Tactical Command | View topic - CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Page 3 of 5

[ 70 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

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

CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Tastyfish

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:16 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120

They got involved in some of the close quarter fighting, and do appear in most of the refight scenarios (think its only the initial defense of the water plant and the stealth and pathfinder raid on the convoys - and the space ones obviously). They just don't do anything special other than shoot people, 'pulse fire' is mentioned often and can't all be burst cannons

Top

Lion in the Stars

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:21 pm

Brood Brother

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

They just don't do anything special other than shoot people, 'pulse fire' is mentioned often and can't all be burst cannons.

Too true, but I had assumed that pulse fire was from the Pathfinders. :shrug:

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:35 pm

Brood Brother

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

Umm I think we have overlooked something here - we already have AT infantry - they are called Crisis suits/Broadside suits and we can add them to FW formations for just that purpose. Maybe the original intention of JJ had them as infantry to be able to back them up with AT fire when armour isn't available? Kinda like Tau devastators.

Just my 2 cents not trying to harp on about old arguments here.

edit- oops sorry CS

1- as they are now
2- holding objectives and ground/area

Top

RedDevil

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:12 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112

Steele: I don't support removing Markerlights from the current vehicles either, I am more concerned with the Seeker ATM.

Top

RedDevil

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:28 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112

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?

1) They should be used to get up to, and hold empty ground/objectives, and:
Better than average at defending against infantry + transports, and LV?s.
Average at attacking unsupported infantry and transports, and LV?s
Worse then average at attacking held positions unsupported.

2) Currently they are used for lots of different things. They are only good at the following:
Sitting back, and sniping at units with their Devilfish?s 75cm Seekers. Laying the occasional blast marker. Finishing off horribly mauled formations, looking cool.
Gue?Vesa are better at holding objectives when garrisoning, and can still do a 45cm March move to get to midfield objectives in one turn.

Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:30 am

Brood Brother

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

Quote (RedDevil @ 01 Dec. 2005 (06:54))

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?

Won't beat an all infantry chaos army for starters.

Will have a hell of a time in an all urban city with mass buildings and rubble against any amount of heavy infantry armies.

All vehicle armies in eldar and IG have their problems. However, try to take an all vehicle tau army vs either of them when they take all vehicles - and you lose if the players are matched in skillset IMHO.

Those are the first things that come to mind anyway...

The obvious answer is that they (Tau Infantry) currently suck in comparison to the rest of the army list;

I agree that they lack h-t-h potential and AT shooting. That handicaps them when compared to other infantry in the game significantly. They have markerlights and some value the heavy use of such tactics. They are also cost effective for their number and have a good armor save. Furthermore, they can be used effeictively in crossfire with transports that skim. A mass amount of them will hold objectives will and cause all vehicle armies some headache if they don't have quantity of shots and can dig infantry out of cover.

Your point is clear, but "sucking" may be strong.

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.

We all have our opinions and I respect yours. I understand where this is coming from I think. I read your Seeker power gaming post. However, I also reasponded to you in that post. I disagree with your premis here.

Different strokes...

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:37 am

Brood Brother

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

Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 01 Dec. 2005 (20:26))

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?

Lion,

You got it...

yes, I have the book in hand.

'wave'

Rob

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:38 am

Brood Brother

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

Quote (Dobbsy @ 01 Dec. 2005 (22:35))

ehem, sorry. :devil:

_________________
Rob

Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:55 am

Brood Brother

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

Quote (RedDevil @ 01 Dec. 2005 (23:28))

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?

2) Currently they are used for lots of different things. ?

They are only good at the following:
Sitting back, and sniping at units with their Devilfish?s 75cm Seekers. ?Laying the occasional blast marker. ?Finishing off horribly mauled formations, looking cool.

Hmm...

1. digging into cover by objective - FW cadre + FW upgrade + drone?
2. garrison?
3. relatively cheap activation?
4. absorbing the enemy ground assault?
5. rapid strike teleport buffer for rest of army?
6. crossfire?
7. Assault? (yeah, tau have the potential and you can make the situation where its valid - allows for the AT to deal in FF)
8. Add an ethereal to number 1 above... large fearless formation has its uses.

I'm sure I could come up with others...

I think the point is clear, they can and do many things for us that our vehicles don't have a chance at doing well.

AT damage is missed, I'm not going to disagree with you RD, but I fully agree with CS, the list is basically balanced right now. FW if anything could use a bit of an uptick perhaps, but they do have uses in our list beyond what you've sited.

You may not favor those options in your lists and tactics, but surely you would concede that there are other viable and valuable army constructs and tactics for these formations may see from other generals utilizing other tactics you may not be so fond of.

If not, well, OK, but I think many of us would claim that we've been able to create battlefield situations where we can make good use of these formations.

Oh... and Mech Fish-o-Fury, props to honda - disrupt at 15 along with the FW ap potential can get sick when supported with combined arms against the best infantry targets. Don't underestimate the disrupt. Add a little crossfire to that - and you've got one ugly situation... granted, its very, very close quarters... and a challenge to pull off... I'll give you that.

However, success is rewarding. That's the results of well executed thought provoking Strategy and Tacitcs.

It it was all easy line 'em up and knock 'em down - it would be a no brainer... but what fun would the game be?

Hint: dominos.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

RedDevil

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:14 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm
Posts: 112

Yes, Firewarriors can do those. Gue'Vesa can do many of those better, are cheaper, and you get more. They don't have a transport, and that is the only thing the Firewarriors have over them. My point was not that Firewarriors are not capable of those assignments, just that they are the worst at them in the list.

I see no reason to take Firewarriors for holding objectives when for 50pts more you can get both a Gue'Vesa and Kroot formation to do it. I see no reason to take Firewarriors for crossfiring when you can take drones for the same thing. I see no reason to take firewarriors for infantry killing when Stingrays do it better. In comparison to the rest of the list (which is very good) and for their price and what they do, I am afraid that "suck" is apt

Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:57 pm

Brood Brother

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

RedDevil,

Although I appreciate your opinion, I only ask that you equally consider and respect mine or even others - as well.

You mention objecitve holding:
a. Firewarriors have 5+ armor
b. Human Aux has [EDIT:no]armor
c. Kroot (for the most part) have no armor

Against something that is ignore cover - IG SL hellhounds for example, your human aux and kroot wouldn't hold the most densely covered objective as well as Firewarriors. They would only have their armor saves to rely on.[EDIT:no armor that is.]

Drones can be added to FW's and offer a further buffer.

In combat, the IG will lose [EDIT:6] stands for every 6 hits. Tau FW will lose 4 stands for every six hits. So in a combat where there are 12 hits ... (and for argument sake, lets say we have the 13 stands of IG and 12 stands of FW each fighting some enemy.)

...the 13 unit IG formation would lose [EDIT:12] models from the 12 hits - on paper, and be down to [EDIT:1] remaining unit!

The 12 unit FW formations would lose 8 models - on paper, and be down to 4 remaining units. [EDIT:Therefore - points aside, FW defend an assault better than the human aux.]

I will admit that it takes more points of FW to even have this comparison, but points are not the discussion basis - the formation's performance is. I will admit fully that performance for cost is relative in the end - I'll table that concept for the time being though...

FW can indeed rapidly deploy via their devilfish. Human aux cannot. If you are playing on a 4x8 table with lots of space between objectives, that can become an important factor.

FW cadres can be upgraded, human aux can only get more of the same. So a FW cadre is the base that can have 2 HH + 1 skyray + piranha. Combined arms has its advantiges to the IG strategy if employed correctly. This type of formation, as honda indicated, affords some interesting aggressive - in your face on many fronts mech tau mechanics to be explored in E:A Tau. Making use of those 15 and 30 cm weapons - 2 shots per stand on FW, can be huge. It means those 8 stands can have 16 shots if you can deliver them. This also affords the FW formation to become a flexible fighting element that has both effective AP and AT shots. It also means it can place a lot of blast markers in many locations on the field turn after turn and is not religated to fighting a single front or location turn after turn like the human aux are. Again, I fully agree we are not talking the same points, but a formation that has the option to upgrade, also has further options that the human aux do not have. Also, I'm tabling cost differences for the moment. The point is - FW can upgrade, human aux cannot. That's an option and another value point for FW in comparison to human aux.

Crossfiring - you say drones do it just as good... ok, if the situation presents itself, thiers no arguing with that. Sentinels can crossfire, drones can crossfire, etc... they all can do it. The question is, will the enemy let them do it? Dropping drones from tiger is a tactic that's fun to try and can be effective to an unsuspecting enemy, but that trick doesn't work so well against an adversary 1) prepaired for air assaults and 2) that has encountered the tactic before. The drones just don't have the staying power. Drones self implode in no time by little enemy fire.

FW on the other hand have good armor, can move great distances in turn one with the devilfish, and are big enough to encircle those big enemy units early on in the game if needed and you want to risk it. They also can serve as a long range nusance drawing the enemy into where you want them to be with the 75cm shots from the devilfish if that tactic is desired, then once the enemy advances, you encircle them with rapid double movement of the devilfish and crossfire them the same turn with a followup formation. Include the FW in a coordinated fire and mount them in the devilfish for a double and redeploy them just to crossfire with the next two firing formations - and make use of their markers in the process while doing so - and you have another viable tactic including crossfire.

The drones nor the human aux, nor the kroot can pull this off.

Pathfinders with coodinated fire - and sniper can do this even better than the FW - but that's another topic and I digress...

FW not for infantry killing??? LOL, stingrays do it better if and only if the enemy doesn't stop them from doing so. Stingrays are relatively small formations. The enemy can pop them with indirect fire. They are also lightly armored. The enemy can use aircraft to put early blast markers or even wipe them if need be. Furthermore, Stingrays are only even good at wiping out enemy infantry - if you can first get the enemy infantry marked with markerlights... your either using a formation of infantry with markers or a formation of vehicles with markers to do that - and you are moving within 30cm range. The enemy overwatch may not trigger against a large infantry mob they have no chance of breaking, but those Stingrays pop up or worse - move into range at 30cm to gain advantage of their marks - heh, the enemy will surely unload on those bad boys... so again, the Stingray is only as good as your enemy allows them to be against his infantry. This vehicle has its uses - no question, but to say they are better than the FW at taking out infantry is rather situational and speculatory.

I've played a *large* number of games both with and against the stingrays. They are in the end, not nearly the threat some think they are. They are easily silenced if the enemy wants them to be IMHO.

In comparison to the rest of the list (which is very good) and for their price and what they do, I am afraid that "suck" is apt

I still think the 'suck' comment is unnecessary and would recommend you reconsider. However, the points comment is valid and something worth exploring.

25 per model = 200 for 8 FW stands
13.46 per model = 175 for 13 IG stands (1 aux cmdr, 12 aux)

This gets me back to my original statement. Its not a matter of the vehicles or the entire rest of the army being too good, the army is working... your main gripe in this thread appears to be that some of the Tau list infantry is overpriced for its effectiveness.

That comment is probably worth exploring. You clearly value what you can do with the human aux for the points and you have a fit for them in your list. Ironically, I'm just the opposite. They don't fit in my lists at all. I've yet to make good use of the human aux in our Tau list. I get more use out of Kroot. I think both are problematic. I think the scout has worked to help the kroot have new uses though. Again, I digress.

The human aux seems effective to you for nothing more than ablative objective holders that are pointed adequately for that role. Basically 13.5 points per stand, and you get a crap load in one choice on the force list. OK, that's a fair statement.

Conversely, you don't see the FW as much better choice (the stance of which I openly disagree), but regardless of how myself or others see the FW, you see the FW as an overpriced alternative to the human aux. Noted. I can appreciate that perspective as well.

Although we disagree on the relative use and value of the units themselves when compared to one another, I can see how the points of the FW does seem a bit high for their delivered impact on the game.

I think we might consider adding an ability per stand or recovering some of the cost per FW stand. Either approach would seem to effectively add value to the FW by comparison to the human aux, and perhaps more accurately cost the FW for their impact on the E:A battlefield.

I'll have to consider that more instead of making a knee jerk response and suggestion, but this is the only point that I think we agree on in this thread. However, common ground is a good thing and a place to start.

Cheers,

[EDIT:text above in red as per Clauswitz correction of my human aux armor 6+ instead of -- comment.]

_________________
Rob

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:27 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

When comparing Fire Warriors with Gue'vesa the key difference is firepower. FW have 4 times the firepower of Gue'vesa, and even on a firepower/points basis the ratio is still 2:1 in favour of the FW.

If you are sitting on an objective on over-watch then FW are far more intimidating than Gue'vesa for any potential assaulting formations.

Most of the other advantages have already been mentioned: upgrades for increased flexibility of formation, better armour, markerlights and disrupt weapons.

Top

Tastyfish

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:41 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120

Why do Gue'vesa even have armour? IG infantry don't and most of the mention of them seems to imply that they are PDF forces who have joined the Tau to fight off an Imperial counterattack on a defecting world.

Don't think there has been any mention of them being brought along with the hunter cadres - simply put, they have no ships, even the Kroot have their own ships.

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:58 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Gue'vesa dont have an armour save (only the commander stand has a 6+ save).

Top

Tastyfish

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:22 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120

Perhaps the problem lies more in that Gue'vesa are too useful rather than fire warriors being particularly poor.
Perhaps move them to a seperate army (the gue'senshi I see mentioned around), or reduce the squad size so they are more a remenant of the oringal garrisons rather than full IG company/platoons (though there list is wrong here but base it off the epic one). Cheap and useful for holding an objective but not capable of holding it without Tau coming in to assist them (which seems to fit the Tau's view on how other races armies should work within the empire)

Perhaps a starting size of six, seeing as even in a defecting company, there will be a few either resisting or taken out during the mutiny by Imperial loyalists, on top of that there are those who would want to retire.
Could add the option of enlarging the unit, at an inflated points cost.

As for Kroot I thought there was a problem with people not taking them much anyway?

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 3 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 29 guests

CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments

Who is online