Heh.

(heh.., he.., h....)

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

Ok, here's a thought - lets drop the Co-ordinated firing special rule as no-one seems to be using it in this debate at all. Or alternatively, why not make Co-ordinated fire something that only FW can instigate (amoung the infantry formations anyway)?

======

Giving FW a First Strike capability is all very well, but at FF5+ FS, the eight stands are only going to get ~2.6 hits and rather less kills - and the FW will be wiped out in retaliation, which I thought was the situation we were all trying to avoid.

You would need to have FF3+ or better to achieve the kind of kill rate to worry many formations, so while I like the idea, IMHO it is not going to work without some additional upgrades to the formation - so what would these be, and more importantly, what is the associated cost?

For example, if you add transport, this puts the FW at 300 points, considerably higher than the 200-250 point average needed for adequate activations for co-fire etc. which tends to be the point where people look for alternative formations with better abilities.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

You just put the first strike ability in the FF *weapon* notes, not the unit notes.

An interesting discussion, I'd like to offer a couple of observations...

I'm seeing a lot of suggestions to make Fire Warriors much much better at assaults, given that in 40K they don't actually deal damage much different from tactical marines I'm curious as to why there are suggestions that involve putting them on par with Dire Avengers, supposely the all time masters of 'spray and pray' assaults.

Secondly, even from a fairly cursory look it seems that Firewarriors have a hard time finding a niche. As mobile firepower they don't seem all that hot, combinations of short range, enemy infantry nearly always getting cover from at least their own transports and a high likelyhood of needing a double to get to a decent position to fire from they're going to go down to 7's of largly ineffectual shooting pretty quickly. If you don't take make the approach when you shoot you're libable to be in assault before you get the chance to do much effective shooting at all so no winning there.

Its well and good to say that Fire Warriors are for counterattacking, but if their firepower isn't high enough to run and gun effectively and their firefight isn't good enough to assault then their counterattacks aren't going to be achieving a whole lot.

Before debating exactly which rule to make for the solution it would be best to aggree on the problem, I'm pretty sure the problem is that Fire Warriors don't have an identifable slot in the army that can't be done better by something else. Consider - Hammerheads shoot stuff better from further away, Crisis suits do mobile firepower better and can have a chip at vehicles while they're at it. (Of course I could be wrong, I'm not as highly experienced with the tau state of play as most you guys).

Perhaps the simple solution might just be some baby steps from the V5 list, upping them to a straight 4+ firefight with no icing on top. At point blank range a squad of firewarriors have a higher throw weight than a crisis suit, and they have a decent justifcation for it with 5 heads to look around keeping track of whats what instead of only a couple of battlesuits and faithful binky the wonderdrone...
IMHO they don't need to be great at firefights, just a bit less poor than everything else in the list.

_________________
"A good orbital insertion is one you walk away from, a great one is where they can use the Thunderhawk again." Roboute Guilliman.

I don't really see any nee to improve the FF of FW's. I frequently use as an engagement formation as they are. The commonly out perform guardians, guardsmen and ork boyz in FF. FF 5+ with a 5+ AS is pretty good as it is. I have toyed with the idea of FF 4+ in the past but now no longer see any need. All FW's need to make them a very viable formation it to give the ethereal back inspiring and give crisis suits back their macro FF. Double teaming formations by shooting 13 shots from Crisis suits and engaging with FW's is devastating (as zombo and E&C will I'm sure testify) as well as feels very Tauish. If you want to improve  FW stats to make them a better stand alone unit I suggest creating a new character with the leader ability to help shed blast markers something like a bonded fire warrior team for 25 points, and maybe an improvement of their ranged ability 16 AP5+ is almost always 16 AP6+ and therefore inefectual compared to crisis suits and HH's.

I think Hymiri has the right idea.  Baby steps.

I would say it is worth trying either a FF4+ or 2xFF5+ for Firewarriors.  No other changes to the list at this time.

If a small step like that was tried:

Would you support it?
Would it make you consider trying more FWs in your list than you do now?
Do you feel this would break the list in some way?
Which option would you prefer?

I am hoping to get a game in this coming weekend.  I'll likely be giving one of these choices a go at that time.

Firewarriors will be the ultimate air assault troops. The whole idea is completely overboard.

If we want to give FW a boost, the boost should be in direct fire abilities. Disrupt could work.

An alternative is messing with the to-hit numbers. 5+ to hit is very prone to degrading from minuses. When the FW are used offensively, they either advance or double against an enemy in cover. On advance, they hit on 6+ (2.7 hits on 16 shots). On double, they hit on 7+ (1.3 hits).

Let's change the current two 5+ shots to a single 3+ shot. On advance, an FW formation then needs 4+ to hit, causing 4 hits. On double, it's 2.7 hits. (The numbers get worse on sustained fire, where the number of hits goes down).

How do we want the FW to kill enemy? There are three main choices:
1 engage Firefight
2 advance and shoot
3 get in position and threaten with sustain fire on the next turn.

Currently, the FW stats favor number 3. If we want to favor advances, let's change the current two 5+ shots to a single 3+ shot.

I´ve written a full reply to this thread, but didn´t send it, because of uselessness. All things I have to say and all stats I propose are already posted by fellow members.

Just a word: FW should be crap in FF, else we give up a army weakness which is even more disgusting to me. If you want them stronger, upgun them. They are never ever FF4+ and for sure not better than Marines (weaker ballistic value, no special weapons for FW) in FF (2x5+ give even more chances for hits and will make them stronger than any non MW-wielding unit in the game). If the design team sticks with an engagement weakness of TAU, they should do it with every single unit, maybe one exeption (the suits? not speaking about Kroot anyway   ). But a further soften up of the concept will make it useless.

So a clear NO for upped FF. A clear YES for upgunning.

just my 0,0002 cent

RS

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

I am strictly against adding another special rule to represent the Tau's dislike for assaults. The CC6+ and FF6+ / FF5+ already do represent that dislike quite well. And didn't we all agree that having a special rule grant a negative modifier to an initiative test - like the proposed -1 to assaults mod - is a bad thing since you get an advantage if you "forget" it (see the Factions special rule from Black Legion)? Also, people are already doing a good job reducing the special rules (like deleting that overblown rule for the annoying Sentry Towers - I'm glad that that's gone). Lets not make a step back in the wrong direction.

However, would giving FW a single FF4+ attack and Crisis a single FF4+ (MW) attack break the focus of the list? In my opinion, that focus remains as long as the units with FF4+ (which is only slightly above average) still . That way, players will always prefer to let them shoot instead of assault, yet they aren't that bad if assaulted themselves (and that will often happen to FW, since they have to move into assault range in order to shoot). And both 2xAP5+ at 30 cm and what the Crisis can put out at short distance is better than that single FF4+ attack.

If there really must be a boost to FW (which I'm still not convinced is where the problems lie), make it a shooting boost; disrupt, or maybe a third shot.

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

Is the real issue that in comparison to the AMHC or suit cadre that FW are just not as good? As others have said FF5+ with a 5+ save is quite good for basic infantry.

If the cadre choice were between suits and FW would we see more FW's in armies?

If the AMHC were dropped I still can't see FW being used that often as they aren't really that good at shooting. Lots of shot but rarely that many hits. Out of the 16 you put out only 2 or 3 will hit and against AS4+ troops you may drop one base. Crisis suits with 9 AP 4+ and 4 MW4+ are a much better shooting option. Especially when you factor in their initiative, the leader and jet pack rule. I can see why people want to improve FF because it gives the FW's a unique role that is not met by any other formation in the list but I think FW can be "improved in better ways". They could have 2 AP4+ shots or maybe a single AP 3+ shot. For me it is not the number of shots that matter but the number of hits. Adding a third shot does not necessarily mean more hits, more chances sure, but not more hits.

It does add more hits on average. It's pretty weird to argue otherwise.

I think he means in comparison to having better shots, more shots won't always mean more hits.

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