Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Pathfinders for the various reasons I've said before are my favourite Tau unit, especially since all the discussions and I've discovered they are better than I thought!

For me Firewarriors lose out to Pathfinders, but stuff like human garrissons don't. I wondered if everyone else here felt the same?

Firewarriors of course have some advantages - they are a core choice, can become fearless with an upgrade, cost less if I don't want devilfish, can have more upgrades in general, cost less for the same number of mechanised units, more resistant to breaking etc.

Otherwise Pathfinders seem to have all the advantages from firepower and assualts to deployment.

Do you think they are what firewarriors should be?

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:26 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9349
Location: Singapore
There are quite a few threads coming up regarding Pathfinders and their relation to Fire Warriors. I am taking note of all of these, but I thought that I would point out that it is probably best not to make changes to these two units this revision. Once we get version 4.4 uploaded, then we can go to the new Codex and examine these two infantry units.

Feel free to continue discussion, I just wanted to be clear.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
VanDamneg
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
Quote (Hena @ 13 Mar. 2006 (08:01))
IMO few simple changes makes a lot of difference:

1. Firewarriors 2*AP 5+ 30com, Lose the secondary weapon completely.

2. Pathfinders move sniper to rail rifle and lose the rail rifles disrupt.

This was what I thought but I now see what people were saying about FWs pulse carbines giving them an alternative to assaults.

I do agree with the suggestions on pathfinders.  Maybe the key isn't to try and make FWs better but to make pathfinders slightly less good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

For me Firewarriors lose out to Pathfinders, but stuff like human garrissons don't. I wondered if everyone else here felt the same?


I do not. I ALWAYS take at least one FW cadre and depending on who I am fighting, then bolt on the appropriate upgrades. After my successes with Pathfinders, usually one of the upgrades is a PF contingent, but then the other might be either a HH-IC or Stingrays.

This formation is fairly resiliant (excluding HtH action) and delivers a large number of shots on target. The PF's are protected by the bulk of the FW, the FW's get the benefit of CF if they need more firepower, and the PF's snipers help eliminate those pesky HtH monsters that some lists like to scatter rather liberally throughout their lists.

So, it's not a straight up comparison to just say that PF's are better than FW's. They both must be used (I used to think that PFs weren't worth the bother) and play off of what each brings to the table.

My opinion, neither needs adjusting.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
VanDamneg
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
Quote (Honda @ 13 Mar. 2006 (13:53))
My opinion, neither needs adjusting.

I basically agree with you on that, I just don't think sniper should apply to pulse carbines, it seems wrong.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:20 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone.  AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

[Quote]
(The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone.  AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.
[QUOTE]

Hmm...I had never assumed that Sniper applied to anything other than a shooting attack. So...that'll be interesting to hear what comes out of that question.

@VanDamneg

I can't say that I disagree with you conceptually. I think that the fact that the PC has sniper is balanced by the fact that you have to get closer to take the attack, very likely incurring an assault in return, which pretty much wipes them out.

So, not saying one way or another, but if there isn't a real good reason to use the PC, the likelihood of PF's using the weapon goes down because the reward doesn't outweigh the risk.

A valid point though, from a 40K perspective.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
VanDamneg
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24
The more I think about it the less I think things should be changed.  I wouldn't mind seeing FW get 2 pulse rifles instead of their pulse carbines but I can see that PF are basically ok.  

However I'd still question whether they need (or should have) disrupt on their rail rifles (I know they cause pinning in 40k but then so do guard, space marine and eldar sniper weapons).  Maybe this is all that needs changing.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (nealhunt @ 13 Mar. 2006 (11:20))
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone. ?AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.

NH,

Agreed. My group has never have applied sniper to FF attacks.

It would take a FAQ mod for us to change our practice.

cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Don't you mix something up?
Aren't the longer barelled, long ranged guns the pulse rifles (main weapon of the FW)and the short barelled, short ranges guns the pulse carbines (main weapon of the PF)?




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
BL,

We are talking about 3 guns.

I think you are confusing the Rail Rifle with the Pulse Rifle. From 40K, here are the differences...

1. ?Rail Rifle:
?longest rifle looking weapon
?used for sniping and armor busting
?36" Range, S6, AP3 (marines get no armor save)
?Causes Pinning Test, Target Lock
?3 of these are allowed in a 4-man Pathfinders squad

2. ?Pulse Rifle:
?longer rifle looking weapon
 used for main gun of the tau, some auxilleries carry these
?30" Range, S5, AP5
?Rapid Fire at 12" Range
?All FW have these be default
?Pathfinders DO NOT carry these

3. ?Pulse Carbine
?shorter ranged looking weapon
 used by forward units and those on the move
?18" Range, S5, AP5
?Assault weapon which fires gernades into the enemy while it fires
?Causes Pinning
?All Pathfinders have these by default
?Up to 50% of a Firewarrior squad may carry these

Hope that helps all,

Cheers,




_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
So Epic Tau have all their upgrades bought?

_________________
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
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net