The Tau concept is being based on Firepower not on Engagement, and this is good. If you would add more FF value you would make em pretty invincible to 90% of all game mechanics. You cannot outgun them and you cannot FF them effectively, you cannot even pin them down with CC if the use Jumppacks. They have to get some weaknesses. If you think they are not shooty enough, boost their shots, but not their FF.

The situation described was eighter a very good marine, a very lucky marine or a very unlucky Tau. Situations like these are 1:100 and shall not be taken for rule reconstruction. At least not in my point of view.

my 0,000000002 cent

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

The new Tau Jumpack rule does not prevent an opponent from getting into CC anymore (unlike the previous rule which I did not like). Only Skimmer can prevent CC engagements.
I've seen repeatedly, that the Tau can be attacked at FF range effectively and they are not doing enough damage to the opponent.


I've played 8 games using Tau in recent weeks.

I'm not basing my point of view on one event.

There has been a pattern forming during these games and it does not reflect Tau firepower. They should be able to defend themselves (ie do damage to the opponent) if engaged at FF range. That is not up for debate.
The -1 (or make it -2 if needs be) to and Engage action I mentioned earlier, reflects the Tau unease to initiate short range fighting.
Orks are said by many to be one of the most balanced army list available and this game mechanic is used to help encourage Ork players to play like Orks. Why would it be different for Tau?

I'm not asking for inceases to Tau Defence or to try and sneak in a way to make them Engagment kings. At the moment, the Tau are simply not doing the damage that they should be. My suggestions may not change the outcome of Assaults by much but at least the enemy should be thinking twice before engaging FireWarriors from 15cm's away with infantry. They should take more casualties than they are at the moment.

They would not become FF machines with this set-up. They would simply be playing as Tau are meant to.

Again, appolgies to Honda for having to bring this up now.

_________________
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.

sometimes I look at fire warriors and compare them to Eldar guardians and wonder what everyone's complaining about - 5+ armour all round (only farseers get 4+), 16 shots (8 of them disrupt), cheaper transports (more shooty but less well armoured) all for 50pts more than a Guardian fm or the same price as Guardians + support meapons. Sure, it's not apples to apples, but if I have guardians in assault (unless it's heavily prepped or they're being assaulted when in cover) I expect them to die like flies.

I don't see any harm to a -1 to engage, but improving the FF to 4+ would make them FF monsters.

I always wonder why people don't take more Kroot as they're the engagement specialists in Tau surely? They look pretty mean to me, especially as an Orca load out.

_________________
numquam culum es

One of the main differences Matt, is that the rest of the Eldar army is zipping around shooting and assaulting the crap out of you and the guardians + farseer can launch a God at you when they're nearby. I can't say the same for the Tau unfortunately. They used to be able to hurt you more but with reduced shooting stats due to the ML adjustment they don't hit hard enough when they do shoot and they don't survive well enough against determined assaulters.

Kroot are a one trick pony. They might kill a few enemy units in CC but they die like flies on the return attacks as they have no armour leaving you with either a near to broken formation or no formation at all. They're best used a road bump vs assaulters - a throw away formation essentially - a completely non-Tau concept BTW....

I think Morgan's idea of a FF re-roll is an interesting concept. I also think the -1 or -2 to engage would be a preferable option rather than upgunning them in the FF stakes - but only because I know an upgun FF stat won't happen.

In truth, I would still actually prefer to see Tau FWs be the proper FF section of the list and the tanks be the shooting side of the list, but a redesign won't happen as no one has the willpower or wants to spend the time to start again with a radical design as it opposes an out-dated Jervis concept.


Has to be brought up mate, and before it's actually locked in for a year, is better than after. It's just a pity there won't be any chance to change for a year rather than in six month's time. Calling the list "developmental" when there won't be any development for a year is almost an oxymoron.

There's no way that the Tau should have a -1 (or -2) to undertake an Engage action if the FF were not increased.

Morgan - is your idea that the Tau could re-roll one of their FF Assault Resolution dice?
In my experience, the difference in the damage caused during the combat round would make this fairly ineffective (ie the Tau are starting the resolution phase so far behind that a re-roll won't usually help).

Dobbsy's right, Kroot are definitely a one trick pony. No armour saves (which I'm not complaining about) means that they are usually little help after the original assault. They are definitely a speedbump/screen to hide behind and that fits the fluff pretty well.

_________________
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.

No, my idea was to allow the reroll of any firefight attacks that failed to hit. Essentially giving them the equivalent of +1 to their FF values (a 5+ with reroll is 55.55`% and 4+ is 50%, a 6+ with reroll is 30.55`% to hit, and a 5+ it 33.33`%). Only Krootox Herd have a 4+ FF and no unit gets Extra Attacks, so the numbers are where they are.

There seems to be this taboo about having any actual modifiers in Assaults. I don't see it as THAT big a deal. So I'd just be of the opinion that Tau get FF+1 when targetted by an assault.

Of course, this is based on them ONLY getting that modifier when the recipient of an Assault, not when providing support (either as defender OR attacker), and most definately not when assaulting, themselves. They should be relying on direct fire in that situation.

I suppose you COULD roll it up into MarkerLights (allowing the +1 to apply to FF when defending), but I think that puts too much reliance on Markerlights in a list that already has an over-reliance on them, and weakens formations that chose not to use them.

Morgan Vening

Sorry Onyx I mis-typed that sentence - not exactly sure how I came up with it worded that way.    The penalty should apply if they get a 4+ FF

Ahh, that make's more sense to me now, thanks Morgan.

It's an interesting concept that would work well but it may be a little complicated to remember during a game (give me a break... I'm over 40   ) and means more special rules (but then my idea means a new special rule aswell...   ).

I'm not in favour of ML's affecting FF though for the reasons you mentioned.

Dobbsy - VERY much agreed!  

_________________
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.

Honda - Any thoughts on this discussion?

_________________
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.

I don't think playing around with FF is the answer. Every list needs a weakness and a stunted engagement ability is the Tau's. They have had their ranged firepower upped to compensate for this. For example the Pulse carbine and pulse rifle should not appear as a ranged shot as they are about the same range as Bolters and Bolt Pistols and probably should be small arms. Any suggestion that would effect FW's engagement ability would have to also effect their ranged shooting in essence we would have to begin again, even with these modifiers for engage orders.

Instead of this why don't we consider changing the stats a little. Wow about an extra 5cm of range on the pulse rifle so they can shoot without having to enter the engagement range of formations on foot? Or perhaps adjusting their points? I not sure that either change is necessary as I don't see the issue with FW's they compare very favorably with most other basic infantry formations. The only real issue I have with the current Tau list is how to stop teleport and air assaults but I think foot FW's or stealth suits on OW can counter most of these.

Although, the MV idea bears investigation/discussion, it's not something that is going to make the cut before the freeze. There just isn't enough time to test a change of this magnitude, this late in the schedule.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

one could say the same about Tau, at least on the shooting front.

But just to run the no.s on the "assaultyness" of the Eldar, using Ulthwe as an example (purely because their Aspect + Exarch formations all run to 200pts). No prepping carried out, no units in cover or support range:

Guardians w/ support weapons vs. Firewarriors, in assault
Guardians cause 4.8 hits, of which 1.6 are saved, rounded to 3 kills (5+ armour). FW cause 2.6 hits, rounded to 3 kills (no armour). Equal casualties, no inspiring, Guardians outnumber, so are up 1.

Guardians w/ support weapons vs. Firewarriors, shooting
Guardians cause 1 hit, 1 dead (MW), 2 BM
FW at 30cm cause 4 hits, 4 dead, 5 BM
FW at 15cm cause 6.6 hits, 7 dead (rounded up), 11BM.

Dire Avengers vs. Firewarriors, in assault
DA cause 3.6 hits = 2.3 FW dead and lose 1.6 dead in return, +1 to DA on inspiring, +2 to FW on outnumbering and 2:1, +1 to FW on resolution. No shooting.

Fire Dragons vs. Firewarriors, in assault
FD cause 2MW hits and 0.5 normal hits = 2.3 FW dead and lose 1.6 dead in return, +1 to FD on inspiring, +2 to FW on outnumbering and 2:1, +1 to FW on resolution.
Shooting at 15cm = 1.6MW hits, 2 dead FW, 3 BM vs. 6.6 hits, 4.4 dead FD, wiped out formation.

Swooping Hawks vs. Firewarriors, in assault
SH cause 2.5 hits = 1.6 FW dead and lose 1.6 dead in return, +1 to SH on inspiring, +2 to FW on outnumbering and 2:1, +1 to FW on resolution. No shooting.

Dark Reapers vs. Firewarriors, in assault
DR cause 3.24 hits = 2 FW dead and lose 1.6 dead in return, +1 to DR on casualties + inspiring, +2 to FW on outnumbering and 2:1, +1 to FW on resolution.
Shooting - 2.6 hits at 45cm, 2 dead FW, 3 BM (equivalent at 30 would be 1 dead DR and 2 BM).

Warp Spiders vs. Firewarriors, in assault
WS cause 2.5 hits = 2 FW dead (rounded up) and lose 1 dead in return, +2 to WS on casualties + inspiring, +2 to FW on outnumbering and 2:1, +1 to WS on resolution. No shooting.

So 2 Eldar fms (guardians with support weapons, Warp Spider with Exarch) would end up +1 on resolution, 4 Eldar fms (DA, FD, SH and DR) would be -1 on resolution against Fire Warriors. Obviously I didn't include the CC aspects, as that wouldn't be a straight up comparison (and the Aspects would also need some kind of transport to get them around, otherwise they'd be useless), but even so, I don't think the difference would be huge, most likely +1 or at best +2 to Eldar. There's also some rounding going on, but hopefully I've been consistent enough that that shouldn't be a factor.

AND THAT'S IN ASSAULT! When you throw shooting into the mix, Fire Warriors piss all over any Eldar infantry formation of the same points, wiping out or breaking most of them, especially within 15cm. Granted no FW really wants to be that close, but even at 30cm their shooting isn't shabby. In addition, all of this ignores what, IMO, is the FW real strength, that is doubling up (in transports or not), shooting the crap out of a fm then providing support fire to another (FW or otherwise) assault.

So, Avatar aside (which is a 1 shot, 1 turn deal, which often turns to poo anyway, in my experience at least), the argument that Fire Warriors are somehow poor fighters for their points doesn't seemed based on anything that I can understand AND completely ignores what awesome shooting they have available to them. Sure, they may not be Tac Marines, but then they don't cost 300pts either

_________________
numquam culum es

You also forget to mention strategy rolls being lower on FWs and that Eldar get full move consolidation to effect massive support fire in assaults and multiple retains to help effect this. So, you'd most likely be going first and hit with multiple formations which then roll over to provide support fire.

BTW, not trying to be rude here but stats generally make my eyes glaze over as they are simply paper theory. When I play in game each die rolls separately and they just don't seem to pan out the way quoted stats propose. Not saying they don't have their place but they have limits.

I'm not trying to be rude either Dobbsy, but there doesn't seem to be anyway of convincing you that other opinions and/ or strategies other than your own may exist for Tau. Rolling out the stats was my last attempt at that and it's obviously failed - you don't accept any counter arguments and instead trot out other points that aren't directly related to what's actually being discussed.

So really, if you wonder why you seem to be the lone(ish) voice shouting into the wind about Tau, read back through some of your threads. I can clearly see why the Tau development is a) so moribund and b) losing testers left right and centre. I was honestly interested in play testing Tau, but now I just can't be arsed. Afterall, what would happen if I actually used Fire Warriors effectively and won a game or two? That would presumably be due to lucky dice rolls and essentially Fire Warriors would still suck. Jeez  

_________________
numquam culum es

It's just discussion Matt. I'm trying to make you aware that it's not all cut and dry with list design as it seems to me this happens a lot. I often see people posting a certain situation or theory, but then they don't take things I do see into account and I like to voice that to bring the point to light whether some are aware or not. If it was a face to face discussion it would seem off the cuff but it's electronic and you see it as ignoring what you're saying which I wasn't.

Seriously, if you feel that I'm the sole person responsible for you not playing Tau because I would like people to recognise these issues rather than paper over them willy-nilly with stats and the like then I'm sorry. Sorry to make you feel that way, but more sorry you give up so easily too.