire is very limited in manpower (As compared to the other 40k races) gives a more clear reason; The Tau must endevour to preserve the lives of their Fire Warriors, because there are so few of them that any large losses bite deeply into the available numbers.

It's not a matter of ethos (Save lives at all costs), or a matter of philosophy (He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day), it's a matter of pure logistics.

Kal Taron
04-11-2007, 13:57
Just an idea to toss around:
Would you deem FF4+ with range 20cm too complicated? I mean small arms have always a stated range of (15) so why not (20)?

Hena
04-11-2007, 16:25
Certainly not. That would be very huge advantage. Clipping assaults with that would rock way too much.

Jow
19-11-2007, 14:13
If you break a unit with your coordinated fire, then you've pushed the activations back in your favor(or closer to it). Tau also seem to have a pretty high number of small units, so they typically have more activations than most of the armies I've played against other than maybe Space Marines.

So lets take a look at a coordinated fire with 3 units. With one casualty caused by each unit, thats a minimum of blast markers(3 for shooting, three for kills, three for crossfires) which is incredibly high for such a crappy result. If they get any more than a single kill with each unit, its breaking most of the bigger units in the game pretty reliably without any retrun fire to worry about.

I will say this about the Tau list. It has avoided the "Macroweapon mania!" that made the eldar perhaps the most unbalanced list I've seen in any wargame.

Steve54
20-11-2007, 07:34
[QUOTE=Jow;I will say this about the Tau list. It has avoided the "Macroweapon mania!" that made the eldar perhaps the most unbalanced list I've seen in any wargame.[/QUOTE]

keep grinding that axe

Most players who play vs. eldar a lot think the list is only slightly overpowered - possibly only needing the removal of spirit stones. They initially appeared overpowered as they were a new style of army which took time for opponents to get accustomed to. A process which most new armies go through

Hena
20-11-2007, 10:19
So lets take a look at a coordinated fire with 3 units. With one casualty caused by each unit, thats a minimum of blast markers(3 for shooting, three for kills, three for crossfires) which is incredibly high for such a crappy result. If they get any more than a single kill with each unit, its breaking most of the bigger units in the game pretty reliably without any retrun fire to worry about.
Coordinated fire is Tau equivalent of combined assault ala commander. In those cases you can assume that the enemy will break and most likely take heavy casualties as well. So I don't see this as overpowering in that sense.

CyberShadow
20-11-2007, 10:35
So lets take a look at a coordinated fire with 3 units. With one casualty caused by each unit, thats a minimum of blast markers(3 for shooting, three for kills, three for crossfires) which is incredibly high for such a crappy result. If they get any more than a single kill with each unit, its breaking most of the bigger units in the game pretty reliably without any retrun fire to worry about.

Personally, I think that you are focussing on the wrong area. Taking your example, suppose that we do have equal number of formations (just for now) and I pull off this co-ordinated fire. You now have three, free activations, and guess what? You do exactly the same amount of damage - more if you also have disrupt.

The issue here is not that the Tau are able to cause this number of blast markers and/or kills, but that they can do this in a single activation. And, as Hena mentioned, this replaces the combined assault (which is equally deadly)

This ability is very similar to the Eldars 'Farsight' ability, since it allows three activations, but a lot less powerful since it restricts what these activations can actually be. It is also worse than having the three 'free' activations at the end of a a turn, since there is a -1 if any one formation has a blast markers.

The issue over a large number of activations is not really about the size of the formation, but the points cost. This is something that I am very conscious of, and I am attempting to keep a reign on it - hence the issue of Sentry Turrets depending on force size. But, I also dont think that it is easier to build this high activation list using the Tau than, for example, Orks.

Please dont think that I am shooting down any views that dont conform to my own opinions. This discussion is very useful to me, and I am happy to discuss this.


I will say this about the Tau list. It has avoided the "Macroweapon mania!" that made the eldar perhaps the most unbalanced list I've seen in any wargame.

:D There are times in my games when I really could do with a number of MW weapons... or more often, a decent barrage!

Chaos and Evil
20-11-2007, 13:13
This ability is very similar to the Eldars 'Farsight' ability, since it allows three activations, but a lot more powerful since it restricts what these activations can actually be allows all three formations to activate off of a single dice roll, with no chance of your orders stalling half way through your plan. It is also worse than largely the same as having the three 'free' activations at the end of a a turn, since there is a -1 if any one formation has a blast markers, but you also gain three immediate orders with powerful ranged-shooting formations. It is also considerably easier to use than a Combined Assault due to the less-stringent situation requirements (15cm vs 5cm).

Modified that for you Cybershadow. ;)

Coordinated Fire is a considerably superior ability to Combined Assault, made moreso by the Tau's extreme emphasis on very powerful ranged-fire units.

CyberShadow
20-11-2007, 14:25
allows all three formations to activate off of a single dice roll, with no chance of your orders stalling half way through your plan

You mean in the same way that a combined assault will? Which no-one appears to have any trouble with, even when applied to Orks. Besides which, while it wont stall half way through, a blast marker in a co-ordinating formation could throw the whole lot off. This means that the 'commanding' formation could be forced into a Hold order due to a blast marker in a different formation.


but you also gain three immediate orders with powerful ranged-shooting formations

Again, the combined assault rule allows three immediate engage orders with (potentially) powerful assault formations.

Coordinated Fire also commits you to firing all three formations at the same target, even if that target is eliminated by the first formations fire, meaning that you have then wasted two activations.

I am sorry, but I just dont see this rules as the mega-hitter that you guys are painting it as.

Chaos and Evil
20-11-2007, 23:01
The rule is superior to Combined Assault, largely due to the 15cm coordination range instead of the 5cm range (Yet *another* mechanism to allow Tau to avoid Firefights / Intermingled formations... other armies have to *risk* something in the previous turn to get their inferior equivilent to Coordinated Fire, but not Tau because they're special...).


You mean in the same way that a combined assault will?

Yes, in exactly the same manner, except with none of the risks that Engagements bring with them (Your enemies getting to firefight and kill you in return, making future actions harder).

That's a powerful fringe benefit.

However, note that you were replying to a comment I made in response to your comparison of the Eldar Farsight ability (Which requires three subsequent dice rolls to use... so again, Coordinated Fire comes out with a lesser chance of going wrong than other armies' comparable abilities).


Again, the combined assault rule allows three immediate engage orders with (potentially) powerful assault formations.

As said above, Engagements are risky affairs where some of your units *will* die.

With a Coordinated Firing, you will lose no Tau units, and probably inflict more casualties than a similar Combined Engagement would have done as well, due to the sheer number of shots the Tau generate. (Their basic infantry are better at ranged shooting than Marine Devestators).


Coordinated Fire also commits you to firing all three formations at the same target, even if that target is eliminated by the first formations fire, meaning that you have then wasted two activations.

That's the same situation as found in a Combined Engagement, except that your Coordinated formations have no chance of taking blast markers for casualties.

In comparison with Combined Engagement, again this is *NOT* a drawback, but a bonus on the side of Coordinated Fire.




I am sorry, but I just dont see this rules as the mega-hitter that you guys are painting it as.

It's not a mega-hitter, but it is better than Combined Engagement, due to a whole swath of minor bonuses.

Hena
21-11-2007, 15:46
However, note that you were replying to a comment I made in response to your comparison of the Eldar Farsight ability (Which requires three subsequent dice rolls to use... so again, Coordinated Fire comes out with a lesser chance of going wrong than other armies' comparable abilities).
Farsight it a lot better as it allows any order and they don't have to be targetting the same formation. Eldar using Farsight usually ends with more than one broken formation on enemy.


With a Coordinated Firing, you will lose no Tau units, and probably inflict more casualties than a similar Combined Engagement would have done as well, due to the sheer number of shots the Tau generate. (Their basic infantry are better at ranged shooting than Marine Devestators).
I disagree. With combined assault you can generate a lot of kills with resolution that won't happen in coordinated firing. Also how do you get Taus basic infantry being better at firing than Devastators? Firewarriors have 2 * 30cm AP5+ shots per unit. Marines have 2 * 45cm AP5+/AT6+ shots per unit.

In general I'd agree that the Coordinated fire is better than Commander rule. However I don't think it's better than Farsight at least as it is now. But main importance is that Tau needs to have something for the FF nerfing. They have better weapons (though some of them will be downgraded) and this is another thing.

Chaos and Evil
21-11-2007, 20:00
Also how do you get Taus basic infantry being better at firing than Devastators?

My mistake, I thought they were AP4+ for a second there.

*slaps brain*

BAD BRAIN!




In general I'd agree that the Coordinated fire is better than Commander rule. However I don't think it's better than Farsight at least as it is now.

I've seen Farsight stall half way through many times and leave the Eldar devestatingly exposed (You need three rolls, each of which has a chance to fail), whilst Coordinated Fire cannot stall half way through, and is statistically more likely to work correctly than a full 3 in a row Farsight order under most circumstances (Especially if blast markers are involved).

Hena
22-11-2007, 06:59
I've seen Farsight stall half way through many times and leave the Eldar devestatingly exposed (You need three rolls, each of which has a chance to fail), whilst Coordinated Fire cannot stall half way through, and is statistically more likely to work correctly than a full 3 in a row Farsight order under most circumstances (Especially if blast markers are involved).
For me that's a secondary thing (you can have SC and farseers to help out here). The important thing is that it can and tends to affect multiple formations. Coordinated fire will affect only one. Farsight is much, much more versatile skill and thus more devastating.

Charad
22-11-2007, 15:58
Huh, there should be no situation to compare farsight with coordinated fire! It is same that comparing void shields with ork mob rule.:D

Skaven_kid
23-11-2007, 01:05
Umm, I got a quick question. Where do I find the actual army datasheets (with point values on them) for Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines. Sorry for the irrelevance, I just started here and can't open a thread yet. :chrome:

Hena
23-11-2007, 03:33
For Marines you can find them in section 6 of the rulebook. For Chaos Marines go into Epic Rulebook section in the SG site and from there download the Black Legion armylist.

mark_logue
23-11-2007, 10:31
Here is an example of a good looking Tau army using 6mm Crusader miniatures from Alternative Armies.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=9920;st=90

An economical solution that looks great.

Also worth checking out the whole threads, as there are some nice armies from all races.

Patriarch
23-11-2007, 18:51
Skaven: Link to latest official Black Legion army list
http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/BlackLegion.pdf

(also represents generic chaos space marines...lots of enterprising players have written lists for other legions - scout around tactical command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=SC;c=6 and the specialist games website)


Some seriously nice armies in that link Mark!

Skaven_kid
24-11-2007, 07:02
Thanks! I'll keep a lookout on Tactical Command (didn't even know about until now) b.t.w. The Chaos list was very helpful, it has all the good stuff for the army! :chrome: