Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Vior'la revisited 1.2

 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 138
Location: Galicia
Well, truth to be told, Atension, the list has been mainly about the big suits for the last one or two years but i do understand your concern and agree with most of it, as i also think the suits needed those changes and that they are interesting so far.

Tastyfish wrote:
So Vior'la has Crisis, Broadside and Riptides, whilst Kel'shan has Hazards, R'varna and Y'vahra?


In my opinion Vior'La i think would fit for Crisis, Borka's current Riptide, Ghostekels, Hazard and Y'varna (all are probably too much for one list) and two out of Hammerheads, Broadsides and Stormsurges as support. On the other side Kel'Shan with all the big suits and some of the smaller for support, as Borka sees fit. Both could be very interesting lists (the firt playing more aggressively with coordinated and assaults and less on Guided, and the other, a ''Knight'' list with Gostekels teleporting or Manta deploying more ''Tau Knights'' would need lots of testing but be crazily interesting for casual playing).

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:23 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Abetillo wrote:
So this is based on UK list and not NetEA's from what i read. Interesting. I am liking so far the direction this is taking, even though i think is going to be hard with so many suits, making them different both when playing and on the miniature, but for now the first part looks well.

Well I see it as bit of both Matts netEA and the UK list. I've borrowed the two core formations structure from the UK list. I think they capture and focus the list in a way that I like and that suits the theme. But the support section and basic stats are from netEA.

Abetillo wrote:
What i don't like is seeing so many weapons whose stats are very similar to existing ones, but i suppose that you want to go with WH40k load out faithfully.

Do you have any examples? I don't think we need to follow 40k faithfully. I look up the 40k stats and have looked att available backrground to get a feel for how strong the different weapons are. So it's a combination to use as a guide for epic stats. But it's just a guide I think playability in epic always has to come first.


Abetillo wrote:
- Good move with the Pathfinders, they were barely used. I love also having 3 core option as 2 is quite restricted. Seems good for them to have Skyrays but i don't think many will try and will put them on FW instead. Only concerns are that 2 Pathfinders are way better than 2 Devilfish due to the unit themselves and infantry perks but because of garrisoning too, so probably better 5 vs 4+2, and that the formation could be used to get more support formations but it is early to think about it.
5 or 4+2 has merit. I agree two Devilfish are not equal to two PF units.

Only Fire Warriors formations unlocks support choices so I'm not to worried about PF spam.

Abetillo wrote:
- About the Manta transport, i don't think that 3 big suits amount to 4 Hammerheads, even more given than they have to be on their knees to fit or even more to the ground as the hangar is supposed to be just the height of a Hammerhead and i would like to see one fully filled with suits, so i would go by that 6 can be taken per Manta, which is a fair number (3 infantry and half a Hammerhead), or 3 big suits and 12 infantry. Nine seems too much in several ways but could be tested. By the way, how about the Ghostekeel? Count as 1 as Broadsides? The wording would go like: or instead they can carry 6 big suits or 3 big and 12 infantry. Find hard to see them with Hammerheads at the same time or adding a count like X line.
I haven't found any guide in the background fluff as to how many it can carry and the 40k rules doesn't mention riptirdes. And to confuse matters more the amount of troops it can transport has changed between editions in 40k.
If we would follow the current 40k rules then it should be able to carry 40 epic infantry units (55 troopers in upper deck, 145 lower deck + four devilfish/hammerhead vehicles).
So I think we have a lot of leeway in how we want to do this. I mean we can co it whatever way we seem fit I don't feel constricted by the 40k rules.
I basically went with something that I thought was easy/convenient. A way not to have to rewrite the transport section so much. Another could be to say they take up all of lower deck. Perhaps let it carry 12inf (upper deck) + 6 heavy suits (lower deck). But the drawback is that the transport note becomes really bloated and fiddly.

Abetillo wrote:
- Don't really see the reason to drop the Crisis, they are fluffy with Tau, with Vior'La and with the idea of this list. Please put them back, as support formations. Also, for this list, Crisis have the right to be in way more than Hammerheads, which don't fit it well, but are Ok as they are more restricted.
I was thinking, FW Cadres are taken a lot while Crisis are barely taken, so why not giving the Cadre Fireblade and the Breacher (or something similar in stats) to Crisis instead and help with balancing both instead of making the more desirable formation even more desirable? They have lots of weapons which would justify it from fluff too.


Making them upgrades was what the uk guys had done. I guess I just copied that. I found it to be a good way to get the Shas'o there. Crisis are the elites where the commanders go and I wanted to make them [commanders] available to the FW formation. I'm not married to the idea though and could see the crisis formation stay, but as a support formation. I don't want to mess with peoples collection.

Abetillo wrote:
- In my opinion, you should avoid like hell making the three Heavy Battle suit formation suits cost the same. There will be always one that will be taken more by a large margin NO MATTER how well they are balanced, like it happens in many lists out there, and in this case it is harder as the weapons on the Riptide need to be balanced between them. How about making the base 3 Y'Vahra for 275 points which are the weaker by a margin now as long as they don't have any deep striking capabilities and an option to replace them with 3 R'Varna for +25 points and with 3 Riptides for +50 points? It will be way easier to balance too.

I agree. The Y'vahra are not as good or versatile as the others. 275 for them or +25 pts each to upgrade to riptide/R'varna


Abetillo wrote:
- R'Varna: If you are doubting on the AT4+ why not make it AP4+/AT5+ (or even AP3+ maybe) instead and leave them for Infantry and light/medium vehicle hunting role like in the fluff you quoted and leave the big guys hunting for the Stormsurge and the general purpose to the Riptide?

wiki wrote:
All XV107 R’varna Battlesuits are armed with twin Pulse Submunitions Cannons as standard. Unlike standard Pulse Weapons, these powerful cannons fire clusters of sophisticated micro-submunitions that detonate in close proximity to their target in a storm of separate pulse-discharges, showering a wide area with deadly effect. Larger targets such as bulky infantry, monstrous creatures and vehicles inevitably suffer proportionally greater harm from Pulse Submunitions Cannons, as they can be struck with a wave of near-simultaneous detonations, magnifying the blast and ripping them apart.

They're described as being better at killing vehicles. So I think a higher AT than AP or at least not more AP is easier to justify from a background perspective.

Abetillo wrote:
- Y'Varna: like them but how about a weak 30cm shoot, if not i think that they are going to be quite restricted and a very niche unit like this.
Both background and 40k rules suggest an extremely short ranged unit, but if we find it to be a to bad/never taken choice after testing then sure I'd think the first thing would be to give it a 30cm shot. Hopefully the lower price will be incentive/balance enough

Abetillo wrote:
- Riptide: like the general weapon load out and more than the previous but i would like to propose some tweaks:
I think that the Ion Accelerator needs to go up to 3+ to balance it with the Burst Cannon and to make it different to the Blaster.
And how about making the Burst Cannon closer in role to the other Burst Cannons, which are an infantry geared and fast firing (AA) at least in Epic? It seems strange that this option has both AT and Lance when the others had none, so what do you think about 4x AP3+ or 3x AP4+/AT6+? Also it would look more fluffy with more shots given that is an overcharged weapon in WH40k.

I retained the same stats as in Vior'la 1.9 for the cannon. I think we can justify the AT shot with it being a heavy and also nova charged burst cannon. The lance part I based on them having rending in the 40k edition before current. I think they need lance to compensate for the loss of the 45 cm MW attack. They should be able to hit hard and get rewarded for closing with the enemy.

Abetillo wrote:
- Supremacy: liking having options for it, as it is the biggest guy, instead of how it were.
Tri-Axis Ion cannon seems weird that it only has AT when a normal Ion Cannon has AP too.
About the missiles, why not make them 5x AT6+ or a powered up Stormsurge with 3xAT5+ and leave the MW for the Pulse Ordinance lke Atension proposed? It is fluffy in that it is a big guy hunter with several shoots and it is not direct fire either while still a fluffy Tau weapon. It will also add to help with seeing more Pathfinders on the games on a list focused on them.

Kyrt wrote:
atension wrote:
I think it was put forward before but I always envisioned the main weapon with a guided 3x 90 cm MW 4+ shots. It has the draw back of requiring something to be marked to fire at it but when it does get to shoot its going to do some damage!

No idea if the MW4+ stats line up but this is my thought exactly - takes care of two issues: the barrage, and the risk-free alpha strike. If you want to do this you have to move/teleport/land some markerlights down first.

One thing though is, the guided missile rule doesnt require a sustain fire order, so this needs to be considered.

Given that they could be used for Overwatch, lowering to 5+ should be considered.

Good luck and congrats on the AC.

Thanks!

Atensions suggestion is basically what I tried to do with the Nexus Missile Array. Both the array and the ordinance driver could be justified to be guided missile attack in epic. Having both do that seems like a bit boring and between the two I find it's the array that fits best. It's also harder to justify another kind of attack for it than the pulse driver.
I belive MW4+ is to strong. The 6+ might be to cautious though, perhaps 5+ is a better starting ground like you suggest.



A lot of other good discussion guys on the list theme will digest and get back to you later in the evening. Glad to have your feedback.
cheers


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:06 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Abetillo wrote:
Tastyfish wrote:
If the primary focus is to add in the rest of the new Forgeworld suits and we're worried about where to then include Crisis suits, why not just go whole hog and make it a Kel'shan list (Forgeworld's chosen Sept that came up with all these new designs) and let Vior'la keep their Crisis suits and up close and personal style.

I think as soon as you talk about getting rid of Crisis suits you have to be talking a different list rather than close quarters Vior'la. But with more focus and options on the big suits, replacing Crisis for Hazards (and perhaps stealthsuits for Ghostkeels) there is definitely enough scope for it to - especially as a lot of the big suits don't fit that well with the close quarter focus of Vior'la, and if you were then to say that it's not a new Vior'la list then you've got a lot more freedom to swap out a few other things; switching the old FW aircraft for the Sun/Razorsharks (who could provide a bubble as an alternative to Skyrays, with their 360 degree turrets) to open up a space in the list for the big suits to have proper TK weapons without worrying about this fits alongside the AX-10.


Good point. I was thinking that how with all of this big suits it would be easy to make a Knight like list but you took it further. I agree on that most of the big suits stray from the close and personal Vior'La but didn't say a thing because that's what Borka wants with this list, and probably would be hard to develop and test two lists at once on Tau, which doesn't have as many players.


Tastyfish wrote:
To be honest I was thinking a similar thing as I was writing that, just think it might be helpful to keep in mind that there's probably enough for two Tau variant lists now - and that it might be easier to tackle something like up Vior'la as an "in your face" Tau army if you're not also trying to achieve the second goal of adding in all the new toys as well or if you're thinking of adding in the new suits, don't feel you need to be tied down to Vior'la's style if we have too many similar units that are competing for the same niche.

So Vior'la has Crisis, Broadside and Riptides, whilst Kel'shan has Hazards, R'varna and Y'vahra?


Abetillo wrote:
Well, truth to be told, Atension, the list has been mainly about the big suits for the last one or two years but i do understand your concern and agree with most of it, as i also think the suits needed those changes and that they are interesting so far.


Good discussion guys. I believe your right Abetillo about the big suits and, to be honest, I don't think the 1.9 Vior'la list was very themed compared to third phase and I'm not all that concerned about the name/sept. 1.9 has the same core structure as the third phase list. I mainly saw it as a way Matt tried to give tau more ways to play and to bring in the newer suits. He did add the stormsurge and supremacy when they came out, and they're not all that in your face and aggressive. On the contrary actually.

I have tried to continue in that same basic philosophy, but wanted to make the list a bit more unique [compared to third phase] partly for theme, which seemed to be something people wanted in the 1.9 thread, but also because there was a bit of grumble among the netEA higher ups in the previous Vior'la threads. Basically that the list is to similar to third phase which I think could be a hindrance to get it approved.

The way it's set up in my proposal is to give players a choice between going more shooty like old tau [regular FW, storm surge, Riptide, R'varna, supremacy] or to play in a more aggressive manner [breachers, crisis upg, riptide, marksmen, ghostkeel, Y'vahra]. But appart from the recon reliance (which is really an iconic part of the third phase list), then you could still make most armies based on this as with the 1.9 list if we get the crisis suits back in.

I know this broad list thinking is sacrilege to the old guard in netEA and I see what you guys mean that we might be able to make two different list instead. However I don't think that's a good idea. It's a lot harder to do, especially with how difficult it's been that last few years to get lists approved. I don't want to dilute our efforts. I'd much rather we'd stick to one list that's more allowing and to get it approved.
Use the suits/formations/tactics than suits the sept you wanna play and call your army by it's appropriate name that you like. The Vior'la list name shouldn't be a hindrance.

When this is done, then I think looking at making a knight list or other is feasible.

atension wrote:
I agree with you guys. As someone who plays the viola list quite heavily these days, I was rather dismayed to see it change so much. I was also thinking that I'd rather develop the list as it was and have a new variant that was more large suit oreinted. It might be trying to do too much now. It's taken a step backwards in development progress and almost gone back to experimental with all the new additions and changes. Borka don't get me wrong the battle suits did need some tweeking and the new ideas are intriguing but the whole list didn't need quite as heavy of a face lift. Not my call but I figured I'd let you know.:(

Please elaborate. What exactly is it that sees you dismayed? Is it the lack of cirsis suits? Or the lack of the recon formation? Or is it the fact that with all the new toys/tweeks to the structure we'd get back in the development process?
If the crisis suits get back in would that effect your view?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:51 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 843
Location: Toronto
Mostly the step backwards in progress with all the changes. Just feels like a completely different list now. Was never really a fan of the crisis suits so that's rather moot. Should be an interesting new list but I don't have the time these days to do really any modeling to make the new battlesuit variants. Means I won't be play testing this really at all. I still enjoy the 3rd phase list and am looking forward to some Manta tweaks though.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:57 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2316
Location: UK
If there is a bit more appetite to tweaking the third phase list is the demand for a viorla list in it's original form lessened? ie fire warriors, pathfinders.

Think it'd be wise not to try to get two new tau lists in, but if viorla before was '3rd phase plus', it's '3rd phase plus plus' now. Some stuff has been taken out it's true but the theme is diluted quite a bit.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:15 am
Posts: 301
How would adopting the developing Epic UK Vior'la list go?
Maintaining a common link with the Third Phase list.

And developing a more heavy battle suit oriented list as the NetEA project? Ke’lshan?
Or has the proposed Epic UK list got all the heavy gear already?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:55 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
The UK list has the same basic structure for the FWs and the heavy suits, but it is much more restricted. There are only breachers no regular FWs.
The hammerheads are gone, recon is gone, crisis formation is gone, skysweep is gone, PF are not core but support and cannot take tetras (so they are gone completely).

I obviously borrowed the core elements because I think that seperates it in a good way from the 3rd list, but it is way to restricted for my liking. It would mess heavily with peoples colections compared to how netEA Vior’la has been playing.

Edit: Iwould post it here, but I don’t know if Kyuss et al is ok with that since eUK likes to develop in group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:19 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6046
Location: Leicester UK
the EUK list is certainly more restrictive, following the general EUK approach that variant lists should be more restrictive than the 'main list' (look at EUK Biel-Tan vs EUK Ulthwe/Saim-Hann/Iyanden for example)

Having said that, it was mostly developed because I wanted to use my big suits that I found under a gooseberry bush, that were clearly made by wizard-santa out of chicken wire and foil, and while I liked the NetEA Vior'la list's extra toys, I felt that it was more of an expansion on the 3rd phase list rather than a variant, it retained too many options, and let's be honest, unless you REALLY loved kroot, you'd find it hard to justify ever using the 3rd phase list....

Borka and myself and others have had some 'robust discussion' around the issues of the list, I think now we've achieved some compromises that please everyone (for me losing separate recon formations, for Borka keeping hammerheads, but relegating them to a more supporting role) I would be happier bringing the EUK list more in-line with the newer NetEA developments, there are still a few 'hard sell' options in the NetEA list that I don't think the EUK team would go for, but if we can harmonise stats as much as possible it would help to enable more testing between the UK guys and the wider community

As for the theme, I think that 'Vior'la' is plenty encompassing to make a suit-heavy list, and we don't need to fiddle with the name just so the fluffophiles feel comfortable with the addition of hazard suits and the XV109s to vior'la even though it's not the absolute best place for them in the background.... let's all be pragmatists here ;)

I've attached the latest revision of the EUK list for reference, it's by no means fixed or finished, it needs quite a bit of testing, but so far I've enjoyed my games using it and think it's heading in the right direction...


Attachments:
VIORLA Tau v1_2.pdf [264.73 KiB]
Downloaded 31 times

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:45 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
I played my first game using the list. I met a local player. I had two big advantages going into this game. My friend is rather new to epic and has played less than 10 games and he had never met tau before.

Code:
Incompertus, 3000 POINTS
Tau Vior'la Revisited (NetEA v1.01)
==================================================

FIRE WARRIOR CADRE [350]
8 Fire Warriors, 2 XV8 Crisis Battlesuits, replaces 2 Fire Warriors, 2 Firesight Marksman, Breachers, Shas'el

MECHANIZED FIRE WARRIOR CADRE [425]
6 Fire Warriors, 3 Devilfish, 2 Firesight Marksman, Devilfish, 2 XV8 Crisis Battlesuits, replaces 2 Fire Warriors, Shas'o

HEAVY BATTLESUIT CADRE [350]
Shas'el, 3 Riptide

PATHFINDER GROUP [225]
4 Pathfinders, 2 devilfish, 2 Tetra

PATHFINDER GROUP [225]
4 Pathfinders, 2 devilfish, 2 Tetra

ARMOUR SUPPORT GROUP [325]
4 Hammerheads, Skyray, Railguns

SKYSWEEP SUPPORT GROUP [225]
3 Skyray Gunships

STORMSURGE GROUP [250]
2 Storm Surge Battlesuits

KV139 [275]
Heavy Rail Cannon

SUNSHARK SQUADRON [200]
2 Sunsharks

ORCA DROPSHIP [150]



Code:
Incompertus, 3000 POINTS
Yme-Loc Craftworld (Epic_UK 140516)
==================================================

ENGINES OF VAUL WARHOST [250]
Scorpion

ENGINES OF VAUL WARHOST [250]
Scorpion

FALCON WARHOST [300]
4 Falcon, 2 Fire Storm

FALCON WARHOST [350]
6 Falcon, Master Bonesinger

FALCON WARHOST [300]
4 Falcon, 2 Fire Storm

FALCON WARHOST [300]
4 Falcon, 2 Fire Storm

FIRE PRISM TROUPE [250]
3 Fire Prisms

FIRE PRISM TROUPE [250]
3 Fire Prisms

WARP HUNTER TROUPE [175]
3 Warp Hunters

WIND RIDER TROUPE [200]
6 Vyper units

WIND RIDER TROUPE [200]
6 Vyper units

NIGHT SPINNER TROUPE [175]
3 Night Spinners


Eldar decided on corner deployment.

Tau deployment.

Attachment:
Tau deployment.jpg
Tau deployment.jpg [ 4.09 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


Eldar deployment

Attachment:
Eldar deployment.jpg
Eldar deployment.jpg [ 4.09 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


Eldar won initiative

E1.1: Night spinners sustained on my rightmost pathfinder formation. 1 Kill.

T1.1: Other PF group doubled up and shot a vyper formations. Some rather lucky rolls saw for of the light vehicles go down and the formation broken.

T1.2: Retain with hammerheads to use the ML. They managed 3 kills for one broken Falcon formation.

Attachment:
T1.2.jpg
T1.2.jpg [ 2.61 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


E1.2: Scorpion sustains on scouts, prepping them for later. 2 kills.

Attachment:
E1.2.jpg
E1.2.jpg [ 2.73 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


T1.3: Skysweep advance to use the still available markerlights in the eldar deplymentzone. Firing guided missiles at the fire prisms. 1 dies and the formation breaks also fleeing to the eldar right.

Attachment:
T1.3.jpg
T1.3.jpg [ 2.52 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


E1.3 Falcons assaults forward pathfinders. The formation is wiped for no losses for the eldar.
Attachment:
E1.3.jpg
E1.3.jpg [ 4.65 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


T1.4: Sunsharks bombs broken formations on eldar right. Only one hit, which is saved. Still one unit from two formations flee due to BMs.

Attachment:
T1.4.jpg
T1.4.jpg [ 3.7 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


E1.4: Other Fire prism adv and kill one skyray from the skysweep formation breaking them.

T1.5: Supremacy advances up on hill killing one fire prism with its heavy rail cannon, breaking them.

Attachment:
T1.5.jpg
T1.5.jpg [ 3.95 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


E1.5: Vypers moves up and puts a BM on my remaining pathfinders.

Attachment:
E1.5.jpg
E1.5.jpg [ 4.76 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


T1.6: Having killed all AA on the eldar right flank I use the opportunity to send in my air assault. I go for the Eldar supreme commander. I kill three for two losses, win on +3. Alas disaster strikes and I roll a double 2. I loose by one and the orca dies. The bonesinger survives the hit she took. A small consolation is that the falcons at least break.

Attachment:
T1.6.jpg
T1.6.jpg [ 2.61 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


E1.6: Falcons assaults the broken breachers in the forrest. The Tau troops are wiped but manages to take three falcons down for another broken formation.

T1.7: FW fail, they take the BM and shots guided missiles at the vypers. 1 BM.

E1.7: Last falcon formation doubles and shoots pathfinders. 1 devilfish is killed, but luckily a tetra makes its save. 6 units remains with 5 BMs. The surviving tetra can therefore still markerlight the falcons and vypers.

Attachment:
E1.7.jpg
E1.7.jpg [ 4.8 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


T1.8: Riptides doubles up and shoots the falcons. Some good saves though sees only one falcon go down.

E1.8: Eldar goes for payback. The Warp hunters doubles up and gets two hits which kills one riptide. 3 BM.

Attachment:
E1.8.jpg
E1.8.jpg [ 4.59 MiB | Viewed 701 times ]


T1.9 Stormsurges advance up on the hill next to the supremacy and kills all three warp hunters.

E1.9 Scorpion advance and shoots riptides for one DC. The suits break and flees over to my left flank.

Some very bad rally rolls on both sides sees all broken formation except the lone fireprism on the eldar right flank fail. I felt confident going into turn 2 with a lot of falcons gone or broken.

turn 2 to follow


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 605
Location: NY, USA
Nice work. Format looks good. I also like the way you numerically broke down activations on turns (ie T1.7, E1.7)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

_________________
Eldar and Orks and Nids, Oh my! (Plus Marines , Tau, and Steel Legion.)

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:02 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
gunslinger007 wrote:
Nice work. Format looks good. I also like the way you numerically broke down activations on turns (ie T1.7, E1.7)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Great to hear tried to make it easy to follow. My imgur account isn't cooperating, that's why I have to attach all the picture

TURN 2

Eldar was in for a ruff start as I managed to roll equal for the strategy roll. I naturally elected to start.

T2.1: My hammerheads moved to on of the objectives to the left and killed all falcons from one of the broken formations.

Attachment:
T2.1.jpg
T2.1.jpg [ 3.88 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


T2.2: The supremacy doubled up and shot the falcons (who had also failed to rally so had 2 BM left). The heavy rail cannon again hit its mark and another falcon was broken. Adding 2 BM and breaking them.

Attachment:
T2.2.jpg
T2.2.jpg [ 4.68 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


E2.1: More dice disaster for the eldar as the night spinners begin by failing and then rolling the dreaded double one. The regrouped.

T2.3: Pathfinders still on 5BM elected to marshall. I felt my positions was sufficiently strong and saw no need to retain.

E2.2: The lone fire prism sneakily doubled up shooting the the broken riptides. The hit was saved but coming under fire was to much for the Shas'el in the damaged suit and he fled the field.sx

Attachment:
E2.2.jpg
E2.2.jpg [ 3.76 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


T2.4: With all swords of vaul on my right broken I had no AA to worry about. I went for the night spinners. Killing two, but also hitting the recently broken falcons. Two spinners were killed and the broken falcons lost a total of three units leaving just the one.

Attachment:
T2.4b.jpg
T2.4b.jpg [ 5.25 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


E2.3: Scorpion advanced shooting at my supremacy for one DC, but no critical.

Attachment:
E2.3.jpg
E2.3.jpg [ 4.42 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


T2.5: The mechanized firewarrios doubled up attacking the vypers, two LVs went down and the formation broke.

Attachment:
T2.5.jpg
T2.5.jpg [ 4.29 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


E2.4: Second scorpion advanced trying to kill the supremacy. Both shots from the main cannons hit, but I managed to save both. The titan broke due to BMs tough

Attachment:
E2.4.jpg
E2.4.jpg [ 4.42 MiB | Viewed 684 times ]


T2.5: Stormsurges advanced using their long range to kill the lone fire prism.

So not a great turn for the eldar. The game felt like it was already decided and to take away all hope for the elder another dice disaster hit. My friend failed all his rally rolls except one leaving him with two scorpions and a lone fire prism and to add insult to injury I on the other hand passed all my rolls.

We decided to still play it through. Eldar started by trying to kill the supremacy, it took one more damage from the two scorpions, but its armour saved it from being killed. I then killed the prism and broke one of the scorpions. Moving about my formations to grab objectives for a 5-0 win.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:06 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Dang, sounds like a pretty rough game for the eldar!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
NoisyAssassin wrote:
Dang, sounds like a pretty rough game for the eldar!


Yeah it certainly was. Its not easy to play epic when one fails 10 out of something like 12 rally rolls. I also think it was a bit of a missmatch for his army. He played a very shooty eldar list, but to try and outshoot tau isn't that easy.
I also believe his list could have been better. He didn't have any good way to deal with infantry except for the night spinners and wasted precious falcons to do that.


Concerning the performance of the tau list. I found the pathfinder formations to be quite resilient compared to the recon, not being LV mainly. Perhaps the lowered price to compensate for the loss of the old recon formation isn't necessary. Especially considering them now being a core option. A formation beefed up to 8 units like what I brought can take some effort to break. Felt nice and fluffy though with the pathfinders and tetras working together within one formation.

An alternative I see is to have the formation in the following load out. Basic set up the same with 4x pathfinder and 2x devilfish, but change the recon upgrade to "replace 2x pathfinder and 1 devilfish for three tetras for free".

The FW breachers and their FF4+ was nice, but I still think I would have prefered to shoot my target if I had met an army with a juicy infantry target, which feels right for tau in epic. The 4+FF I see more as a backup that comes at a price. It does give me more confidence getting close to the enemy though, which seems like what we wanted to achieve.
I liked the crisis upgrade for the airborne formation. They went up front in the assault to utilize their better save, which felt right with them leading the FW. I think maybe limiting them to a +2 unit upgrade is better though for how it interacts with the mechanized FW option. Behind them but in front of the breachers I put the marksman unit, due to their save (given because of their stealth capabilities). Didn't like that as it didn't seem right, perhaps they should be lowered to 5+ armour like FWs.

The supremacy was nice. Didn't feel to powerful with the heavy rail cannon for its points cost. and still easy to break like all DC3 WE. The AA on the burst cannons is justifiable from a fluff point of view, but feels a bit weird in epic.

I liked the Riptides new weaponry. Felt appropriately strong, but they were targeted early on so didn't get to test them so much. They really hate incoming MW...


It was great fun to play tau again for the first time in a while. I hope to be able to set up a game against a more seasoned player in march using tabletop simulator.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:17 pm
Posts: 1
Hi Borka,

Thank you for your work, which is well advanced. The profiles of the exosuits are pleasant and well transcribed.

As a T'au player for a long time and having followed the fluff of the Sept, i have a suggestion concerning Vior'la.
The army scheme does not seem to me to transcribe the Sept, i explain: This one is predominantly agressive with Fire Caste strongly present.
The proportion of Crisis (who are veteran and survivor Fire Warriors) is therefore important.
In my opinion, the absence of the Crisis Cadre is a mistake. There are certainly heavies exosuits, but they are not dominant, and some like the XV107, XV109 and KX139 are rare. The Heavy Exosuits Cadre is a very good idea, but the formation should be placed in support and the Crisis present in core.
Anyway, this list will still be extremely typical, without presence of HH Cadre.

This idea would be very good for a list Bor'Kan, the Sept with the most prototypes !

I hope that my intervention and my arguments will not be badly received, it is only said for the purpose of correctly combining fluff and list.

I am myself building the F-ERC Vior'la list, if you want us to share some ideas.

Thanks again for your work,

Alex


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:06 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1464
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Le Merco wrote:
Hi Borka,

Thank you for your work, which is well advanced. The profiles of the exosuits are pleasant and well transcribed.
Image Thanks! :)

Le Merco wrote:
As a T'au player for a long time and having followed the fluff of the Sept, i have a suggestion concerning Vior'la.
The army scheme does not seem to me to transcribe the Sept, i explain: This one is predominantly agressive with Fire Caste strongly present.
The proportion of Crisis (who are veteran and survivor Fire Warriors) is therefore important.
In my opinion, the absence of the Crisis Cadre is a mistake. There are certainly heavies exosuits, but they are not dominant, and some like the XV107, XV109 and KX139 are rare. The Heavy Exosuits Cadre is a very good idea, but the formation should be placed in support and the Crisis present in core.
Anyway, this list will still be extremely typical, without presence of HH Cadre.

The reason for changing the crisis suits to an upgrade and moving the big suits to core was mainly to change the list and make it less similar to the third phase list. Crisis suits are a prime candidate that seems to need some work as it's generally seen as an underperforming formation/unit.
The main critique of the previous versions, was that it was to similar to the third phase list (original netEA tau list). That's a problem specific to netEA development of course though, here a lot of people think that newer lists in epic shouldn't be to similar to already established ones (within this netEA setting). With FW and pathfinders in core and were only the former unlocks support and with breachers, cadre fireblade and closer ranged riptides I think we've sufficiently given people the possibility to play to a Vior'la theme.

However there's a few of you now that have voiced concerns about removing the crisis suit formation. My proposal is also in fact just a proposal for change. I wanted to present it for critique and discussion. I'm not 100% against getting the formation back into the list, but if implemented then we're moving the list back into being very similar to third phase. Especially if they're core instead of the big suits. I'm contemplating maybe present two versions up for voting amongst tau players to see what the community want.

Le Merco wrote:
This idea would be very good for a list Bor'Kan, the Sept with the most prototypes !
Yeah I would have loved to name the list after Bork'an, but that might have been seen as a bit of AC-hubries... Image :D :P

Definitely the sept my Tau will come from though

Le Merco wrote:
I am myself building the F-ERC Vior'la list, if you want us to share some ideas.

Yeah that would be interesting. PM inbound.

Le Merco wrote:
I hope that my intervention and my arguments will not be badly received, it is only said for the purpose of correctly combining fluff and list.

Thanks again for your work,

Alex
Absolutly no problem on my part, you're more than welcome to express your opinions on my suggestions! Please continue to do so. There's no need to agree with me.

...and no need to watch your back...Image

;D :spin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net