Well, I'd have to argue that we've had both on Crisis before and they were faster back then and the main point of contention with them was the Tau Jet pack rule. Those have both been curtailed with more current lists. If your concern is mainly cost, I would also venture that Land Speeders are also 200 points for 5 units with 4+ armour with Skimmer, scout and 35cm movement so I think the cost of 250 for only 4 Crisis (of course they can be upgraded to 6 but you also pay more points for the privelege) with MWFF and the additional shooting is fairly even in this comparison given that the LS's can't be assaulted in CC....

Land Speeders are also Light Vehicles...

And I think we know we stand on opposite sides of the fence when that topic comes up in regard to Crisis Suits...  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Yep we are. Can you tell me which army forces their SC into a LV and thus vulnerable to all fire?  

Surely, that is what it is supposed to be...? (an excellent FF formation - "Death at close range")

I'm still with Dobbsy on this issue. I certainly wont be in favour of the 15cm ranged MW attack being removed.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I don't think they're supposed to be an excellent FF formation. You can be "Death at close range" by shooting too.

Removed it (though I was genuinely curious )

Actually I don't qualify 5+ to "excellent" FF.... more fair to average.

Can I ask you Vytzka, if you're totally against it, and why?

5+ FF with MW status is excellent, no bones about it, it's better than Tactical Marine units, and combined with units with 3+ armour saves, it's really very good.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So then by that theory Marine Land Speeders are too cheap and I doubt you'd get many people saying that - would you agree? You cannot deny that skimmer, scout, 35cm movement and 4+ armour with ATSKNF is incredibly good. Are you seriously saying that 4 Crisis with the addition of MW FF should be more expensive again or worlds better?

Crisis weren't completely broken in earlier versions of the Tau. The only issue that made them questionable was the Tau Jet Pack rule and their speed. As I said, both of those have been nerfed now.

AS E&C said, 5+ MWFF which is equal to somewhere between 4+ FF and 3+ FF depending on what you're playing against, coupled with 3+ armor save is pretty damn good in assaults.

I'm not "totally against it" in that "I could never see agreeing with it". It's just that

1) I don't see nearly enough of a justification from it's proponents other than that it "should" be so or that 40k this and that or that having 1 MW out of 3 weapons which you also use for shooting should give you MWFF. Do playtest results show Crisis suits underperforming? I'd much sooner agree to give them a price break, which wouldn't distract them from their primary designation. Meaning "death in close range". Shooting style

2) I support the development of Tau list as one developed with a distinct and unique playstyle - which is maneuver and shooting and cooperation, while avoiding assaults. The way I see it, having a unit that's equal or better in assaults than anything Marines have barring Terminators (provided that your target is wearing armor - and if it's not, why aren't you shredding them with Fire Warriors?) isn't conductive to that goal.

I'll append to this that I do not play, and probably aren't going to play Tau in foreseeable future, but I would very much like to play against Tau, which would mean having a fun, balanced and finished Tau armylist I could show people that would potentially be interested. Therefore it's very much in my best interests to see that development of such list continues smoothly.

(Now, obviously, it would be even better if I could get some playtests with a working-state list, and I'll see what I can hopefully do about it)

Yes, Crisis Suits would be hugely better, because they are Infantry rather than Light Vehicles, have a 3+ armour save instead of a 4+ armour save, and have fantastic long range shooting instead of a single 15cm MW shot.

Like I said, I can see Crisis Suits either with a 15cm MW shot, or a MW FF shot, not both.


IMHO they are slightly underperforming and may need a points drop.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

.



Mate, I just don't get you. In almost the same breath, you advocate a points drop because they're underperforming yet you won't add a MW FF because they'd apparently be too good...? Words fail me....  

Are you poo-pooing MW FF simply because you don't like the idea (in the past you had your army smashed by them etc)? What is your true reasoning? I think my arguments in the past have been fairly objective. I'm not campaigning simply because I want my army to be the best here. I'm doing it because I think it's warranted and a fair representation of what the unit should do. Your representation seems an arbitrary rationale. "Just because..." sort of thing. If needs be you can bump their cost up if you truly think they need it. I'd wear that - but in light of your two above posts....?

OK, in comparison, can you explain to me why Fire Dragons, Wraithguard, Land Speeders etc all get MWFF?

In response to the discussion regarding 5+MWFF better than 4+FF etc etc, can you please give the statistics for a 4xcrisis 5+ MWFF formation? cheers.

If you can give me, what I think, is a strong reasoning for no MW FF I shall stop asking for it and I won't post again.  

EDIT- should I bother arguing this at all if you're mind is made up E&C? Will any argument sway your thinking?

Not sure what comparison you want.

But here's the 'classic' matchup.
4 Crisis vs 4/5/6/7/8 Tactical Marines
Crisis cause ~1.33 Casualties.
Marines cause ~.66/~.83/~1/~1.16/~1.33 Casualties.

I don't have a position on this yet (Played Tau twice, no Crisis), and am completely unfamiliar with the background (stopped 40K before Tau were introduced).

But as it stands, Tactical Marines need to outnumber 2:1 to cause the same casualties. Is that reasonable? I have no idea.

Morgan Vening

Interesting, so your standard Tac marines formation will only cause .33 casualties less.... and they have ATSKNF.

So in the wash up of a real game, each side would do 1 casualty and the Tau would most likely lose the engagement on an equal die roll? Being out numbered etc

Dobbsy: 8 Tactical stands will on the other hand cost 400* points vs 250 points for Crisis suits.

Comparing Devastators (who have worse ranged weapons) and Crisis suits, that both cost 250 points is also in favor of Crisises (Crisii?), as 4 dev stands with 3+ FF will cause 2.6(6) hits and 0.8(8) casualty, while Crisii will return fire with 1.3(3) hit that are automatic casualties.

Only Terminators will have advantage in a firefight over Crisis suits, and it is rather slight, with 0.8(8) wounds caused vs 0.6(6) wound sustained.

It's more in Marines' favor when you're fighting troops with no or 6+ armor. Versus 5+ or 5+ reinforced armor there's no difference between MWFF5+ and FF4+. Versus 4+ or 4+ reinforced, there's no difference between MWFF5+ and FF3+. In all cases Crisis suits have a better armor save which tilts the balance in their favor if it is otherwise equal.

On the other hand they do not have access to Inspiring characters. As it should be.

*They would also get 4 rhinos for those same 400 points (if such a formation was available in the codex marine list), but they're hardly all going to survive till you're going to ground assault anyone.