| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
|
Quote: (Ginger @ 25 Feb. 2009, 17:04 ) Could we turn the debate on its head a second and ask why are FW considered to be so poor? Part of the answer is that other formations like E:A work better in E:A, but I am also hearing that the FW performance is somewhat lack-lustre as well. So just how / where are they performing badly? Is Shmitty totally correct, or is there some other factor? Quote: (shmitty @ 24 Feb. 2009, 09:59 )
They (FW) cannot avoid assaults and still participate in the game. In order for a FW formation to attack the enemy it must expose itself to assault in retaliation. If the philosophy of the Epic Tau list is that the army must avoid assaults, then there is no room for the FWs in the army. IMHO the problem with counter-attacks is totally about tactics not the formation strengths/weaknesses. (I might add that this is where 40K and E:A part company precisely because 40K only represents a single assault in detail). The point is that after a successfull FW attack (ignoring how that was achieved) the formation will be in an advanced position, so unless the player has provided some contingency for this situation, the FW will be counter-attacked. So what does the 'fluff' say happens here; do they mount up, dig in, or what?? More importantly, what do people expect to happen? Unfortunately, there is little fluff on the issue of what happens after a Tau assault. Obviously, we can make educated guesses, but that's all they are, GUESSES. I find it unlikely that Tau would 'dig in.' Digging in implies the desire to hold ground, and Tau don't hold ground, period. They might find themselves holding ground for a temporary delaying action, to give civilians time to evacuate, but that's the only time that Tau even consider holding ground, according to both 3e and 4e Codex. Part of my issue is that I'm used to playing Tau in 40k (I've found about 3 games of E:A in the last year or more). Tau are the absolute masters of firefights in 40k, specifically at the 12" range (15cm FF range in E:A). They have the armor to shrug off a lot of return fire, and the firepower to put a lot of hurt on infantry without a 3+ armor save (marines/Necrons). When I ran a 'fish of fury' (mechanized FW) list, after each drive-up-step-out-and-shoot cycle, my FW remounted their transports (to redeploy away from retaliation). Troops in transports is a bad thing in E:A, especially when you've got lightly-armored transports, but it's still the most likely thing that would happen. I expect Fire Warriors to mount back up and move to the next assault's staging area. That said, I tend to agree that this whole debate is not likely to get people using this "core" Tau formation partly because it is 'too hard' and partly because they don't do what is advertised.
Agreed. So, how do we make the Fire Warriors do what they are advertised: the core of a 40k Tau army, and are most effective operating close to the enemy (what would be considered FF range in E:A)? Nobody argues that Fire Warriors look good compared to other infantry, but their short weapon range and artificially reduced FF makes them extremely hard to use *in the Tau army*. First Strike is a thought, and after some thought, I'd like to see increased AP to-hits, instead of more shots.
So, something like this:
Fire Warrior
Infantry, 15cm, 5+sv, 6+cc, 4+ff
Firewarrior Pulse Rifles, 30cm AP4+
Or, maybe even 3+ff and AP3+, since 2x AP5+ is slightly better than AP4+ (44% chance of 1 hit, 11% chance of 2, so it's closer to AP3+'s 66% chance of 1 hit), and 6 Fire warriors throw down a heavier weight of fire than 5 Devastator Marines (12x Strength 5 shots, versus 6x S5 and 6x S4. Add a Marker Drone to the Tau side and they're hitting just as often).
Note that I still say that Human Aux should only be at one AP5+ for every two stands, hence the different name for the FW weapon.
Shmitty's proposal (liked by a number of people here) is that this "Shock and Awe" style is best represented by an E:A Assault. But I agree with Neal that IMHO E:A style assaults are really the role of Crisis suits, while FW should be looking to co-ordinated fire actions, support etc.
Obviously I disagree. Crisis suits bounce from crisis to crisis, lending their firepower to where it's needed. That's the very definition of a supporting/reinforcing unit, not the main-line combatant. I think that if we gave FW their FULL firefight (making FW the only unit in the Tau list without a reduced FF), then they would have their role back. The only reason that E:A assaults are the role of Crisis suits is the short range of the suit's weapons (36"/24"/12" in 40k, 30cm/15cm/FF in E:A). Give Crisis suits back their MW FF attack (and make that their ONLY FF attack), and you still need Fire Warriors in the assault to bulk up numbers. Would you rather attack with 8+4+(2+1) Firewarriors+Dfish+Pathfinders w/Dfish (400 points), or 6 Crisis suits (375 points)? I'd certainly rather hit with the FW+PF+Dfish combo, even with their current stats! That's 10x FF5+ and 5x FF6+, versus 6x FF5+(MW), *now*.
Co-ordinated actions need greater numbers of activations available, say 11-13 activations or an average cost of 200-250 per formation. So I am beginning to agree with Honda that perhaps we need to review this part of the costing to see if we can make FW more attractive by being slightly more powerfull / resilient / effective through upgrades and supporting formations.
6 Fire warrior stands would be 150, 3 devilfish for 75, total of 225 (note that this corresponds to FW packing on the DFish, can be made with the Firewarrior packing, *and* would help us with the activation count). Because you need to have Pathfinders, Commanders, or Tetras to call co-fire, I almost always put Pathfinders into a FW formation, which really raises the points cost. I'd almost consider 4 FW (100) and 2 Dfish (50), which with the 2 Pathfinder and 1 DFish (nearly mandatory) upgrade is 250 points. That's starting to get really fragile, though, since there's no way to get Leader into FW formations without taking a 0-1 Ethereal.
There's no 'Leader' in the fluff for Fire Warriors, just a Crisis commander. I hate to say it, but we may need to "create" one, especially if we go to smaller formation sizes to make Co-fire more usable. Call the FW leader a "Fire Warrior Shas'vre," which is someone who has earned the right to wear a battlesuit, and is in line to become a Crisis commander, but who acts as a group-leader for larger formations of Fire Warriors until he has proven himself worthy of a Cadre command.
_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
 we seem to be in line. To extend your views on Crisis suits a second, I think you are suggesting that they are very good all-rounders and consequently the Crisis step on the FW role slightly. 