Also with good positioning of troops when moving up to shoot (all armies not just Tau),you can cut the chances of enemy troops ,who are in cover, from using Sustain Fire.

With LofS down to 10cm into and out of hard cover terrain features, good positioning could mean the opponent has to move (losing Sustain Fire) to get sufficient shots back.

As with TRC's example those 4 autocannon shots wold be cut down further if a few enemy troops are out of LofS.

The fellow who wrote Epic once gave me a good piece of advice as regards this kind of thing : 'Don't get too wrapped up in running numbers, that way madness lies'. And it's pretty good advice, really. How the army 'feels' is more important than whether statistical probabilities match up with what you'd expect to see in '40kid' (To use Jstr19's entertaining label).

Plus, Fire Warriors are better at shooting than Marines. Their armour isn't as good and they're not as 'tough', however, so they're not better overall, just better at shooting.


To me it feels about right.


Fire Warrior shooting, if applied correctly, is very powerful. Your opponent will be more likely to Marshal than Engage, if you do it correctly.


You'd like to roll in some Apocalypse formation names would you?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

E&C we had this discussion at the Sunday gaming day and you stated the reverse case. I thought and still think LOF stretching should be strictly prohibited. This is to stop Tau players shooting infantry in the open on the other side of woods/buildings etc., which are outside of normal LOF but within guided missile range. As stated previously stated Range stretching is perfectly acceptable and is intended within the rules, I also think that range stretching with AT weapons for AP weapons is just about acceptable as it is no worse than clipping engagements. But LOF stretching is taking it too far.

Did I?
What rationale did I use?
Probably the 'that's stupid' rationale.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Purely out of curiousity are devastator marines actually worse than tactical marines in CC in w40k? Or is the CC5+ for EA game balance?

No, they have exactly the same CC abilities as a Tactical Marine, despite lugging a Lascannon over one shoulder.

Which is dumb.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, you could make the fluffy argument that the heavy weapon itself makes close combat cumbersome, and that Devastators, being a Scout's first assignment upon progression to Full Marine according to Codex Chapters, are still inexperienced compared to their Tactical counterparts, which seems to be the reasoning in EA alongside Game Balance, perhaps?

I don't quite get 40k sometimes...

Generally, anything that is counter-intuitive in 40k (And the other GW Core Games) is either down to :

A- Nonsense rule allows kids to play the game easier.
or
B- Nonsense rule encouranges buying lots and lots and lots of toy soldiers.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Has anyone called for FF3+?

I'm not buying that with regard to the Tau.
Anyone want to see Pulse Carbines shoot 4x their range and with no LOF?
It won't happen here in Perth and I'd be laughed at for even suggesting that it is possible...

_________________
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.

Back on page 12, while keeping FF5+ I suggested improving the Tau close range firepower by giving the carbine disrupt and sniper at 15 cm range. The point behind this is to encourage the Tau FW to be used to shoot rather than engage. The stats are intended to represent both the power of the Tau weaponry and the fear they impose

Others have made the point that this does not limit the range to which the hits are applied if part of the enemy formation are in range, and it would make FW on OW fearsome indeed.

The main thing these debates seem to miss out on is what tactics should be used to make best use of the formations - the main complaint being the 'vulnerability' of the FW to counter-attacks. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Eldar tactics and only commit to a shooting 'assault' when there is a good chance of breaking the opposing formations ? ?

So doubling on a shooting attack on infantry in cover (as you have to be picked up by transport first) gives the sum total of 4 and a bit hits? What's likely to die? That is definitely not my idea of a solid attack.

And 7 and a bit on a 30cm Advance? What about saves? What's likely to die?

How would an engagement be with FF4+ on a single 30cm move and de-bus from transport? Obviously there are no modifiers for engagement rolls

6x 4+ FF, 4x 6+ FF? What about hits for that?


Actually all the vehicles have 6+ for FF TRC so wouldn't your example be
6x5+ and 4x 6+?

Apocalypse Formations they may be, but they're also the names that the Tau use. Besides, I'd prefer that things be 'Cadres' instead of 'Groups'.

If I can bring the conversation back to Hammerheads. The Disrupt AT suggestion for the Hammerhead... It sounds really interesting. I think it is a decent enough representation of the Fear Factor that the Hammerhead Railgun has. The Broadside railguns are better at killing things (better rate of fire, still great penetrating power), but the Hammerhead Railgun is just massive and powerful. Lower rate of fire makes it less able to kill things, but the reputation makes people want to get out of there.

Of course, then we need to think about it for a second. Say AT4+ disrupt.

What does the cost become? It has to go up. If it stays as it is, you'd end up with things like this:

2 groups of Full Hammerheads, 12 total for 600pts.

Shooting at a marked unit, you'd have 12 AT3+ shots, for 8 hits. That'd be 8 blast markers straight away, +2 for the shooting units. Congratulations, you've now scared off a company of Baneblades, potentially without actually causing any damage. Perhaps that makes sense though. Better pull back than actually wait for one of these monstrous guns to strike home. Risk/benefit, I mean. The Tau produce lots of Hammerheads, they're very common. The Imperium doesn't produce as many superheavy tanks. Best not to commit the superheavies against a common foe that has a main gun that makes a mockery of your armor.

But, is it balanced? Does the point cost of the ability become prohibitive? Still, it is a /very/ intriguing option. It makes the reputation of the Hammerhead as a tank hunter premier matter, but doesn't really increase the ability to shoot. It ends up becoming a weapon of Terror. A gun that is oversized for the targets it is going to engage, but... You know, sometimes you just want to be sure.

I like it.

For anything to fire it has to have LofS (or have indirect fire) and be in range of a target otherwise no attacks take place.

No weapon could ever fire at a target if it wasn't in range in the first place, guided missiles have the equivalent of indirect fire so can fire at marker lit targets that they cannot see, other weapons cannot.

Range stretching does not effect how far the units can shoot it affects where hits caused by those shots are attributed. If you have your formation within 15cm of only one base in an opposing formation range stretching with FW's means that hits caused by those shots can be applied on targets up to 90cm away. It does not mean pulse carbines can fire from 90cm away. In effect it allows you to minimize the comeuppance you receive in a following engagement.

I understand that and there is no way that we play that way or that we will ever play that way.
We've always played that units outside a weapons range cannot be shot at by that weapon.

It may take a little longer to roll all the dice but at least we get a more realistic result to our combats.


Rather than quote me, maybe the answer could have been directed at the earlier posts that cause possible contradictions. Sounds like some of you are playing in different ways aswell...

_________________
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.