1(or 2)xAP5+ Disrupt and/or? 5+ First Strike?

They shoot hard (adding BMs) and severely hurt assaulters in return engagement but still run the risk of being slaughtered in that engagement?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I am much more inclined to agree that where they add value is in fire support as part of an imminent Coordinated Fire event.

Dobbsy, I really don't know as far as stats.

As far as role, the only thing I know for sure is that I'd like to see them be able to do a "Tau Assault" that has a decent chance of pushing someone off an objective via firepower.  For balance reasons, that should not be as effective as an assault because the Tau aren't taking the chances of losing that occur in any assault that's sort of close.

Roughly speaking, it takes 2-3X points to confidently pull off a successful assault once you count in prep fire and support formations.  If you have good conditions or a specialized assault formation, you can be on the low end of that or even a bit below.  So it seems to me that 2-3x the points of Tau, in about the same proximity as it requires to launch a successful assault, firing at an "ideal" target should be about the proper ratio if you want a strong chance of actually breaking the opponent.  So, if the Tau want to be certain they can shift, say, an IG infantry company with Fire Support (350 points), they should have to bring about 1000 points of the right kind of units to bear on it in a short time window (I picked the high end because it's without the risk of a real assault).

I actually think the FW aren't far from being able to do that right now.  For example, 2 FW formations in Devilfish and a Pathfinder formation to Coordinate them is 775 points and will put a serious hurt on that formation but it would likely not break and remain combat effective.

Were you around during some of the early list versions where Jaldon was doing his "tau assault" batreps/demos?  He would use Coordinated fire to bring ~3x the points of Tau up against an opponent in a single action.  It required some pre-positioning, plenty of coord fire units and a good mix of unit types so that you could coord fire with the right mix of weapons for a particular target.

My knowledge of Tau background is not great, but that seems to be about the right style from what I do know.  If you disagree, let me know.

After re-reading this thread a bit more I'm wondering that if people are adverse to the 4+FF -1 engage order what do people think about giving them:

1xAP5+ Disrupt, 1xAP5+ (I think they used to have this before anyway)and/or? 5+ First Strike?

_________________
Neal

That's an interesting point Neal.  The question I have is how important are the FWs to that particular strategy?  I can see where the Pathfinders are obviously necessary, but it seems just about any Tau formation could be subbed for the Firewarriors in that example and those other formations might be better at long range fire, etc.  A Crisis formation w/ Shas'el and and AMHC could do the same trick, for the same points and be more useful in other aspects of the game than the FWs.

I like a lot of this discussion in the thread and it is bringing up some good points on what the Tau do and don't do.

I think we can make 2 small changes to the list and make both Firewarriors and Crisis Suits much more compelling choices.

1.  Give FWs an extra FF attack
2.  Change the Fusion Blaster Attack on the Crisis Suits to (small arms, MW, +1 extra attack)

both of the above still @ FF5+

This does not change the whole army.  The Tau could not be a full on FF army with these two tweaks.  The army would still need Hammerheads and all of the support formations to be effective and those units would still be not ideal for FFs.  But, this would give FWs especially a nice defined role in the army.  It would separate the roles of the infantry versus the vehicles in the list.

A lot of my "dream numbers" are direct-conversion from 40k, based on equivalent units in other armies that aren't FF-suppressed.  For example, 3 Stealth suits have 2 CC attacks each, plus one from the Drone.  On the charge, that's 11 attacks.  Assault Marines have one attack, plus one for having a close combat weapon, so 5 Assault Marines deliver 15 attacks on the charge.  Stealth Suits are just as strong as Marines, and have the same armor.  The difference is their Weapon Skill and Initiative.  Similarly, 3 Crisis suits have 2 CC attacks each, plus one from each drone.  Crisis suits are higher strength than Marines, but have lower initiative than Guard (drones have same init as IG).  That's 9+4 attacks (assuming 2 drones) on the charge from Crisis suits, right on par with Assault Marines.  

CC5+ is easily justified for all battlesuits, IF you don't want to force the Tau player to avoid Engage actions.  

=====
6 Fire Warriors (one stand) have as much firepower as 2 Heavy Bolters at 30cm range.  That's proof for 2x AP5+ (current stats).  What should scare the daylights out of you is that they have the same FF capabilities as TWO IG Support Squads (FF4+ each, which is my dream stats).  
=====

If we make Fire Warriors the only unit that can effectively get into FF assaults (Yes, Crisis have that MW attack, but let's just give them ONE FF attack for the sake of argument, and leave the Stealth teams unchanged), then Fire Warriors have a unique place in the list.  Right now, FW don't have a place in the list, because the one thing they are supposed to do well, attack and clear positions, they can't do, because of a list design which halved their FF capabilities.

FW are used aggressively, they do not, repeat NOT, hold ground.  You should be punished for using units for purposes they are not supposed to be used for (which is why people don't like taking them, FW don't hold ground well).  However, because of the depressed FF values, it's not practical to advance into effective range of the FW's weapons because you'll get assaulted in your opponent's next activation.  16x AP5+ shots at a Guard Company's 13 units, in woods = 2.33 hits, which translates to .77 dead guardsmen. That's one, probably two BMs, which puts the guard activating on a 4+ , and leaves the FW unit hanging within 30cm, to be wiped out in the IG assault.

Now, let's say you have that same FW unit with FF4+(EA+1).  They Engage, and for sake of illustration, it's done properly, so that no IG unit can force CC.  That's 8 hits on the IG, and 5.33 dead guardsmen (5+ cover from the woods).  Guard hit with 13xFF5+ attacks, doing 4.33 hits, and FW armor saves all but 1.44.  Resolution (rounding probabilities down for a moment) is FW:6; IG:2, almost impossible for the IG to win.  Assuming average dice for a moment, that's about another 4 hack-down kills, so the IG company is broken, with 5 units left.  Note that I did not include transports or supporting fire in this example.

For other options:
FF5+(EA+1) under the same situation.  5.33 hits on the IG, and 1.77 dead IG.  This is a dead heat, slightly in the FW favor, but doesn't reflect the 'reality' of a 40k firefight in the slightest.  

FF3+(no EA), again, IG company in the woods.  Same results as the previous example, 5.33 hits and 1.77 dead IG.

IF we ran 40k with simultaneous firing, like an E:A Engage action, you'd see 12 FW within 12" of their target kill 10 guardsmen, and those 10 IG would kill ~2 FW (IG don't get a save against Pulse weapons, and FW get a 4+ save against lasguns, but not against the autocannon in v3 and higher).  If we give the IG a 5+ save, the numbers shift to 12 FW killing 6.67 IG while losing ~2 of their own.  I think the 12/6.67/2 ratio is about what we should aim for in a FF with Fire Warriors, because it's just NOT fun to watch entire squads get wiped out at a time.

My first Engage-action example is how FW are supposed to work.  They closely engage out-of-position or unsupported enemy units, breaking their battle-line through speed and brutal firepower.  If the FW are positioned poorly, or fail to do enough damage to a unit, the following assault from the enemy is going to smash the FW unit.  FW assaults are high-risk, no doubt about it, but they are also VERY effective even given average dice.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Could we turn the debate on its head a second and ask why are FW considered to be so poor? Part of the answer is that other formations like E:A work better in E:A, but I am also hearing that the FW performance is somewhat lack-lustre as well. So just how / where are they performing badly? Is Shmitty totally correct, or is there some other factor?IMHO the problem with counter-attacks is totally about tactics not the formation strengths/weaknesses. (I might add that this is where 40K and E:A part company precisely because 40K only represents a single assault in detail). The point is that after a successfull FW attack (ignoring how that was achieved) the formation will be in an advanced position, so unless the player has provided some contingency for this situation, the FW will be counter-attacked. So what does the 'fluff' say happens here; do they mount up, dig in, or what?? More importantly, what do people expect to happen?

That said, I tend to agree that this whole debate is not likely to get people using this "core" Tau formation partly because it is 'too hard' and partly because they don't do what is advertised.

Shmitty's proposal (liked by a number of people here) is that this "Shock and Awe" style is best represented by an E:A Assault. But I agree with Neal that IMHO E:A style assaults are really the role of Crisis suits, while FW should be looking to co-ordinated fire actions, support etc.

Co-ordinated actions need greater numbers of activations available, say 11-13 activations or an average cost of 200-250 per formation. So I am beginning to agree with Honda that perhaps we need to review this part of the costing to see if we can make FW more attractive by being slightly more powerfull / resilient / effective through upgrades and supporting formations.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, in 40k shooting and close combat are roughly equal in importance, so the Tau's superior shooting is balanced by their weak CC. In Epic CC is far less important than FF/shooting, meaning that a direct translation of Tau abilities from 40k to Epic is always going to be overpowered or need to be priced much higher than currently.

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

LitS - I think you made a small math error in your figures.  You have both the IG and the FW saving on a 3+, not a 5+.  The results are similar though.  

I think Zombocom is right though and a direct translation of 40k is not necessary and possibly unbalancing.  As Neil pointed out it often takes 2-3x more points to reliably win an assault.  So, I think 2x FF5+ would be appropriate for FWs without being too strong.

Assaults in Epic are done at 15cm. 15cm are 24" in Wh40k which is the same range as most standart issue weapons of Troops choices (Bolters, Lasguns, etc).
But Pulse Rifles have a range of 30". So they canfire at a muchearlier point than their opponent.
So how to simulate this by giving the Firewarriors First Strike on their FF-value (still at FF5+ and NO Extra-Attack)?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

So how to simulate this by giving the Firewarriors First Strike on their FF-value (still at FF5+ and NO Extra-Attack)?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

This would have to have a special rule, so that the FS doesn't carry over to CC. That's just a statement, not a judgement.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

The First Strike only has to be placed in the weapons notes and not in the units notes.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

This would have to have a special rule, so that the FS doesn't carry over to CC. That's just a statement, not a judgement.

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

Is there an echo in here?  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?