While I applaud the options and effort that's going into all this Infantry debate, I personally think all we need is serious change on the FWs and a minor tweak to the Crisis(if I had to pick from these two things I'd take the change to FWs first and foremost). I think all other infantry units are fine.

Proposterously overpowered.

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

So a single formation of FWs would get 24x AP shots or some 8 hits on an advance! I think I have to agree with Zombocrom here that this does seem overpowered by itself. However I did envisage getting similar or even higher numbers of shots by co-ordinated fire rather than using a single formation.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Eight units times two shots each is 16 x AP5+ shots...

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

LOL! and I think if you read his post those are his "dream stats" not a definite proposal, so let's not get our knickers in a twist.

I did laugh at the word "proposterous" though... gave me visions of some old fat british politician with a smoking jacket and cravat sipping brandy and smoking a cigar in front of the fireplace while listening to tall stories.

I think the addition of a +1EA or straight out 4+FF is a fair start to trial with the -1 engagement roll

Right, one or the other seems good if an improvement was tried.  I think I favor 2 FF attacks at this point, with a reduction to one AP attack at range.  The reasoning behind that being that the rate of fire goes up the closer the FWs get to their target.

Dobbsy, you are tight in that the FWs need the change the most if we head this way.  The other infantry changes proposed seem to be in the way of tweaks, etc.  I really prefer to look at things in groups like this as I think it helps keep roles distinct and hopefully some sense of cohesion.  So even though the FWs might need the most attention, it makes sense to address the infantry as a whole.

I think I favor 2 FF attacks at this point, with a reduction to one AP attack at range.

_________________
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.

Are you spying on me? How did you know?

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

Ok, so it was just a bad dream *phew*

So I don't make the same mistake again, could you guys specify the ranges you are referring to. FF I can understand, but 'at range' is less clear, do you mean 15cm? If so, the nub of this argument is still around game mechanics and tactics. To "engage" or "not engage"?
(and they say that marriage is a dying institution )

I was under the impressioin that the idea was actually not to "engage", but rather to use close range firepower to destroy enemy infantry or force them to retreat. In that sense, the FW should have better firepower than FF stats shouldn't they? So 2x Plasma rifles rather than FF (EA+1) - or am I missing the point again??

Also, I still think people may still be confusing good statisics with good tactics - that they want the army to fight well despite what they do. While shooting by itself is not usually decisive as Neal points out, we could consider providing the means to make it more effective.

• Co-ordinated fire gives a significant boost, but how often do people use it in conjunction with FW???
  1) Should people be encouraged to take more supporting formations precicely for this purpose?
  2) Do we need to review formation costs to ensure there are sufficient activations to provide co-ordinated fire??
• Would "Ignore cover", "Sniper" or perhaps "Disrupt" better represent the power of their weaponry??

Guys Could we get a clear agreement on which way the Tau should fight in order to get a better direction on how to best represent that, what the individual components are and how many of those components ought to be built into the basic stats of the FW, or provided by the 'combined arms' mechanic that I believe should actually be one of the Tau hallmarks.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The reasoning behind that being that the rate of fire goes up the closer the FWs get to their target.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

If the buff to their FF cannot be used effectively due to the -1, then it isn't a buff at all.  The whole package (+50-100% to their FF value) will shift FW dramatically towards being assault troops.  The main thing it would do to my mind is make an SC near mandatory in the force selection if you take FW as your core.  Otherwise you get nothing from the FW change.  Also,  since when you need an assault it's critical that it works right then, the SC reroll is going to be doubly critical.

On a different point, this -1 could be avoided entirely for air assaults.  They run off the Ground Attack action of the aircraft.  I see a variant on the SM Dev/Assault combo - Orca lands and shoots with Crisis, second Orca air assaults with FW and the Crisis in support.  That's obviously much better with the +50% FF, but I doubt there's enough collective Orca air assault tactical experience to judge whether that's a problem.

_________________
Neal

Ginger, I think I see the source of your confusion.  Myself and some others are proposing the idea that the Tau should be better in assaults/engagements and that assaults should be another tool in their arsenal.  We would like to see the current idea changed.  

My main argument is that Firewarriors in particular cannot avoid assaults as the range of their weapons is short enough that they are forced to enter assault range.  Which means that if the point is to avoid assaults, how do you then use the FWs?

I listed some assumptions on how the Tau fight.

1.  The Tau value their troops and equipment and do not throw lives away in frontal assaults of prepared defenses or defensive stands
2.  Tau infantry (both foot troops and battlesuits) are equipped with very effective, short-ranged weapons
3.  The Tau physique is such that they are exceptionally poor at CC fighting
4.  Tau military doctrine favors destroying the enemy army through decisive strikes (Mont'ka) or setting traps (Kauyon)

Right now the list interprets these assumptions by giving the Tau lower than expected FF scores.  I think it would be a better representation and give the Firewarriors a clearer role in the army if the FF values were better, but the Tau had a -1 to their test towards using an engage order.  Some agree with this proposal others do not.

I had considered that and IF this is a tactic you wanted to use an SC would be really important, also you would want a FW formation with no BMs on it.  It does also highlight the importance of Crisis Suits for assaulting given their 1+ Initiative.

A common tactic I think wold be to use Devilfish to move some Firewarriors up near the enemy and fire.  Then have some Crisis Suits initiate the assault using the FWs as supporting fire (by either retaining or waiting either being a risk and a tactical choice).  Anyway, that seems lie a reasonable scenario for a Tau army to be using anyway.

On a different point, this -1 could be avoided entirely for air assaults.  They run off the Ground Attack action of the aircraft.  I see a variant on the SM Dev/Assault combo - Orca lands and shoots with Crisis, second Orca air assaults with FW and the Crisis in support.  That's obviously much better with the +50% FF, but I doubt there's enough collective Orca air assault tactical experience to judge whether that's a problem.

Interesting views in the last two posts where you first suggest that the FW should be better in assaults, yet you then cite an example where it is the Crisis suits that actually do the assault, supported by the FW.

For what it is worth, I must say I thought we were going down that second path of using combinations of FW in transport (and possibly other upgrades) shooting / supporting as the 'model', rather than having them actually initiate the assault. Indeed I thought that was the whole 'raison d'etre' for the co-ordinated fire rule. The skill in playing the army then becomes one of using the correct tactics and combinations (of upgrades and formations) to achieve these aims while avoiding being caught by some form of retaliation. Isn't that the essence of Mont'ka?

The basic issue is really over the incompatibility of what we think of as "short-range" shooting with the E:A mechanics that include this in the assault mechanism. However, either way, IMHO it is vital that we resolve this basic design question first before considering just how the list can be made to operate in an optimal manner. By that I mean,

• Agree the basic tactics we are trying to emulate.
  You and LiTS have done a great job here on roles, but less on the army and formation compositions used to achieve this.
  
• Agree on whether this 'optimal result' is best achieved by shooting or assault (and my vote is by shooting in some fashion).
  
• Break down the components used to achieve this into unit stats, formations and upgrades.
  
• If needed, apply special considerations to get the desired result
  
• Review the whole lot and check the results achieve the goals set out in #1 using the preferred mechanics in #2 while not being totally skewed in some other respect.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Neal what do you see the FWs looking like?

After re-reading this thread a bit more I'm wondering that if people are adverse to the 4+FF -1 engage order what do people think about giving them:

1xAP5+ Disrupt, 1xAP5+ (I think they used to have this before anyway)and/or? 5+ First Strike?

They shoot hard (adding BMs) and severely hurt assaulters in return engagement but still run the risk of being slaughtered in that engagement?