Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1946

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

Post#37 » Aug 10 2017 06:10

Unusualsuspect wrote: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).


Thanks for the analysis. I appreciate your concern, but I think there's a lot less at stake here. Games Workshop gets dozens of rules queries and balancing questions every day- I can't imagine this letter will provoke any response greater than "huh, okay" and maybe a tally mark on a "Tau might be unbalanced" survey sheet or something like that.

I admit though, "biased and misleading" exactly what I was trying to avoid, so let me see what I can do.

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

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

Post#38 » Aug 10 2017 07:31

In my mind, the question is not the quantity of the submissions GW gets elsewhere, but the quality of the submission when it is representative (or intended to be representative) of A.T.T.'s combined efforts.

Just to clarify, "biased and misleading" was concerning appearances: I think we're actually fairly close to reasonable suggestions, and most of my worries stem from erring on the side of conservative (particularly when it comes to a faction advocate asking for rules changes from GW).

My main point is that, IF we want these submissions associated with A.T.T. to be effective, we're probably better off going a bit more in-depth on one subject to make sure we aren't submitting something that will be dismissed out of hand due to a [reasonably but untrue in this instance] presumption of bias.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#39 » Aug 15 2017 12:29

We should probably compare Scout snipers to our current sniper drones. Native bs3+ vs. our 5+ with their armor 2+ in cover with our hard to hit. It's not far off but needing other units to make it more viable plus the fact that we don't get the mortal wound on 6 makes ours slightly less exciting for the same points cost. Maybe a 3-5 point reduction so that we can stomach eating the costs of other units to make sniper drones better. And we need some new way of buying them to boot. Maybe incorporated into a bigger drone box some how.

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 96

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

Post#40 » Aug 15 2017 01:41

Yojimbob wrote:We should probably compare Scout snipers to our current sniper drones. Native bs3+ vs. our 5+ with their armor 2+ in cover with our hard to hit. It's not far off but needing other units to make it more viable plus the fact that we don't get the mortal wound on 6 makes ours slightly less exciting for the same points cost. Maybe a 3-5 point reduction so that we can stomach eating the costs of other units to make sniper drones better. And we need some new way of buying them to boot. Maybe incorporated into a bigger drone box some how.

I feel like our snipers need the 6+ mortal wound, the other stats are fine IMO with the marksman and a drone controller. A cheaper set would be nice too.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#41 » Aug 15 2017 01:43

I feel like all Sniper should have at least AP-2 honestly. Gambling on a 6 is always annoying and especially unfitting for sniper.
The Mortal wound on 6s could stay as special bonus for some but it shouldn't be the main mechanic to deal damage with.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#42 » Aug 15 2017 01:53

Panzer wrote:I feel like all Sniper should have at least AP-2 honestly. Gambling on a 6 is always annoying and especially unfitting for sniper.
The Mortal wound on 6s could stay as special bonus for some but it shouldn't be the main mechanic to deal damage with.


I feel like their problem with Sniper is that they also have to balance it against vehicles and creatures to prevent them from getting sniper spammed and their solution is that only on an oops 6 does it actually do anything. I'm fine with them adding something like no mortal wounds on vehicles or something similar but I feel ours are especially weak without any reliable way to do ANY damage to anyone.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#43 » Aug 15 2017 01:58

Yojimbob wrote:
Panzer wrote:I feel like all Sniper should have at least AP-2 honestly. Gambling on a 6 is always annoying and especially unfitting for sniper.
The Mortal wound on 6s could stay as special bonus for some but it shouldn't be the main mechanic to deal damage with.


I feel like their problem with Sniper is that they also have to balance it against vehicles and creatures to prevent them from getting sniper spammed and their solution is that only on an oops 6 does it actually do anything. I'm fine with them adding something like no mortal wounds on vehicles or something similar but I feel ours are especially weak without any reliable way to do ANY damage to anyone.

That really shouldn't be a problem. Sniper usually have low strength so they'd be wounding vehicles and monsters only on 5s or even just 6s.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

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

Post#44 » Aug 15 2017 02:47

Yojimbob wrote:
Panzer wrote:I feel like all Sniper should have at least AP-2 honestly. Gambling on a 6 is always annoying and especially unfitting for sniper.
The Mortal wound on 6s could stay as special bonus for some but it shouldn't be the main mechanic to deal damage with.


I feel like their problem with Sniper is that they also have to balance it against vehicles and creatures to prevent them from getting sniper spammed and their solution is that only on an oops 6 does it actually do anything. I'm fine with them adding something like no mortal wounds on vehicles or something similar but I feel ours are especially weak without any reliable way to do ANY damage to anyone.

So have it deal mortal wounds to INFANTRY on a 5+ or something.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#45 » Aug 15 2017 02:57

Overheal wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:
Panzer wrote:I feel like all Sniper should have at least AP-2 honestly. Gambling on a 6 is always annoying and especially unfitting for sniper.
The Mortal wound on 6s could stay as special bonus for some but it shouldn't be the main mechanic to deal damage with.


I feel like their problem with Sniper is that they also have to balance it against vehicles and creatures to prevent them from getting sniper spammed and their solution is that only on an oops 6 does it actually do anything. I'm fine with them adding something like no mortal wounds on vehicles or something similar but I feel ours are especially weak without any reliable way to do ANY damage to anyone.

So have it deal mortal wounds to INFANTRY on a 5+ or something.

I'm fine with ours just getting it on a 6 since we have the higher str weapon. We just need a way to deal with conscripts in a tournament setting without also nerfing our other games. Picking off the Commisars and other buffing chars would be a huge help.

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 78

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

Post#46 » Aug 16 2017 04:52

Yojimbob wrote:I'm fine with ours just getting it on a 6 since we have the higher str weapon. We just need a way to deal with conscripts in a tournament setting without also nerfing our other games. Picking off the Commisars and other buffing chars would be a huge help.


I'm fairly certain they want to do something about conscript spam itself rather than just giving other armies a way to deal with it.

As for the focus, maybe take something like Railguns (Which are an iconic and unique part of the army) as a whole and compare them to their counterparts in other armies (Darklances and LasCannons for example). IMO it would be good to point out that although the mortal wound mechanic is fun and makes them different, having what should be your main anti-armour weapon be massively unreliable at dealing damage along with your 'shooty' army being mostly incapable of aiming is a bit of a huge disadvantage.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 272

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

Post#47 » Aug 16 2017 06:22

On the Sniper issue there are a few things to remember where we do have an advantage. 1) Our sniper drone weapons are 48" range while everyone else has a 36" range. 2) Our rifles are Rapid Fire 1 to everyone elses Heavy 1, so we can move and shoot without penalty and we get double shots at half range. 3) Our rifles are Strength 5 to everyone elses 4. All the base Space Marine characters (non-named) are T4, or T5 on bikes or Gravis so that one point of Strength is not insignificant.

All that said, are mortal wounds necessary? I do agree that accuracy is a problem for us, however.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#48 » Aug 16 2017 06:44

All those advantages are nice but don't mean anything if we can't take wounds off of a Character reliably. ;)

What I tried to say before is that I don't think Sniper weapons are well done for anybody except for maybe Skitarii since those don't have to rely on 6s to deal some damage.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#49 » Aug 16 2017 08:11

Panzer wrote:All those advantages are nice but don't mean anything if we can't take wounds off of a Character reliably. ;)

What I tried to say before is that I don't think Sniper weapons are well done for anybody except for maybe Skitarii since those don't have to rely on 6s to deal some damage.

Agreed big time.

User avatar
Maxwell
Shas'Saal
Posts: 78

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

Post#50 » Aug 16 2017 09:10

I wish they’d add a unit specific limit ala warmachine. It would resolve all spam issues and would also incentivize larger unit sizes in certain circumstances.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#51 » Aug 16 2017 09:36

Maxwell wrote:I wish they’d add a unit specific limit ala warmachine. It would resolve all spam issues and would also incentivize larger unit sizes in certain circumstances.

That...would actually be really solid. Definitely would help make the game be more of a well rounded army type rather than what it always has been. Spamhammer.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 334

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

Post#52 » Aug 16 2017 09:46

Maxwell wrote:I wish they’d add a unit specific limit ala warmachine. It would resolve all spam issues and would also incentivize larger unit sizes in certain circumstances.


I'm not sure I understand what this means. Something like "Not more than 25% of your total units in your list may consist of these units."?
(Would mean you can only take one of this unit per 3 different units in your list)

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 379

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

Post#53 » Aug 16 2017 10:02

Ricordis wrote:
Maxwell wrote:I wish they’d add a unit specific limit ala warmachine. It would resolve all spam issues and would also incentivize larger unit sizes in certain circumstances.


I'm not sure I understand what this means. Something like "Not more than 25% of your total units in your list may consist of these units."?
(Would mean you can only take one of this unit per 3 different units in your list)

Old codex had hard limits on certain very specific squads or had a requisite 1+ on others. I assume they can just do 0-2 or 0-3 next to the entry and call it a day.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

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

Post#54 » Aug 16 2017 10:04

Yeah they certainly could do that though I'd love to see them managing proper balancing without such artificial limitations.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AenarIT and 4 guests