Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Discuss every aspect of the Shadow War stand-alone game.
BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#21 » Apr 19 2017 02:06

Yes my post was meant as a whole new entry, like another faction. If I look back at it criticly I see it is too strong and that was not my aim, and it would really be more appropriate for FW to have BS 3 instead of 4, but the current mechanics of ML is only ignoring cover, not insreasing BS, that's why i tried BS4, the otrer reason was that all of the other armies have native BS4 (apart orks, nids and genestealers), most of them can also get anoter +1 a reduce cover to -1, so they would still shoot with effective BS 4 at well hidden targets. But with the upgrades I gave to the weapons I think BS 3 would be more appropriate. I this case I would argue to change ML to give +2 to BS instead of simply negating cover and have it restricted to team leader and the drones, this way all of the drones would have distinct advantage and role would force you to carefully choose which one you will buy.

If I would talk points, I would say 80 points for the regular trooper, a space marine sout has 100 with better stats across the board, guardsman has 60 I think and probably 80 with carapace armour, and it would still have better BS, WS and I. The weapons would be 40-50 pts. and all of them would be basic.

I had this idea mostly for the reason, that PF have only one basic weapon choice and I don't see a way around it.

Anyway If I would get back to PF kill team, then mostly it would help to stick to normal Tau profiles for the drones and special weapons, which means that BC and FB are assault weapons, RR is fine, but ion rifle need changes. The basic pulce carbine should be sustain 1 as it is assault 2 in normal game, same thing was done to shuriken catapults and I believe to shoota as well. Also movement of the drones would be the same hover drone as I described in my previous post. In WH 40k, PFs have 3 special weapons in the team, so it would be appropriate here as well. Change the MLs to give +2 instead of just negating cover, that would gave ML back their true purpose and would counteract our crappy BS, at the cost of not shooting. All of this would more or less to make the PFs like tey are in the codex. Last thing would be the grenade launcher for PC in some form as is discused here.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#22 » Apr 19 2017 06:28

As I'm looking through the codex I realized some other things, PFs can have one of each three special drones and they can also have two of the standard drones, I think that this should also be the same for kill team, with the special weapons I'm fine with RR becoming heavy combined with the increase in range, but it should have AP -5 like the FB. The ion rifle should retain it's range 30'' and have both profiles 0-15 +1 to hit, S7 dmg D3 AP -3, or the blast profile with heavy, small blast S8 dmg 1 AP-3, unreliable, exactly as in the codex. The shas'ui can also have a black sun filter, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it and also EMP grenades don't really have a use here, since there are no vehicles.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#23 » Apr 19 2017 06:33

Yeah a Shield Drone for 50p that gives every Pathfinder in 6" range a 4++ (or even just a 5++) would solve a lot of our problems already.

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 122

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#24 » Apr 19 2017 06:54

I wouldn't get too hung up on porting the 40k incarnation of Pathfinders into Shadow War, except where doing so directly covers a balance issue. Ideally, a skirmish level game can capture the essence of a Pathfinder team better; that's one of the reasons I've been looking at established fiction for new space to explore.

In this case, I also think a 10+5 team would be very strong. Gun drones ought to make great patrol candidates too and at that point you'd need to think carefully about the overall balance of the list.

But yeah! Additional drone types would be ace. The Guardian Drone had established a generator/amplifier dynamic. I've been sketching out the idea of having a single support system 'slot' in Recon armour. The guardian field amplifier for 5++ within 6" of an MV36 Guardian Drone (normally 6++) becomes an interesting choice if that slot could instead be filled by, say, a Target Lock granting +1 to hit on marked targets or a mirage field amplifier granting camo gear (plus, say, the ability to hide in the open when near a MV5 Stealth Drone) and so on.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#25 » Apr 19 2017 07:19

Rizzle wrote:I wouldn't get too hung up on porting the 40k incarnation of Pathfinders into Shadow War, except where doing so directly covers a balance issue. Ideally, a skirmish level game can capture the essence of a Pathfinder team better; that's one of the reasons I've been looking at established fiction for new space to explore.

In this case, I also think a 10+5 team would be very strong. Gun drones ought to make great patrol candidates too and at that point you'd need to think carefully about the overall balance of the list.

But yeah! Additional drone types would be ace. The Guardian Drone had established a generator/amplifier dynamic. I've been sketching out the idea of having a single support system 'slot' in Recon armour. The guardian field amplifier for 5++ within 6" of an MV36 Guardian Drone (normally 6++) becomes an interesting choice if that slot could instead be filled by, say, a Target Lock granting +1 to hit on marked targets or a mirage field amplifier granting camo gear (plus, say, the ability to hide in the open when near a MV5 Stealth Drone) and so on.

The problem with the Guardian Drone is that it fills the very same role the Shield Drone was supposed to have fluff-wise. Just better executed rules-wise. Also Pathfinders don't have access to the Guardian Drone normally. It's a Breachers thing that partially crosses over to Strike Teams.
So since they fill the same roll just with one lacking on the rules department in regular 40k, why not just take the one Pathfinder normally have access to and give it proper rules. ;)

However I agree that we shouldn't get too hung up on how Pathfinders are in regular 40k. Another thought I had was that Drones shouldn't count toward your model count for bottle tests. It's already stupid enough that Drones can cause your unit to run away in regular 40k anyway.

User avatar
Peregrim
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 145

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#26 » Apr 19 2017 07:21

ARC'Thunder wrote:Also, I can't say I fully support increasing the base range of the pulse carbine. I think it's a difficult situation. Even though the Skitarii carbines, shotguns, and sluggas have increased range from the tabletop, we can still increase ours via the accelerator drone whereas most "close ranged guns" aren't able to mount a telescopic sight. Although, most armies aren't limited to only one basic weapon that has such a short range, and even our range increase is only 6" where other basic guns usually get an additional 12". If we were to increase the base long range of the carbine to 24" (maybe 20"-22"? Shadow Wars doesn't seem to worry about strange weapon ranges) it would most certainly need to be more expensive at 35-40 points.

Nearly every other faction has a basic range of 24". The exceptions are Dark Eldar, Eldar, Harlequins, Tau, and Tyranids. Most of these exceptions make sense. Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and Tyranids are all melee factions; Eldar have sustained dice on their basic guns. I don't see how Tau fit among the exceptions. And, while not every faction can increase their range (e.g. with telescopic sights), most/all ranged factions can.

Costs are derived from the WH40K codex. One pathfinder's cost (with standard equipment) is 10x the codex cost. I suppose there's a floating 5 pts, but I'm not sure I agree that the cost of our basic guns would need to be increased if its range was increased to match the typical basic range for SW:A.

User avatar
ARC'Thunder
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 850

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#27 » Apr 19 2017 07:34

Peregrim wrote:Costs are derived from the WH40K codex. One pathfinder's cost (with standard equipment) is 10x the codex cost. I suppose there's a floating 5 pts, but I'm not sure I agree that the cost of our basic guns would need to be increased if its range was increased to match the typical basic range for SW:A.

While I agree to some extent about the points costs being derivative of 40k's own, I think we would benefit from using up that floating 5 points. I say this based on the points values of other factions' weapons. For example, the Skitarii radium carbines cost 35 points, benefit from the extra range, have the +1 to hit at short range, while having worse strength and no save modifier when compared to our own carbines.

EDIT: I might even suggest decreasing the points costs of our soldiers by 5, and compensate by using the net extra to add to the cost of the carbine. Skitarii fresh-forged are 65 points, and have a better WS, BS, I, Ld, and save over our pathfinder troopers. Mind, I don't know how much of our base cost might be an inbuilt "markerlight tax", but still, we have to be conscious of its high S and good save mod and can afford 5-10 points on a longer ranged carbine (and its ability to have increased range via accelerator drones).

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#28 » Apr 19 2017 09:22

It really doesn't matter how much a piece of equipment cost, 5 or 10 points really doesn't make a difference. In an campaign you will have more than enough points to get whatever you want. The worst problem Tau suffer is we are not able to make hits and hitting the enemy model is much more important because of pinning rules and pinned models can't shoot back, anybody who keeps that in mind will eat tau for lunch, especially with camo gear. As for the drones, don't think of them as models, but rather an equipment, pulse acc. drone is our telescopic sight, grav inhibitor, our little edge to cc (although its rules need to be changed), if a shield drone would give lets say 5++ on a radius, that is our compensation for camo gear. ML drone would be that red dot laser, recon drone our only thing with sustain fire and the there is a gun drone. And if it would go by WH40k you can have only one of each special drones (two can't shoot) and up to two normal drones, which would be brought over here as well and remember that in campaign drones wouldn't get all the advances and stat boosts as normal troopers.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#29 » Apr 19 2017 10:22

BillyBones wrote: if a shield drone would give lets say 5++ on a radius, that is our compensation for camo gear.

More like compensation for carapace armor really.
But I agree that Drones and Markerlights fulfill the role of the other Misc gear for Tau...too bad they do it worse for more cost (points AND team slots and can get killed).

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 122

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#30 » Apr 19 2017 10:39

But!

At least the Tau options work when the users move, and they play to suitable themes by having a unique (to Shadow War) collaboration mechanic.
I agree that the net result is far weaker, but is it weak enough that moving to 10+3, markerlight countering camo and adding the option of a Marker Drone at 50pts wouldn't be enough to make a Tau list a reasonable starting point?


(I'm inclined to use the Guardian Drone plus optional amplifier unit as it will more closely meet the expectation of players familiar with Tau hardware. Shield Drones have 15+ years of nobly catching bullets for Crisis teams at this point - that's the job they do and they do it well.)

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#31 » Apr 19 2017 10:47

Aye they do have their advantages. Just we don't have anything from it by being able to move and use them if we are pinned/downed.
Once more, beside all the quality of life changes, I'd like to say the ONE problem we have is delivering our dakka without getting picked apart on the way.
Hence why I think a Shield drone with a invul bubble (that also prevents pinning if the hit gets saved by the invul save) would be a very awesome addition to the list getting rid of most of our problems in one go. ;)

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 122

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#32 » Apr 19 2017 11:38

Great, thanks for clarifying - I don't mean to be obstinate here!
It's really helpful to be keep clear which specific issues being addressed with each batch of rules tweaks. Importantly, it should also help pin back to a clear message we can present to the design team of these issues, separately to our attempts to 'patch' them.

To your point, I fully agree that if we aim to keep Pathfinder a short-to-mid range shooty faction (currently an unoccupied niche) then they need similar protective rules to those that focused melée teams benefit from. Invulnerable save bubble + minor boost to pinning recovery (see my earlier ideas for an example) would give a bump to survivablility and mobility without feeling too strong. By eating in to the drone allocation, it also competes with pulse accelerator drones. You could get teamwide defence boost or teamwide range boost but not both - that's an interesting tradeoff.
Keeping the 'answer' on a drone makes it possible to counter by a canny opponent, too. Very appealing.

An alternate plan I could get behind would be importing the MV5 Stealth Drone from the Ghostkeel kit and having it confer a point of cover that cannot be ignored (open -> partial, partial -> full, full -> full that ignores photo visors :) ) over a 3" radius. That would lead to fewer hits (and therefore fewer pins) in a single step.

User avatar
ARC'Thunder
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 850

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#33 » Apr 19 2017 11:45

Panzer wrote:Aye they do have their advantages. Just we don't have anything from it by being able to move and use them if we are pinned/downed.
Once more, beside all the quality of life changes, I'd like to say the ONE problem we have is delivering our dakka without getting picked apart on the way.
Hence why I think a Shield drone with a invul bubble (that also prevents pinning if the hit gets saved by the invul save) would be a very awesome addition to the list getting rid of most of our problems in one go. ;)
Rizzle wrote:An alternate plan I could get behind would be importing the MV5 Stealth Drone from the Ghostkeel kit and having it confer a point of cover that cannot be ignored (open -> partial, partial -> full, full -> full that ignores photo visors :) ) over a 3" radius.

I'm not sure that creating a new unit, or making use of gear not normally available to pathfinders is either thematic, balanced, or necessary. And, for the purposes of relaying feedback to GW such suggestions as the stealth drone from the XV95 is ludicrous.

Countering our limited range by inuring ourselves to the many of the core rules of the game seems a bit heavy-handed when we could simply increase the range of our basic weapon and add a means to pin enemies at range.

Like others have pointed out, some of our faction specific gear is an alternative or side-grade to some of the core miscellaneous gear. I think we already have all the tools available to make ourselves competitive and balanced without creating entirely new gear.

I think the one argument that could be made is to give us access to camo-gear, but I'm still not convinced that the proliferation of such miscellaneous gear is not more of an issue than our own limitations. Panzer and I had briefly agreed in the previous thread that multiplying the cost of some of the gear by about 5 would help a lot. Although, much of the gear is priced on a list to list basis-and could be tailored further (for example, the red-dot sights for Scouts is more than those of the Orks).

Again, I know we're walking a fine line that borders on wishlisting, but let's keep our feedback to tweaking the things we have or what the game reasonably supports already.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#34 » Apr 19 2017 11:57

I have tried to compare some weapons similar to PC and the shoota which is assault 2 and has 18'' is 24'' here with sustain 1 and +1 in short range. I would say it is actually better than bolter here.
Avenger shuriken catapult retains its range 18'' and its assault 2 is also transformed into sustain 1.
But PC while it also is assault 2 gets nothing.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#35 » Apr 19 2017 12:06

To be completely honest I still don't see the point of this thread in the first place.
Do we try to come up with house rules?
Or do we just try to find what exactly the problem is (i think we covered that well enough by now)?
Or do we actually try to collect suggestions to present GW (i can promise you, that won't work. A company wants to make such decisions on their own instead of doing what the community tells them)?

I mean it's all good and fun to discuss about the weaknesses of the Tau list in SW:A but without a purpose it's just a wishlisting thread.

Also I do think Pathfinder should stay a mid range team with some access to long ranged weaponry on their specialists so i'm against increasing the range on Carbines.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#36 » Apr 19 2017 12:13

Panzer wrote: Also I do think Pathfinder should stay a mid range team with some access to long ranged weaponry on their specialists so i'm against increasing the range on Carbines.


All I'm saying is that they should have been sustain 1 at current range.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#37 » Apr 19 2017 12:14

BillyBones wrote:
Panzer wrote: Also I do think Pathfinder should stay a mid range team with some access to long ranged weaponry on their specialists so i'm against increasing the range on Carbines.


All I'm saying is that they should have been sustain 1 at current range.

That wasn't specifically directed at you.

User avatar
Peregrim
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 145

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#38 » Apr 19 2017 01:28

ARC'Thunder wrote:
Peregrim wrote:Costs are derived from the WH40K codex. One pathfinder's cost (with standard equipment) is 10x the codex cost. I suppose there's a floating 5 pts, but I'm not sure I agree that the cost of our basic guns would need to be increased if its range was increased to match the typical basic range for SW:A.

While I agree to some extent about the points costs being derivative of 40k's own, I think we would benefit from using up that floating 5 points. I say this based on the points values of other factions' weapons. For example, the Skitarii radium carbines cost 35 points, benefit from the extra range, have the +1 to hit at short range, while having worse strength and no save modifier when compared to our own carbines.

EDIT: I might even suggest decreasing the points costs of our soldiers by 5, and compensate by using the net extra to add to the cost of the carbine. Skitarii fresh-forged are 65 points, and have a better WS, BS, I, Ld, and save over our pathfinder troopers. Mind, I don't know how much of our base cost might be an inbuilt "markerlight tax", but still, we have to be conscious of its high S and good save mod and can afford 5-10 points on a longer ranged carbine (and its ability to have increased range via accelerator drones).

That's a fair point about the cost of other faction's weapons, although I think the radium carbine may be overcosted. In WH40K, the radium carbine models (vanguard) are cheaper than the galvanic rifle models (rangers) - although they also lack the Move Through Cover special rule. The carbine also has more shots than the rifle, and it had an additional special rule (Rad Poisoning) which it lacks in SW:A (although it gains +1S instead).

Also, while a 30 point pulse carbine might be too strong in the hands of a Skitarii ranger who has better BS and can purchase equipment like red-dot sights, telescopic sights -- it might be fairly costed in the hands of a Tau pathfinder who is less accurate.

Return to “Shadow Ops Center”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest