OK, now that the first comment is up, I did notice something about the proposed FW stats (with the 15cm Disrupt shot):  They're almost identical to the Pathfinders.  Only difference is that PFs have Disrupt on both shots and a Markerlight.

This seems to be a little counter to giving the FW their own niche to fill, but based on the examples I posted earlier, it seems to be working properly in those limited examples.  Has anyone tried the 1x 30cm AP5+, 1x 15cm AP5+ Disrupt FW yet, or are we still playing with the un-modified v5 list?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

The key difference that's been floating around is lowering the to-hit number. Instead of

30 cm AP5+
15 cm AP5+ Disrupt

Hena said

30 cm AP5+
15 cm AP4+ Disrupt.

My proposition was more radical:

30 cm AP3+

That's not what I meant (and I'd thought the idea was still 1x30cm AP5+ and 1x15cm AP5+ Disrupt).

I'm OK with consolidated/improved to-hit numbers, whether it's 30cm AP4+ or 30cm AP3+.  Adding a 15cm AP5+ shot from the Pulse Carbines (can't be better than that without a different name, Pathfinders have the same weapon) makes the Fire Warriors better, but still leaves them very vulnerable to a counter-attack if you have some bad dice-luck.  It also has the side effect of making the FW look just like the Pathfinders.  Both have a 30cm AP attack (whether that's AP3+, 4+, or 5+ doesn't really matter) and a 15cm AP5+ Disrupt attack.  Not sure if that's a bad thing or not, but it is a thought.  

From running the numbers, adding that 15cm AP5+ Disrupt shot adds enough blast markers to break targets through shooting *IF* we try to avoid Engage actions.  AP4+ isn't any different than 2x AP5+ against targets in cover, and AP3+ by itself doesn't add enough extra kills, even with 2 FW formations going in.

Actually, disregard.  What makes Pathfinders unique and valuable is their Co-fire ability.  Adding 2 stands of PF to a FW formation adds more than just the Co-fire, although it's the primary reason to add PFs.  You use the PFs to call a co-fire and then the entire formation advances and shoots up a target (laying some extra BMs with the Disrupt from the PFs), your Stingrays drop a load of Gm-love on the same target, and then the other FW formation finishes them off.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Played over the weekend - Tau (FW heavy) versus Minervans (SHT heavy).  I'll have the batrep up later today.

FW = No test for their AP as there were literally no Infantry or LV units in the Minervans.  5+FF did fine.  Even against the 4+RA SHTs they were a credible threat.

Between FW and Kroot they beat a Stormhammer company in assault and lost narrowly to another at about the right attacker-to-defender point ratios.

FW soaked up a lot of fire from the SHTs by a combination of good cover use and sheer numbers.  They were not easy to shift, even with lots of Stormhammers around.  Had I played them better, they would have lasted longer than they did.

_________________
Neal

So, are you then thinking that FW may not need a change after all, Neal?

I've come to the conclusion that FW are barely acceptable in assaults as-is (with FF5+, would definitely be better with FF4+), but need a ranged firepower bump to allow them to have the same effectiveness in shooting as in Engaging.  My preferred bump is an AP5+ Disrupt at whatever distance (Pulse Carbines @ 15cm is fine), although changing the basic statline to 30cm AP4+ Disrupt may also work, I just haven't run the numbers yet to confirm.

Does anyone remember why Crisis suits lost their MW FF attack?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Well, not to their FF.  Clearly, with all AV/WE targets, that was not a game to evaluate their AP ability.

I've come to the conclusion that FW are barely acceptable in assaults as-is (with FF5+, would definitely be better with FF4+), but need a ranged firepower bump to allow them to have the same effectiveness in shooting as in Engaging.

_________________
Neal

Honda/CS,

My only recommendation is prior to posting the new list, you post a DRAFT version where you get feedback from everybody on editing mistakes only, then put up the final version.  It keeps you from having to put up version 5.2.1.1.1.7.theta and doesn't become and endless stream of "Okay, play THIS one.  No, play THIS one."

This forum is awesome for finding every little mistake which, in this case, would be to everyone's benefit.  Hena-Eagle-Eyes will no doubt find more than anyone, and English isn't even his mother tongue.  It's spooky impressive.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Copied from the Tau-Minervan batrep:
I think a major drawback to Fire Warriors is how difficult the army list makes it to add MLs to anything except a mech infantry formation.  You must pay for Devilfish if you take Pathfinders, so they're already mech and if you choose to deploy them without you're dropping paid-for models.  Adding Stealthsuits prevents the formation from garrisoning and makes the FW formation too large for an Orca unless you leave a unit behind.  Tetras add LV status and lose their speed and quite a bit of their Skimmer advantage.  The only option that seems feasible is to add a Skyray which, as long as it is the only unit over 15cm, will still allow the FW to garrison even though they obviously can't use air transport.

I'm probably missing a ML option, but you can surely see the point - if you want to add MLs to FW, you are extremely limited in your options for deploying the FW.

_________________
Neal

It seems like the easiest solution would be to alter the Pathfinder upgrade so that the Devilfish were not mandatory.

It's bad.

Very nicely written up, BTW.

Umm Neal, Orca can carry 12x infantry and the FW cadre is 8x units. Adding a Stealth upgrade is 3x stealth suits, so you should not need to leave anyone behind (as Stealths only count a single slot each).

I agree that with Pathfinders you end up with the same choice as Space Marines; when you put them in an Air Transport, you leave behind the paid-for ground vehicles. Is this such a big deal?

However I think you do make a valid point about ML in general. there are only a limited number of units with ML and adding them to a formation sometimes brings other disadvantages of the type you have identified. Personally, I would like the Gun Drones to have Markerlight as they now represent the various different types of Drone. Do other people have similar issues?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Ah.  I missed that.  I thought all the suits counted double.  Still, I think stealthsuits have a large force multiplier premium built into them because of how well their abilities work with Teleport.  On the ground or in an air assault they lose that and cost about twice as much as FW for very little increase in capability aside from the MLs.

I agree that with Pathfinders you end up with the same choice as Space Marines; when you put them in an Air Transport, you leave behind the paid-for ground vehicles. Is this such a big deal?

_________________
Neal

Markerlight drones as a character upgrade for FW?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

If there is to be a Leader upgrade to the FW, could that unit include a ML?
So an upgrade of a Shas'ui to the FW's would give them Leader and a ML on that stand only.

The Tau codex I have here says all this is feasible. Cost would the only issue.

_________________
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.