Page 4 of 5

[ 70 posts ]

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

CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments
Tactica	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:18 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (clausewitz @ 02 Dec. 2005 (19:58)) Gue'vesa dont have an armour save (only the commander stand has a 6+ save). Arrrgh, Good point! Oversight on my part. That makes the human aux even less valuable incomparison example given. My fault. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Tactica	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:39 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Tasty, Full companies of human aux are very justified as when tau take over a planet, they don't really take it over per se in the traditional sense. There's no mass clensing, just enlistment for the greater good. Whole planets establish partnerships, and drift away from the watchful hand of the Imperium. - i.e. Taros and the ensuing war. If the masses want to reduce the size of the human aux size, OK, but I don't think we are doing that because anyone can really justify that their too powerful... LOL. You see, I don't agree with any summation that the FW/pathfinders/all infantry have performance issues. I think they are working as designed. Some may not value them for what they can do, but many of us do value them. In short - I don't really believe a point change is in order for either formation due to its performance on the field. I think the army as a whole has some blast marker management issues, but that's a seperate topic and thread. I'd encourage you to pop over to the Tau leaders thread. Hope to see your thoughts there. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Tastyfish	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:57 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm Posts: 120	Its not a points change, but it is true that most armys don't have access to several basic troop types (IG/Ogryns/ST or Eldar/Aspect warriors or Marines/Assault/scout squads), while being very different in 40K I think the fact that we don't have specialised infantry like others do means that when put through the epic system's abstraction they end up fufilling very similar roles. Unlike 40K where a subtle blend of weapon systems and minor increases to different values (say just +1 to T or S)can give a very different unit, it kind of blurs in epic. Especially since Kroot arn't dedicated CC and FF troops in epic or 40K. Its not that Gue'vesa are too powerful - hence the reluctance to change points values. Its more to do with the role they play in the Tau army, which should legitamately be carried out by firewarriors. Auxilleries should support the main army, not be able to do something better than it - its more a case of taking alien aux because you want to be able to hold an objective and its too expensive for a FW cadre to sit by if the combat is no way near, rather than you need a unit to sit in cover and take hits well whilst your army fights around it. Fluffwise, an entire infantry company will be spread over the battlezone in question rather than as one discrete force - hence even if the Tau reinforce regiments and companies (which is dangerously supporting 'traditional' organisation) they will not deploy them in the same way the IG do. Gue'vesa companies are not war of attrition units, the Tau don't work that way, they are a back up should things go wrong. Human 'freedom fighters' in an area are a lot harder to identify than alien ones. And a large organised company is a lot easier to track down than a couple of cells.
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:31 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	Tactica:  I do respect other peoples oppinions on this board; however, I will now say that there is no specific task that Firewarriors perform better than another element in the list, instead of "suck".  And I am taking points into consideration. Firewarriors perform best with their transports.  Almost all your examples required them.  That makes them 300pts for 10 [Edit: 12] models.  A formation of Kroot and Gue'vesa are 350pts for 21 models.  As far as sitting on an objective, I'll take the Kroot + Gue'vesa and swallow the extra 50pts for it in a second.   -Kroot have: scout, infiltrate, and can kill both infantry and vehicles better with a 4+/5+ CC/FF.  The Shaper also has a CC macro-weapon. -Gue'Vesa still have a 30cm shot for laying down a blastmarker or two, make decent BM spunges, and have the same FF value as FW's.  Since you have two formations instead of one, you get an extra activation overall, you get one unit covering the other, you give two seperate targets that the enemy has to break induvidually, and you get one large formation that can holds its own in assault. Both inferior formations also have the "Leader" ability (oh the irony!).  Your kroot with infiltration will always get into CC in an assault, and your IG will do just as well as FW with their FF.  Since they are holding objectives, assault is likely to happen.  If they get shot to pieces, then you likely never bother to support them, just sacrificed them, or they came under so much firepower that the FW would have been destroyed just as easily. For crossfiring, I will take 2 formations of eight drones for 300pts thank-you, instead of one formation of firewarriors.  They are just as fast as Devilfish, and have Tau jumppacks (they don't need to be dropped be air, I can just move them). For killing infantry the choices are almost endless.  I have 300pts to burn, and FW's are at the bottom of the list for effectivness. For killing vehicles, dido.  And that 75cm AT shot on the transports should never be there anways, it should be 30-45cm max.  Oh well.
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:38 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	To be a bit more constructive now, I am glad that we do see face to face on the fact that in comparison to the rest of the list, Firewarriors and Pathfinders are lacking.  I think the units are fine, it's only when you compare them to the rest of the list that they start to lose some of their shine.  Personally I think that happens because the rest of the list is so good, but let's not bring that into this for the moment. I think it would go a long way to making the Cadre much better if it was 10 Firewarriors for 200pts.  You would then be getting +5 Devilfish for 100pts more.  20pts a transport is more in line, except we have that 75cm AT4+ no LOS shot on them  Since I can't see us dropping the seekers off, and I can't see us making more rules to limit seeker range, nor can I see us removing seekers as a GM, I guess we are forced to make it cost 125, or 150pts for the 5 Devilfish. Now it's 350pts for 10FW+5DF, or 350Pts for 13 IG + 10 Kroot.  Now it's not such a slanted choice anymore. Leader would help too, but honestly it wouldn't be enough for me on its own. I am going to leave Pathfinder's alone for now, because my idea's for changing them.... well you all know.
Top

Steele	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:42 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	Quote (RedDevil @ 03 Dec. 2005 (12:38)) To be a bit more constructive now, I am glad that we do see face to face on the fact that in comparison to the lest of the list, Firewarriors and Pathfinders are lacking. ?I think the units are fine, it's only when you compare them to the rest of the list that they start to lose some of their shine. ?Personally I think that happens because the rest of the list is so good, but let's not bring that into this for the moment. I think it would go a long way to makeing the Cadre much better if it was 10Firewarriors for 200pts. ?You would then be getting +5 Devilfish for 100pts more. ?20pts a transport is more in line, except we have that 75cm AT4+ no LOS shot on them ?Since I can't see us dropping the seekers off, and I can't see us making more rules to limit seeker range, nor can I see us removing seekers as a GM, I guess we are forced to make it cost 125, or 150pts for the 5 Devilfish. Now it's 350pts for 10FW+DF, or 350Pts for 13 IG + 10 Kroot. ?Now it's not such a slanted choice anymore. Leader would help too, but honestly it wouldn't be enough for me on its own. Agreed. It would work. the only downside is that you may have the one or other odd Devilfish laying around when you purchase them. Not attractive to those who do not have lots of free cash floating around. Cheers! Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo
Top

Tastyfish	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:33 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm Posts: 120	Only if you are only getting one cadre, two cadres sorts out this problem.
Top

Tactica

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:14 pm

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

Quote (RedDevil @ 03 Dec. 2005 (11:31)) That makes them 300pts for 10 models a negligable detail, but for accuracy 300 = 12 models (8 inantry + 4 vehicels). Nonetheless, your point is understood. I respectfully disagree with you as I think the markers, plus added armor, plus better weapons and 2 shots at 15cm make 200 points 8 FW close to par with the 175 for the human aux. I do think they have certain roles that they are better in. I think their upgrade value is important. The way you would appear to use aux vs. FW, it would appear the human aux work better for you in your games. That's a good thing. I've already conceded that the FW do appear to be missing something as a formation, I've made a suggestion for bonding and its received mixed feedback and even some additional suggestions. I note that you revised your statement to say, "there is no specific task that Firewarriors perform better than another element in the list" That statement is interesting. Your challenge is valid... lets see if we can come up with a 'task' that the FW do better than any other... they should be good at something... I'll start. I would say what else can provide the amount of markerlight coverage on the field by comparison - for the same points - if your goal is to cover the majority of the table with markers? Granted, I don't specifically use them for this role, but appearently others on the list do - like Jaldon. For 200 points, I receive 8 units that can cover 30cm radius of marker coverage. I don't know which other formation in our army can handle this 'task' better. Do you? Cheers, _________________ Rob

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:23 pm

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

"there is no specific task that Firewarriors perform better than another element in the list" Like Tactical Marines? Devastators are better at shooting/FF, Assault Marines are faster and better at CC, Terminators get teleport, better armour and better CC.  Does that mean Tactical Marines are no use?  Absolutely not. Both Fire Warriors and Tactical Marines are flexibile formations.  Rather than specialist formations.  That means they can perform a number of different battlefield actions.  That tactical flexibility is a valuable attribute in a battle, one that may not be obvious from number crunching analysis of units but nevertheless a highly important factor in determining the value of a formation.

Top

Steele	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:59 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany	Quote (Tastyfish @ 03 Dec. 2005 (16:33)) Only if you are only getting one cadre, two cadres sorts out this problem. Nevertheless , Forgeworld is an expensive thing. Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo
Top

Tastyfish	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:11 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm Posts: 120	True, but seeing as most of the FW things are difficult to get to fit neatly into the right sized categories its not really something I would consider very important. Its irritating but not something that should effect the unit.
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:26 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	Steele:  Oooh, yeah I wasn't thinking about how they come packaged.  Maybe we could convince FW to give us some free models with our orders? Tactica: First, thanks for finding that typo, I'll make sure to edit it. Let's make the markerlights Cubes rather than circles for now, just to make the visuals easier.  We'll take the max distance between the stands stretched out in a line to make a large rectangle to get a rough idea of coverage.  For firewarriors *without* transports, 8 units 5cm apart in a row will cover ([7 x 5] + [2 x 15]cm)= 65cm wide.  For height we'll take the 30cm as the range of ML.  We'll get a rectangle that is (65 x 30cm)= 1950cm^2 for 200pts. Let's look at Tetra's: ([20 x 5] + [2 x 15cm])= 130cm wide.  Once again height is 30cm.  We'll get a rectangle that is  (130 x 30cm)= 3900cm^2 for 175pts. FW's:   9.75cm^2/pt -Two more stands -Extra AP 15cm disrupt shot -No transport, we could add these, but not only would it make their marking efficiency dismal, it would further allow an extra +Tetra upgrade for the Tetra's while still being 50pts cheaper than the FW's. Tetras:  22.29cm^2/pt -Faster -Scouts -Same armour, FF, CC, and AP 30cm shot -Two less stands -No Disrupt shot (though scout mitigates this somewhat)
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:37 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	@clausewitz:  You do make an excellent point here.  Sometimes being great at nothing, doesn't mean you are bad at everything.  Also FW's without transports are the cheapest way to get Contingents.  But the other Cadres still appear to be better choices (especially with the armoured cadre now), and you will be taking at least Crisis if you want a Supreme commader, so you will always have Contingents. I will still step up to the plate:   -2 Tactical sqauds give you 12 models that are Jack of All trades for 600pts. -2 Assault sqauds + 1 Devistator sqaud for 12 models that excel at their role for 600pts.  Also more activations, more upgrades available, more units to absorb BM's, more targets to split enemy fire, etc. etc...
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:57 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	RedDevil, Smaller units = more activations, true.  But they are also easier to break (less units).  That has always been part of EA army balancing. More specialised formations also have greater weaknesses that can be exploited by your opponent e.g CC for devastators, FF for assault etc etc
Top

RedDevil	Post subject: CS's Vehicle Markerlight removal comments Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:03 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:58 pm Posts: 112	The idea being that they work together, not in a vacuum, thus trying to assault Devastators behind Assault means you likely face both 3+cc and 3+FF, rather than a flat 4+CC/FF.  Also ATSKF special rule doesn't make the 4squad sized units that much easier to break, further if you break one unit, you lose 1/3 of your pts.  If you break 1 tac unit, you lose 1/2 your points.  Also having three targets rather than two balances off the amount of focus fire needed to break all three, rather than just two.
Top

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 4 of 5

[ 70 posts ]

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

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