Ok despite my earlier comments I've ended up playing 2 games on vassal and am slowly reading through the list.

I though rather than my traditional lengthy Tau missive I'd do it by area, so first up, Recon and Pathfinders, two lumped together and sharing reasons to use.

The mixed formation is a big big mistake. There are basically 2 set-ups any competitive player will take. Note I said competitive as I know people out there take marines with no titans or thunderhawks, take fluffy set ups and so on. They can continue to do so, and indeed I would wish any changes help them and not someone trying to gain a list advantage.

Anyway, 2 set ups.
Markerlight (with garrison ability) - 3 Tetras (ML, Scout), 3 Piranha.
Support - 1 tetra for integral ML backup, 5 Piranha.

Any other set up is inferior. Yes having all tetra or piranha gives you redundancy/firepower, buts its not enough compared to the benefits of mixed formations.

Both are 'game' formations, not I believe the intended. Tetras are those speeders that ewoks can drive and Piranha are cheap tank alternatives for frontier worlds. Its not clear why PFs and FW would be in always mixed formations, indeed the better 'synergistic' Tau set up or intent for this list was for separate mutually dependant formations.

I would have separate formations, I wouldn't even allow upgrades to them as they are scout or light 'tank' formations and such mobility suggests multiple formations not large swarms.
Even better separating them out allows better analysis of the tetra and the Piranha.

The Piranha remains great. I had worried the change to GM's had stuffed it but as long as you stick to the 1/3rd rule of thumb (1/3 of your formations be ML ones) you are fine and of course in the recon set up they carry a ML with them. Indeed now they last longer, being able to keep further away from the enemy. We thought FF5+ was a typo? Surely its FF6+?
Its hard to give a definitive view on these things as currently the inclusion of tetra in the cheap formation really boosts them.

Tetra. Easier to assess as the Piranha being tacked on gave them utility and firepower but doesn't change the use of a 3/3 formation. In this ML centric list I would always have 2 3/3 formations, the whole 105cm ML threat radius is terrific. Probably too cheap as the ML ability is so good here and they excel as objective grabbers. Then again as a 'pure' formation the firepower would drop massively, so maybe at the right cost.

Pathfinders. Tetra superior? No, different. In a list where it was a choice between pathfinders and 6 strong tetra formations (not the current mix which is I think better) I would take even numbers. Where I think the PF are superior is to firewarriors in Devilfish. These chaps can deploy forward on overwatch, carry a horde of disrupt weapons and always get +1 to hit. Its a contributing factor to me I think always taking on foot FW as objective guards and leaving the mobile fighting to other units.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

TRC's reasoning has convinced me, both on background and on metagame grounds, that the formations should be split in the manner he suggests.


You tear it down, but don't build it up... care to propose something to fix the unattractiveness of the mech. Fire Warrior formation?

I've also been seeing them as slightly sub-par and have been considering proposing a 25pt price break.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Its a responsive system, its a feeling based on 2 games and looking at their ease of use, not something I'm fairly certain on So I was hoping others would chime in!

Plus of course this thread is on the reconnaissance options in the list, not the firewarriors

But to veer onto them the firewarriors are surprising. I initially thought the mech option the better one but its actually I think secondary to requirements giving the need for so many ML formations and here pathfinders being dual use. I don't think its an internal balance issue, rather how the army ends up being built. You can build a good mech force by reinforcing them and using them alongside tanks no doubt, but for the 'ml approach' solid guards are preferable.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I only want to point out that Tetras seem to be much rarer compared to Piranhas.
There is an Apocalypse formation containing of 1 Command Piranha and 3 squadrons of 3 Piranhas but only one single and optional Tetra for this formation.

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

The reference sheet is correct.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How can the reference sheet be correct? Its 4+ for PF's but the same weapon is 5+ for FW?

I can certainly see the reasoning for them to be 5 and 5 (in reality 4 and 4 as they will always be able to light their targets) as it removes a temptation to buzz into point blank range rather than being all scouty scouty (well means against infantry in cover it goes from 5+ to 6+ when doubling).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Then that's a typo, assume 5+

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

OK I hope I'm understanding this line of thought correctly but...


I highly disagree! Regardless of the somewhat cold break down of TRCs view, I still find the PF upgrade for FWs worth its weight in gold. And, after all, it is just his view. Let's not start changing things again please gents. Even if TRCs view has some merit, I believe that a list should not be about cold "this is how it should work" paradigms/assumptions, and people should be allowed some choice in their lists.

E&C, can I just say that if you're preferring the "separate mutually dependant formations" that you're straying from your "FWs above all" line of design that you proposed in your E series. I thought the whole point of that proposal was to give FWs utility and be more attractive to use. Pathfinders can still be taken separately if people want. Likewise, the upgrade can too. Let's not eliminate it as it provides FWs with a great ability to call co-ord if needed, thus making FWs more versatile as your E series proposed them to be.


How about synergy. It's not a spearate synergy, but it's a synergy none the less.
Also, remember, just because the PF upgrade is attached to a FW formation, that in real terms they are only a part of a small "battlegroup" as formations are multiple 40K squads etc combined in an abstract way.

I believe I was responding to TRC's point about splitting the recon formation into a Tetra and a Piranha formation, either I misinterpreted this, or you did?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

OK, must have been me then as it wasn't clear that you were talking about just the recon formation split.

Thanks for clearing it up E&C.  

Ok, I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure what the point is. You state that there are two builds and all others are inferior. So a 2 tetra/4 piranha is inferior to a 3/3. Doesn't that depend on how the formations are used?

What makes a 3/3 inherently superior to a 2/4? BTW, to date, I have always fielded 2/4.



This may be true, but what I am not hearing is that mixing combinations (whichever you prefer) is causing the formation to be broken.



Could you elaborate on this statement? I'm not following you.



One way to look at this is that there is an opportunity to synergize the two vehicle types. You are not forced to. I don't see how that causes an imbalance yet.



Yes, it is possible to break them out, however, you can just as easily do that yourself by only selecting one vehicle type. So, I'm not seeing where the problem is occurring.



This can be done now with the existing formation. The list does not force you to mix.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I think the biggest difference here is something I mentioned in my first post, you aren't coming at things from an ultra competitive angle.

So take the above. Any player looking for competitive advantage would dismiss the 2/4 formation. A 3/3 formation can garrison which gives tourney flexibility, a 2/4 can't. A 1/5 formation has more 14% firepower whilst still retaining the integral markerlight.
1 formation is firepower, the other scout/ML.
These are things that would be de facto choices for players coming in high placed positions at tourneys.



I'm not saying they are, I'm just pointing out they may as well be written as 1/5 or 3/3 for someone who wishes to maximise their list and I didn't think that either a) fit the fluff or b) played to the idea of interdependent formations.



Just that they are optimised for performance, not for their background which is one is a frontier world light tank and the other an alternative pathfinder formation.

Using the above logic why can't pathfinders and firewarriors be made equal and the formations merged?



Its an opportunity to min max and get round on one hand an undergunned ml formation and on the other ensure your gm formation always has the option of firing, reducing your reliance on other formations.



Why would I handicap myself doing that?



Yes it does, just like the ork list forces me to get the oddboy for the gun wagons, or that makes flakwagons superior to gun wagons, or that a competitive marine list 9 times out of ten has to have a reaver or better yet a couple of warhounds and a squadron of thunderbolts.

Of course I'm not forced, just like I'm not forced to do a whole range of things in epic, but it doesn't change the fact some options are flat out better.

Yes I can assess how a piranha formation does on its own without the ml backup and secondary role, but why should I when it wouldn't change in the list? Testing inferior options to see how they do is a waste of time.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x