Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Discuss every aspect of the Shadow War stand-alone game.
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: 115

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.

User avatar
Rizzle
Kor'La
Kor'La
Posts: 115

Re: Shadow Wars: Rules Feedback and FAQ

Post#39 » May 12 2017 04:08

The official FAQ has been revised - you can grab it from here.

The big news is that Tau Pathfinder Kill Teams are now composed of 3-10 Pathfinders and an additional 3 Drones. Recon Drones have been bumped up to W2.

They have explicitly confirmed that the ion rifle shouldn't have an overcharged profile, Drones cannot advance (ignoring What Doesn't Kill You... results too) and Drone wargear functions whilst the bearer is down.

There's also confirmation that new recruits make up half by model count, so the 10+3 team means Tau can bring an extra 2 Cadets now. Leader, 2 specialists, 3 Drones, 7 Cadets is a valid penny-pinching team :)

Edit: Just spotted this was covered deep in another thread - apologies!

Return to “Shadow Ops Center”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest