Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Bel'kro
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 291

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#19 » Aug 07 2017 09:30

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the point cost of the rifle is an issue. The issue stems from the models that can use it. Therefore, I believe the solution is not to change the points but to increase the rail rifle's utility, thus making it work for its current point cost. The best way to do this would be to add it to the Ranged Weapons List, allowing it to be used by XV8 battle suits. Here are the reasons for my suggestion.

1. In its current iteration the plasma rifle has run its course. With the exception of performance against TEQ models, I believe I'm right in stating the plasma rifle is the least efficient weapon available for our Crisis Suits by a not insignificant margin. It is in need of a replacement.

2. Although the rail rifle has the same range as a pulse rifle, its rapid fire range is still 15 inches, putting it in the same range bracket as the rest of the XV8 weapons (missile pod excluded), without being too close to the enemy. In this edition, a 12 inch range is a much riskier gamble. 15 inch range mitigates that a little while still keeping an element of danger if you want to use your weapon's full effectiveness. I feel this is a good balance between risk and reward.

3. The XV8 platform provides a survivable model into which you can sink your points and therefore gives you a decent chance to make good use of them. When you realise you currently need to spend 291 points at minimum for 9 rail rifles on a bunch of 1 wound 5+ save models, it seems fair we should have the ability to place them on a better platform.

4. It gives us a reliable mortal wound mechanic. Sure, it would cost 324 points for 3 XV8s with 9 rail rifles (33 more than we currently have to pay), but at rapid fire range you will statistically get 9 hits, and therefore 9 chances to roll a 6 when wounding. It's reliable, but it's not over powered. Especially on a platform that still hits on 4+.

I believe that sums up my main points, and I know this is very unlikely to happen, if for no other reason than GW certainly aren't going to redesign the XV8 sprue again (Although look at the cyclic ion blaster), but as I've said, it makes more sense to me for the weapon to earn its points through increased utilisation instead of lowering the cost and never using it because Ion Rifles, Breachers, and Plasma rifles do the job cheaper.
Legend says his name contained over 20 apostrophes!

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2916

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#20 » Aug 07 2017 09:35

space pope II wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think the point cost of the rifle is an issue. The issue stems from the models that can use it. Therefore, I believe the solution is not to change the points but to increase the rail rifle's utility, thus making it work for its current point cost. The best way to do this would be to add it to the Ranged Weapons List, allowing it to be used by XV8 battle suits. Here are the reasons for my suggestion.

That's basically the same thing just backwards. Either you make something more useful or you make it cheaper.
Although as shown, Space Marines get basically the same weapon just with a minmal risk, D2 instead of D1d6 and no chance to deal a Mortal wound for 7p less. 7p is a lot for weapons. A 5p decrease sounds fitting but I don't think it would change much for people who already dislike using one on Pathfinder.

User avatar
Bel'kro
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 291

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#21 » Aug 07 2017 09:41

Panzer wrote:
space pope II wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think the point cost of the rifle is an issue. The issue stems from the models that can use it. Therefore, I believe the solution is not to change the points but to increase the rail rifle's utility, thus making it work for its current point cost. The best way to do this would be to add it to the Ranged Weapons List, allowing it to be used by XV8 battle suits. Here are the reasons for my suggestion.

That's basically the same thing just backwards. Either you make something more useful or you make it cheaper.
Although as shown, Space Marines get basically the same weapon just with a minmal risk, D2 instead of D1d6 and no chance to deal a Mortal wound for 7p less. 7p is a lot for weapons. A 5p decrease sounds fitting but I don't think it would change much for people who already dislike using one on Pathfinder.


I would argue that there is a difference between keeping something in a mediocre position and making it cheaper, as opposed to putting it in a strong position and keeping the costs the same, especially when leaving the weapon in its mediocre role. The chances are it will still be outperformed by the already cheap weapons that are competing for its specific job. By providing more utility you provide more value.
Legend says his name contained over 20 apostrophes!

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1310

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#22 » Aug 07 2017 07:13

Panzer wrote:
space pope II wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think the point cost of the rifle is an issue. The issue stems from the models that can use it. Therefore, I believe the solution is not to change the points but to increase the rail rifle's utility, thus making it work for its current point cost. The best way to do this would be to add it to the Ranged Weapons List, allowing it to be used by XV8 battle suits. Here are the reasons for my suggestion.

That's basically the same thing just backwards. Either you make something more useful or you make it cheaper.
Although as shown, Space Marines get basically the same weapon just with a minmal risk, D2 instead of D1d6 and no chance to deal a Mortal wound for 7p less. 7p is a lot for weapons. A 5p decrease sounds fitting but I don't think it would change much for people who already dislike using one on Pathfinder.


2 damage instead instead of D3 damage actually, that's basically the same thing. In fact, I think 2 damage is better even! I'll switch up the analysis to be about the Plasma Incinerator instead.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1310

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#23 » Aug 07 2017 07:40

Here's the second draft. I'm trying to make it more concise but there's a lot of information here. Anyway, thanks again everyone! Here's the new version:

We're contacting you again from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where we've recently been talking about Tau points costs. Many Tau weapons' points costs are significantly higher than similar items in other Indexes.

1. The Heavy Rail Rifle's points cost is much higher than similar weapons. The Heavy Rail Rifle has less accuracy and strength than a Space Marine Lascannon; even though it has one more shot, it is only slightly more powerful than a Lascannon despite costing almost triple the points. A Heavy Rail Rifle will statistically deal 1.7 damage to a Leman Russ, while a Lascannon would deal 1.3 damage. The Heavy Rail Rifle is only has 1.3x the power of the Lascannon yet costs 2.72x the points.

Possible Solution: The points cost for the Heavy Rail Rifle should be lowered considerably. 35 points could be fair.

2. The Rail Rifle costs more points than even stronger weapons. Rail Rifles and Space Marine Plasma Incinerators have the same weapon type, range, and AP, yet Plasma Incinerators have better accuracy, much better strength, and cost 7 fewer points. A single shot from a Rail Rifle can statistically deal 0.5 damage to a Space Marine Centurion, while a Plasma Incinerator would deal 0.9 damage. The Rail Rifle deals 0.55x the damage of the Plasma Incinerator yet costs 1.46x the points.

Possible Solutions: The points cost for the Rail Rifle should be reduced. 15 points could be fair.

3. The Smart Missile System has a much higher cost than equivalent weapons. Compared to a Space Marine Heavy Bolter the Smart Missile System has one more shot, but worse accuracy and AP, yet costs double the points. The Smart Missile System will statistically deal 0.9 damage to a Guardsman, compared to the Heavy Bolter's 1.1 damage. The Smart Missile System is has 0.8x the strength of the Heavy Bolter yet costs 2x the points.

Possible Solution: The points cost for the Smart Missile System should be reduced. 10 points could be fair.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2916

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#24 » Aug 08 2017 01:38

Arka0415 wrote:2. The Rail Rifle costs more points than even stronger weapons. Rail Rifles and Space Marine Plasma Incinerators have the same weapon type, range, and AP, yet Plasma Incinerators have better accuracy, much better strength, and cost 7 fewer points. A single shot from a Rail Rifle can statistically deal 0.5 damage to a Space Marine Centurion, while a Plasma Incinerator would deal 0.9 damage. The Rail Rifle deals 0.55x the damage of the Plasma Incinerator yet costs 1.46x the points.

Possible Solutions: The points cost for the Rail Rifle should be reduced. 15 points could be fair.

Sorry the way you put it is not quite correct.
The better accuracy is part of the Marines statline and thus part of their point cost. It has literally nothing to do with the weapon itself.
When talking strictly about weapons one should compare it when used by the same unit and shot at the same unit.
The fact which unit can take which weapon and against which target it gets used is situational and has nothing to do with how much the weapon itself should cost or each unit should have their own cost for each kind of weapon which would quickly become extremely convoluted!

So what we actually have is a weapon with +1/2 Strength D1/2 and a slight chance of dealing a mortal wound to itself vs a weapon that deals D1d3 with a slight chance of dealing a mortal wound to the target. And a difference of 7 points.

Comparing it like that shows that the 7p difference really isn't justified anywhere since I'd argue with all the re-rolls of 1s the risk to suffer mortal wounds barely exists and S8 compared to S6 is a huge difference (wounding the ideal targets on 2+ instead of 3+).

Would people use it for 15p on Pathfinder? Probably not more than they already do for 22p. Pathfinder are just too squishy and don't hit well enough for people to like such an expensive weapon on them. That's not a problem with the weapon itself though but rather a problem with the fact that only this unit can take the weapon. People would spam the hell out of it on Crisis, Stealth Suits and Commander I bet.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1310

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#25 » Aug 08 2017 02:22

Panzer wrote:Sorry the way you put it is not quite correct. The better accuracy is part of the Marines statline and thus part of their point cost. It has literally nothing to do with the weapon itself. When talking strictly about weapons one should compare it when used by the same unit and shot at the same unit.

You're right, it's just hard to get good damage numbers without also bringing accuracy into it. If we show both weapons fired at BS4+ it's a little misleading since the Plasma Incinerator is always fired at 3+. Anyway, I'll rewrite these analyses later assuming both units fire at BS4+.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2916

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#26 » Aug 08 2017 02:26

It's not misleading at all when talking about how much the weapon should cost. It's only misleading when we want to show how efficient the one unit with that weapon is in-game. That's two very different things.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1310

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#27 » Aug 08 2017 07:48

Here's the third (and possibly final) draft. Since there seem to be fewer responses, let's wrap this up and get it out! Here's the final version, probably:

We're contacting you again from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where we've recently been talking about Tau points costs. Many Tau weapons' points costs are significantly higher than similar items in other Indexes.

1. The Heavy Rail Rifle's points cost is much higher than similar weapons. The Heavy Rail Rifle has similar stats to a Lascannon; even though it has one more shot, it is more powerful than a Lascannon but costs almost triple the points. Assuming both weapons have BS4+, a Heavy Rail Rifle will statistically deal 1.7 damage to a Leman Russ, while a Lascannon would deal 1 damage. The Heavy Rail Rifle has 1.7x the power of the Lascannon yet costs 2.7x the points.

Possible Solution: The points cost for the Heavy Rail Rifle should be lowered. 42 points could be fair.

2. The Rail Rifle costs more points than even stronger weapons. Rail Rifles and Plasma Incinerators have the same weapon type, range, and AP, yet Plasma Incinerators have much better strength, an alternate fire mode, and cost 7 fewer points. Assuming both weapons have BS4+, a single shot from a Rail Rifle can statistically deal 0.5 damage to a Space Marine Centurion, while a Plasma Incinerator would deal 0.7 damage. The Rail Rifle deals 0.7x the damage of the Plasma Incinerator yet costs 1.4x the points.

Possible Solutions: The points cost for the Rail Rifle should be reduced. 15 points could be fair.

3. The Smart Missile System has a much higher cost than equivalent weapons. Compared to a Heavy Bolter the Smart Missile System has one more shot, but worse AP, yet costs double the points. The Smart Missile System will statistically deal 0.9 damage to a Guardsman, compared to the Heavy Bolter's 0.7 damage. The Smart Missile System is has 1.3x the strength of the Heavy Bolter yet costs 2x the points.

Possible Solution: The points cost for the Smart Missile System should be reduced. 13 points could be fair.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 596

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#28 » Aug 09 2017 05:47

I'm glad you raised the suggested points of the SMS, as 10 points is basically a Better Burst Cannon in Every Way (and I'd say BCs are reasonably priced as is). It definitely deserves to be far lower (13 may well be right, thought my gut suggests it might be a bit too cheap?), but again I'm having issues with the comparison being made, given that the Burst Cannon is the closer equivalent to the Heavy Bolter, and the SMS has qualities you didn't mentioned (but which are absolutely relevant to their point cost - a conditional -1 or -2 is still worth a few points, and the extra 6" on the Burst Cannon is a surprisingly useful extra distance.

When doing the BC/HB comparison for stats, were you assuming the models were in cover (so that the SMS already got its expected benefits, and thus the comparison is even MORE telling)?

Re: the point costs of the increased accuracy, I'm actually not convinced they're always accounting for the increased accuracy.

Yes, some units with higher accuracy do pay more for the same weapon (I believe SM HQs tend to have increased prices for wargear, don't they? And Astra Militarum used to pay significantly less than Space Marines for a lot of their wargear, haven't compared the Codex to the AM Index yet), but others don't take that into account at all (Hi, T'au Commander!), and when it comes to Pathfinders and Space Marines and their baseline costs the accuracy is inherent in the statline and essentially unchangeable (because Markerlights need to be costed separately, as they come on separate platforms).

Frankly, discussing the platforms on which these weapons appear is absolutely necessary, since the Primaris Platform is a SIGNIFICANTLY better place to put an expensive gun.

Since GW is, as GW is want to do, inconsistent in its application of priced-by-accuracy/quality of attacks, its probably worth mentioning that the weapon itself comes also can only come on a significantly more vulnerable platform.




...The problem with concise, though it is undeniably absolutely necessary, is that you can't avoid having potentially relevant information discarded as less important. There's a million things we could say about each comparison, but there isn't the room for it. That said, we absolutely MUST included some excluded elements (Plasma Incinerator should include the statistical likelihood of killing the model, Smart Missile System needs to include its other beneficial qualities, etc), even if they are introduced as part of a statement explaining why, though relevant, it doesn't compensate for the lack of comparable firepower. To avoid discussing them leaves our arguments vulnerable to being dismissed. Do as the lawyers do: you can't avoid the bad facts, so make the bad facts do everything they can to support YOUR argument. "Even WITH the SMS targeting exactly what they should (enemy models in cover), they're STILL outperformed by a basic Heavy Bolter that costs less."

If it can't be integrated to support the argument, we at least need to address the points and briefly explain why those excluded benefits/penalties don't significantly change the comparison.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#29 » Aug 09 2017 06:56

This is a great issue, regarding Hover and Close Combat (and that f'n guy)

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/p ... 35383.page

User avatar
Colt
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 46

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#30 » Aug 09 2017 08:21

I would say something about the Remora Fighters it just sucks that now they are no different to any flyer they should have some stealth field that would give them and extra -1 to hit or something...
N00bie Wargamer
Army: Fior'Serra Sept Tau 5000 PTS

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1310

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#31 » Aug 09 2017 10:45

Unusualsuspect wrote:When doing the BC/HB comparison for stats, were you assuming the models were in cover (so that the SMS already got its expected benefits, and thus the comparison is even MORE telling)?

I'm assuming the models weren't in cover. The ignores-cover part of the SMS really isn't a major part of the weapon, but maybe it could justify +2 points or something, bringing it to 15 points total?

Unusualsuspect wrote:Yes, some units with higher accuracy do pay more for the same weapon (I believe SM HQs tend to have increased prices for wargear, don't they? And Astra Militarum used to pay significantly less than Space Marines for a lot of their wargear, haven't compared the Codex to the AM Index yet), but others don't take that into account at all (Hi, T'au Commander!), and when it comes to Pathfinders and Space Marines and their baseline costs the accuracy is inherent in the statline and essentially unchangeable (because Markerlights need to be costed separately, as they come on separate platforms).

Frankly, discussing the platforms on which these weapons appear is absolutely necessary, since the Primaris Platform is a SIGNIFICANTLY better place to put an expensive gun.

Since GW is, as GW is want to do, inconsistent in its application of priced-by-accuracy/quality of attacks, its probably worth mentioning that the weapon itself comes also can only come on a significantly more vulnerable platform.

In 8th Edition now, all units pay the same price for each weapon. A Heavy Bolter on a Land Raider and on a Devastator cost the same. This is support for the idea that accuracy is factored into unit price, not weapon price. For the time being I'm not going to pull accuracy into the question, since it does seem to be relevant to the unit not the weapon.


Unusualsuspect wrote:...The problem with concise, though it is undeniably absolutely necessary, is that you can't avoid having potentially relevant information discarded as less important. There's a million things we could say about each comparison, but there isn't the room for it. That said, we absolutely MUST included some excluded elements (Plasma Incinerator should include the statistical likelihood of killing the model, Smart Missile System needs to include its other beneficial qualities, etc), even if they are introduced as part of a statement explaining why, though relevant, it doesn't compensate for the lack of comparable firepower. To avoid discussing them leaves our arguments vulnerable to being dismissed. Do as the lawyers do: you can't avoid the bad facts, so make the bad facts do everything they can to support YOUR argument. "Even WITH the SMS targeting exactly what they should (enemy models in cover), they're STILL outperformed by a basic Heavy Bolter that costs less."

If it can't be integrated to support the argument, we at least need to address the points and briefly explain why those excluded benefits/penalties don't significantly change the comparison.

And that's just the problem with this style of argument- we can't discuss everything, and lots of things are left out. But honestly, every sentence we exclude increases the chance that GW notices it, which is the most important thing I think.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2916

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#32 » Aug 10 2017 12:55

Unusualsuspect wrote:Yes, some units with higher accuracy do pay more for the same weapon (I believe SM HQs tend to have increased prices for wargear, don't they? And Astra Militarum used to pay significantly less than Space Marines for a lot of their wargear, haven't compared the Codex to the AM Index yet), but others don't take that into account at all (Hi, T'au Commander!), and when it comes to Pathfinders and Space Marines and their baseline costs the accuracy is inherent in the statline and essentially unchangeable (because Markerlights need to be costed separately, as they come on separate platforms).

Frankly, discussing the platforms on which these weapons appear is absolutely necessary, since the Primaris Platform is a SIGNIFICANTLY better place to put an expensive gun.

No, they all pay the same amount for a weapon. That's one of the best things about 8th edition compared to 7th.

Yes the discussion is necessary....though it shouldn't be part of a discussion about how much a weapon costs.
Units pay points for their stats like BS, T, W, Sv among other things. A unit with better stats can use ANY weapon better it makes a LOT more sense to raise that units points instead of giving weapons a seperate point value for each different unit. That's the reason why units and weapons have seperate point costs in the first place.

The same weapon does always the same thing and should always cost the same amount of points. Units are different from eachother and thus cost different amount of points. When a unit can utilize weapons better, they cost more points. That should be a no-brainer.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#33 » Aug 10 2017 02:49

Colt wrote:I would say something about the Remora Fighters it just sucks that now they are no different to any flyer they should have some stealth field that would give them and extra -1 to hit or something...

Im hoping that when we get the consideration of our full codex and how the meta is working out that they will revisit things like that.

On the brightside, at least they can deepstrike.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2916

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#34 » Aug 10 2017 03:00

Overheal wrote:
Colt wrote:I would say something about the Remora Fighters it just sucks that now they are no different to any flyer they should have some stealth field that would give them and extra -1 to hit or something...

Im hoping that when we get the consideration of our full codex and how the meta is working out that they will revisit things like that.

On the brightside, at least they can deepstrike.

Remoras are from Forgeworld. Getting a new Codex has nothing to do with Forgeworld models unfortunately.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#35 » Aug 10 2017 03:02

Panzer wrote:
Overheal wrote:
Colt wrote:I would say something about the Remora Fighters it just sucks that now they are no different to any flyer they should have some stealth field that would give them and extra -1 to hit or something...

Im hoping that when we get the consideration of our full codex and how the meta is working out that they will revisit things like that.

On the brightside, at least they can deepstrike.

Remoras are from Forgeworld. Getting a new Codex has nothing to do with Forgeworld models unfortunately.

Shhhhhhh

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 596

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#36 » Aug 10 2017 03:50

...

I feel its necessary to reconsider where we're coming from, what we're trying to accomplish, and the best method to do so.

Right now, we have focused on being Concise, which as has been mentioned is an important element to getting a GW response.

AN important element, but there seems to be a vein of thought in which Concise is the end-all, be-all of what we're trying to do, and I think that ignores some seriously fundamental qualities we MUST address if this is going to be taken in any way seriously by GW.


I. Who are we?

We are A.T.T. That translates into Advanced T'au Tactica. Both Advanced and Tactica are words denoting the quality of the posting expected here, and the primary focus of the site. But there's that word in the middle... Advanced T'au Tactica. Advanced T'AU Tactica. Advanced T'AU Tactica.

We are, by our site name and by the nature of the vast majority of our forum base, a site dedicated not to Wargaming in general, not to GW wargames in general, not even WH40k in general... we are dedicated to the T'au Empire faction of the Warhammer 40k universe.

Whatever else we try to be, whatever other hat we try to wear, there is absolutely NO denial that we are, and are undeniably going to be percieved to be, ADVOCATES of the T'au Empire - that would include game mechanics, fluff, and the bridges in between.

II. What are we trying to accomplish?

This, fortunately, is already pretty well covered: We are trying to contact GW, to provide the insight that only a site as dedicated as A.T.T. can when it comes to the T'au Empire faction. It isn't hyperbole to say there are multiple members on this site that have a better grasp of T'au Mechanics, T'au Fluff, or both than everyone in GW put together.

We are exactly the source to provide the insight GW needs to balance the T'au Empire with the other existing factions, particularly regarding our eventual codex and units that are underperforming.

Because we are trying to provide insight that GW takes to heart, we thus are also trying to present our statements in a way that GW might actually take to heart, or at least give some decent consideration towards.

III. What does that mean for our task here?

A.T.T., if it is to provide an "official" insight to GW, will need to be very careful about how we present our insights.

As T'au Advocates, by our very nature (and no, I would consider it incredibly disingenuous to not make it clear who we are and what we are) our very expertise is also a source of SUSPICION. You don't have a fox guard a hen house, and for the same reason you don't immediately trust a T'au player to balance the T'au Empire in a way that doesn't result in an unreasonably dominant T'au faction.

Whether we try to remain unbiased or not, whether we actually succeed in neutral balancing or not, there is going to be a presumption that we're coming at this request from a biased, blinders-on perspective and that our suggestions are intentionally or unintentionally trying to make the T'au too powerful, which we MUST address and MUST show to be false for ANYTHING we write (even something as utterly undeniable as 2+2=4).

That is why I was harping earlier on how important it was, conciseness or not, that we ADDRESS the "bad" facts and conditional elements where our weapons were clearly intended to have a niche by GW. GW, as poor as they tend to be at balancing the game overall (they're getting a bit better, or at least faster on the fixes), are not complete and utter idiots - they pretty clearly balanced the point costs of the problematic T'au weapons based on their understanding of the potency of those very special rules that make them DIFFERENT from the sort of weapons that we're comparing them to among the Space Marine Codex weapons.

They got them wrong, as it happens, in some cases: The points that GW has assigned here for the Mortal-Wound-on-6s and Ignores Cover/LoS mechanics are clearly too high for the benefit conferred by those special rules. That's what we're really addressing here, the disparity between what the weapon actually does and what we're paying for the weapon.

But if we don't address those conditional benefits, if we don't address the drawbacks and counterarguments, it absolutely will NOT matter HOW concise your post is - it will be perceived, truthfully or not, as a group of T'au Players seeking any advantage they can, even if they have to present information in a misleading way to make their case seem more persuasive.

We can't just ignore such weapon-defining mechanics as Ignores Cover and No Line of Sight Required because they are conditional benefits - that reduces the benefit they provide, but they're undeniably a benefit, and it honestly boggles the mind that we were almost prepared to send off an email with a proposed point cost that doesn't even take into account such features! Its exactly the sort of excuse GW needs (and because we are clearly T'au advocates, GW will be looking for any excuse they can find) to dismiss our legitimate complaints as a power grab by a bunch of greedy T'au players.

IV. What does this mean for the letter as is?

Personally, I can't and won't support providing ATT's name to this document. It sacrifices everything else we need to make GW convinced we aren't just a bunch of greedy T'au looking for OPness just to be concise, and that ultimately results, IMO, in a diminution of the value of the A.T.T. brand (by associating it with something that presents things in what seems so clearly to me to be a biased, misleading way).

If "concise" is so important that we simply can't conceive of exceeding the word count we have for the letter now, then we'll simply have to adapt to make sure all the important information is there. If that means we need to send three separate letters, each detailing a single weapon comparison with all the bad facts addressed and counter arguments countered themselves, so be it.

Keep it as it is, and you may as well be throwing away our effort, because despite being a fairly reasonable analysis with a fairly reasonable conclusion, it seems to me so facially biased in the information it presents and the comparisons it makes that it ultimately destroys any usefulness the existing analysis would provide GW.



Concerning the different point costs for the same weapon, I could well be wrong about the SM captains (though I could have sworn that SM HQs paid more for something... was it Storm Shields?), and I could well be wrong about Astra Militarum point costs (having as limited access as I do), so I won't really be able to address that aspect of the discussion for a while.






Notes:

This is not intended as a condemnation of the intent or ultimate goal of this thread, nor is it intended to be a disparagement of the author. I sincerely appreciate all the effort Arka has gone through to have this thread progress as well as it has, and as I mentioned, I think the conclusions are fairly reasonable (perhaps with a few tweaks, which I'd feel more comfortable addressing when I'm not camping in the mountains with limited access to my books, my pdfs, and the internet).

Further, Arka has been responsive in correcting the analyses and making more appropriate comparisons when the issue is discussed. I made the above explicitly because I expect those of us contributing to this thread are all willing to make exactly these discussions, exactly the right sort of analyses, exactly the right sort of writing needed to convey what we need to convey while still accomplishing the task we seek to accomplish.

This thread is and should remain a work in progress until we can proudly stamp A.T.T.'s name on this document knowing that GW will be hardpressed to find a meaningful argument against what we've presented, because every argument they think to make has already been noted and addressed (if only with a sentence or two).

My apologies if I ruffle any feathers, but my main focus is having our goal accomplished, and that means we need to make sure we get things right.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests