In address to Lion's post, and not to diminish the hard work he put into the calculations, but going from 40k mechanics breakdown to statement that in-setting battlesuits are a match for assault marines in close combat is laughable at best.

The dictionary is wrong

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I am not sure this is the correct question. Logically, it is very possible for the Tau infantry to be 'death incarnate at close range', given the right circumstances and tactics - but not 'always' or under 'any' conditions. (And perhaps Tau armour should not be as effective under these conditions).

IMHO the issue is deciding how to achieve the optimum conditions while limiting any counter-measures the enemy might take, which is really down to formation composition, tactics and some luck.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Take it up with Webster's. They've been doing the dictionary thing for awhile now.

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

Not all dictionary definitions are correct when pertaining to a discussion of an oblique topic. I doubt you'll find "fluffy" or "beardy" defined in the dictionary in the way they are used in a wargaming context. Likewise "mechanised", in a wargaming context, means infantry in some form of APC.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Dictionary.com uses The Random House Dictionary for its definition of mechanize, not Merriam-Webster. Webster's gives "b: to equip with armed and armored motor vehicles". The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives "3 Mil. equip with with tanks, armoured cars, etc. (originally as a substitute for horse-drawn vehicles and cavalry)."

I'd say the use of 'Mechanised' here is unusual, but valid.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

How laughable?  Marines aren't invincible, even in Close Combat, and Kroot have killed a few Marines in fluff.  (As far as hard work goes, that's based on a LOT of games of Tau v. Marines beating the probabilities into my head, something like 3-6 games a week for a couple years straight)

From a fluff POV:  both sides are heavily augmented with either bio and/or cyber augmentics, both have strength-enhancing armored exoskeletons.  The Stealth suits even have Therm-Optic Camo, and have better guns for a shock-and-awe assault.  They are quite capable of tearing *Orks* apart in CC IF the Stealth suits charge.  Are Marines represented accurately in-game?  Nope, they should be strength 5, maybe even strength 6.  Are Stealth Suits represented accurately?  Hrm, not sure.  You don't read a lot about Tau from an up-close and personal standpoint.  Kais, from the Fire Warrior game, isn't a good example, and there's only a couple citations of Tau in CC (not least of which was Farsight and Aun'shi from the 3e codex).  Most of the examples of Tau in combat emphasize their shooting, and rarely mention CC, unless the (unarmored) Tau are greatly outclassed (Marine, Assassin, etc).  None-the-less, Stealth suits are represented as just as strong as Marines, and Crisis suits are just as strong as Ogryns.

I've proven that in games of 40k, even though no-one wants to believe it, by assaulting, winning, and breaking a squad of Assault Marines with a 6-man Stealth team, completely UNSUPPORTED.  Well, that squad of Stealth suits did shoot the daylights out of the Assault squad first (caused 6 wounds, killing 2, completely average), but they assaulted an equal number of Marines (the Assault Squad started out 8-strong), killing 2 for a loss of one of their own, and broke the Marines in CC (again, slightly bad dice, killed one Suit with the Sarge's powersword, while I saved the other wounds, and then rolled a 9 for leadership).  Despite bad luck on the part of the Marine player, Stealth suits charged him and broke a squad of dedicated assault specialists.

[snip rehash of previous 40k game-based argument]

What the Tau lack is training and specialist equipment.  Oh, wait, Farsight specifically trains his troops in CQB.  That just leaves the specialist equipment, which is a balance point by GW to make Tau weak in CC compared to Marines.  Otherwise, an XV15 Stealth suit (which is barely larger than a FW), would have Photon and EMP grenades, and be really nasty in Close Quarters Battle (and wouldn't need Fusion Blasters to kill tanks).

Are Marines better trained and more psychologically suited for CQB?  Absolutely.

Should Tau be the statline equal of Marines?  NO.  

I'm saying that *some units* are really close, IF there are equal numbers.  That's why I'm suggesting CC4+ is where Stealth Suits 'should' be, dropping to CC5+ for the 'one pip across the board' adjustment.  Crisis suits 'should' be roughly CC4+, adjusted to CC5+ (One stand of Crisis suits is 8 wounds and 9+4 attacks, while one stand of Marines is 5 wounds and 11 or 12 attacks).  Fire Warriors 'should' be CC5+, drop to CC6+.  Ditto Pathfinders.  Then you figure out where the Alien Aux fit in (usually better in CC than FF, and often faster than Tau as well).


Frankly, most Tau vehicles (and Broadsides) 'should' be about FF5+ in a straight port from 40k, so they're FF6+ after the adjustment.  Pathfinders aren't as good as IG in a FF, either, so they should be FF6+ at best.

"Death Incarnate at close range" is strictly a matter of the line Tau Infantry, and has nothing to do with vehicles, Broadsides, or Pathfinders.  1/3 to 1/2 of an opponent's army leaves the board every Tau shooting phase in 40k (an 'Engage' action in E:A).

the Oxford definition agrees with my usage of "Mechanized," and so does Webster's, so kindly given by AxelFendersson...

OK, my spring break is coming up next week, so I'm likely to throw together a modified list of what I think the Tau should be, assuming an across-the-board one pip drop in FF and CC values.  Yes, it will be very scary at short ranges (either 15cm shooting, FF, or both).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

LiTS, while I understand your point of view that 40K shooting represents Epic engage, I am equally sure you would agree that they are fundementally different game mechanics - not least because Infantry can hurt Armour and also the enemy gets to fight back.

Now, I am not saying that Tau should not engage the enemy, but rather IMHO that their 'deadly' firepower can and should be represented by 30cm and 15cm statlines (and like you, I really want to see the proposed FW stats tested). Furthermore, adding some other formations through co-fire will definitely have the desired effect on the target formation.

While I like the SM-Tau comparisons I still get a feeling that we are talking chalk & cheese, not because of the individuals capabilities, but rather because of the differences in army composition and tactics.

So with the greatest respect, I really want to hear more on the best use of the Tau compositions & tactics rather than comparitives between various stats and references to 40K which at this point may have less relevance given that we have the basics about right (IMHO of course ).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Well, I remember JJs comment that an Epic Engage action is supposed to represent an entire game of 40k.  Most infantry do have some weapon that is just brutal on vehicles (meltagun, etc) that isn't represented on the E:A statline for the most part.  Tau are one of the oddities where the basic infantry weapon is actually usable as an emergency anti-tank weapon, due to it's high strength (S5 guns can glance Rhinos from the front, and penetrate almost all imperial vehicles from the rear).  It's not unreasonable to assume that Infantry can hurt tanks at close range, after all, it's been proven for something like 75 years now.

So with the greatest respect, I really want to hear more on the best use of the Tau compositions & tactics rather than comparitives between various stats and references to 40K which at this point may have less relevance given that we have the basics about right.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Lion in the Stars: I think you're definately taking the 40k > Epic translation too far when you're talking about specific points worth of death per activation!

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