Slightly misleading. A better description might be:
You face the worlds oddest formation. It stretches from end to end from 10cm in front of you to 90cm in front of you, with tanks at the front and infantry at the back (90cm away). You have a range 15, 30 and 90cm weapon.

Every weapon is in range. As a result all hits may be allocated out to 90cm. Essentially range rmatters for seeing if you can fire, but only the highest range matters for seeing who is allowed to be targeted.

Now if the same formation stretched from 20cm in front of you to 90cm in front of you the 15cm weapon is no longer in range, so could fire at all.

To date this is most commonly seen in ork Skorcha mobs that get a token buggy that allow all skorcha shots in range of the enemy to spread their hits out another 15cm.

It does raise one question - GM's still don't need line of sight to fire right? If they are marked by another fomation so the devilfish can now hit them, can the FW shots also hit those units?





Oh it has been tried off and on by people over the years I believe. However the majority associate tau with shooting and not engagements. Then again we are faily out of touch with 40k and haven't followed the whole 'every army is great at engagements' thing that closely - all the described battles other than artillary engagements seem to take place at close range, even the tank battles! Tis just the 40k style I guess. when so much is abstracted though like in epic you have to tease out differences otherwise the armies become uninteresting quite quickly.

If it helps just imagine that actually what is happening is an engagement! Except the Tau are so good at them they roll up, blaze away and often drive off the opposition for no loss. Sometimes they don't and the opposition tries to close, but now you have shot your way into a better position and get a better cover save and whatnot and your oppoenent gets none. Overall you have achieved your engagement objective, but done it without losing as many people or having to make the final risky cover-less charge yourselves.


Really - an engagement is a close range firefight where both sides take casualties. The Tau FW are a close range shooting formation which kills and disrupts the enemy for no loss. What does more damage at close range? 8 4+ attacks? Or 8 4+ and 8 5+ disrupt attacks? One does 4 hits, the other does 6-7 hits with an average minimum of 3-4 blastmarkers for no loss or chance of being thrown back.


? Oh I see after a quick search. nah in 40k we can just invoke the Imperium instead!

Slightly misleading. A better description might be:
You face the worlds oddest formation. It stretches from end to end from 10cm in front of you to 90cm in front of you, with tanks at the front and infantry at the back (90cm away). You have a range 15, 30 and 90cm weapon.

Every weapon is in range. As a result all hits may be allocated out to 90cm. Essentially range rmatters for seeing if you can fire, but only the highest range matters for seeing who is allowed to be targeted.

Now if the same formation stretched from 20cm in front of you to 90cm in front of you the 15cm weapon is no longer in range, so could fire at all.

To date this is most commonly seen in ork Skorcha mobs that get a token buggy that allow all skorcha shots in range of the enemy to spread their hits out another 15cm.

It does raise one question - GM's still don't need line of sight to fire right? If they are marked by another fomation so the devilfish can now hit them, can the FW shots also hit those units?





Oh it has been tried off and on by people over the years I believe. However the majority associate tau with shooting and not engagements. Then again we are faily out of touch with 40k and haven't followed the whole 'every army is great at engagements' thing that closely - all the described battles other than artillary engagements seem to take place at close range, even the tank battles! Tis just the 40k style I guess. when so much is abstracted though like in epic you have to tease out differences otherwise the armies become uninteresting quite quickly.

If it helps just imagine that actually what is happening is an engagement! Except the Tau are so good at them they roll up, blaze away and often drive off the opposition for no loss. Sometimes they don't and the opposition tries to close, but now you have shot your way into a better position and get a better cover save and whatnot and your oppoenent gets none. Overall you have achieved your engagement objective, but done it without losing as many people or having to make the final risky cover-less charge yourselves.


Really - an engagement is a close range firefight where both sides take casualties. The Tau FW are a close range shooting formation which kills and disrupts the enemy for no loss. What does more damage at close range? 8 4+ attacks? Or 8 4+ and 8 5+ disrupt attacks? One does 4 hits, the other does 6-7 hits with an average minimum of 3-4 blastmarkers for no loss or chance of being thrown back.


? Oh I see after a quick search. nah in 40k we can just invoke the Imperium instead!

Technically yes, normal shots could be 'stretched' so as to hit units out of LOF by a non-LOF unit in a formation. Call it a quirk of the Tau's awesome Markerlight abilities I guess.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Nah, Ryan I don't think it's degenerated to heated here yet. It's all good debate IMO. Sure it's protracted but I always feel good debate can get us places. I'm liking the discussion that is coming out of this as there are numerous outlooks that all give us (me at the very least) some perspective.



Fair call, but have they tried it with the current set of unit types and stats? We'll never know if it's not tried right?

Just out of interest, what are the statistical comparisons between a base FW formation that has to double - i.e picked up by transports first (no one keeps their inf in their transports right...?) - to shoot it's target in cover (no one leaves their inf out of cover right?) and a FW formation that engages it's target in cover with current stats (and then the same with FF4+? I ask because I've done it a few times (the most memorable was the one I posted earlier vs Chroma's Orks and of course they didn't have FF4+).

The reason I give this example of Inf in cover etc is because to dislodge the enemy the Tau usually have to do this to get in range to effect the majority of their hits and what do they do if the enemy doesn't leave cover?

I have to say that I would never even consider this range stretching business.
If a weapon has a 15cm range, then for me, it can only hit enemy units within 15cm.

I wonder if this has anything to do with certain players playing better than others with the Tau? With the abundance of ranged shots in the list, this tactic must be quite common for players willing to play in this way.

I'll certainly stick to rules as intended in this situation.

_________________
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.

Completely in agreement - I don't consider this in the spirit even if it's in shoddily worded rules.

The range stretching isn't an anomaly of the rules, it's an intension.
As Jervus explained many sermons ago , it's a way of showing how bullets/missiles etc. don't just magically drop to the ground when they reach a certain distance.
Also as defender allocates hits it's to stop players allocating (T/hawk shooting as an example) a battlecannon hit first then being able to disregard shorter ranged heavy bolter hits as no target is now in range (think of it as forcing defender to allocate short range hits first).
It also aids with the speed rolling as all hits are pooled together.

So you want to compare kinetic effect on a target from a starting point of both 30cm away and 75cm away?
Formation - 6 firewarriors, 3 Devilfish, 1 Skyray
Base firepower at 30cm - 6xAP3+, 1xAP4+ Ignore Cover, 5xAT5+
At 15cm add 6xAP4+ Disrupt, 3xAP4+

So - 75cm
Only option here is to double!
-2 to hit from cover and doubling means base values now become.
6xAP5+, 1xAP5+ Ignore Cover, 5xAT7+, 6xAP6+ Disrupt, 3xAP6+
Giving
2 1/2 AP, 1/3 AP Ignore Cover, 1 AP Disrupt, 5/12 AT
Roughly 4 and a bit hits.

Then 30cm
Sustain
6xAP3+, 1xAP3+ Ignore Cover, 5xAT5+
4AP, 2/3 ignore cover, 1 2/3 AT
Roughly 6 and bit hits.
Advance
6xAP4+, 1xAP4+ Ignore Cover, 5xAT6+, 6xAP5+ Disrupt, 3xAP5+
4 AP, 1/2 AP Ignore Cover, 2 AP Disrupt, 5/6 AT
Roughly 7 and a bit hits.
Engage
9x5+, 1x6+
3 1/6 hits

At 15cm
Sustain
6xAP3+, 1xAP3+ Ignore Cover, 5xAT5+, 6xAP4+ Disrupt, 3xAP4+
5 1/2 AP, 3 AP Disrupt, 2/3 AP Ignore Cover, 1 2/3 AT
Roughly 11 hits

Just wanted to chime in, as ProfessorCurly's unofficial 'consultant' ( ), I disagree with awesomeshotdude.

Your eyes' lenses must change considerably more in order to focus on objects up close than far away. This is because the closer the object, the more the eye needs to refract the light, while with objects at a distance, the light entering the eye is almost parallel.

Combat obscurants such as dust and smoke, targets at varying distant ranges, intervening terrain, and the sights of your weapon itself do not present the same significant change in lens shape as your immediate surroundings do.

I'm not saying that focus won't be changing in combat. On the contrary!

I'm simply stating that your eye will be better at focusing on targets and picking out detail at range than having a lag-response and rapid requirement for change at close ranges.

@ Lion in the Stars, your marksmanship in a competition setting might be suffering because it is advised that you focus on the front sight tip/post of your rifle with your dominant eye open and your other eye shut, vice the target itself. The target should be a blur, with your aim at center mass/desired aim-point, and your eyes focusing on the sight alignment and picture of the firearm in question.

In combat, however, modern sights tend to favor keeping both eyes open and looking at a target, while placing a pipper or bead on the target and firing. Like I said previously, at a distance your eye has to adjust less in order to maintain focus on a target than the rapid and major changes in lens shape required in extremely close quarters combat, where your eye has to quickly adjust between your target, his various limbs, and the terrain behind him (anywhere from a wall 2 meters to his left to the building a half-kilometer down the street).

Your human focusing reflex in CQC is taken for granted when the enemy gets the jump on you. If he's moving fast enough, you may not even be able to identify that he's wielding a weapon such as a knife or baton until it strikes you. We're talking combat here, not sparring in martial arts, where you know your opponent's capabilities and what he's got to play with. In combat, you have to rapidly process a multitude of entirely new sensory information about the target itself, and still defend yourself. Being unable to actually see the target and process that he has a knife in his left hand, a pistol in the holster on his hip, and that there is another guy 10 feet away carrying who-knows-what - all within the span of perhaps the 15-30 seconds of combat - presents a significant tactical disadvantage for the one with the slower eyesight adjustments. All that information is absolutely vital to gaining a positional advantage on the enemy, and how you plan on engaging him.

All in all, this is relatively moot in a 40k combat setting, because the Tau himself is focusing on the lens of his helmet, with the optics doing most of the work.

Now that I have spoken my piece, I will fade back into the shadows.

And the funny thing is that Fire Warriors are better than Guardsmen in CC because they have an armour save and the Guardsmen don't. So those FF3 people should be wanting CC7 too.


Indeed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Once again different playing meta's have a massive effect on how a list is perceived.

Well you might be mistaken, Doombringer. I've done enough IRL brawling with and without weapons without my glasses to know for sure that you don't need focussed, sharp eyesight for melee combat. Training, reflexes and an understanding of body mechanics are a lot more important.

I mostly like the list as it currently stands, My only real peeve is the Hammerhead tank, but I'd rather see the list frozen for a year and then have it fixed (Since I think it will be a sub-par chioce even at the current reduced points cost. But, hey, I could be wrong...) than have more procrastination at this point.

The Fire Wariors are good. You have to think to use them optimally. If you can get good attack runs or defensive fires (Advance/Double+Fire or OverWatch fire) in against potential engagers you can tilt the odds in your favoir. This simulates how the Tau use long ranged pulse weapons to decimate the opposition just beyond normal fire fight ranges. It's a rather neat mechaninc, IMHO. And once it gets down to the wire, FF% and Armour 5+ is a good strong combo.

Training, reflexes, and an understanding of body mechanics are the foundation for aptitude.

If your opponent has all that, plus the ability to perceive more of his surroundings and secure a tactical advantage through information intake and assessment of details such as I have posed above, you are pretty much screwed. You no longer have the capability to anticipate his initial engagement because you didn't have the visual acuity to recognize that he has a knife to thrust with, or a pistol to withdraw and utilize faster than you can bring your more cumbersome rifle to bear.

This edge can mean the difference between life and death when dealing with lethal weaponry. Combat is far less forgiving than a bar brawl...

Actually yes, when I was envisioning my 'fluff' Fire Warrior there were special rules for several things including their melee deficiency.

Civilized - Tau feel that melee is barbaric, and dedicate themselves to the application of firepower to the exclusion of close combat training. Fire Warriors must re-roll successful hits in melee assaults.

CC7+ is much more elegant though.

By the way, it keeps being said that Fire Warriors are better shooting than Marines in 40k. Marines are actually better at shooting in 40k by about a 2:3 margin (It takes 3 fire Warriors to equal 2 Marines). A large part of that is the Power Armor though (Essentially the Fire Warriors make the Marines take 4 armor saves, of which 1.33 fail. Marines make Fire Warriors take 4.44 saves, of which 2.22 fail). Going by my estimate of how many are 'actually' on a stand (half a squad), it's almost right for it to be a dead heat from that perspective. 5 Marines against 6 Fire Warriors.

At the moment, as I look at it, I think my arguments are being swayed more by Storm Troopers though. I think that Fire Warriors should 'firefight' as good as they do (crippled fluff or no, just from the perspective of training and equipment). However, neither should be as good as Marines. The experience and biological advantages just swing things in their favor. Really it seems to me now being that Storm Troopers appear too good.

And really, as for 'crippled' fluff. In the Black Library the only things that really /commit/ to the engagement are Fire Warriors and Kroot. Everything else does more of a fight/fade. Kill Team for example - the Fire Warriors move up to engage a marine with their rifles, while the Crisis bodyguard ignite the jetpacks and start flying around. Of course, who knows what that Marine from Kill Team actually had. At one point the weight of fire was enough to force the marine to his knees, but he was otherwise unharmed. I don't think Pulse Rifles are /that/ incapable of causing injury. Courage and Honor agrees.

Of course, things do work differently in Courage and Honor.

***SPOILER****


A Crisis Suit swinging a scimitar. Enough said.


***END SPOILER***

I'll roll with FF5+ though. That works out to the Fire Warriors needing to outnumber Marines 2-to-1 in stands. I'll go for that. At least, until I can get some games in and see how the army behaves. Let me illustrate my fear though.

How likely is this against some common targets -

I run up with Markerlight support, get all my guys out and fire. The other guy's infantry takes it on the chin and immediately engages me with the next activation and throws me back, broken. That is my fear at the moment. But I haven't played.

EDIT: Are name changes for the different cadres out of the question?

Well, technically that should happen against prepared targets. For example an infantry company in ruins would only take 3 or 4 casualties and take 4 to 7 blast markers as they have 4+ saves! But I doubt they would engage back, being saveless troops when running around. Indeed a common tactic is to have the devilfish in front of, say, orks as they can firefight and negate the enemies CC.
Going back to the infantry, if they manage to sustain though and you are in the open they hit on 4+, however even if your shooting was crap and they only took 3 casualties and no disrupt hits they are still only going to have 4 autocannons that can return fire, killing 1-2 of your stands.

As long as you approach it as the tau equivalent of an engage you are fine. Most armies move up to shoot and then engage with a second one, with supporting fire from the first. You with Tau move up, set up crossfire then move firewarriors in (cross fire is -1 to their armour saves and an extra blastmarker for the first kill)! In general it takes more points to kill another fomration unless you have specialists attacknig the enemies weakness.