Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Vior'la revisited 1.2

 Post subject: Vior'la revisited 1.2
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:36 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Hi guys!

I'm happy to get this opportunity to try to breed some new momentum into the Vior'la list. With Matt gone we've not seen much happen the last two years. However a lot of stuff has happened with tau in that time. Some new cool miniatures (big suits) have come out that I think are worthwhile to incorporate in Vior'la.

We've had some good discussion in the Vior'la 1.9 thread about the basic theme for Vior'la. Based on my view of the background and from what I gathered from that discussion I believe the theme should be heavy on firewarriors and pathfinders, but also the new suits to make an army than can and should play more aggressive and get closer to the enemy than the third phase list plays.

Below follows some thoughts on my suggestions for the list structure.
What I'd like to focus first and formost on is incorporating the newer battlesuits. This is a work Matt has started in the Vior'la list, but I think we should bring in some more of the newer suits to get the list even more focused on the battlesuits. I have therefore limited the tank formation to a support role by taking away the upgrades. The heavy battlesuits are moved into the core formations section.
Kyussinchains and epic-UK are working on a Vior'la list at the moment that I have had the opportunity to get a look at. I have borrowed some ideas from that list when it comes to the structure of the core formations. I think the heavy battlesuits formation is a great way to get them to be a defining feature of the list.

Still it's only the FW that unlocks the Shas'o and support formations so they retain their importance and the theme. I believe most lists will have at least two formations. During Vior'la development there's been quite a lot of discussion about the cadre fireblade upgrade and the 4+ FF if it's to good or bad. I have let it go and instead opted for an upgrade option were regular FW can be replaced with Breacher units (name taken from 40k were they're a variant FW unit nowadays). These pay for the 4+FF with lesser shooting. This together with several other upgrades I think makes the FW a flexible and interesting formation with many options for variation. The Cadre Fireblade is still around but as an inspiring 50 points character, another loan from the UK list.

I have removed the pathfinder upgrade and recon formation, but have compensated by moving PFs to the core section and lowered the price to 175. Tetras are still available but as an upgrade to the formation. I think this will push PF in the lists.

Please have a look and give me your feedback. Please also look out for the inevitable misses/omissions I've made.

I have found the air portion to be a bit bloated in Vior'la, but I don't really know what to take away. I've changed the AX-1-0 back so singletons can't be taken. There's already a lot of TK around and I don't want that cheap single plane. Perhaps the AX-1-0 could even be taken out of the list?

EDIT:

Update 1.2: 2018-05-08 Changes are marked out in blue.

Attachment:
Vior’la Cadres 1.2.pdf [125.2 KiB]
Downloaded 154 times


  • Restructured the commander upgrade. To show that the crisis upgrade is a commander ugprade.
  • Coordinate fire, Ethreal and Shas'o upgrade for Manta.
  • Lowered price for Y'vahra implemented and also for the upgrade.
  • PFs changed to "Five pathfinder units OR Four pathfinder units and two Devilfish" I don't think two PF units are equal worth to two devilfish.
  • Recon upgrade changed to make tetras easier to use. I think the trade is fair. You gain mobility but loose firepower and resilence.
  • Skyray upgrade added to HH formation
  • Crisis suit formation added per popular request. Lowered price by 25 pts compared to third phase. I think the upgrade should be + 75 pts in the third phase list.
  • Breachers, increased pulse blasters. The loss of range, disrupt and firepower is not equal to the increase in FF.
  • Slight increase in R'varna FP
  • Supremacy suits weapon changes

Update 1.02: To many typos/misses to ignore so here's an updated file

Attachment:
Vior’la Cadres 1.01.pdf [161.5 KiB]
Downloaded 153 times


  • Commander upgrade added to Manta
  • added missing critical hit to manta
  • added missing recon (tetras) upgrade to PF formation. Removed pathfinder upgrade (typo)
  • removed ion accelerator option for riptides, seemed suboptimal and to keep MW spam down
  • broadside upgrade changed to "add up to three Broadside Battlesuits" for +50 pts each. Never saw the reason for only taking threes. They rarely ever get taken, this way we might see one or two.
  • piranha upgrade changed to "add up to three Piranhas" for +25 pts each.


Attachments:
Vior’la Cadres 1.0.pdf [162.55 KiB]
Downloaded 58 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.0
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:37 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Battlesuit discussion

I have in the list above my suggestions for the suits stats. I will restate them below. They are my first suggestions but are not necessarily final and I'd like feedback and discussion on them. My primary goal with the similar size DC2 heavy suits is to give them different roles. I have given them all 4 shooting attacks each which I think is reasonable for a 100 point unit in a tau list. I have tried to differentiate the attacks to steer them into these different roles. Basically the stormsurge is the long range heavy hitter/armour destroyer. R'varna for semi-long range/fire support role, the riptide I think should be the medium range heavy hitter frontline unit like the fluff suggests. The Y'vahra is the close up and personal unit.

Basic stats
I think we should keep the basic armour that Matt came up with as thats well established now. 3+ and deflector shield. DC2. Walker, Tau Jetpacks (not the R'varna). But is thick rear armour really warranted? Never really understood why they got that. Is there fluff justification or fragility reasons for giving rear armour? I can't really find that.

R'varna

40k wiki wrote:
The R’varna has far heavier armour than its more mobile, Jetpack-equipped Riptide counterpart, allowing the pilot to stand firm in the face of any foe whilst the more mobile elements of this Hunter Cadre envelop and destroy them.

I think a 4+ reinforced is better than the 3+. It will save a few more regular hits than 3+ on average, but is of course a lot better against MW attacks. To much with the shield in mind? is 5+ better?

40k wiki wrote:
The XV107 R’varna Battlesuit’s greatest strength, much like the smaller XV88 Broadside Battlesuit, lies in superior ranged firepower. With a role focused primarily on long-ranged heavy fire support, the XV107 is easily able to bring its fearsome firepower to bear on infantry and vehicles, eliminating all but the most heavily armoured forms of each.


The R'varna is suppost to be a support long ranged unit. Anywhere between 45-60cm is warranted (long range in 40k but I guess in epic rather semi-long ranged). I think 45 cm is a good range for the submunition cannon. If we go 60cm it really replaces the broadsides so I don't want that. And for longer ranges there's also the storm surge and supremacy.

My suggestion is 2x Puls Submunition Cannons, 45cm 2xAP5+/AT5+ (epic uk has them with the same except for AT4+ instead).

I've tried to compare them to broadsides as they have the same price, total DC and role. The problem with AT4+ is that they outshine broadsides by a large margin, especially if ML are taken into consideration on top of being a lot more resilent. They would then on an advance be dishing out 12x AT3+ with ML. I don't think that's really warranted for a 300 pts formation. Do you disagree and should they have AT4+? thoughts or other suggestions?

Y'Vahra

Forgeworld wrote:
...the XV109 Y'vahra is a Class 10 Battlesuit designed for devastating frontline shock assaults...
...The XV109 Y'vahra Battlesuit's greatest strength, much like the smaller XV9 Hazard Battlesuit, lies in superior short-ranged firepower...
...to facilitate this role, the Y'vahra is equipped with a triple barrelled phased-plasma flamer capable of vaporising even hardened ceramite, and a massive EMP discharge cannon designed to incapacitate enemy war engines...

So it's a specialized unit with really powerful but close range attacks.

Ionic Discharge Cannon, 15cm, MW3+
Trippel barrled phased plasma flamer, 15cm, 3xAP3+/AT4+, IC
AND small arms, EA(+1), IC

I based my suggestions loosely on the 40k stats which suggest the Discharge cannon to be really powerful (fusion weapon level) and the flamer with a medium-ish strength. Powerful enough? Maybe TK(1) on the discharge cannon is needed? I think that would be ok with such short range, but I'd rather start low.
It's a strong FF unit so it's stands out in the Tau army, but I think it's fair in the Vior'la list with it's theme and FF4+ FWs. I thought about no extra FF attack and 3+FF IC instead, but 3+ felt to strong for tau.


Riptide
This unit needs redesigning as with the stats from Vior'la 1.9 they fullfil the same role as the R'Varna. with it's jetpacks actually even longer ranged. It's weapons also need renaming as they are currently 3 main weapons of which the actual miniature of course can only have one. I want them to be a medium range unit to get us, the players, to use them more like the fluff suggests. For the longer ranges there should be the R'varna and the storm surge.

40k wiki wrote:
...The XV104 Riptide Battlesuit’s greatest strengths, much like the smaller XV8 Crisis Battlesuit, lies in mobility and ranged firepower -- it is designed to fulfil the same roles and deal with the same types of missions as its smaller cousin...
...XV104 Riptide Battlesuits will often be found in combat where the fighting is thickest and will take the brunt of any enemy attack so that the rest of a Tau Hunter Cadre can advance or retreat...
...Their Jetpacks also allow them to quickly plug gaps in Tau lines and provide covering fire for their colleagues whilst shielding their allies with their armoured bulk...


Missile drones, 45cm, AP5+/AT5+
Nova Charged Hvy Burst Cannon, 30cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+, Lance
Twin Fusion Blasters, 15cm, MW4+

An attack at 45cm, and still capable at 30cm with lance giving some hard hitting power with lance. To little? Maybe AT4+ on the lance attack? I think this makes for a medium range unit, that rewards the player for risking moving up close to enemy. I think this will promote a play style were they are the front line unit soaking up enemy fire.

There's a bit of MW-spam going on in this list that I'm vary of. So I have tried limit them to the shorter ranges for most of the suits, but also with the theme in mind to push the player to get close with the opposing forces. Basically I want long range MW/TK to be in the support and fliers section.

Stormsurge

I added the cluster rocket system to the 1.9 stats, as that's a standard weapon on the miniature and I found them to be somewhat lacking. this makes them slightly more versatile.

Cluster Rocket System, 45cm, 2xAP5+


Supremacy

Same reasons here for adding the tri axis cannons. They're a standard weapon on the miniature and the unit felt like it was lacking a bit in firepower for a small class titan.

The bigger change though is an idea I again borrowed form the UK list. It's to have main weapon being optional. I presented these stats in the 1.9 thread before and restate them here for discussion.

2x Tri-Axis Ion Cannon, 60cm, AT4+

Heavy Rail Cannon 90cm, MW3+, TK(D3)
OR Nexus Missile Array 120cm, 3xMW6+, guided (6+ sounds bad, but remember that's MW4+ on a sustain that can hit the opponents zone turn 1, but if found lacking then maybe 5+?)
OR Pulse Ordinance Multi Driver, 45cm, 5xAP4+/AT5+, indirect fire


The heavy rail cannon has stats in epic so it's not changing, but I'd like to hear feedback on the other two options. I'll quote my self from the other thread.

Borka wrote:
I don't think the pulse ordnance should be able to hit the opponents deployment zone without the risk of putting a ML unit up close, hence I suggest 45cm om the latter. It also has considerably lower maximum range than the other two weapons in 40k so that has some precedence (72" vs 120").

I'm in favor of removing the BP. What options do we see for the Multi-driver if no BP? Would 5x AP4+/AT5+ (the equivalent of 3 BP hit stats) be reasonable? Perhaps 4x instead? These attacks are better in a some ways than now, because they would benefit from ML.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.0
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:17 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6112
Location: Leicester UK
having tested the XV107 suits in my last 6 games with 4+RA and the deflector shield, I can categorically say that they do NOT feel too resilient, given they are not fearless ;)

liking the direction of the list Borka, count me in for some test games!

_________________
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 1.0
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:59 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Thanks Kyuss!

I noticed two misses. The Manta formation should have the Commander upgrade available. And the the upgrade section for it should read "Add one of the following to a crisis battlesuit unit or a Manta Dropship".

I was supposed to have removed the ionic accelerator option for the riptide. I don't see the point of it, it seems suboptimal to me in hindsight and like I said I want to keep the MW spam/powercreep down. Perhaps it's ok though? You pay two lance shots for one longer ranged MW.

will change that in the next update


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.0
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:15 am
Posts: 307
Had a look through the list some likes and queries.

The price drop on Pathfinder formations, with or without Devilfish, is very attractive.
And it is in the core choice section.

Riptides and the other Heavy Suits in the core section. Not likely to take the Skyray upgrade
since it, as an AV, can easily be sniped out of a WE formation. Will have to give some thought
about how to differentiate my big suit models to have XV104s XV107s and XV109s. And also
different weapon options on the even bigger suits.

The Fire Warrior Cadres get some nice upgrades to add to an already proven performer.
And with embedded Crisis Suits, to deal with crises, as well as providing access to Shas'el
and Shas'o upgrades.

See you've dropped the separate Crisis Suit Cadres. Never a great performer. Could not
find anywhere to put the XV9 Hazard Suits. Was that intentional?

Think dropping the Broadside transport option on the Orca feels odd. Air Landing them into
a good, maybe crossfire, position was one of the attractions. The fluff says: "An Orca also can
mount a roof-mounted automated Battlesuit transportation rail that can fit up to six XV8 Crisis
Battlesuits or three XV88 Broadside Battlesuits, and hold them in place using magnetic rail clamps."
Since the XV88s are individual light vehicles that is three stands. Oddly that is only 2 or 3 units
of XV8s on the usual infantry unit assumptions.

OK with the small Hammerhead formations. But think they ought to get access to a Skyray,
especially given their vulnerability within a WE formation - noted above.

Nice to see the new look Manta shaking out.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.0
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:25 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Andrew_NZ wrote:
Had a look through the list some likes and queries.

The price drop on Pathfinder formations, with or without Devilfish, is very attractive.
And it is in the core choice section.
My thoughts are that the price drop is needed with the loss of the ubiquituos recon formation,

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Riptides and the other Heavy Suits in the core section. Not likely to take the Skyray upgrade
since it, as an AV, can easily be sniped out of a WE formation. Will have to give some thought
about how to differentiate my big suit models to have XV104s XV107s and XV109s. And also
different weapon options on the even bigger suits.
That's a good point on the skyray. How has it been working out for you in the UK testing group Kyussinchains? Is it rarely taken with the battlesuits? Have you found it to be a prime target/to vulnerable?

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Could not find anywhere to put the XV9 Hazard Suits. Was that intentional?

Yeah those are just some proposed stats. I wasn't sure where to put it. Epic uk has them as an upgrade for the FW formation. I was thinking maybe keep them out of this list for the sake of the Sa'cea list if that list gets any traction.

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Think dropping the Broadside transport option on the Orca feels odd. Air Landing them into
a good, maybe crossfire, position was one of the attractions. The fluff says: "An Orca also can
mount a roof-mounted automated Battlesuit transportation rail that can fit up to six XV8 Crisis
Battlesuits or three XV88 Broadside Battlesuits, and hold them in place using magnetic rail clamps."
Since the XV88s are individual light vehicles that is three stands. Oddly that is only 2 or 3 units
of XV8s on the usual infantry unit assumptions
I haven't dropped the broadsides. They're still there in the transport description. The intention is to have the orca exactly the same as in the third phase list.

Andrew_NZ wrote:
OK with the small Hammerhead formations. But think they ought to get access to a Skyray,
especially given their vulnerability within a WE formation - noted above.
Yeah they would be the prime formation for adding the skyray to another formation. I'd like to hear from Kyuss first how they have found them preforming in their testing. (the uk list has taken away both the skysweep and the hammerheads but lowered the price of skyrays to 75 points to compensate)

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Nice to see the new look Manta shaking out.
Yeah I went a little conservative and kept it at 600 points sans commanders. With the new stats it can devastate a reaver titan and possibly even kill it in one turn if it's missing shields. I think going below 600 is to good. Testing will tell.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.0
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:43 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Another miss. The pathfinder formation is missing the recon upgrade option and I have apparently given it access to the pathfinder upgrade from the old list.

That should go away and the available upgrades should be gun drones, recon

The recon upgrade should read add up to three tetras for +25 points each

Edit: I also intended for the broadside and piranha upgrades to be on a unit basis instead of threes. I never saw the reason for this. Should be "add up to three... for +50 and +25 points each respectively

Another one :{[] ; the Manta is missing its Critical hit effect. To many now will update the first post with a 1.01 version with all the above typos and misses amended


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:15 am
Posts: 307
Given I complete mis-read the transport entry on the Orca, sorry, I am somewhat hesitant to add commentary.

But I think the stats for the basic Fire Warriors is missing?
Also the "skyraysxzasa" upgrade on Heavy Suits looks like it ought to be just Skyray.

I have never been keen on the Skysweep formation. Expensive for a VERY fragile formation.
The markerlights on the Skyrays are essentially wasted. Fairly dense AA firepower, a sufficiently
scary deterrent? Even if not broken the BM suppression degrades the formation AA and basic
GM fire very fast.

Heavy Suits and a Skyray seem rather mixed theme wise. Aside from the rules related problem
of AV sniping. But will be interesting to hear about the Epic UK testing experience.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:58 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Andrew_NZ wrote:
Given I complete mis-read the transport entry on the Orca, sorry, I am somewhat hesitant to add commentary.

But I think the stats for the basic Fire Warriors is missing?

Indeed they are missing, should be there unchanged from third phase.
Andrew_NZ wrote:
Also the "skyraysxzasa" upgrade on Heavy Suits looks like it ought to be just Skyray.
Ah you just solved a riddle for me. My 1,5 year old son hit the keyboard while I had the word file up, but I couldn't find anywhere were he had changed the text.

Andrew_NZ wrote:
I have never been keen on the Skysweep formation. Expensive for a VERY fragile formation.
The markerlights on the Skyrays are essentially wasted. Fairly dense AA firepower, a sufficiently
scary deterrent? Even if not broken the BM suppression degrades the formation AA and basic
GM fire very fast.
Me neither. I have tried the formation twice in the beginning of my tau career. Worked very well against orks who have no artillery to hit it, but it was a waste of points against IG who broke it really fast. Have never taken it again.

Andrew_NZ wrote:
Heavy Suits and a Skyray seem rather mixed theme wise. Aside from the rules related problem
of AV sniping. But will be interesting to hear about the Epic UK testing experience.
I agree. I borrowed the structure of the formation from UK list and there they have the skyray upgrade. Probably because of the lack of hammerheads But adding back


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 180
Location: Galicia
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. 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- About air, it seems to me too that the AX-10 is the prime objective for removal rather than the others. If not, you could leave all on it but restrict more the Skyrays and will have a more distinct flavour to the Third Phase list.


- About the Hazard suits, i would wait for testing before deciding, but so far they look well where they are.


- 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.


- 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 like they are now?


- 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.


- 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.


- Stormsurge: Thanks for dropping the shield. I would prefer more AT missiles to establish its role into tank hunting more but this is also good.


- 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.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Last edited by Abetillo on Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:27 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:42 am
Posts: 401
Location: Birchip, Australia
Heya Borkiiiiiii

Comgrats on the AC position

Pretty keen on the list where its heading. No real feedback comments other then whats already been posted. Ill need to get them out for a few games and then let you know.

One question i did want to ask. With a bit of love going on for tau at the moment. The SaCea fan list thats been posted up looks pretty sweet as well and looks to have alot of similar new models. Wondering if theres any thought of inviting it in for development along side viorla and maybe the XarKa?

Either way i keen to help out with games for you.

_________________
I have 4 laptops in this room and cannot play a pixel pushing tabletop simulator on any of them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 103
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 180
Location: Galicia
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.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Last edited by Abetillo on Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 103
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?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vior'la revisited 1.01
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:35 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto
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.:(

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 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