Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Pathfinder proposition
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5573		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
User BlackLegion brought this up:

Multilaser S6 in 40K ?= ?AP5/AT6 in E:A
Assault Cannon S6 in 40K ?= ?AP5/AT5 in E:A
Tau Rail rifle S6 in 40K ?= ?AP5, Disrupt.

Question: Shouldn't the Tau Rail rifle be AP5/AT6 (no disrupt) in E:A?

This would take one of the Disrupt shots away from the Pathfinders and would give them an AT6 shot.

1. Would any be opposed?

2. Do we really *need* 2 disrupt shots on the Pathfinders?

3. What is our justification for the rail rifle having disrupt anyway?

This seems very doable, if not logical to me. Unless there is serious opposition, I think this is a no brainer for v4.4

Cheers,
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
They certainly don't need sniper (I never new they had it, now no commander is safe from me!).
Having all that disrupt and intergral transport means I would rarely consider firewarriors.

Saying that if they got AT shots as well I'd use scissors to remove said firewarriors from printouts!
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
[quote="The_Real_Chris,10 Mar. 2006 (10:28)"][/quote]
They certainly don't need sniper (I never new they had it, now no commander is safe from me!).

That's off topic!

They do deserve sniper IMHO - and have proven to work with it for a LONG time. BTW: Historically speaking (I don't have the new codex) that's EXACTLY what they are for. Tau Pathfinders are the Tau snipers. They mark targets and pick off enemy with S6 AP3 weapons in 40K providing no save for marines and hitting on a 2+ on a D6 dice... but again - start another thread TRC, sniper is most definitely warranted on this unit! :p

Having all that disrupt and intergral transport means I would rarely consider firewarriors.

Saying that if they got AT shots as well I'd use scissors to remove said firewarriors from printouts!
You speak in riddles man... so does this mean you favor the suggestion or not - stay on topic! :alien:



Author:  Tactica [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
Quote (Hena @ 10 Mar. 2006 (10:42))
Does anyone have the new codex? I would like to know if the rail rifle is standard equipment for the pathfinders?

Steele has the new codex.

Rail rifles were a GW add on to the old codex.

4 models in the smallest unit, 1 sergent and 3 others could all have rail rifles and target LOCK (Tau gear allowing each one to pick seperate target enemy units) along with their marker lights.

Don't know what the new codex will say.

However, from what we know now Hena - what say you on the proposed?

NOTE: Keep in mind, v4.4 will not necessary take all of the new codex into account. Based upon CS's timeline, he plans on getting v4.4 out and into the vault ASAP. The next revision will start to work in the new 40K codex stuff where applicable/necessary.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
Quote (Hena @ 10 Mar. 2006 (10:51))
Quote (Tactica @ 10 Mar. 2006 (18:49))
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 10 Mar. 2006 (10:28))

They certainly don't need sniper (I never new they had it, now no commander is safe from me!).

That's off topic and wrong. They do deserve sniper - that's EXACTLY what they are for. Tau Pathfinders are the Tau snipers. They mark targets and pick off enemy with S6 AP3 weapons in 40K providing no save for marines and hitting on a 2+ on a D6 dice... but again - start another thread TRC, sniper is most definitely warranted on this unit! :

I would disagree with that. My comparison to marine scouts still stands. Hard Wired Target Lock should not avard them sniper (especially as it was in website that only half gets the rifle in the first place).

Nope - min squad size is 4 models if I recall. Well more than half of the unit Hena.
Author:  Tactica [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
Hena,

Thank you for your reply. We'll agree to disagree on the marine comparison and leave the sniper thing for another discussion some day after we both review the new codex.

For v4.4 - it sounds like you agree on the logic and the removal of disrupt in exchange for the AT6+

Cheers for the answer, :)
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
I would be for it (thats the answer to the riddle) but it would be at the expense of further downgrading the firewarrior in my eyes.
But since currently I only want firewarriors for suicide fearless troops I'm fine with them becoming a tad more unfavourable :)
Author:  clausewitz [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
Sorry Tactica, I'm going to have to disagree.  I don't think that giving Pathfinders an AT shot is a good idea.

Firstly, as TRC pointed out it would increase the advantages over Fire Warriors too much.

Secondly, it breaks the separation of AT shot from Tau infantry (non-suits).  One of the characteristics of the Tau infantry that made it different from other races was them not having an AT shot, but having markerlights instead.  This encouraged the cooperation between Guided Missile armed units and the infantry.

This was discussed at length with regards to the seeker missiles.

For me it is one of the design concepts of the list, which I think is good, characterful and should be maintained.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition
I am certainly in favour of dropping the 'disrupt' ability from the Rail Rifle.

I think that the Sniper ability is in character for the Pathfinders, and I would like to keep it.

However, I am hesitant to allow the Rail Rifle to get AT6+ as this seems something that the unit is not designed for. (Besides, that is why they carry Markerlights).
Author:  Honda [ Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder proposition

Question: Shouldn't the Tau Rail rifle be AP5/AT6 (no disrupt) in E:A?

This would take one of the Disrupt shots away from the Pathfinders and would give them an AT6 shot.

1. Would any be opposed?

2. Do we really *need* 2 disrupt shots on the Pathfinders?

3. What is our justification for the rail rifle having disrupt anyway?


1. Strongly oppose any change
2. Yes
3. The Rail Rifle causes pinning tests and in the new Codex this will have even more value because the markerlight hits can be used to drop leadership roles.

I don't know how this got on this path, but the Pathfinders have been working for a long time now and I don't see any reason to change them.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/