CDR_Farsight wrote:Back on topic young Shas. Is there a way to set up a poll on this forum? We can make a list there and take the top few to GW after a period of voting and debate.
I live in the NOVA area and know many 8th Edition play-testers personally. I can assure you that many of these concerns were things already known to GW (other than the concerns with the errata), but the voices of the Tau players were drowned out by the likes of Reece. If we gather our thoughts in an intelligent manner, present real evidence, and keep as much emotion out of it as possible, we may be able to overcome the influences of the Tau haters before our official codex goes to print.
Sadly, if we cannot fix it by then, then the 5th sphere expansion may see the same fate as the 4th....lost and corrupted.
My single suggestion for an exercise like this is to
a. Be able to focus on a few areas where there are reasonably clear issues of internal and external imbalance
b. Be calm and constructive in the way the feedback is given
c. Give evidence, both from experience and from cold dry facts.
So for a totally made-up example if the community decided that the Missileside is really an outlier for points cost which causes a real issue for use in matched play:
Experience in the Tau player community has highlighted that the classic HYMP Broadside under performs noticeably in Matched play games. After discussion among the community and comparison with similar but better performing units we feel that the root cause of this is the points costs of the weapon options. Particular note has been made that it struggles to compete with Astartes Dreadnoughts which are equipped for shooting.
A HYMP is a weapon which fills the same role as the Astartes Twin Autocannon
Twin Autocannon 48" Heavy 4 S7 AP -1 Damage 2
High Yield Missile Pod 36" Heavy 4 S7 AP-1 Damage D3
The Twin Autocannon is 33 points while the HYMP is 41 points for inferior range but otherwise equivalent stats. While the platforms carrying these weapons do affect their performance it is hard to make a case that the Dreadnought is a worse shooting platform than the Broadside or that it undermines the efficiency of the weapon. While a Broadside can take a support system in-game experience shows that only in niche circumstances are any of these as good as the base advantage of +1 BS that the Dreadnought has over the Broadside. Community opinion is that were a support system available that granted +1 BS this would almost always be taken for competitive games to the exclusion of other options.
Overall we conclude that the weapons cost of the HYMP is out of line with equivalent weapons which is creating both internal and external balance problems for this unit in particular. The balanced cost of the HYMP should be equal to or slightly less than that of a Twin Autocannon.
Now obviously that is just an example to show the sort of format that is probably wanted. There has to be a balance between being too verbose (nobody has the time to read that stuff) and lacking enough evidence to be persuasive.
I personally believe that there are only really a few outliers from the "normal" efficiency level of the game where Tau units could really do with a fix. Much of the rest of what people are seeing in tournaments is outliers in the opposite direction (something is too efficient) being picked out from indexes that have them and taken in numbers. The only contender for this status in the Tau codex is IMO the Commander and I am not confident that it is so much undercosted as to be a true balance problem, although I could be persuaded