Interesting you suggest changes in the same breath you say that there aren't going to be anymore changes.

No amount of fluff sources/evidence is going to change things then?

EDIT: Serious question above. I believe I can argue my position in the background, and have done so. However, if it isn't going to make a difference then I'll just shut up.

If we're talking Fire Warriors I am...

Still. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. I've done my fluff-homework. BTW Evil and Chaos - the bad eyesight would contribute far more to their CC6+ than to their firefight rating. As my fluffmaster friend put so eloquently - their eyesight is perfect for throwing a spear, but bad for swinging a club. A guy charging across the street, no problem. A guy tackling you/taking a swing, harder. The closer the person is, the faster changes in focus need to occur.

It is never shown to be a hindrance to them in firefights, to my knowledge. It is a logical biological cause for their cultural belief that melee combat is primitive, though. "We're bad at it, and we are the exemplars of civilization. Ergo, it is barbaric."

Sources to the contrary (that it is a problem for them in firefights) would interest me.

During firefights, your enemy doesn't stand in a convenient position so that you may retain your focus on the exact same point of aim for the duration of the exchange. They move frequently from one position to another, moving a little into sight so they can fire, then moving back behind cover, often to reappear in a different position. If they are actually assaulting you, that is moving forward towards your position whilst firing, then they will always be at different ranges as they close ground. This can all happen at varying ranges and from different directions if there is more than a single element firing upon you. When you have more than a couple of blokes firing at you, you are continually scanning for targets of opportunity (unless you've been given fire orders to suppress a certain position), having to refocus your eye sight each time. Throw into that the fact that when you use a weapons sight you need to focus your vision each time you change your point of aim to fire (and also when you move your vision away from your weapons sight to gain a wider vision of your surroundings) then you have a lot of focusing and refocusing at ranges anywhere from very close in front of you right out to 150-200 metres. Also, depending on the terrain you are fighting in, there may be a lot of intervening foliage, dust kicking up from weapons fire or explosive rounds which all have a dramatic effect on vision as does low light or high glare conditions.

Source= My personal experience.

Having said that, once I get my Tau army up and running, I think I'll give FF4 for Fire Warriors a bash and see what happens......



Also mate, you don't need to keep name dropping your fluffmaster friend. You get no extra credibility directed towards your posts. For what it's worth, you explain your points and convey your meaning very well on your own, I've enjoyed reading your posts.

The problem with the fluff is that it is all written to promote the sales of a certain 28mm wargame, were it is now perfectly acceptable to bring an ICBM to a knife fight! As epic players we have to step back and see how the fluff can be incorporated into a game about manoeuvre and combined arms tactics.

What rules would we have for WWII combat if the only fluff available was Commando comics (once again showing my age!).

Jervis, when he began the list, laid out the goal of the Tau not being another FF based list. All the custodians since have followed that ethos. For a long time I disagreed with this but having played with and against the list since 5.X I can say, hand on heart, that the list does require both players to think of new tactics to the game. Which can't be bad.

Do you think, Meph, that had Jervis been involved with the development of the list right up to now, that it's possible that he may have changed his mind?

Who knows, but as the list has been worked on for 5+ years with this as its core defining feature then it's kind hard to expect people to drop it now. Hence why I suggest an alternative list is created to cater for all the players that demand a FF based Tau army.

Way back when, it version 3, we did manage to persuade Jervis to trial a FF4+ list. (this was also coupled with a -2 to engagement and the ability to counter charge away from an opponent.) It was found that it brought nothing unique to the party and was very powerful (and for several other reasons which have long since left my memory...). However 8 firewarriors were 600 points though

In version 4.0 (the very next one) this was ditched in favour of FF5+ and a MSU mentality, this built in a need to use multiple units, out activate and out manoeuvre your opponent. However if you did need to bring all your guns to fire at a deadly target you could always use a co-ordinated fire attack (and sustain for a second one) potentially activating 6 units, firing at 1-2 targets... deadly

(in the version 3 list they only had there pulse rifle shot and markerlight... no pulse carbines - so slightly neutered shooting)

Aye, I mean, I could drop the fact that GW has interviewed me to actually write the fluff & rules for the game, but it doesn't actually provide anything salient to the debate. I'm still just a guy with opinions.


You're not going to get sources to the contrary, because GW write their 'fluff' with the crippled 40k rule set in mind, and that rule set doesn't allow to-hit modifiers at short range, or whatever, because it's designed for kids.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

See now, an all unit FF 4+ might be too much but I have big trouble believing three unit types max with 4+ FF is "very powerful". Remember we're talking Manta, Krootox and Fire Warriors only. Do people complain that Tactical Marines, bikes are all FF4+? Not to mention they have quite a few units with 3+ available to them. Are they very powerful? Sure they are. They're solids unit but they also benefit from ATSKNF, have 4+ armour and 1+ initiative etc. People don't complain they're too much do they? Of course they're structured differently but in terms of by unit to unit comparisons I pretty sure no one can possibly claim that these few units would destroy the list.


Deadly and also leaving you with few-to-no activations for the enemy to walk over you freely.

Regarding my earlier post, I forgot the Disrupt idea for Railgun Hammerheads! - will edit my post accordingly

Ah, sorry. Not meaning to name-drop. More of an 'inside reference' for when he reads the posts. One of those 'had to be there' things. I don't even think /he/ remembers the joke anymore. It still tickles my funny bone though. Gist of it is way back when I got into Tau and started posting on a forum (Warseer? Don't remember anymore) I got into a fluff argument and somehow managed to convince people I was right, even though Doombringer (the guy) actually knows more than I do. It amused/amuses me. Don't judge me

And thanks for your analysis. I'm not sure how to 'test' my point though. Basically the question is, when do you need to change focus more - during firefights, or during melee combat? Or rather, which requires you to change your focus faster, and which takes longer.

Imagine it took you, twice as long to readjust your focus to a new one. Where does it matter more? Basically, does it affect your ability to shoot more than your ability to (for example) not get smacked in the face?

Of course this entire argument really only applies to guys who take their helmets off. The Tau is probably focused on the screen in front of his face, and the camera is what has to change focus. Unfortunately, that's never really been brought up in the Tau fluff. It's always been their eyesight. GW - where you can see through you own helmet optics for your own eyesight to matter.

@ Mephiston/Evil and Chaos

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here though. /Everything/ written for /everyone/ is done like that and/or for that purpose. Oftentimes with sillier end results than the Tau.

But, I see reason. If FF5+ is demanded for the list to be balanced... well, I may not like it, but so be it. I'll accept that decision.

Turning my fluff instincts to other things then. Even if we're going FF5+ (which as I run numbers may turn out to be right), the current shooting stats on Fire Warriors also seem too good in shooting at long range from a fluff standpoint.

Approximately 3 guys with pulse rifles shoot better than a heavy bolter. A rapid fire rocket-propelled-grenade launcher. And the grenades, are little nukes (scientifically it makes no sense, but whatevs). Not even Pulse Rifles are that good. Let it never be said I was campaigning just to get my guys to be more leet

Hammerhead Railgun stat tweak - AP5+/AT3+. Even though in 40k the Broadside and the Hammerhead have the same strength, physics dictate that the Hammerhead should have the better gun. A longer rail, a longer acceleration period, a faster projectile. On the abstract 40k setting, 'dead is dead'. Since the Tau seem to follow more of the laws of physics as we understand them, I think this is as good a basis as any. The Railgun puts the battlecannon to shame as an anti-tank gun, but doesn't have the anti-infantry capability.

Then the choice between Hammerhead and Broadside becomes Mobility and Versatility vs Resilience and Reliability rather than a question of firepower. Broadsides can do their garrison/start the game on overwatch. Hammerheads have Skimmer. It seems balanced thematically, and about right fluffwise. I like the idea of Ion Cannons as a base, with costs being increased from them. As for point costs, I'm not sure.

Broadsides are fine, Gun drones are fine. I can dig Crisis Suits.

I'd prefer to lower the armament on Pathfinders, to be honest. They seem very overgunned to me. Their job isn't to fight the enemy, but to designate enemies for destruction. Sniper upgrade optional, no guns otherwise. Not because they don't have them, but because they are light infantry operating way ahead of the rest of the army. Shooting loud guns that emit bright glowing balls of light might just give away where you are. Since most people have figured out that things around Pathfinders tend to get /dead/ distressingly fast, informing everyone where you are is probably not good for your health. Dedicated markerlight troops. Perhaps something to represent their forward position in the army? I dunno. Could definitely be a good place to fit a cheap-ish early activation (and as I understand it, that's actually very fluffy). Armor should go down to 6+, since even on the model they are wearing significantly lighter armor than Fire Warriors. Just my opinion of course.

That's a pretty major change of course, but if I can turn the argument back around on you: This isn't 40k. Not everyone needs a bigger gun

Skyrays are fine.

Stealth Suits... well, as I understand they are overpriced somehow? I don't know. They certainly have a plethora of special rules. Why reinforced armor? To represent the stealth field? Very interesting. Odd they have no anti-vehicle weaponry if they're saboteurs though. Do you assault things like Basilisks? I'm kind of confused about these guys to be honest. What do they /do/ exactly?

Piranhas are fine. Tetras are fine.

Kroot Shaper is fine. Regular Kroot are fine. Kroot Hounds are fine. Seems a bit odd that the Hounds, which have no FF stat at all and are no better in CC, are more expensive than regular Kroot, though. Is that intentional for some reason? Krootox Herds... I mean, I suppose they are basically walking autocannons.

The Manta with the changes made is fine.

Barracuda is fine.

Tigersharks look good.

QUESTIONS IN GENERAL/THINGS I FOUND CONFUSING

Hero and Custodian - To clarify, the Custodian's attack is the large blast template Orbital Bombardment? Or is it like Super-Seeker missiles (ie one marked target).

You have Seeker Missiles, which have the Guided Missile rule. They can only be fired at a Marked Target, with an AT6+. Do these guided missiles get the +1 for firing at a marked target as well? So are all Seeker Missiles essentially AT5+?

What is 'range stretching' exactly? And how does it greatly help Fire Warriors? I assume it doesn't have anything to do with faulty measuring tape.

Alright, I think I've cleared everything out of my system. Voice is heard and all that. Hope some of that is food for thought. I don't expect much of it to generate anything of note, but who knows.

I would like the fluff blurb about Fire Warriors to be a bit more flattering than it currently is, though.

By the by, where should I go to get help making a Tau list to test the current list with? Here? I've made my arguments above based on what the fluff states and relative stats across armies. I disagree with several people here about what the fluff means, but it appears that's irrelevant at the moment anyway. Said my piece (America!), changed basically no one's mind (America again!), and I suppose it's time to move on now (If pro is the opposite of con, does that mean Progress is the opposite of Congress?). Hope I haven't been too annoying.

BTW - Vassal Epic is sadly my only means of testing though, at the moment. Checked my local stores. No one interested in playing, and no models to proxy in any case. Everyone is doing Fantasy or Star Wars miniatures for the moment.

Wasn't so bad considering FW went from 600 to 200 and Crisis went from 600 to 250, so comparatively you ended up with almost the same number of activations you had originally if you did 1 or 2 co-ordinated fires


Which post?! (I also think this is a good idea, and quite unique)

The problem with FF4+ in the Tau list is that almost all Tau shooting has been artificially boosted. For example fire warriors should not get any shots at all if they were to be FF4+. Normally to warrant getting a shot the 40K range of the weapon needs to be about 48 inches (exceptions with ignore cover and MW weapons). Bolters have a range of 24" and are small arms pulse rifles only 6" more range and should probably also be small arms. This is true also with crisis suits, stealth suits, HH's. This was done to compensate somewhat for their stunted FF.

The problem is if you just take FW's and give them FF4+ and drop one of their shots it completely unbalances the list if no further changes are made, no matter what special rule is adopted. The proposed stat change would make them much much much better than marines for only 25 points more. And again as mentioned in my earlier post you don't need to initiate engagements to get the most out of FF4+.

Hehe did we all post at the same time or something? lol

I made a big post above, where I basically concede the point on FF4+ fire warriors. It doesn't /fit/ really, but if game balance demands it.

Also, I decided to run some numbers. It takes 2 Fire Warriors per Tactical stand for them to kill one another off at the same rate (1 kill per 3 stands of tactical marines, 1 kill per 6 stands of Fire Warriors). So, they'd need to outnumber the marines 2-1. As it turns out that is about right, by my estimate. I don't mean 2 Shas'la take down a Marine, but 12 taking down 5 I can see. The relative stats still bug me, though.

I'll concede to game balance now that I've had my say about the fluff though. Hopefully some of my other fluff inspired ideas will be helpful though.