mattthemuppet - There is no way that Dobbsy is a "lone voice" in these discussions.

Matt, perhaps you feel that maths hammering is enough when it comes to list design and that's why you "can't be arsed" doing any play testing? If Maths hammering were enough, I'm sure The Real Chris would have finished all army lists across all available species, years ago   .

The fact is that every one of your examples was under perfect conditions. It is very useful to know these number but if that's your whole argument then it is not a complete analysis.

In my post on the previous page, I described an engagement between Marines and Tau. The Tau force was:
Tau
Manta
FireWarrior Cadre (plus Pathfinders)
Crisis Suits Cadre (plus Shas'o and 1 extra stand)
Hammerhead Support Group (4x Twin Fusion Cannon variant)

That was a total of 27 dice, all needing 5+ (I scored 9 hits {statistically spot on} and most were saved).

That all killed one Marine stand and one LandRaider Crusader.

I'm not listing the Marine force as it doesn't matter to this discussion. The Marines had lots of support and were expected to win the engagement. I have no problem with that at all.

The problem is that the Tau were all but wiped out whilst they were within their optimum fire range and did almost NO damage in return. This is patently absurd.

I believe this kind of information is much more useful to this discussion.

In 40K (please know that I do not play the game but understand that we can take useful information from it) would a force as described above only destroy 5 marines and 1 Land Raider (this is a general question to 40K players) during a game?
Isn't a game of 40K supposed to represent an engagement in Epic?

I really want the Tau to have an issue with engagements. I do not want the Tau list to be all powerful (I've played my Tau army for a few years and I remember the games under the old list, where I had an obscenely good win/loss ratio) as in the end, no one enjoys those games.

What I do want is a Tau army that is shooty death at close range (ie FF4+ on units that deserve it) but a built in mechanic to help show the Tau resistance to engage in close combat fighting (ie +2 to initiate an Engagement). This works for Orks, it can work for Tau (lets face it, they are basically opposites, it seems like a match made in heaven to me).

I really hope that many more take up the challenge of play testing the Tau so that we can get a much broader idea of waht's going on with them.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I can understand Matt's viewpoint here, he is using 'naked' stats to point out that FW are not bad in assault and reasonable at shooting as well etc. But I agree that we also need to take into account other 'in-game' considerations, especially relevant upgrades and the perversity of the dice (well mine at least ) which can spoil the best laid plans. All armies will do better when they initiate assaults, and especially where they can lay on support or are able to make 'force multiplier' actions (Shoot/support; Assault/support etc)

The main issue here has always been how to represent the Tau close range firepower without them becoming OTT. It should really become 'deadly' at 15cm which is more akin to assault in E:A. Hence the debates around shooting Vs FF, and different stats etc.

As a completely off-the-wall thought, did we experiment with ways of always allowing them to use FF?

Eg, how about allowing unsupressed units to choose to use FF (similar to skimmer 'rising up' rule)? Or perhaps FF+1 for unsupressed units (so improving to FF4+). Basically this represents the need to keep the FW heads down if you intend to close to CC with them, otherwise the FW firepower comes into it's own.

Now I realise it is a 'special rule' and a bit late and thus probably relegated to houserules, but it is just a little thought.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Take away one 15cm shot and up their FF to 4+. Than you have what you want. Less Firepower but way better engagement options.

Just a thought: If you compare you FW with the pricetag of some 5+ Infantry (Stormtroopers), killing the 15cm shot and upping the FF to 4+. What do you get out of this comparsion?

.oo(Made the same mistake again and again, I always try to ignore TAU discussion because of various reasons but there is a point I cannot resist )

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

sure it's a discussion Dobbsy, it's just a very one sided one. I'm no fan of math-hammering (largely 'cos I'm crap at maths, that lot took me ages to do) but I was just trying to illustrate, as Ginger pointed out, that under equal conditions Fire Warriors really aren't that bad. Sure there are lot of other factors - Ulthwe have a higher strategy roll, but Tau have more access to Leaders, Eldar have Hit'n'Run, Tau have access to a character that makes AN ENTIRE FORMATION FEARLESS, Eldar have full consolidation, Tau have Jump Packs, Eldar have an Avatar, Tau have Coordinated Fire, but that applies to any army you would want to compare to.

What I'm trying to get at is that a) Fire Warriors really aren't that bad in the games I've played against them and b) you have to play to an army's strengths - you can't just complain about it's weaknesses. I mean, why not just up the Fire Warrior's stats to FF4+ and 2xAP4 at 30cm. Then they'd be great. I'd be more than happy to test that. Thing is, whenever I bring up stats that people seem to be gunning for, those same people go "oh no, that'd be too overpowered". SO WHAT DO YOU BLOODY WANT?

I'm dead keen on play testing armies to make fun and balanced army lists, but not when I'm almost 100% guaranteed that my opinions, should they differ from yours, would be discarded. I don't see that as giving up easily, I see it as an exercise in futility and I have too little spare time to waste it on futile exercises.

I'm getting in the way of yours and Onyx' diatribes so I'm unsubscribing from this thread as I really don't feel as if there's anything more I can add.

BTW Onyx, I pitted a Necron Warrior formation against 3 World Eaters fms (something like 25 models) and broke them, via a combination of luck and positioning. Does that mean World Eaters (and Berserkers in particular) are underpowered?

_________________
numquam culum es

Ginger, how would you go about distinguishing between AP and AT in this always firefight method?

Matt/Dobbsy, as I see it the both of you should continue to post your opinions because this isn't a democracy.  The Army Champ is actively engaged and taking note of what you say.  If Honda ignored somebody it would be the first I've heard of it.

Now sometimes ideas are better expressed in emails to the AC and sometimes they are best posted on the forum.  You just have to call that one on your own, but I'd say all opinions are valid in this case.  A perfect example is Dobbsy disagreeing with me on the Manta.  We both see the other person's view point, only we still disagree.  So now we wait for Honda to make a decision and then beat up on him when he doesn't do what we ask.

It's a tried and true method.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I'd be ok with that.

Matt - I've already explained that I'm basing my opinions on many games (more than 10) using Tau since the 6th edition of the list came out. I've played a lot of games with Tau and I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about.

At the moment, I'm at about a 1/2 win/loss ratio. It seems that the first few games against a new opponent go the Tau way but in recent games, my opponents are figuring out the weak spots and winning easily (I lost my last game 5-0     ).

This is good.

It has helped me to see glaring weaknesses in the list. Some are meant to be there. Unfortunately, my experience has shown me that the the system thought up by Jervis (a long time ago) doesn't accurately portray Tau abilities in the light of Epic Armageddon rules.
In Epic, the Engagement action is king. Trying to win by shooting your opponent off the board, rarely works.

Keeping Tau formations in groups to offer Supporting fire hasn't worked well either. It just gives larger tagets to the opponent. I've seen a reinforced Hammerhead Group and a Reinforced FireWarrior Cadre, all but destroyed whilst doing NO damage to the opposition in an Engagement. The loss of the Engagement was statistically correct but the Tau should be doing more damage than they presently are.

In short, Tau are being Engaged (assaulted) off the table in situations where this shouldn't be happening (Fire Fight range). Tau have a great ability to inflict massive damage at short range. The problem is there unwillingness to commit to close range fighting (they are good at short range shooting but choose not to do it without good cause) because of a healthy dose of self preservation and limited numbers (being such a young race).

The present nerfing of the Tau FF does not portray true Tau abilities.

I have suggested using the same approach as the Orks. Give the army the correct stats and use a modifier to the Engagement activation roll (I'd say -2 to make it a very risky activation) to shape how the Tau play (except for Kroot). It works like a treat with the Orks and I believe it can work a treat with the Tau.

Matt - I'd love you to play as many games as you can with the Tau against competent players. Your experience would be valued by Honda. There is no way that Honda would discard your opinions because they are different to mine. Many of my opinions are different to Honda's and he hasn't changed things to fit my ideas. That's his job as AC and he's doing it well.

Regarding World Eaters, FB seems to have that army testing well in hand. If you are able to repeat your success against 3 Berserker formations regularly (ie more than 1 game) then there may be an issue (I doubt it though).

I'm sorry if I've seemed to disregard anyone's opinion. It's just that my game experience has shown me a few things that maybe I'm not very good at communicating without seeming dissmissive   . Under the present system, I just can't see Tau being a competetive army.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

The intention is that this is applicable in assault to render the actual "FF" assault better or worse, so AP/AT would be ignored as per normal assaults. The intention is to reflect th Tau firefight ability. This becomes reduced where the enemy have laid down suppression etc. For example

Big Ork mob assault Tau FW, and get 6x boyz and 2x nobz into B-B. If the Tau formation had been prepped beforehand with 4xBMs, then 2x FW can claim FF stats, while the 4x suppressed units would be forced to fight CC.

OTOH, if the Orks were foolish enough to run straight in, the Tau claim FF stats (like skimmer) effectively shooting the Orks as they run into contact.

Not sure whether the Orks should still be able to use CC stats, or not. As an alternative, perhaps the Tau get to use the unsuppressed FW in first strike against CC units (which mimics the events), but is a little more complex.

Anyhow it is just a different approach to mimicing really close range firing.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ginger - I can see where you're going with that idea (and I like your thinking) but I kinda like the fact that Tau go to pieces when the fighting is base to base.

It is a weakness that the list has to have to compensate for other strengths.

My main gripe is FireFight Range engagements. The Tau should do more damage than they are.

I've asked the local 40K players about comparisons between Fire Warriors and Storm Troopers. I'll post the comclusions when I get a few more answers but already they are describing similar ideas to my thoughts "Well, in 40k Tau infantry and most battlesuits are devastating at close range, but in trouble once they get in combat".

FF5+ isn't devastating...  

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Here's something to consider:

"Warhammer 40,000 is too limited, too childish, to be able to represent the Tau properly."

Warhammer 40,000 doesn't have any difference between long range shooting and short range shooting, so it can't represent the Tau properly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I heartily agree with you E&C but that quote is from a tournament winning 40K player that I know personally. He's in his late 20's and is the president of one of the largest local clubs. *Edit - He also has a 40K Tau army.

He does have an Epic Ork army (though he hasn't used it in years I believe).

40K may be designed for younger players but I've asked mature gamers for their opinion. They all know the fluff and context of my question and several of the replies have been from people who know Epic.

I'm just trying to see if FF4+ is an accurate ability for Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits or else I'm wasting my time and I'll go quietly back to the corner and see what happens. So far, I've learned that Fire Warriors are less accurate than Stormtroopers but their guns are more powerful than Marine Bolters! Epic FireWarrior armour is spot on when compared to Storm Troopers. I'm learning heaps today  

Now that my opponents have no fear of engagements, I'm finding it really hard to win a game.

Epic is not designed to be won by shooting your opponent off the board and it is really hard to be in the right place at the right time when your opponent can assault you with little fear and push you away in a broken heap.

I know I seem to be harping on about this but my game experience has become so one sided that if we don't try something now, the list will be locked for a year and I can't see me using my Tau much then as the games are not much fun.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Fire Warriors are better than Guardsmen at Engagements... they shouldn't be folding in Firefights, just performing "average-to-good" (though not "exceptional").

I do agree however that the Tau list is slightly underpowered and needs some mild buffs (some to-hit increases and some points drops).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

By To-Hit increases do you also mean FF numbers?

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I mean ranged firepower (specifically Crisis and MW Hammerheads' MW shots).

=====

Flat FF increases are certainly one path to creating a a balanced list (there are multiple paths available)... but it would not be a unique and interesting path, IMHO.




Here is a rule I proposed a few years ago, back when I was first thinking about how to make Markerlights more important to the army:

"Any Fire Warrior or Crisis formation fighting an Engagement where the enemy formation is Markerlit uses a FF stat of 4+ instead of 5+".



Yes that is a Special Rule, and I know I'm supposed to hate those.  

Anyways, if FF increases were to be implemented, I'd rather it be done like that, than simply be a flat boost to the FF power of the Tau... but I remain to be convinced that it is not the "path of least resistance".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm (And have been for a long time now) firmly in agreement with Onyx and Dobbsy on the Tau issues.  They just aren't fun to play.  There's too many things that can ruin shooting (Suppression, cover, doubling etc)and FF is much better, as well as representative.

I, myself, am a veteran 40K Tau player and came 6th in the UKGT finals with Tau, 3 or 4 years back and agree that FWs are on a par with/ if not better than Storm troopers in a close range FF.  In fact the best way to use FWs in 40K (Or at least used to be, before the travesty of 5th ed) is to keep them mobile and away from assault with a devilfish, whilst whitling down enemy mobility with long range fire from Crisis suits, Broadsides and Hammerheads while stealth suits harass.  Once scattered and whitled down, FWs and crisis suits close to close range firefight range (12" rapid fire in 40K) and unleash a whole world of hurt with double tapping plasma rifles and pulse rifles (2x S5 AP5 shots per FW at 12")

Against a squad of 10 storm troopers a 10 man FW squad at 12" should average 20 shots = 10 hits, 2+ needed to wound, so lets say 8 hits and 4 dead = a break test, that's not including the 7 x BS4 S5 shots from the devilfish.  Throw in a squad of crisis suits and those are some very dead STs.

I like Onyx's idea of a -2 to engage actions and a FF buff to crisis suits and FWs.  I'd even go so far as to extend it to stealth suits too.

Ah but Fire Warriors have no Grenades (which are limited to just charge moves in 40k), and in the background they have no specialised close-range fighting training.

40k is just too limited a system to show that kind of difference in aptitude.

When you start analysing the numbers too closely, you just end up flatly comparing stats, instead of considering which playstyle would bring the most interesting style to the Tau army in Epic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter