Tactical Command :: View topic

(Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,11:37)

Justify for me the existance of the Hammerhead Cadre.

Justify for me the existance of the Battlesuit Cadre.

I would like to know why the greater majority of Tau armies don't seem to include the supposed core of the Tau military forces, the Fire Warriors.

(Hena @ May 30 2007,12:49)

AMHC would most likely be because tanks attached to infantry (even transported ones) are not as good as a independent formation?

(Chroma @ May 30 2007,13:10)

Honestly, it's probably because the Fire Warrior models are so ridiculously expensive compared to the other two Cadres.

(nealhunt @ May 30 2007,14:47)

Orks frequently don't take "core" around here.

Basically, the only armies where you are guaranteed that nearly all armies will have the nominal core are those with tight force org req's which base support formations off a narrow range of primary formations - Eldar, L&D, Siege IG, and a few of the experimental lists.

(Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,15:25)

Aye, and my experience / impression both in background terms and from 40k that Fire Warriors *should* have some sort of minimum level of presence in Tau forces.

(Soren @ May 30 2007,17:50)

(Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,15:25)

QUOTE

Aye, and my experience / impression both in background terms and from 40k that Fire Warriors *should* have some sort of minimum level of presence in Tau forces.

As should have Space Marines with their tacticals. But nobody cares about them eighter, even in the overlook and redesign phase of the list. So not the big problem with Firewarrior-rareness in the TAU-list.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 11:37 am ]
Post subject:	Cadres
Justify for me the existance of the Hammerhead Cadre. Justify for me the existance of the Battlesuit Cadre. I would like to know why the greater majority of Tau armies don't seem to include the supposed core of the Tau military forces, the Fire Warriors.

Author:	Chroma [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,11:37) QUOTE Justify for me the existance of the Hammerhead Cadre. Justify for me the existance of the Battlesuit Cadre. I would like to know why the greater majority of Tau armies don't seem to include the supposed core of the Tau military forces, the Fire Warriors. Honestly, it's probably because the Fire Warrior models are so ridiculously expensive compared to the other two Cadres. As to the Hammerhead Cadre, aren't Fire Warriors piloting those?

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(Hena @ May 30 2007,12:49) QUOTE AMHC would most likely be because tanks attached to infantry (even transported ones) are not as good as a independent formation? And what's wrong with having Hammerhead squadrons as independant support formations?

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(Chroma @ May 30 2007,13:10) QUOTE Honestly, it's probably because the Fire Warrior models are so ridiculously expensive compared to the other two Cadres. I really don't think that's the answer. The answer is more to be found in the seeming qualitative inferiority of Fire Warriors as compared to the other two 'core' choices, IMHO. If two of them are excelent, and one of them is average, why take the average one? As to the Hammerhead Cadre, aren't Fire Warriors piloting those? Yep, and they could pilot them as an independent support formation too. I'm asking why Fire Warrior infantry aren't forming the core of all standard Tau armies, as the background indicates they should?

Author:	The_Real_Chris [ Wed May 30, 2007 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
Who does bar Orks and Eldar (bare minmum) take core? Marines frequently leave home without tacs, many Guard armies don't like mech infantry (only taking it for the SC if they have to) and Tau wise - Epic is about mech forces. they have speed, survivability and firepower. Foot infantry in an army not designed for it doesn't cut it. If you want a situation like steel legion make the SC only availible in a fire warrior mech formation (not a bad idea that actually).

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

Cadres http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9554	Page 1 of 19

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
Who does bar Orks and Eldar (bare minmum) take core? Siegemasters? And infantry Fire Warriors are definitively supposed to be the core of Tau armies. Instead, they don't seem to be used at all. make the SC only availible in a fire warrior mech formation (not a bad idea that actually). Not a bad idea at all.

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
I think the armoured cadre mostly due to the Tau treadheads (grav-heads?) pushing for it. Economics of models also figured into the decision in a small way. The Battlesuit Cadre has been around since the very first list. I don't recall its existence being questioned before, but my attention to the Tau list is intermittent. Is there a reason it shouldn't be around? It seems very Tau to my relatively inexperienced sensibilities.

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed May 30, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
Orks frequently don't take "core" around here. Basically, the only armies where you are guaranteed that nearly all armies will have the nominal core are those with tight force org req's which base support formations off a narrow range of primary formations - Eldar, L&D, Siege IG, and a few of the experimental lists.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(nealhunt @ May 30 2007,14:47) QUOTE Orks frequently don't take "core" around here. Basically, the only armies where you are guaranteed that nearly all armies will have the nominal core are those with tight force org req's which base support formations off a narrow range of primary formations - Eldar, L&D, Siege IG, and a few of the experimental lists. Aye, and my experience / impression both in background terms and from 40k that Fire Warriors should have some sort of minimum level of presence in Tau forces. Currently, they're seem about as rare in Epic as ground-pounding Marines.

Author:	Legion 4 [ Wed May 30, 2007 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
IMO, Fire Warriors should be core. I agree with Neal ... Tau Armor Cadre was advocated by "Grav-Heads" (good term Neal !) ! However, with F/W producing 6 versions of the Hammerhead ... not a surprise for an Armor Cadre to come about. I don't use a an Armored Cadre. And like Neal, I agree with him about the Btl/Suit Cadre ...

Author:	Soren [ Wed May 30, 2007 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,15:25) QUOTE Aye, and my experience / impression both in background terms and from 40k that Fire Warriors should have some sort of minimum level of presence in Tau forces. As should have Space Marines with their tacticals. But nobody cares about them eighter, even in the overlook and redesign phase of the list. So not the big problem with Firewarrior-rareness in the TAU-list.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed May 30, 2007 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Cadres
(Soren @ May 30 2007,17:50) QUOTE (Evil and Chaos @ May 30 2007,15:25) QUOTE Aye, and my experience / impression both in background terms and from 40k that Fire Warriors should have some sort of minimum level of presence in Tau forces. As should have Space Marines with their tacticals. But nobody cares about them eighter, even in the overlook and redesign phase of the list. So not the big problem with Firewarrior-rareness in the TAU-list. Not really, since some Codex Chapters use Tacticals to a far lesser extent, using greater ammounts of devestators or assault marines instead. Plus, tacticals are still a pretty common choice for marine players. Fire Warriors, on the other hand, should be present as the core of every Tau army, and yet the vast majority use the holy trinity of Crisis/Stealth/Hammerheads as their core instead.

Page 1 of 19	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/