Top

Tactica	Post subject: Pathfinder proposition Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:11 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Honda, I didn't realize the railrifle caused pinning tests. If they do, then I understand why disrupt is there now. appoligies for suggesting otherwise. I'll take that blame for not remember that it did cause pinning tests to infantry in 40K. On that note - I ask that you to note that it doesn't cause pinning to vehicles (explored more later)... Cw, I fully respect your opinion, but non-suit infantry NOT having AT fire is not really a *design concept of E:A Tau* in my opinion. Please feel free to correct me, but this is the way I see it. You'll recall from days past that all FW and PF's had an AT 4+ shot at one point. This was to show that they were calling in missles and what not. That was done away with for obvious reasons - balance. There was then an extreme effort to make the Tau very good in FF - as they are just that in 40K... but again, due to balance, and tau becoming uber good at the 'engage' action in E:A - that was also done away with. In fact, Tau FF is artificially deflated in most cases to discourage the 'engage' action in E:A. Then we went into range induced E:A shooting. That has worked the best of all three variations of the infantry. However, the line infantry has went to having an descent effect on vehicles - to no effect on vehicles unless they are engaging or marking for somebody else. If anything, we've attempted extremes - but to say that its a design concept for Tau infantry not to have AT fire is well, only viewing the recent past. From the overall history of the E:A Tau - they've spent the larger majority of time WITH AT fire capabilities than without. So now, instead of extremes - I propose we 'try' AT6+ on the pathfinders as their is justifyable basis for it. Strength 6 weaponry in 40K does have an AT stat in E:A prior to the Tau list. In 40K - these weapons can affect the side and rear armor of a leman russ and predator tanks! It takes a 13 armor to deny the railrifle a chance to hurt the armor. I proposed removing the second disrupt as I was unaware that the railrifle caused pinning tests in 40K. SO with my new awareness - IF it is to remain AP5+ (affecting infantry only) then the disrupt is justified and should not be changed. In the grand scheme of things, I think disrupt is far more powerful than AT6+. I think the AT shot allows for more flexability, but less overall game impact. Since vehicles don't take pinning tests in 40K, I'd be happy to remove disrupt from this weapon system *IF* AT6+ was given as we wouldn't want to DISRUPT vehicles unintentionally and without just cause. Again - that assumes only that we give it the AT shot. If it remains infantry only, disrupt is absolutely warranted as Honda has pointed out. I think the reduction of one disrupt shot would have quelled some of the anti-pathfinder issues and the AT6+ shot would be logical and warranted. Hena, I'm with Honda, CS, and Cw - sniper should stay. Its very justified and one of the main reasons for the formation. As this thread is meant to discuss the rail rifle stats, conversion precident for Strength 6 weapons in 40K, due to the fact that there's a history with sniper working on this formation and considering I'm quite content with Sniper remaining as CS has indicated, I'll refrain from discussing Sniper further here. Honda, I do agree that the formation works as is. I'm all for not fixing it if it ain't broke. The Strength 6 conversion to E:A providing an AT6+ shot was brought up in the FW thread. Its something I personally hadn't considered before. I think it makes sense. Although I've yet to see it proven, I am aware of the concern about 2x disrupt on an infantry formations when people take 4+ formations of them. Again - I don't know if the concern is justified, I'm just aware of it being voiced. I personally think the AT6+ shot is the right call and as vehicles are not taking pinning tests from the weapon, we could justify removing Disrupt from it *IF* we were giving it the AT6+ shot in its place. Frankly - this was the best of both worlds for all parties involved. All, "starting this mess" would be my fault. I hate bringing up anything about the Pathfinders because I do think the formation works quite well as is. However, in this case - I wouldn't have felt like we were doing our job if we didn't explore it. Now - if CS and the masses say that its working as designed - well, can't argue with that. I do feel the suggestion is on par and should be explored though. If there's no interest - I'll drop it. I genuinely thought this would be a no brainer suggestion. Cheers - and sorry for any headache gents. I know Pathfinders are loved by many. Again - just trying to apply due dilugence. _________________ Rob
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Pathfinder proposition Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:29 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Tactica, I do remember the days of FWs having an AT shot.  But I think that the seeker shot was moved to the vehicle for more than just balance reasons.  At the time the AT value could have been adjusted if it was purely balance right? I think it was also a character decision to separate the markerlight unit from the seeker firing unit.  So by my wording I meant that the no AT fire from Tau infantry was a design concept made at that point. I can understand the rational of the AT shot you are proposing.  It doesn't seem over-powered.  But, what would you do about the increase in the value of pathfinders over fire warriors then? I really like the separation of the AT shots from the Tau infantry as a concept.  For me it encourages a good combined arms strategy, and makes the Tau both enjoyable and challenging to play.
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Pathfinder proposition Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:32 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	PS Tactica, no harm is discussing these things.  Its what the forum is for
Top

Honda

Post subject: Pathfinder proposition Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:55 pm

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

Ok, I can see my tone came off as too harsh, so I apologize to Hena for that. It's been one of those days. I'm not trying to discourage opinion. That being said, I think what got my juices flowing is that it seemed like there were a couple of opinions expressed that perhaps the PF's were too this/that, and before you know it, it looked like we were getting ready to change the stats. "That" seemed overly premature a decision to me. Again, I apologize for letting the Real World ™ crowd into our fun. So why are people choosing Pathfinders all the time? (Rhetorical) Because they are a good unit.  Are they too good, IMO, perhaps just a little (like 25 points).  But not a huge problem. And that is a fair assessment. I like the range of capabilities that they have. I don't have a problem if there aren't comparable units in other armies with the same capabilities. I do think that those abilities should be appropriately costed for fairness. So, if a change was going to be made, then I would be in favor of raising their cost, not changing. If I had to give up something to make them fit under the current bar, then probably the double disrupt would seem like an obvious candidate. JMO       _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Pathfinder proposition Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:05 pm

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

Quote (clausewitz @ 10 Mar. 2006 (14:29)) Tactica, I do remember the days of FWs having an AT shot.  But I think that the seeker shot was moved to the vehicle for more than just balance reasons.  At the time the AT value could have been adjusted if it was purely balance right? Well, yes and no. We get into a markerlight & GM discussion to explore these days as well. Markerlights & GM worked a bit differently then too. Basically, the system was making the FW units and path finder units very VERY valuable to the tau and made the FW and pathfinders have litterally two significant rounds of firing at potentially two different targets. Simply changing the AT fire stat would have helped, but the system wasn't working right and was making the FW and PF's too good and for the wrong reasons. I think it was also a character decision to separate the markerlight unit from the seeker firing unit.  So by my wording I meant that the no AT fire from Tau infantry was a design concept made at that point.

Agreed. In the end, yes, the goal was to seperate the idea of a missile concept from the idea of a markerlight concept.

In my opinion - it was not necessarily to say that 'infantry shouldn't have AT shots', but to make these two concepts work a bit differently.

Strength 6 AT shots for the Tau have never been explored - well, to best of my recollection... (however faded and blurry that may be) LOL

I can understand the rational of the AT shot you are proposing.  It doesn't seem over-powered.  But, what would you do about the increase in the value of pathfinders over fire warriors then?

Hmm... do you think it would really "increase" them in value as compared to the FW anymore than they already are today? I'm not sure it would increse them in value any more than what they already are. Hmm... it probably doesn't change their value up or down significantly.

Even if I forget the sniper, CF, and scout diferences for a second...

2x Disrupt is good but its the 30cm disrupt shot that's the money maker *for me*. I typically use the 30cm disrupt shot, I rarely use the 15cm disrupt shot unless I'm in dire straits or already winning. So the PF impact would equal what it is to the FW instead of far surpassing it as far as my typical uses are concerned. The AT value would recieve a minor bump, but not significantly as its only 6+.

The proposed would change target options, but would make me become less agressive with them overall. The net impact might be that it brings them a bit closer to the FW in overall power.

I really like the separation of the AT shots from the Tau infantry as a concept.  For me it encourages

Completely understand. I see the infantry as all human aux, kroot, FW, PF, stealth, Crisis, and Broadsides though. That's the real tau armies infantry. E:A fans tend to see suits as something else, but the reality is that they are all infantry.

If the non-suit infantry not having AT fire is sacred to you and/or others, then I appreciate that completely. I think CS should take those kinds of fundamental beliefs about the E:A Tau into consideration.

a good combined arms strategy... makes the Tau both enjoyable and challenging to play.
I can't disagree with you at all. I too value this and I don't want us to lose that in any way shape or form.

I think we receive this to a great degree from our GM and Markerlight concepts as well as our special rule of CF. Not to mention the absense of any significant combat, Commander abilities, air assaults, and the alike. We are highly dependent upon combined arms philosophy in E:A. Moreover, we do not have an army of massive war engiones capable of entering combats or holding the line so to speak. We are a mobile force that must use other formations to draw out and/or over take enemy positions in decision blows while mainting fire discipline. Its a delicate balance for the tau player to maintain.

In the grand scheme of all of this though, I would hope and postulate that the proposed rail rifle change would not put the above combined arms aspect of the list in danger. Time and testing would of course tell.

I do feel that *If* the AP5/AT6 is added and the Disrupt dropped from the longer ranged system, it might even lower the overall effectiveness of the formation ever so slightly while aligning with E:A conversion of a 40K S6 weapon system precident.

It definitely doesn't 'fix' the FW by any measure, but that in itself is another problem and thread.