Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Firewarriors Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:04 pm

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

For me I can't see their purpose. Markerlight/disrupt wise I prefer my scouting pathfinders, garrisson/static infantry wise the humans. Since these are what I use infantry for in mech forces that leaves mechanised infantry themselves. TRC sums it up quite nicely actually. FOR ME: (since TRC cited me in the openning of this thread) from 40K to E:A, the FW have lost their ability to be flexable at dealing with both infantry and vehicular targets. They are relegated to duties in E:A that are better handled by other formations in E:A. Which means, short of liking a 200 point cadre so that I can get more 'other stuff' - the FW cadre doesn't suit my purposes much in E:A. _________________ Rob

Top

Tactica	Post subject: Firewarriors Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:05 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (asaura @ 21 Feb. 2006 (06:26)) but the question becomes an army composition issue -- it's good to have Cadres. ? I'll agree with Asaura here. Its a very valid point. The cadre at 200 points has its value to me, but not for the right reasons. _________________ Rob
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: Firewarriors Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:53 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	FW are the flexible core of the army - the jack of all trades.  Yes, other formations can perform their specialty roles better than the FW, but the FW can do any of it when needed. That means their primary purpose should be as a reserve/reaction force. _________________ Neal
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Firewarriors Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:10 pm

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

Quote (Honda @ 21 Feb. 2006 (07:03)) I have started to gravitate toward one large cadre that is supported by all the other units. Generally, either of the following configurations: Help me understand a bit more Honda - do you mean: 1) in your army play style that you have one central fighting element that's rather large and the rest of the army supports tha formation? or 2) Are you talking about simply at 'each formation' level - one large cadre with lots of upgrades. This then makes up your entire roster. or 3) something else? The trick is getting it within 15cm in one move so that large number of shots can be deployed effectively, hence the mechanized requirement.

Tricky indeed. For the FW to be effective in E:A - they have to get extremely close. This is odd because in 40K, they so many guns at 30 inches while the typical trooper has guns at 24" - so the FW are actually standing still firing while forcing the enemy to advance. This tends to give the Tau Firing discipline and field control advantages. In E:A, the formation has to get within 30cm to affect the enemy with a single shot from their standard issue weaponry that each one carries while IG and Marines that have 1 heavy weapon each are moving and firing those weapons just as often in E:A.

For marines/IG - 1 heavy weapon in 1 unit in 40K means don't move and fire your single shot or get on the move and sacrifice the shot. In E:A, IG/marines can now move and fire that same heavy weapon which is 1 per unit or 1 per E:A stand.

(OK, IG get 1 shot for every two stands...)

Firewarriors went from multiple shots per unit (1 shot per model in 40K) that also outranged the other 9 out of 10 models in a 40K IG/Marine unit - down to the same 1 shot per unit in E:A - so they lost their fire superiority.

IG/Marines/Tau can move and fire. So Firewarriors lost their move and fire advangtage over the typical 40K infantry unit.

FW used to outrange the majority of the IG/Marine squad - now their longest range is 30cm - which is shorter than the typical 45cm heavy weapon. This is a problem due to the loss of shot count on FW units in E:A - the 1 heavy weapon always outranged the FW - but when everyone gets one shot - this range imbalance hurts! (1 IG lascannon shot to FW 30" away meant at most 1 dead FW - then 9 FW would fire back at the unit with the 1 lascannon in it!). Now in E:A, the tau get within the enemy infantry's weapon range in order to deal any damage back, and they don't get more shots unless they are so close that its dangerous.

Tau can draw the enemy to them without fear of being charged in 40K for a couple rounds of shooting at least before combat situations are an issue - in E:A - they have to get into enemy charge range before their weapons are effective. Unfortunately they fight horribly in either game so getting in charge range in E:A is more deadly to the FW unit.

6-12 Strength 5 weapons from a single Firewarrior infantry unit in 40K meant any enemy vehicle with armor 10 and/or armor 11 in 40K had to fear the basic infantry as well as the big guns in the Tau army.  That meant that rhino front armor, chimera side armor - basalisks had to just hide, and even Leman Russ and Demolisher rear armor was not safe from the Tau FW! Thus - the mobile cav of the FW in a skimmer was truly a force to be reconned with - Tau and Necrons are the only standard infantry issue weapons that not only due to mass Firepower against infantry, but the enemy vehicles weren't safe from the standard issue warrior either! In E:A - this concept is completely lost unless you want to engage vehicles with Tau, get really close, and risk your own BM and damage to your Tau formation - assaulting - even to FF just isn't a good proposition for the Tau Firewarrior, so that means FW in E:A are somewhat preordaned to deal with enemy infantry only.

Then there are things like - their markerlight isn't as effective in E:A as it is in 40K. The loss of bonding.

These types of things have severely hindered what the FW unit can do in E:A vs. their leading and valued role in 40K when compared to other standard issue infantyr. Well - in *my* opinion anyway.

The concern is that after they are deployed, they seem to attract everyone, including Girl Scouts with butter knives, who tend to treat them rather severely.

So, I don't just throw them out on a whim.
Agreed, you have to be careful where you deploy in E:A.

You have to align your approach so that in a single move - you can move 30 with the skimmer, deploy withing 5cm of your vehicle, then be within 15cm of the enemy with your infantry in order to maximize your 15cm shots as well as your 30cm shots. This alignment can be a daunting task while still trying to remain out of LOF as you set up for this situation.

If you want your Devilfish to be within 15cm - now you have to be within 45cm of the enemy which means you are in many E:A enemy units FF engagement range!

If don't worry about the devilfish, or the 15cm shots, you can line up 65cm away which is easier. Now, you get all 8 of your models within 30 only - you are looking at 2-3 hits from the FW though at best, their 15cm guns are not used, the Devilfish 15 cm guns are not used, and their 4 seeker missles hitting on 5's will get you 1 AT hit if there are any AT targets in there - which means you are paying a lot for the FW and DF unused abilities to get 3-4 hits total out of your 300 points.

If you still abandon the idea of getting your Devilfish within 15cm range, you still need to line up 50cm away on a formation that has already moved - and you need to be out of LOF... so this can be tricky to set up in itself. However, at least you are out of engagement range, but your Devilfish are not really providing any covering fire either after you move as you'll be 20cm away from the enemy... (But, you can assure you are not getting engaged as you are not lined up 45cm away...) so now you can get all 8 within 15cm, after your DF move's 30cm and you deploy 5cm away from the DF. Your FW are now looking at 16 shots and hitting on 5+ so should get 5 hits and your 4 DF are looking at still getting 1 AT hit on 5+ if there are those targets there. So 5-6 hits if you can line up 50cm away and the enemy isn't in cover. For 300 points and he's going to save some still... Well, at least I get disrupt on some of those (heh, if he's not fearless). Again, I sacrifice the DF's ability to support my formation - lest I want to line up in what could be the enemy's charge range.

Now if you pull off the single move alignment (frankly, I find this hard to set up btw!) if the enemy is in cover, your hitting on 6s. This is very common. So in the majority of the above, you can shave all the numbers.

In any cases where I have to double to get into firing range - its just not typically worth it. So that means I'm doubling or tripling first turn to get them in alignment. It also means the FW is typicall of little more value than

1) Markerlight
- others do just as well - and deliver other functionality

2) Tarpit (if I give them an Ethereal)
Over 300 points just to tie up the enemy - IG does it better

3) Objective holding
others do it better while delivering other functionality

4) Satisfying a Cadre spot so I can buy other stuff.

I can tell you this... if Pathfinders were a cadre, I'd have no use for Firewarriors - at all in E:A. So when it comes down to it, I'm only buying FW for item 4 above... pretty sad considering how good they are to me in 40K.

BTW: To digress a bit, back to the SMS on Devilfish idea (LINK - Honda's SMS on DF thread - LINK) - at least a 30cm AP4+ SMS ignore cover shot on the DF would allow the DF to support the FW from further than 15cm away and would help in the dealing with cover situation.

Ironically, this is the same situation that many 40K Tau players wanted a longer range gun on the DF. So it could support the FW without getting right in the middle of the fight.

Now - admittingly - although SMS on the DF would help the Devilfish be useful to the FW vs. infantry, it will not solve the FW problems themselves that I note above in E:A. As I told NH though, I encourage any FW cadre improvements at this time - for the personal opinion reasons I mention above.



All just personal commentary though folks - since TRC cited *my* concerns in this thread. Also, it appears we agree on "Why Firewarriors in E:A?" and "What do they do that nobody else is doing for you?"

Cheers,