I wanted to split the discussion on the Firewarriors from the Comments on 5.0 thread off and start a new one.  That discussion had gotten away from being about the changes to the new list and I thought it could be carried on in its own context.

So, I thought I would suggest taking a look at the Tau infantry as a whole, much in the same way we did with Tau Air Caste thread.  (which I think was a successful discussion)  I think it is worthwhile to separate out the infantry from the vehicles if only to make the discussion more manageable.

So, why have the discussion?  Well, primarily it would be to address the concern that Firewarriors are not worth taking.  That seems like a real failing of the list as they should be an important part of the Tau army.  I originally looked at the whole Air Caste with the goal of getting the Manta right, so that it would not be done in a vacuum and I think it would make sense to follow the same path with Firewarriors and the rest of the infantry.

Defining the problem with Firewarriors:  -  The gist of the discussion in the 5.0 Comments thread is that they are not worth taking.  We also agreed that FWs are not objective holders as other core infantry often is, but an offensive weapon.  They have decent short-ranged AP firepower in their current incarnation, but are lacking in assaults.  The problem, is that their firepower, while good, is really not overwhelming.  A full formation can generate on average about 5 AP hits, but given saves or cover, they will only kill a couple of units.  I would like to reiterate at this point that they have short ranged firepower of 30cm.  The end result of which is that any unit they shoot at will be in assault range of them, which means if they don't wipe them out the FWs are in trouble.  

The present idea of the Tau list is that they are bad at all aspects of assaults, both FF and CC.  the reasoning being that they would avoid a risky engagement and destroy the enemy at range.  This in my mind is not so much to match fluff, but to give them a specific play style.  While this strategy works for vehicles and battlesuits, it really is letting the FWs down.  They 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.  This seems to contrary to how the Tau wage war.  FWs should be sent in to make decisive attacks, not to attack in a way where they are immediately open to counter-assault.

Assaults in Epic are the definition of a decisive attack.  Being good at FF is the definition of 'death at close range shooting'.  Both of these are descriptors I have heard of how FWs should play.

I pitched the idea in the 5.0 thread of the following:

All Tau Formations get -1 to Engage Orders
Vehicles still have low FF values
Raise the FF values on FWs and Crisis Suits

This gives Tau infantry and vehicles distinct roles in the army, with vehicles favoring long-ranged shooting and infantry favoring decisive assaults using FF.  (with some exceptions)

So first let's talk about infantry roles.  Knowing the role we wanted each unit to play will help us guide the abilities of the units and make them each a viable choice in the list as a whole.

Roles

Firewarriors - As has been mentioned in the 5.0 Comments thread, they are not objective holders like core infantry in many lists.  They should be an offensive weapon.  I would propose they be a mechanized assault force, similar to a modern US Army Stryker Battalion.

Pathfinders - Scouts, coordinated fire, and Markerlights, with some disruptive firepower.  Primarily these guys ML the enemy to make the vehicles more effective.

Crisis Teams - Mobile Firepower, rapid response, and decisive assaults

Stealth Teams - Use teleport to get in the opponents half and ML, while shooting w/ burst cannons

Broadsides - Long-Ranged AT firepower

Gun Drones - Extra firepower/units for formations, skirmish screen

So, only six units, which seems pretty manageable to look at.  So, let's establish what we want to represent.  I am going with the assumption that one stand in Epic is typically half of a 40k squad.

Firewarriors - A unit would represent 6 Shas'la with Pulse Rifles

Pathfinders - 4 Shas'la, 2 w/ Pulse Carbine/ML and 2 w/ Rail Rifles

Crisis Team - 2 or 3 Crisis Suits w/ a variety of weapons and some shield drones

Stealth Suits - 3 Stealthsuits w/ ML Drones

Broadsides - One Broadside Suit w/ Drones

Gun Drones - 4 Gun Drones

Hopefully the above seems about right to everyone.  I know that things can vary, but I want to go with what would be typical.  While FWs can have a ML, I think it keeps them distinct from Pathfinders if they don't.

Alright, with that out of the way, we can talk about unit stats and how to represent the units in the roles they fit in.

Firewarriors

The big asset for the FWs is the 6 Pulse Rifles carried by the unit.  The assumption has been that 3 Pulse Rifles have equivalent firepower to a Heavy Bolter, which I think is about right.  But, rather than give them 2 shots per unit, I would treat them almost like a twin-linked Heavy Bolter.  You have 2 Hvy Bolter equivalents firing at the same targets, so I think the analogy is apt.  That would give them a single AP5+ shot at 30cm per unit.  Which is better AP firepower than most basic infantry can manage.  Now then, when you get close, like say FF ranges the amount of firepower doubles.  So, to me that is when the FWs should get 2 shots each.  I really think FF5+ w/ 2 attacks would be appropriate.  They don't have a special assault weapon like a flamer or plasma gun, but the sheer amount of Pulse shots should make up for that.  

Pathfinders
I think these guys are fine as is, except that I don't think the Pulse Carbine shots need to be represented.  If we drop the FWs to one AP4+ attack, it would make sense to drop one of their attacks and really 2 pulse carbines in a unit is just their FF score.

Crisis Suits
These guys need some cleanup in the weapons department.  What the heck is a Plasma Blaster anyway?  I would go with a Twin-Linked Missile Pod (whether it is on one suit or 2 suits with one pod, it doesn't matter) and twin-linked fusion guns (same as above).  The plasma rifles could be represented like the Plasma Gins carried by IG Stormtroopers, but I think it would be better to make them FF weapons.  So, give the Crisis Suits 2 shooting attacks and 2 FF4+ attacks, one of which is MW.

Stealth Suits
I think these guys work just fine as is.  One question though, what is a Silenced Burst Cannon?  Where did that come from?

Broadsides
I like the Light Vehicle Rule for shooting purposes, but think they should treat terrain like infantry, Ie cover and fortifications.

Gun Drones
The speed needs to drop to 20cm like the battlesuits.  I could see dropping the Pulse Carbine attack and giving them FF5+ as being a good option.

Proposed Stats:

Firewarriors
Speed - 15cm
Armour - 5+
CC - 6+
FF - 5+
Pulse Rifles     30cm     AP4+     and   Small Arms (extra attack +1)

Pathfinders
Speed - 15cm
Armour - 5+
CC - 6+
FF - 5+
Rail Rifles     30cm     AP5+     Disrupt
Scouts, Markerlight, Coordinated Fire

Crisis Suits
Speed - 20cm
Armour - 3+
CC - 6+
FF - 4+
Twin-Linked Missile Pod    45cm     AP4+/AT5+
Twin-Linked Fusion Guns    15cm    MW4+     and   Small Arms (MW, extra attack +1)
Tau Jet Packs

Stealth Suits
Speed - 20cm
Armour - 5+
CC - 6+
FF - 5+
Multiple Burst Cannons     15cm     AP3+    and Small Arms  (First Strike)
Tau Jet Packs, Teleport, Reinforced Armour Markerlights, Scouts

Broadsides
Speed - 15cm  (Light Vehicle)
Armour - 4+
CC - 6+
FF - 5+
Twin-Linked Rail Gun    75cm    AT2+
Smart Missile System    30cm   AP5+    Ignores Cover
Reinforced Armour, Walker

Gun Drones
Speed - 20cm
Armour - 5+
CC - 6+
FF -5+
Pulse Carbines       (15cm)     Small Arms
Tau Jet Packs



Well, this is more than a long enough post so I will leave it for comments, praise, or dismissal depending upon your preference.  Thanks for reading.

I've never played with or against Tau, but I'm reading this with interest, hoping to have time to paint my Tau in some distant future.

Here's a crazy idea : give Tau really crappy CC and FF values (6+ at best, or even CC- and FF6+) but allow them a free round of Overwatch fire (perhaps with a -1 mod) against any assaulting formation. They would still damage the enemy (or at least add a BM) but would subsequently crumble during the assault.

OR create a rule that says something like "BMs count double for Tau during an assault".

Well, as I said, crazy ideas.  

Personally i think Shmity is really onto something.

So basically guard mark 2 then?

The crappy assault abilities even on FW are essential in order to maintain a unique playstyle for the list. There are more than enough FF based armies out there.

The problem isn't the FW; as has been shown they're at least the match of most basic infantry in the game. The problem is that the armour options are too good and too many, doing everything the FW can do and doing it better at a safe distance, leaving the FW without a role.

Up the price of the tank formations and FW suddenly look a lot more inviting.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Firmly agreed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Up the price of the tank formations and FW suddenly look a lot more inviting.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

The crappy assault abilities even on FW are essential in order to maintain a unique playstyle for the list

The whole point of the Tau list is not the individual unit stats, but getting to use Coordinated Fire and Guided Missiles to your advantage. Having 16 AP shots in a Crossfire situation is absolutely huge. Having the same shots in a regular shooting action is only so-so.

The Tau are supposed to suck a bit at head-butting contests, which is what the typical Epic Assault represents. They want to avoid those and instead fight on their own terms. Currently, the Tau are ok in assaults, due to their ok FF and ok save.

The Tau Coordinated Fire allows them to engineer those crossfires. That is when the FW should shine.

The Tau Way of War has always revolved around highly mobile groups of Fire Warriors, Crisis Teams and Hammerheads have always been a supporting role for these troops.

The Tau Fire Warrior is the king of localised small arms firepower.

An Engagement or Assault is not a 'war of attrition' as some have said, it represents the only reliable way to shift an enemy from a position (both in the Epic game and in real-life). You can strafe them, bombard them and spray machine gun fire from a distance- but it always comes down to the soldier on the front to approach, and shift them from the position.

Tau fight in Engagements, the Tau strategy actively encourages it by having Fire Warriors (heavily armoured soldiers with high power small arms) as the core of their army.
This idea that Tau are inherent cowards, scared to get within a mile of an enemy has been taken too far. And in a stubborn attempt to make the Tau 'play differently' they've lost the very tactics actually stated in Tau Codex's and background pieces. It's also quite boring to use and face an enemy army that can never do Engagements and never wants to go near the enemy.

If true, Fire Warriors wouldn't exist, you'd merely have armoured battlegroups flying around railgunning from afar. Heck, why not bomb the enemy from orbit...

The Tau are inferior in strength, dexterity, eyesight and agility- hence their poor close quarter fighting skills, yet they still actively seek to get into Engagement ranges because it's the only way to be sure you've killed or scattered an enemy position, and they have the firepower to do so.

Engagements should be a key part of every army, it's like having armies that don't do Combat or Assault in Fantasy, 40k, etc. It misses out on a whole important aspect of the game.

Making sure Tau aren't just IG with Skimmers and better armour is the tricky part, but 'Style contrary to background' misses the point of adding an army.

Sorry for being confrontational, but it seems we all agree that Tau FW's background-wise are designed to close to small arms range and beat the enemy in a firefight with superior weaponry, yet its removed in the game for gamey-sake.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

For what it is worth, I think Asaura has made the essential point that the success or failure of FW is down to their composition, how they are used and what support they are given. In other words, the strategy and tactics employed by the Tau.

Some thoughts here

• If and when using FW, do people put them in transport? Indeed, should they always be deployed in transport??
  
• What formations work well in co-ordinated fire attacks with FW? For example, have people tried using pathfinders in transport as both a screen (7-12cms in front of the FW) and to provide crossfire opportunities?
  
• What upgrades do people take to boost the effectiveness of FW? The premis here is that often in E:A the bare formation needs upgrades to work at optimum efficiency.
  
• Given the FW are AP troops, what AT troops work well with them? Here I expect an overwhelming chorus of AHMC which is fair enough, but should these be more AT specialists given the significant amount of AP capabilities?? (only a side thought here not to derail this very welcome Infantry debate)
  
• A perenial cry, but are the FW being employed within / behind cover to reduce enemy retaliation?

And a couple a completely wacky, off-the-wall thoughts:-
1) Is it worth reducing the cost of transport for the FW slightly, say to 75 or even 50 for the Devilfish??
Tau need to have the extra formation numbers to permit co-ordinated fire actions without significantly eroding the army capability; which means the average cost of a formation needs to be ~200-250 points

2) Could the Tau infantry be allowed a consolidation move if their co-ordinated fire move resulted in the enemy breaking??
This would encourage correct tactics and also allow the FW (and other infantry) to step back 5cm potentially out of range of retaliatory assaults. (This would form part of the Co-ordinated fire special rule)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think the problem is that most forces can arrange to have a lot of double-shot formations by using a move/shoot/support combo while Tau have a much harder time employing this "FF multiplier."  However, I think that's exactly the niche for the FW, as one of the few formations that can.

For example, if the IG throw 2 Mech Infantry formations (800 points) at IG infantry with heavy support (350 points) in woods, they are going to win not because one of the formations will get to move and fire, then support with FF.  Assuming the support formation has to double move, that basically quadruples its damage output because the double/cover -2 to hit makes the ranged fire almost meaningless.  In addition, the assaulting formation actually does more damage to the target with FF than ranged fire.  The assault by the follow on company will likely have a +4 or +5 modifier and come close to wiping out the formation in most cases.

In contrast, something like 2 Mech FW with 1 Pathfinder formation (775 points) against that same IG company in cover with the same assumptions (one formation within single move distance, the others have to double) can only be expected to break them if they can claim crossfire with at least one formation.  Otherwise, they need to get lucky.  Now, this attack does have other advantages - 1 coord fire activation instead of move/retain, no chance of an unlucky assault result - but overall that doesn't make up for the weaker effect.

That just seems horrible.

Most of the Tau forces would seemingly lose offensive fire by choosing to FF and with the support fire they called in also being reduced the total "multiplier" is lower.  In certain situations, however, the choice of FF does make sense, even with the proportionally lower values.  The choices here for the Tau end up looking pretty similar.  The closer formation actually does not lose killing capacity by choosing FF.  At FF5+ and no cover mods, the attacking formation will do just as much damage as 2xAP5+.  Also, assaulting allows the support formations to multiply their damage with their no-cover-mod FF5+ support.

In other words, once you crunch the numbers you see Fire Warriors are the Tau's mainline FF troops.  They are weaker but maintain more fire flexibility than FF troops in other armies.  Nonetheless, they can effectively get a "FF multiplier" out of their tactics.  The assault situation I outlined (double-move formations support while the single-move FW formation assaults) turns out to be still a bit weaker for FW than for the IG - a little bit better prep fire and a bit worse in the actual assault - but still strong and will still almost certainly crush the target.

I was a big believer that the Tau had to assault, just carefully and sparingly due to their lessened capacity.

In the games I played (probably too long ago), I was using Drones and Human Auxilia to initiate and support assaults because they had all the required traits.  Drones had a good FF-to-range fire ratio and could often clip hard enough to draw in real support fire without being wiped out.  Humans, obviously, were good for FF while FW or battlesuits did prep/support.  Both allowed more of the "FF multiplier" out of the list.

With those gone, the remaining formations that might make feasibly initiate assaults, i.e. not give up too much damage when switching to FF, are Stealth Suits, Pathfinders and, of course, Kroot.  Crisis and Broadsides don't have enough FF to give up their ranged fire, but at FF5+, they are worth maneuvering for support.

===

None of that is to say I think FW are definitely okay as-is.  It's just commentary on how I saw them fitting into the army.  It seems like they still could be used in that way.

_________________
Neal

Presently, in order to use their firepower, FW must get into a position to be assaulted.  I fail to see the difference.  Or how to use them and not set yourself up for an assault.

So basically guard mark 2 then?

The crappy assault abilities even on FW are essential in order to maintain a unique playstyle for the list. There are more than enough FF based armies out there.