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

CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
Tastyfish
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
True, I imagine that Tau powergamers will be few and far between what with this being epic and a fairly rare one at that.
My IG guy is great and its generally from him I hear the raging against what terrible things are done to his list in the name of 'competitiveness'.

But I guess we should be focused more on making a list we can use rather than anything else.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:57 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Good point, Honda ... something to keep in mind as I always felt that the Tau are the most "modern" army in Epic.   Most the rest are a hi-tech/Sci-fi version of WWII !  :;):

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
RedDevil
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112
What are the disadvantages of taking Armoured Cadre's and Morays for AT/MW, Stingray Cadre's for AP, Barracuda's for AA, Heavy drones or Tetra's for Marking, Piranha's for cheap long range Seeker fire, and Gue'Vesa for holding objectives?  Beside fluff you never need a single Fireworrior or Pathfinder currently.  Hammerheads and Morrays for AT is a given.  Stingrays are way better than FW's for AP.  Gue'Vesa hold Objectives better if you're not shooting with them.  Tetra's and Heavy Drones are supperior to Pathfinders for Markerlights.

You wan't to talk about abuse?  Take two Armoured Cadres, and you can now take 4 Piranha Contingents for 600pts.  Each of these 150pt suckers can throw out 6xAT4+ shots, for a total of 24xAT4+ @75cm shots that need no LOS!!  and we still havn't added in the Armoured cadre's potential to this (another 12 seeker shots alone).  You still have 1350pts left to spend on anything else you want.  No other army has this kind of AT bang for your buck.

Give me something that Pathfinder's and Firewarriors are better at then another unit with the same main task?  You can't.  They serve no "niche" purpose, nor do they serve any "genera"l purpose that another unit, or combination can't do better.  Combined arms is broken.  It's all about setting up Markerlights with cheap units so that you can spam Seekers without coming out of the bush.

The obvious answer is that they (Tau Infantry) currently suck in comparison to the rest of the army list; however, I think that the truth might be that the rest of the army list is just a little too good (because of the Seeker mechanic added onto their basic abilities), thus making Tau infantry obsolete.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
asaura
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote (RedDevil @ 01 Dec. 2005 (06:54))
Give me something that Pathfinder's and Firewarriors are better at then another unit with the same main task? ?You can't. ?They serve no "niche" purpose, nor do they serve any "genera"l purpose that another unit, or combination can't do better. ?Combined arms is broken. ?It's all about setting up Markerlights with cheap units so that you can spam Seekers without coming out of the bush.

Pathfinders can occupy buildings better than Tetras, which is what we generally want to compare them with.

I use FWs as Orca-borne infantry, tasked early with holding ground and late with airborne assaults. Arguably, Stealth suits can do the same stuff better, but are also considerably costlier. Auxiliaries can't drive around in Orcas.

FWs are the only way the Tau can get big Mech Inf formations.

So there you have it: FWs are cheap airborne troops and the only way to get good-sized Mech Inf formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
baronpiero
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
I quite agree with Honda. IMO, the best way to use GM carriers is to have another formation moving on to get marks, and having them sustain-fire. And I don't see the markerlight on vehicles changing that. Indeed the gunship mounted Markerlights will be used for self defence mainly. It seems realistic for such vehicles to have a limited capability to use their main weaponry by themselves.

The problem about firewarriors is different, and comes from the fact that Markerlights are costed on a unit per unit basis, whereas the actual number of Markerlights after the first one doesn't matter. this tend to make me choose spotters in small formation size (pathfinders) or as an upgrade (stealth) to increase ML coverage, rather that spending points on numerous spotters in the same formation (Firewarriors).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:54 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
It seems that Asaura is the only one who has brought up my thoughts on the "infantry suck" school of thought:

Infantry are the only thing in the army with a  possibility of being able to assault.  Everyone seems so wrapped up in the "Tau don't assault" idea that their very real ability to do so is overlooked.


Sure, they can't CC.
Sure, they are only mediocre in FF.

However, a formation of FW in Devilfish is a sizable formation that will average ~3 hits in an FF, even with some prior losses.  That's not bad.  They have a 5+ save which is decent in a FF.  With modest prep, you can get the BM bonus and the outnumber bonus against a moderately-sized formation.  They are fast and relatively inexpensive (25 points/unit for FW or DF).  You can also put an Ethereal with them to make them Fearless, so the downside of losing an assault is minimal.

That is, by and large, a good recipe for a clipping assault.

Is it the "highest and best use" of the formation?  No.  But the same could be said for most armies' core infantry versus AV targets.

What do other races' "line" infantry want to do versus armor anyway?  Assault!  I can't think of a "core" infantry unit whose FF ability is not better than their ranged AT fire.  FW are no different.  They just have a larger disparity between ranged AT and FF abilities than most.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Steele
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
I think this is evolving into something bad. Nobody besides RedDevil really supports it, neither do I. In all my games so far, I ever used FW and as much as I have them, they are good formations to capture anything on the table and with the right support ( kind of Combined Arms?) they even manage to survive the whole game. In fact no FW Formation was ever completely wiped out - and thats mainly because the heavy fire was taken by the Armoured Contingents, and now the HHAC. My opponents know that the hard hitters are the Tanks and SC, besides any Aircraft, so they focuse on them, sometimes they even forget about those little Pathfinders and the like - I think it?s because they don?t have any significant AT Power, so the FW?s and other Infantry can advance almost unmolested until they reach an objective or are the only viable target in range. I doubt that it would stay if the other players get it that the infantry has now access to AT Weapons - IG style? I am very happy with them as they are, in fact the list is evolving to something "personal". As in real life minor bugs has to dealt with, but that?s all. Now we are falling back to the base of development, and no playtest phase so far with the already made changes. I don?t know when the deadline for CS comes for presenting the List to SG, but if we get stuck with every Idea some of us come along, we?ll never finish in time. I don?t want to offend anyone but sometimes I?m really getting tired reading time over time the same arguments pro and contra but no progress on consensus is made. Guys , don?t let us get stuck. I?m loosing already the overview what has still to be playtested or developed . Can someone summarize the points?
Whow do you guys say? - Rant off! :down:

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:00 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Let me rephrase a few points here.

Firstly, I agree that overall the EA Tau force is reasonably balanced right now. If there is a problem (and only if) then it is that the percieved weakness of the infantry Fire Warriors (no true heavy weapons and bad at assault) is balanced by the strengths in the armour. However, a Tau player can chose to leave the infantry at home and take more tanks, thereby reducing the percieved negative aspects.

OK, so what I would like to know is:

1 - How do people think that Fire Warriors should/would be used according to their background?
2 - How are Fire Warriors actually used now in EA?

Personally, I think that 40K has not got it 100 percent right, and I feel that FW would be best served in the Tau as mobile fire points, not front line assault troops, able to hold captured ground and advance after the tanks and battlesuits.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
In IA3 (which is written pretty well, fluff-wise, even if it was written from a 40k point of view), the 'typical' Tau open-desert delay and harass tactic was to use Pathfinders (with or without Tetras) to 'light targets for really long-range seeker missile fire (remember, seekers are unlimited range in 40k, and called by Markerlights), which was followed up by Hammerheads engaging at near-max range.  

Fire Warriors typically held strongpoints against concerted attacks.  Their favored 'hides' were in the mine tailings, and other heavily built-up areas.  Even with the FW's 'range advantage' of the Pulse Rifle, they can't compete with tanks in the open desert.

I'm sure that in closer terrain (say, forests or urban) FWs would be more useful than they were in the deserts of Taros, however.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

1 - How do people think that Fire Warriors should/would be used according to their background?
2 - How are Fire Warriors actually used now in EA?


I think this is a very good question to ask. I guess I don't worry too much about the FW because of how I use them and that I'm still working on what I perceive to be optimal force combinations.

In one game against SM, I surprised my opponent by fielding:

1 x FW cadre + Devilfish
+ HH contingent (Ion Cannon)
+ Pathfinder

What caught the SM player by surprise, was the amount of fire power that formation was able to unleash at the 15cm range. I severely thrashed a tactical squad and the following turn an assault squad.

Could the FW done that kind of damage all by themselves? No, but I think that is where the value of our list comes in, by allowing us to add the assets we need to form the tools we need to perform the tasks we have assigned them.

If you take into consideration the mobility of the formation, then you'll find this formation a very nasty piece of business.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Steele
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
Quote (Honda @ 01 Dec. 2005 (19:37))

1 - How do people think that Fire Warriors should/would be used according to their background?
2 - How are Fire Warriors actually used now in EA?


I think this is a very good question to ask. I guess I don't worry too much about the FW because of how I use them and that I'm still working on what I perceive to be optimal force combinations.

In one game against SM, I surprised my opponent by fielding:

1 x FW cadre + Devilfish
+ HH contingent (Ion Cannon)
+ Pathfinder

What caught the SM player by surprise, was the amount of fire power that formation was able to unleash at the 15cm range. I severely thrashed a tactical squad and the following turn an assault squad.

Could the FW done that kind of damage all by themselves? No, but I think that is where the value of our list comes in, by allowing us to add the assets we need to form the tools we need to perform the tasks we have assigned them.

If you take into consideration the mobility of the formation, then you'll find this formation a very nasty piece of business.

Couldn?t agree more. Again, kinda Combined Arms,heh? RedDevil?

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
If we're possibly seeing Codex Tau Empire in March (Dwarves are first released in January, supplemental releases in February, so it's possible, but I see April as most likely), I believe that there are going to be some changes to the Fire Warriors (addition of Rail Rifles, possibly), which would allow for some additional AT (well, it's as strong as a Plasma Rifle), in addition to the Markerlight.

Hmmmm... Honda, you may be right.  The Tau is one of a few lists that can really mix&match units for optimal effect.  I tend to think in terms of simple FW formations right now, and I'd guess that a lot of the other people that don't like FW think of them the same way as a Mech Guard platoon, when they're closer to an Armored Cav platoon (mixed APCs and Tanks).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tastyfish
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
Most of the time I've seen the rail rifle rumours for Firewarriors its been shot down by those who are either on the playtesting group or have an advanced copy of the codex for whatever reason (seems the GW NDAs extend to denying rumours, suppose it isn't breach of IP and prevent disapointment from popular rumours).

As I've mentioned before though - Crisis suits have access to ML in the new book, and even in IA at the moment, in drone form at the very least.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Steele
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
Quote (CyberShadow @ 01 Dec. 2005 (17:00))
Let me rephrase a few points here.

Firstly, I agree that overall the EA Tau force is reasonably balanced right now. If there is a problem (and only if) then it is that the percieved weakness of the infantry Fire Warriors (no true heavy weapons and bad at assault) is balanced by the strengths in the armour. However, a Tau player can chose to leave the infantry at home and take more tanks, thereby reducing the percieved negative aspects.

OK, so what I would like to know is:

1 - How do people think that Fire Warriors should/would be used according to their background?
2 - How are Fire Warriors actually used now in EA?

Personally, I think that 40K has not got it 100 percent right, and I feel that FW would be best served in the Tau as mobile fire points, not front line assault troops, able to hold captured ground and advance after the tanks and battlesuits.

1) Can?t tell much as I don?t know that much of them ,to be of any help.

2) As stated somewhere, I use them as screeners, objective take&hold, but more in an aggressive way. In no way they move behind the Tanks, in fact the opposite is true.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
It still seems odd that the only support weapon that Fire Warriors have is the Markerlight.  

Back OT, from IA3 (which is unfortunately the only source of how the Tau operate on a grand tactical level), Fire Warriors were mostly a garrison force, only occasionally deploying to the open desert for ambushes and raids.  The one time Fire Warriors deployed en masse, they were facing 4 Warhounds and 2 companies of Marines, spearheading a Mech IG Regimental assault.  Even then, the Tau were running screen and delay tactics, grudgingly yielding ground.  The biggest suprise on either side was the appearance of the Whiteshark, which killed one Warhound, and forced the others to withdraw.

Now that I think about it, there isn't a whole lot I remember about Fire Warriors in IA3.  Does anyone else have the book at hand?

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


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