Fire Warriors |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors  Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
There was a time when pathfinders did have "multiple markerlights", which gave an extra plus to hit. The rule was dropped, I think partly due to the wording multiple markerlights being misleading (in that it could be mistaken for multiple units/formations that were marking the same target).
As for FW and markerlights: in general I think my opinion has already been expressed by some other posts.
Basically..
A) The synergy between MLs and GMs is very nice for the character of the army (different elements co-operating for greater effect). If FWs were to loose MLs they would become very unappealing statistically and also would not fit in with the nice combined arms theory that the Tau list is trying to encompass.
B) MLs in FWs make a good background case for FWs high shooting firepower. I am not a 40k expert, but the idea that, generally speaking, MLs can "improve the shooting of the infantry" is also something that fits nicely with the character we are trying to achieve.
C) In 40K I could see that sometimes FW squads wouldn't take many MLs. But in 40K you will rarely be fighting more than a small number of AVs, if 40K had armies like EA (with titans, companies of AVs, multiple SHTs etc) then the number of MLs taken would surely increase (along with the number of seekers etc). So, for me, it makes sense that when the Tau go off into a bigger battle that their FWs would be appropriately equipped (i.e. have plenty of MLs).
I haven't had a big problem with FWs, I think I have nearly always fielded one FW cadre and sometimes two (and not just in suicide garrison mode). The list with two FW cadres had them both as mech formations.
If there were changes I would be most in favour of the "dark reaper" FWs (2x AP5+ 30cm), and perhaps reducing pathfinders to one shot of some kind.
I would not like to see the FW cadre being reduced in size. Without the numbers their firepower quickly dwindles to nothing, and unlike other armies theres no point in looking to engage with them at that point.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:08 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
CS,
12:45 AM here... just logging on for the first time since last week and see that you've openned a new can of worms... no doubt unintentionally. 
It appears this thread is all over the map with opinions and suggestions flying all over the place - LOL, what were you thinkin' ? (kidding of course) All good chat. Just hope cooler heads continue to prevail folks...
+ + + moving on + + +
I will reply in full at a later time as its just too late / early to really give an in depth reply.
I think BaronP on pages 2 and 5 as well as TRC have some interesting ideas. I FULLY agree with NH and Col_Sp on why NOT FF4+ and why we do stick to FF5+ here. Honda makes a lot of sense of 40K Tau Empires and we are seeing a lot of the same things he is in 40K. I too am an avid 40K Tau Empires fan and formally a 40K Tau fan from inception. I'm not in favor of forcing a Tau player to buy X before Y units. Its not really the Tau way at all and while it might work for chaos, not looking forward to seeing that here. That said - there is a 40K Tau req that forces a player to take at least 1 unit of FW in an army as FW are always present on the field. That does not mean they have to be mechanized or have to be on foot - they have the option, but a Tau army always has a unit of FW. The Farsight enclave is the only exception to this general requirement.
CS, in regards to your 40K Tau Empire questions. I just am coming off of a self induced 40K Tau Empire's high as I had a great triumph over a good Chaos army recently.
I can attest - 40K Tau Empires ML are way better than they ever could be in 40K previously. Where the ML was a gimmick before to the Tau in 40K, it has become a real value. Tau can still be fielded with or without ML in 40K. They can still be effective either way. What's interesting is the new value that the new ML brings. It actually is a value to take a ML shas'ui in 40K now.
Its also worth noting that in my most recent game (I sent a batrep summary to Honda a week or so ago after the game) I took two squads of 6 FW (the minimum) and upgraded one to a shas'ui. I then gave him a ML. I also gave him a free Drone Controller and 2 ML Drones with network marker lights. So that became 8-man squads with 3 ML each. These were extremely effective units - to my surprise. Mainly because the bonus to hit that EACH successful mark can give "TO AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT friendly UNIT. A huge change to 40K "to-hit" effectiveness.
In the same 2500 point game, I also a squad of 8 pathfinders containing 5 pulse carbines and ML and 3 Rail Rifle troopers. They were mounted in a Devilfish with SMS. SMS is a huge change to the new Tau Empires. Its a much needed change as it allows the DF to actually provide ranged support to its infantry without having to be the thing that gets the closest to the enemy target. SMS on DF in 40K is just the default standard in these parts now - for FW or Pathfinders that take the DF.
I also took 3 units of the sniper gun dron teams - each 4-man team having a shield generator and network ML FW trooper as well as 3 sniper gun drones with target lock and rail rifles. The shield generator for the unit was huge. My opponent had to use night fight rules to target them and I could shoot 36" away. Well, night fight rules mean you roll 2d6 x 3 to ATTEMPT to see the enemy. The average roll of a 7 yeilds a 21 and a good roll of 8 on 2d6 yeilds 24" for the opponent. Again, I could fire at 36" away, so these guys litterally went unscathed. The new sniper gun drone teams were a true asset to my 40K experience. A ML + 3 RR and I got to do that 3 different times each acting as a stand alone formation that was next to impossible for my opponent to get to as he had too many other threats to contend with! Loved them!
Vespids - Honda's got it - they blew. Nuff said. Took 10 - hated them.
I also had a large compliment of crisis and broadsides in this game. Oh - and one unit of stealths and finished things off with 2 shas'o commanders in monat form.
I tried taking 2 ML drones on the broadsides - but they were never used. What was a huge success and a suprise was the new shield drones for the broadsides. They litterally made my broadsides become rock solid firing platforms that didn't need cover at all. The broadsides went unscathed the entire game.
As far as the new Tau Empires and FW's go - FW very well may become a cheap source of multiple ML shots in many tau lists to come. Time will have to tell. From what I've seen in Tau Empires...
2 x 30cm AP5+,
pulse carbines (small arms) disrupt,
Notes: Markerlights
...accurately reflect FW in E:A.
PS - CS, this is off topic and I may regret not just PM'ing you on this... but I would not be opposed to TRC's Pathfinder suggestion of moving 'sniper' to the 'rail rifle' gun itself and off of the PF's notes section.
PS 2 - my rampling now took me to 1:12AM... so, if any and/or all of this didn't make sense - feel free to ignore any or all of it.  As well, this reply got much longer than I intended, so I may reserve the right to read and edit it at a later date.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
colonel_sponsz
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:48 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
|
I don't think that's off topic - it's a very useful summary for people like me who haven't played 40k since Rogue Trader. I've got Codex: Tau Empire but the unit and weapon profiles don't mean all that much to me. How do you know how far people can move if they haven't got an 'M' stat? 
Orde
_________________ "I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan." Tau Army List Archive
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:56 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
I agree with the previous proposal except on a few points.Here is what I would like to see probably with effects on the cost :
FW
2 x 30cm AP5+,
pulse carbines (small arms)
Notes: Markerlights
PF
30cm AP5 disrupt, sniper
pulse carbines (small arms)
Notes: Markerlights, scout
Devilfish
Pulse rifles : 30cm AP5
Seeker Missile
In the list, very short range firepower is provided by Heavy drones, stealth and crisis, who work very well at range < 15cm because :
1) doubling affects them less than PF and FW
2) Tau jet packs enable them to reduce the effects of the following assault by reducing the number of attackers and by avoiding CC
So PF and FW would provide the army a nice mid range AP firepower with their 30cm range, especially if they are helped by devilfish with a 30cm range.
I know that pulse rifles on DF is perhaps not in the fluff, and SMS with a higher cost could be better. But I dont knwow if we should increase the number of ignore cover weapons in the list.
And I'm definitly against disrupt effects in assault for a lot of reasons (rules problem, other armies like the nid could have assault disrupt effect too, and carbines disrupting a warlord titan is rather strange!,...)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:47 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
Ok, since there is support for SMS on the devilfish, here's a small comparison between the new devilfish and its nearest equivelent, IG Chimera.
SMS Devilfish Mv Ar CC FF
Armored vehicle 30cm 5+ 6+ 6+
- Smart Missile System 30cm AP4+ Ignore Cover
- Seeker Missiles 75cm AT6+ Guided Munitions
IG Chimera Mv Ar CC FF
Armored vehicle 30cm 5+ 6+ 5+
- Multilaser 30cm AP5+/AT6+
- Heavy Bolter 30cm AP5+
Identical:
Armour, Movement
Devilfish Pros:
- AP: ignore cover
- AT: 75 cm
- no mixed weapon AP/AT
- Skimmer: ignore intervening terrain when moving
- Skimmer: cannot be attacked in CC
- Skimmer: popup attack
Chimera Pros:
- Better Firefight
- AP is better when sustain firing in the open
The trick is: most Devilfish pros will blow away as soon as you consider the mechanized infantry formation as a whole
- AT: 75 cm. You need to use the Mech formation within 30 cm range of the ennemy to be effective => blow away
- no mixed weapon AP/AT. The destruction of the Devilfishs will let the Firewarriors stranded against tanks => blow away
- Skimmer: cannot be attacked in CC. Firewarriors can be attacked in CC => Blow away
- Skimmer: popup attack. Isn't the purpose of the whole formation => Blow away
So the resulting pros & cons as I see them are:
Devilfish Pros:
- AP: ignore cover (Major)
- Skimmer: ignore intervening terrain when moving (minor)
Chimera Pros:
- Better Firefight (Major)
- AP is better when sustain firing in the open (minor)
Devilfish seem a tid bit better overall, but belongs to a much more specialized formation, so I would try SMS at the same cost, which is 25 pts.
As a quick note about Disrupt in a firefight, maybe first try something solid and see with ERC and Jervis if this can be done.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
Devilfish getting an firepower boost is a problem - currently they are a nice 25 points. You can't up that easily (the game mostly working in 25 point increments) so that means any increase in effectiveness would have to go into the base formation cost. Not a problem with pathfnders but with FW you would sometimes want a footslogging formation and would be paying extra for it.
Oh and I assume in your idea the PF still have co-ordinated fire?
Humans wise do you simply want to drop them?
I can see disrupt on the small arms is problematic. Not unsolvable but still tricky.
Since they are lobbing grendes and stuff everywhere what about ignore cover? Unfortuently 8 ignore cover 5+ FF attacks would rip many infantry formations to shreds. So its probably not do-able 
| Quote (baronpiero @ 01 June 2006 (14:47)) | | Ok, since there is support for SMS on the devilfish, here's a small comparison between the new devilfish and its nearest equivelent, IG Chimera. |
So I take it the burst cannon goes? Losing something which is always on the vehicles for something which is optional seems a bit strange.
Unless of course the SMS replace the burst cannon on the 'fish. Do they?
I dissagree with your assessment somewhat. Taking the mech formation as a whole they have advantages the guard don't have.
So the resulting pros & cons as I see them are:
Devilfish and FW Pros:
- AP: ignore cover
- Skimmer: Ignore terrain whilst moving - marginally faster
- Skimmer: Can set up to shield infantry from CC troops, forcing a firefight
- GM's: Nearly always be able to shoot at something on the table where Guard mech formations would be blocked by cover or range.
- GM's: 5+ AT shot if target is within 30cm of the infantry
Cons
- No AT weapon intergral in the infantry. Markerlights mixed blessing.
In comparison the Chimera has a better firefight, more AP fire but is inferior to the 'fish in the areas above.
Comparing the two formations at 400 points the Guard has an extra stand and Chimera. Otherwise its something like.
Tau
5+ infantry armour save, don't need woods as much as guard.
75cm range, 6 AT6+/5+ shots
45cm range, 6 AT6+/5+ shots
30cm range, 6 AT5+, 24 AP5+, 6 AP4+ ignore cover shots
15cm engage, 6 FF6+, 12 FF5+
Guard
Really need to be in cover, have Commander and probably Leader + inspiring.
75cm range, nothing
45cm range, 7 AP5+/AT6+ shots
30cm range, 14 AP5+/AT6+, 7 AP5+ shots
15cm engage, 20 FF5+
Of course thats just a number comparison. In reality mech formations tend to double in towards their targets and be in cover next to their vehicles. Here the Tau have a big advantage.
They charge in they will get 1/3 of a AT kill and 4 AP kills.
The guard in response if they sustain (3+ to activate) will get either 2 AT kills and 1 1/9 AP kill or 3 1/9 AP kills.
Or Guard double first and they get either 1 1/3 AT kills and 7/18 AP kill or 1 1/6 AP kill. Then the tau let rip on sustained (3+ activate) and get 1 2/3 AT kills and 10 AP kills. Nasty.
But of course there is the skimmer effect to take into account, the chance of assauting, just attacking at 45cm to force an advance from the tau, getting the guard into ruins or something, etc.
With all that taken into account the full 12 FW, 6 Devilfish formation with that firepower and survivability should cost something in the realms of 475 (plus 50 for base, plus 25 for the upgrade).
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
thurse
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:34 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland
|
|
With all that taken into account the full 12 FW, 6 Devilfish formation with that firepower and survivability should cost something in the realms of 475 (plus 50 for base, plus 25 for the upgrade).
|
Perhaps Am wrong but it costs 450 today.
cadre:200
DF:100
more FW 100
more DF 50
With your proposal it would be 525...
Anyway finding the right cost for troops is never easy!
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
Whoops 525 would probably be a bit high (though anything foolish enough to get sustained at would be toast!).
Incidentally does the SMS replace the burst cannon on the model?
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
Xisor
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:10 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
|
There's a point. SMS replaces the Drones on the Devilfish, doesn't it? It'd still have the Burst cannon wouldn't it...?
I'm still not convinced that MLs on all Firewarriors is the way to go, and feel that still having the 'massive' infantry formations is the Tau way to go either.
It may be one of the only ways to have a 'survivable' formation, but as I read the fluff, that's *supposed* to be a hole in the army's ability: They don't do it.
Perhaps adding the oomf of the SMS would offset a drop in formation size?
Perhaps not though... 
As an aside...any further thoughts on changing Human Auxilliaries such that they don't get dropped, just so that they're not the bog standard option for a horde of cheap infantry?
_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:25 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Whoops 525 would probably be a bit high (though anything foolish enough to get sustained at would be toast!).
Incidentally does the SMS replace the burst cannon on the model?
|
No, the SMS replaces the drones.
And @Hena
I would like to see the DF get the SMS for a reasonable cost for the same reasons that you would not. the DF becomes more of a threat (as it does in 40K) and the FW formations are better able to stand on their own.
Perhaps an additional way to balance this potential change (along with a cost increase...would 500 pts be too cheap?), is to limit the kinds of upgrades to the formation so that it loses some of it's capabilities.
Just off the top of my head, perhaps drop Pathfinders, Stealth, and Tetras. This last bit is just brainstorming so feel free to toss it into the trash.
Thoughts?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xisor
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:29 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
|
|
@ Honda,
A quick note, if restricting contingents is not on the cards, then your suggestion of more stringent limitation of upgrades for the FWs would work [ie the complete opposite of my older cadre proposals...]
Xisor
_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:48 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
TRC,
- Skimmer: Can set up to shield infantry from CC troops, forcing a firefight |
I don't exactly see how you do that. At most it seems you could put the Devilfishs in front of the firewarriors in a straight line, to add some distance between you and the chargers? And with 4 to 6 Devilfishs it won't be that much more unless you model them on very big stands. Besides, you should be reasonably far from the tanks to do that, meaning you couldn't at the same time get the infantry away from assault and in cover behind the tanks
- GM's: Nearly always be able to shoot at something on the table where Guard mech formations would be blocked by cover or range. |
Here it seems we don't put the same value in these tactics. GM 'dumbfire' has always been a poor use of the formation, only acceptable if it can't do anything else. And it's even worse under the new trial popup rule (no sustain fire when popping-up). Hopefully it's trial!
- GM's: 5+ AT shot if target is within 30cm of the infantry
And who has the Markerlight? The firwarrior, not the Devilfish.
XisorThere's a point. SMS replaces the Drones on the Devilfish, doesn't it? It'd still have the Burst cannon wouldn't it...?
I checked and incidentally the 40K DF keeps the nose mounted burst cannon. That's a problem. Personally I'd go for dropping it, but I bet you wouldn't like it.
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: Fire Warriors Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:21 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
GM's: 5+ AT shot if target is within 30cm of the infantry
And who has the Markerlight? The firwarrior, not the Devilfish. |
Hence the target being within 30cm of the infantry (and since they have 30cm Pulse rifles odds on they are in range after moving up).
I don't exactly see how you do that. At most it seems you could put the Devilfishs in front of the firewarriors in a straight line, to add some distance between you and the chargers? And with 4 to 6 Devilfishs it won't be that much more unless you model them on very big stands. Besides, you should be reasonably far from the tanks to do that, meaning you couldn't at the same time get the infantry away from assault and in cover behind the tanks |
Most CC formations aren't that big. Deploy like so if facing them.
T='Fish
I=FW
T T T T
II II II II
(But without the gap between Tank and Infantry and obviously the short edge of the base touches the tank.)
Takes 4 lots of CC attacks out of the picture at least.
Here it seems we don't put the same value in these tactics. GM 'dumbfire' has always been a poor use of the formation, only acceptable if it can't do anything else. And it's even worse under the new trial popup rule (no sustain fire when popping-up). Hopefully it's trial!
I was thinking more as I double around the table sending a brace of missiles arcing in at something near my pathfinders/drones/turrets/whatever.
Often i move up with a mech formation and 2 moves can't get a good firing position. Always being able to loft missiles over buildings/woods/etc to help out another engagement has always appealed.
_________________
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
