 
|
Page 3 of 10 |
[ 140 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 Next |
Sorry if I shocked you. I was mainly refering to their outfit, which is said to look like the armor worn by japanese handgunners. I was trying to get an image of a guy that has a technological avantage, and just gets in range waiting for the ennemy to come to them. Aren't Firewarriors supposed to work that way as per fluff? What difference do you make?
Not 'as such'. The beautiful thing about Firewarriors is that they can be deployed as 'storm troopers' too, loading into devilfish, dumping them on the enemy at supremely close range and simply blasting them out of there. I view them as very much 'akin' to modern attacking armies[since the Tau themselves don't do static defence], that is mobile, reactive, and not to take on things outwith their remit. They also don't want to get bogged down in a firefight, rather a quick strike[hence FF5+ IMO]. 2*Ap5+ could do this I suppose...
Tau do use the 'patient waiting game' of letting the enemy come to them, but it really requires an imbalance of forces in their favour at that instance[ie it's all very well setting a trap, but when a giant wanders in you sometimes have to rethink{worst analogy, I think}].
XisorbaronpieroIf any, the Markerlight should be more important, like in the new 40K Tau codex. Again, everything but not that.
It may be important, but it's not so important that every four Shas'la and Drone has one. As far as I can tell, Tau armies are still quite viable without an abundance of Markerlights. Given that each 'Markerlights' unit in Epic lights *every* unit within 30cm, I think that's boosted enough.
Aren't marines having one missile launcher per stand whereas it is just an option in 40K, and only one per 10 men in codex astartes?
And since the number of MArkerlight is irrelevant in Epic rules, why bother differenciating one stand at the risk of making that stand snipable and the marking ability of the firewarrior formation rather unreliable?
Indeed, the number *is* irrelevant, however, since it is one ML can light as many units as you can fit in a 30cm radius of it, I think the numbers are irrelevant in a distinctly different way. Tau *could* have 3 Markerlights per 8 'models' in 40k:
5 Shas'la
1 Shas'ui+ 2 Marker Drones
However, that's points intensive, and doesn't seem particularly effective when you have the option of pathfinders. It's also rather expensive. They'd also be a very targetable formation, which is why I think they *should* be vulnerable to sniper fire. 1 Stand out of Six seems fine to me to have a markerlight.
Xisor
PS @ Honda & Markerlights[most of the rest is fair enough]:
The level of markerlights proposed doesn't maintain parity against 40k, or the fluff. 1 Markerlight per stand, is the same as pathfinders. That'd be 'every' small division of Firewarriors[4-6] having a complete loadout of marker drones and shas'ui with markerlight, and being able to effectively use them.
I firmly think it *is* supported to have only one[or two] stands with Markerlights. Markerlights are easily neuterable in a 40k list by careful placement of fire, so in Epic, if feels right they are vulnerable to snipers. There is no indication, yet, that Tau players are loading into their lists with as many Markerlights as is actually possible. A possibility, yes. But no indication.
The representation of the Markerlights fluff-wise is that they are used to accentuate and complement firepower at critical points, not be a primary component. Well, for pathfinders and to a degree sniper drones[spotter], it's a critical component...it's almost their sole purpose! But this simply is not the case with Firewarriors.
_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
| nealhunt |
|
||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| thurse |
|
||||
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Honda |
|
|||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
Epic is not expected, nor intending to maintan parity with 40K. It is expected to provide a reasonable simulation of what might happen in a larger scale battle. That point has been stated many, many times. Epic is not 40K. I firmly think it *is* supported to have only one[or two] stands with Markerlights. |
I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this.
Markerlights are easily neuterable in a 40k list by careful placement of fire, so in Epic, if feels right they are vulnerable to snipers.
What you are describing is a reaction to an action, of which is completely subjective. "Easily" neuterable compared to what? Is everyone able to easily neuter ML's? I already am aware of circumstances (i.e. real 40K games) where this was not so. Do those events completely invalidate your statement? No, but it is not black and white as you state.
There is no indication, yet, that Tau players are loading into their lists with as many Markerlights as is actually possible. A possibility, yes. But no indication.
I believe what I attempted to articulate is that:
1. It is early in the codex lifecycle
2. Tau players (of which I am one) are still evaluating what the changes mean
3. "Some" early indications are that Tau players are taking more markerlights. This statement was carefully worded to indicate that a slight trend has been observed, at least in my own sphere of influence. I contrast that with, say the Vespids, who most players have already abandoned as being a waste of points. That may change, but nonetheless, it is an observable trend.
What your 40K Tau players may be fielding could be completely different than what our players are fielding. Those would be additional observations to add to the pool.
The representation of the Markerlights fluff-wise is that they are used to accentuate and complement firepower at critical points, not be a primary component. Well, for pathfinders and to a degree sniper drones[spotter], it's a critical component...it's almost their sole purpose! But this simply is not the case with Firewarriors.
Your statement at the end is not correct. One extremely valid and effecive use of ML's and FW's is as the small ML team that targets high priority units for the heavier firepower (i.e. Crisis and Hammerheads). According to your previous statement, players would not be doing that when in fact they have been using FW's in that manner since the first incarnation of the Tau codex and continue to do so.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
| N0-1_H3r3 |
|
||||||
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:29 pm Posts: 56 Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| Chroma |
|
|||||||
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm Posts: 9684 Location: Montréal, QC, Canada |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| Xisor |
|
|||||
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm Posts: 515 |
Epic is not expected, nor intending to maintan parity with 40K. It is expected to provide a reasonable simulation of what might happen in a larger scale battle. That point has been stated many, many times. Epic is not 40K. |
I'm quite aware of that. However, there is a desire to maintain parity between all aspects of the 40k universe, it is at least second to decent gameplay, but the truth is still there.
I firmly think it *is* supported to have only one[or two] stands with Markerlights.
I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this.
One last thing, there is no real support for FWs having MLs except from 'that's how it is'. I'm unaware of why this was the case in the first place.
Markerlights are easily neuterable in a 40k list by careful placement of fire, so in Epic, if feels right they are vulnerable to snipers.
What you are describing is a reaction to an action, of which is completely subjective. "Easily" neuterable compared to what? Is everyone able to easily neuter ML's? I already am aware of circumstances (i.e. real 40K games) where this was not so. Do those events completely invalidate your statement? No, but it is not black and white as you state.
Of course it's not as black and white as I state. However, they are still targetable. They are easy to take out when compared to 'impossible except for removing them all'. That's, essentially, my point. They're also not as prevalent. That much is clear.
There is no indication, yet, that Tau players are loading into their lists with as many Markerlights as is actually possible. A possibility, yes. But no indication.
I believe what I attempted to articulate is that:
1. It is early in the codex lifecycle
2. Tau players (of which I am one) are still evaluating what the changes mean
3. "Some" early indications are that Tau players are taking more markerlights. This statement was carefully worded to indicate that a slight trend has been observed, at least in my own sphere of influence. I contrast that with, say the Vespids, who most players have already abandoned as being a waste of points. That may change, but nonetheless, it is an observable trend.
What your 40K Tau players may be fielding could be completely different than what our players are fielding. Those would be additional observations to add to the pool.
I'm not talking from my immediate PoV, I'm talking from a look at it from the entire net. There is no precedent to support that *everything* with the opportunity to have Markerlights is using Markerlights. As far as I am aware, the increase in Markerlights is still not representative or indicative enough to account for the amount seen in Epic Fire Warriors. From what I can garner, the improvement in Markelights makes units like Skyrays and Pathfinders more desirable.
The representation of the Markerlights fluff-wise is that they are used to accentuate and complement firepower at critical points, not be a primary component. Well, for pathfinders and to a degree sniper drones[spotter], it's a critical component...it's almost their sole purpose! But this simply is not the case with Firewarriors.
Your statement at the end is not correct. One extremely valid and effecive use of ML's and FW's is as the small ML team that targets high priority units for the heavier firepower (i.e. Crisis and Hammerheads). According to your previous statement, players would not be doing that when in fact they have been using FW's in that manner since the first incarnation of the Tau codex and continue to do so.
I'd say it is correct. I say that for Fire Warriors it is *not* their sole or critical purpose. A bit of careful tweaking can make it their sole purpose[6*'6+2 Drones' meaning FWs have little use otherwise], but I am not incorrect in saying what I did. A Firewarrior's primary function is not to be a Markerlight caddy, if it were, they'd come as standard or easily with markerlights. This is not the case in the background material, nor in 40k itself. I see no pressing need nor precedent for it in Epic either, save for 'it already being that way'.
N0-1_H3r3:
That's sort of what I propose too. You can still put them in on foot, but it costs you all your Devilfish.
As an outside question, for those in the know
It seems both the Kroot and the Firewarriors are reduced in worth by the value of Human Auxilliaries. I'd ask to know the root and origins of Humans in the Tau List? Should they be available onthis scale? Perhaps the line should be drawn 'tighter' to the Tau with regards as to how and who they use as auxilliaries? Not only that, but for the sake of gameplay itself, perhaps it'd be better if Human Auxilliaries were stricken from the list, or 'banished' [
]to things like Nerroth's Gue'senshi list?Merely a thought.
Xisor
_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
| Dobbsy |
|
|||||||
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia |
|
|||||||
| Top | |
|||||||
|
||||||||
| The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Xisor |
|
||||
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm Posts: 515 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| Honda |
|
|||
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas |
Ok, so I?m struggling with why you think that there is no support for FW?s having a ML? Is it because it is an upgrade? Markerlights are easily neuterable in a 40k list by careful placement of fire, so in Epic, if feels right they are vulnerable to snipers. What you are describing is a reaction to an action, of which is completely subjective. "Easily" neuterable compared to what? Is everyone able to easily neuter ML's? I already am aware of circumstances (i.e. real 40K games) where this was not so. Do those events completely invalidate your statement? No, but it is not black and white as you state. Of course it's not as black and white as I state. However, they are still targetable. They are easy to take out when compared to 'impossible except for removing them all'. That's, essentially, my point. They're also not as prevalent. That much is clear. |
Again, you are expressing your opinions. I can just as easily express mine. That doesn?t solve the issue and only leads to arguments that cannot be resolved.
There is no indication, yet, that Tau players are loading into their lists with as many Markerlights as is actually possible. A possibility, yes. But no indication.
I believe what I attempted to articulate is that:
1. It is early in the codex lifecycle
2. Tau players (of which I am one) are still evaluating what the changes mean
3. "Some" early indications are that Tau players are taking more markerlights. This statement was carefully worded to indicate that a slight trend has been observed, at least in my own sphere of influence. I contrast that with, say the Vespids, who most players have already abandoned as being a waste of points. That may change, but nonetheless, it is an observable trend.
What your 40K Tau players may be fielding could be completely different than what our players are fielding. Those would be additional observations to add to the pool.
I'm not talking from my immediate PoV, I'm talking from a look at it from the entire net.
I find it very interesting that you appear to be striving to drive to a conclusion, when it is clear that the impact of the codex is in the very early stages. Why is that?
There is no precedent to support that *everything* with the opportunity to have Markerlights is using Markerlights. As far as I am aware, the increase in Markerlights is still not representative or indicative enough to account for the amount seen in Epic Fire Warriors. From what I can garner, the improvement in Markelights makes units like Skyrays and Pathfinders more desirable.
Which is what I stated. However your statement at the end again is an opinion. What has not been determined yet is whether or not the cost of the Pathfinders with these new abilities is cost effective.
The representation of the Markerlights fluff-wise is that they are used to accentuate and complement firepower at critical points, not be a primary component. Well, for pathfinders and to a degree sniper drones[spotter], it's a critical component...it's almost their sole purpose! But this simply is not the case with Firewarriors.
Your statement at the end is not correct. One extremely valid and effecive use of ML's and FW's is as the small ML team that targets high priority units for the heavier firepower (i.e. Crisis and Hammerheads). According to your previous statement, players would not be doing that when in fact they have been using FW's in that manner since the first incarnation of the Tau codex and continue to do so.
I'd say it is correct. I say that for Fire Warriors it is *not* their sole or critical purpose.
Nor did I say that they were. I only stated that they have been used as described (ML delivery unit) since the beginning, but you stated to the contrary.
A bit of careful tweaking can make it their sole purpose[6*'6+2 Drones' meaning FWs have little use otherwise], but I am not incorrect in saying what I did. A Firewarrior's primary function is not to be a Markerlight caddy, if it were, they'd come as standard or easily with markerlights. This is not the case in the background material, nor in 40k itself. I see no pressing need nor precedent for it in Epic either, save for 'it already being that way'.
Again, you are expressing your opinion based on your perceptions, but do not seem interested in allowing others to do the same. The codex has always allowed this configuration, whether you are in support of it or not.
It is clear that we do not agree. I was not trying to convince you to change your point of view, but merely share information that you did not appear to have. I?ll just leave it at that.
