Tactical Command | View topic

Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

Page 8 of 10

[ 140 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Fire Warriors

Ilushia

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:10 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189

More numbers is often times a lot better then higher quality numbers. It doesn't take a lot to knee-cap the Tau after all. Sic 2 units of Eldar Rangers on them with 4 in each unit. That should average around 2 kills, one from each formation, and give the Tau a total of 4 blast markers. Breaking the unit if they don't have transports. And it costs the same amount. Comparatively it'll kill 2-3 Guard on average, put down 4-5 blast makers. Guard still have 5 stands unsuppressed and 3 shots! And all three of those suggested bits are roughly the same cost (Guard are very slightly more expensive). You see it in other places too. Guard are vastly harder to suppress/break thanks to their larger numbers then Tau are.

Point Disruptive artillery like a Manticore Battery at them and Tau break really easily. MW Barrages like Quake Cannons will make them even more squishy then guard. Etc. I think it'd be fine to put them at about 200-250 points or so.

Top

Honda

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:08 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 8+ AT shots though...
"6+(or better)" was the roll to hit value.

My bad, I should have typed a 6+.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:32 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Quote (Dobbsy @ 16 June 2006 (01:01))

Don't forget though Tac' you have a choice to Sustain as well if you or the opponent are in the right position.... [/quote]
Hmm... understood, but we are talking about 30cm guns. If my opponent moved within 30cm last turn - and left all 8+ of my FW alone, I'd be thanking him.

Becomes 16x4+ shots at 30cm range.

Sure, and if you move within 45cm of the IG support team guns, you will get hit with 2 shots each at AP4+ on sustain orders... not to mention the rest of the 13 men in the company.. another 7 shots of AP4+ or AT5+ on sustain orders...

Tau give up that extra 15cm range and AT shot for something... its an extra AP shot as their weapons are higher strength, longer range, and have better armor busting power in 40K.

I recognize the sustain prospect, but Tau FW should have something to balance out the negatives here. Markerlight in E:A doesn't cut it alone.

You can also upgrade with Devilfish for AT goodness. It is an extra cost though, granted. I would definitely think the +4 upgrade would be a bit much in this instance.

Heh, the AT shot is at 6+. 5+ on sustain. 4+ if the enemy was kind enough to wonder in your ML range when he wondered into your gun range of your FW... point is, I think the sustain fire for the FW is the abstraction, not the norm by any stretch.

Guard can add chimeras for 25 each and get two shots, one that's AP5+, the other that's like a 30cm Autocannon with AP5+ and an AT6+ stat. Guard definitely have range and options where the prospective FW will have AP mass fire and limited AT range if they have DF.

I do think the 200 points is fairly right though. In comparison to an IG Infantry company:

IG 13 units with 6x 45cm AP5+/AT6+, no save
vs.
Tau 8 units with 16x 30cm AP5+ only, 5+ save

IG = 13 wounds for death
Tau = 8 wounds for death

IG = 13 blast markers before they break
Tau = 8 blast markers before they break

IG = come under fire + 6 deaths to break
Tau = come under fire + 4 deaths to break

IG = come under fire and lose 1 stand, lose 1 45cm shot.
Tau = come under fire and lose 1 stand, lose 4 30cm shots

IG = 7 shots of AP5+
Tau = 16 shots of AP5+

IG = 7 shots of AT6+
Tau = 0 shots of AT6+

IG = Free commissar character (Character, Leader, inspiring, MW extra Attack +1, and fearless)
Tau = No free commissar

IG = no armor
Tau = 5+ armor

IG = 1 Commander stand (Armor 6+, CC5+, Commander)
Tau = No Commander

IG = no Markerlight
Tau = Markerlight

IG = Takes 2 kills to get rid of 1 45cm shot
Tau = Takes 1 kill to get rid of 2 30cm shots

I see quite a few bonus' for IG that you may have left out on your analysis!

IG have longevity, range, and target options. IG have a commander stand which allows them to not only commandier nearby units for a charge, but they also have an optional free character upgrade which yields leader (BM Management) and an inspiring (combat bonus) to add to their combat results - not to mention more units by default for combat.

Yeah, tau would have 16 AP shots at 30cm range, not only do IG have 7 45cm shots that have AP/AT option - but they have quite a bit going for them too!

OK, you have to add more cost to get AT values but for only 50 more points (in comparison to the Guard)you get 4x 75cm 6+(or better) AT.
This is an unrealistic comp. In order for the tau unit to get any AT shots, they have to spend 100 points. Be mindful, the 50 points more isn't an option. You have to take enough DF to outfit the entire unit, or none at all. So Honda's point is quite valid - you have to spend 100 more, just to get the 4 shots in question.

So personally, (if everyone's happy to go with the 16x shots - Tau players and opponents alike )I think the 200 points with no FW upgrade sounds better in terms of balance.
See above and let me know if the balance issue is really on your mind still. I just don't see it as a large of an issue as perhaps you do by comp.

Plus IIRC, someone mentioned that FWs aren't designed to be massive infantry "companies"...?
True, but IG have a far cry larger potential in E:A, by comparison...

Tau = 8FW +4FW +2PF +3 stealth stands (option 7 DF) = 24 models (and that's 3 stealths using jetpacks to keep up)

IG = 13 + 4 support + 6IG +2 Ogryn(option 13 chimera) = 38 models

IG have a 14 more model potential... not that I really expect to see anyone in the Tau world fielding this kind of a formation any time soon...

I'll be interested in your thoughts Dobbsy.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:23 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

In essence the Tau have higher firepower and better flexibility than guard but are normally weaker in terms of taking damage.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:48 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186

Dobbsy
IG 13 units with 6x 45cm AP5+/AT6+, no save
vs.
Tau 8 units with 16x 30cm AP5+ only, 5+ save

OK, you have to add more cost to get AT values but for only 50 more points (in comparison to the Guard)you get 4x 75cm 6+(or better) AT.

Mechanized IG gets extra AT on Chimeras as well. Shouldn't we compare footslogger IG to footslogger Tau, and mechanized IG to mechanized Tau?

Personaly, I would expect Firewarriors on foot to compete with the typical IG platoon + heavy weapons cost-wise, if not beat them in the AP realm for Firewarriors have less range (harder to get in place) and are a dedicated AP firebase.

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:52 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Yep it's called price difference... The FW don't get basic AT or numbers and the price shows that surely? Oh, or are you asking for a price reduction to below 200 here?

Heh, the AT shot is at 6+. 5+ on sustain. 4+ if the enemy was kind enough to wonder in your ML range

Well that's what tactics are all about Tac.

The emphasis is on the Tau player to get their ML into range i.e Combined arms.

Guard can add chimeras for 25 each and get two shots, one that's AP5+, the other that's like a 30cm Autocannon with AP5+ and an AT6+ stat. Guard definitely have range and options where the prospective FW will have AP mass fire and limited AT range if they have DF

I still think 50 points extra to get longer range AT isn't too bad - it also boosts the numbers in the formation to close to the base IG infantry company.
Won't the guard cop an extra turn of AT shots from the extra Devilfish given their longer range?

I see quite a few bonus' for IG that you may have left out on your analysis!

IG have longevity, range, and target options

All true. However, they are a different beast. They should have different things.

This is an unrealistic comp. In order for the tau unit to get any AT shots, they have to spend 100 points. Be mindful, the 50 points more isn't an option. You have to take enough DF to outfit the entire unit

I don't see it as unrealistic.
Spend 100 points and you've spent 50 points more than the Guard. The numbers in units also increases close to what a basic Inf Company gets and the armour values are 2 notches higher on all units and you get the increased AT shooting range.

See above and let me know if the balance issue is really on your mind still. I just don't see it as a large of an issue as perhaps you do by comp

Umm, just reading this(and a couple of other posts) I'm not sure if people have mistaken my intent. For the record, I am happy to go along with the 16 shots provided opponents aren't put out by it. I also dont have a problem with spending 50 points more than a guard Company.

My original post about the 16x AP5+ was a simple question about whether opponents would consider this too much and label it as Fanboy material etc.(in not so many words)

True, but IG have a far cry larger potential in E:A, by comparison...

Tau = 8FW +4FW +2PF +3 stealth stands (option 7 DF) = 24 models (and that's 3 stealths using jetpacks to keep up)

IG = 13 + 4 support + 6IG +2 Ogryn(option 13 chimera) = 38 models

Yes, they may do but they are a different army with different possibilities and functions.

I'll be interested in your thoughts Dobbsy
Why is my toe itchy? Where's my pen gone? What chance do my football team have of winning the world cup? Should I wear a sweater tomorrow?

Be careful what you wish for Tac' :;):

Shouldn't we compare footslogger IG to footslogger Tau, and mechanized IG to mechanized Tau?

I was, BP. 200pts for the Tau, 250 pts for the IG. Not evenly matched, not evenly costed.

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:53 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Dobbsy,

First - I retract my "curious of your thoughts" comment. I've decided, that's a dark place.

Seriously, I'm not lobbying or interested in lowering the FW cost. Sorry if my retort came across that way. That was not my intention at all. For the record, I think 200 is the right place to land for the 8 units. Making sure we are not abusing that cost by over effectiveness, which I think in part is to your point - well, that is indeed a valid concern to be mindful of.

How one army's individual unit/formation stacks up to another point for point isn't as much concern because you have to factor in army special rules, strategy, number of typical formations, activation success on average, strengths and weakness' of the formations in question as well as the armies as a whole, not to mention battlefield flexability and options for the formations in question... and I suppose the list could go on. The inter-army comparisons do have value to me though. It gives me a basis for comparison to base line off of. The other factors I mention then either contribute to a perceived imbalance or help level set *in my mind*.

In this case, I also feel the other variables at play between the armies and the formations as a whole afford the Tau FW plenty of room for the shot potential difference - at least in playtest.

Will opponents *love* the volley of shots coming from those models? Will they be too effective? I don't know. I'd just like to see the idea put to official test.

I know this... I like these discussions about FW becoming utilized and perhaps even feared vs. where they previously were. So... for whatever that's worth. :alien:

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:23 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

Blast, I hate sharing a computer! I had this huge post I was working on before dinner, I guess I got logged off instead of switched, and so I lost it!

Take 2:

Fire Warriors are used in one of 2 ways in 40k: Either they 'Garrison', or they operate as very mobile Panzergrenadiers. While mech FW are not likely to carry Markerlights, because Markerlights are a move-or-fire weapon in 40k; 'Garrison' FW will carry as many MLs as they can. One markerlight can effectively increase the shooting power of one unit by 33% now (while it only takes one to get that effect, a lone ML only has a 50% chance of hitting). While Tau can decline to bring them, Markerlights are too dramatic a force multiplier not to take.

Tactically, Mech FW will be in a Devilfish with Smart Missiles, the vehicle Multitracker, and Decoy Launchers. The Devilfish will advance 12", then the FW jump out of the 'track' and shoot the bejeebus out of a target unit, with supporting fire from the DFish (courtesy of the VMT). This should be enough to dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, any enemy unit (barring Marine Equivalents in large numbers). Large MEq squads require two squads, plus maybe the Pathfinder's Devilfish (in addition to the Pathfinder's MLs/Railrifles). Any fire at the DFish will only get glancing hits, because of the DFish's speed, and 'Immobilized' results on the Damage table (which would ordinarily kill the DFish due to it's speed) get re-rolled because of the Decoy Launchers.

Garrison FW will be placed where they are a real threat to the opponent's army, but only a distraction from the rest of the Tau Army. They will use their Markerlights to select the squad that is going to die each turn, until the opponent decides to send in an assault unit. Ideally, your FW are in cover, and equipped with Photon Grenades, which reduce the opponents effectiveness in CC by negating any Bonus Attacks from Charging. Once the enemy charges them, it will still take some time to wipe out that FW squad.

I don't know anyone who has seen Mech Tau in use when the DFish have Smart Missiles that hasn't re-vamped their Tau list to include SMS on the DFish. DFish with SMS are that effective. The only time I have heard complaints about it is when the player is big on WYSIWYG, as SMS do not come in the Devilfish kit. SMS do come in the Hammerhead kits, but that's a pretty expensive way to get them. I built mine by taking the leftover Smart Missile arms from the Broadsides that I armed with Plasma Rifles and gluing them to the bottom of some Drones, but I need lots more.

[/40k discussion]
[Epic: Armageddon discussion]

I believe that Fire Warriors should be shifted to 2x AP5+ (although that overstates their abilities at range), and still have their Markerlights.

I also believe that Devilfish should be armed with the SMS as standard, even the ones that Pathfinders use. This would change the Devilfish stats to:
Armoured Vehicle 30cm 5+ 6+ 6+
Weapon Range Firepower Notes
Burst Cannon: 15cm AP5+ -
Smart Missile System 30cm AP4+ Ignore Cover
Seeker Missiles 75cm AT6+ Guided Missiles

Unfortunately, this would probably require a change in the points cost per vehicle, as it pretty dramatically increases the AP capability of the unit, in addition to possibly adding some AT shots if you drop the FW close enough.

PS: almost forgot, By the Unholy power of the Internet, I command this thread to live AGAIN! [cue maniacal laughter]

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:19 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Lion,

You got it bro... I think most of us are in agreement that have been in Tau development for years now... we just need CS to embrace.

1) 2x 30cm AP5+ and Markerlights on FW
- we agree.

2) SMS on DF in general
- we agree.

3) Points evaluation for the change, may need to increase DF cost, tesing required.
- we agree.

'wave'

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:43 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Hena,

Predator, Leman Russ, Demolishers, Hammerheads, and Land Raiders are MBTs in my book. As I'm not going to debate (again) - we'll agree to disagree on your MBT claim.

Hellhound is a fast attack tank.

DF is undergunned by comp to a loaded wave serpent and on par with a chimera in firepower. However, it sacrifices range for a bit more damage than the chimera. All three are transports.

Tau 40K players have realized, "NO SMS" is not the way its played at all in core. See other players posts in the Tau board.

Tau players around the globe now realize that the SMS is staple for DF. Its what its always been lacking, and Tau empire development fixed the old problem of it not putting enough covering fire assisting the units being transported.

I can appreciate the Hive Mind not understanding all things MBT and DF related though.

{j/k Hena!}

'wave'

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Hena,

"we" is the Tau players that have been playing the list and asking for it in E:A. You'll notice there is more than one person in favor of the suggesting my friend. However, this forum aside, I was specifically referencing my local group. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

As to battle tank vs. Main battle tank. That's fair. I guess one could argue that a wave serpent, chimera and devil fish are all "battle tanks" by your definition then.

A rhino and an ork truk would also be transports, but not "battle tanks".

So, I agree with you, SMS would make it more of a battle tank, but not a Main Battle Tank as per your definition. Common Ground is a good thing.

I respect the fact that you said, "I don't care their designations in 40k", however there are those of us that do value 1) the core game designers evolution of the franchise and 2) that value what player opinion of the race desire. They are not the absolute factors of course, just additional metrics worthy of consideration and that was why I sited it.

Final thought, you mentioned +25 points... that is rather arbitrary and negotiable if necessary, but you'll notice above, I did say a points review was in order.

So as it pertains to DF's...

1) add SMS
2) points review to ensue
3) and call it a "Battle Tank" but not a "Main Battle Tank"

...and I think we can shake on it.

'wave'

_________________
Rob

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: Fire Warriors

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:35 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455

Hena, a Devilfish with SMS is broadly comparable to a Wave Serpent. The WS can get better guns (in 40k, higher strength, better range) and it's faster than a Devilfish. Why shouldn't the Tau, who are the 'Modern' army in the universe (advancing tech, combined arms, emphasis on ranged combat, general reluctance to suffer casualties) not have a Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle like the US Bradley, Brit Warrior, or Russian BTRs? It's part of the character.

As I mentioned, everyone I know that runs mechanized FW, uses Devilfish with SMS. It's an established part of the 40k->Epic conversion to look at what 'typically' shows up in a game. Space Marine Tactical squads with one heavy weapon per stand are based around the 'min-max' 5-6 man lascannon-plasmagun squads that are the norm in tournaments, while Devastator with two heavy weapons per stand are based on the 10-man ('6 ablative wounds') Devastator squads that are common in tournaments. Following that example, Devilfish should have the SMS, based on my experience (and that of others on this board). So we need to raise the price of the Devilfish.

Your comparison with the Predator D is not necessarily valid. Pred D has 45cm AP5+ / AT6+ and 2x 30cm AP5+. DFish with SMS has 30cm AP4+ Ignore Cover, 15cm AP5+ Disrupt, and a 75cm AT6+ Guided Missile. Pred is just as fast (although not a skimmer), has longer ranged guns (I only have to get within 30cm to fire at full effect), and ATSKNF. Predators come in formations of 4. Devilfish+FW have more units (4 AV +8 INF, increasing the number of effective shots that they will draw) that are more lightly armored, and lose effectiveness extremely rapidly with casualties. Kill one Pred D, and there are two blast markers on the formation. That might (haven't played enough) be enough to suppress a second. Kill one Devilfish, and you've suppressed two (assuming that the FW are mounted up), maybe even more (do you get blast markers for killing infantry inside transports?). The Devilfish/FW formation is much more fragile, which is a counterbalance to the sledgehammers that they are armed with. Sure, the AT fire is longer ranged (75cm is nothing to sneer at!), but that formation takes 12 BM to break, and is heavily suppressed after two DFish (+FW) kills.

Getting into the Tau's effective engagement range is one of the most frightening things that can happen on the 40k battlefield. It's normal to lose 2-3 Marines, and 1-2 Terminators. Nids, Orks, or Guard pull 5-6 models. The increased firepower in the FW pretty accurately describes this.

[40k rules]
A Devilfish with drones has 3 shots @ 18" hitting on 4+ from the burst cannon, and 2 shots @ 18" hitting on 5+ rerolled from the Pulse Carbines on the drones. What would you rather have, effectively 5.5 shots @18" hitting on 4+, or 4 shots @ 24" plus 3 @18", all hitting on 4+ base, upgradeable to 3+ (Targeting Array), and further enhanceable to a 2+ with MLs. How does a 33% increase in base Firepower, longer range and the ability to shoot over intervening terrain for 4/7 shots, in addition to more efficient use of BS-enhancing features of the army grab you?
[/40k rules]
...
You know, that's a bigger difference in Epic than it is in 40k. We may have a problem somewhere in the effectiveness of either the Burst Cannon (seems right, it's got the same # of shots as a HBolter in 40k, and same AP5+ in Epic) or of the SMS (seems a little high, since an Assault Cannon is AP5+/AT5+). That's a problem, because if we change all the SMS to AP5+, that may tweak unit effectiveness (and therefore points) for a lot of units across the board. Yuck! (Why did I post on this when I'm in a data analysis mood?)
******
I'd be OK with Devilfish costing 50 points apiece with the SMS (and that may be a little undercosted, but they definitely aren't worth 75 points each). I'd still use them.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 8 of 10

[ 140 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

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

Jump to:

Fire Warriors

Who is online