Doesn't the fact that the Tau tanks are relatively slow mitigate some of the problems with them?

Also, why not start with a high point cost for the cadre, then trim it [as req'd] when more batreps become available. Say 450.

As it stands, 375 seems rather cheap for what the cadre can do, relative to LRs, Falcons, and Fire Prisms.

So why isn't increasing their point cost an option? I doubt the generic player-off-the-street wants a 'focused' playlist if it means that every tau [3rd phase expansion] army will look the same.

One wonders how long it would be until The Real Chris would start using it!

Perhaps it might be an idea to enforce at least some fire warrior attendance in the army? A 1+ choice in the same manner as they are in 40K perhaps? Although I must admit that I too see some difficulty in finding a use for fire warriors in the tradional sense, they aren't that hard to push off an objective and their firepower isn't that great for shooting with, in a way it might have been a better idea to have options for etherals in every formation to further encourage them to flee a little less.

Overal, the direction appears to be mostly good. I'm personally glad that the silly things like turrets being buried just about everywhere in case of a battle and self targetting seeker missiles have been deleted.

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

Regarding AMHC...

Also, why not start with a high point cost for the cadre, then trim it [as req'd] when more batreps become available. Say 450.

As it stands, 375 seems rather cheap for what the cadre can do, relative to LRs, Falcons, and Fire Prisms.

So why isn't increasing their point cost an option? I doubt the generic player-off-the-street wants a 'focused' playlist if it means that every tau [3rd phase expansion] army will look the same.

Obviously, in this game, formations are assigned point values based on their most 'abusive' use.

How can the different cadres be abused?

It has been stated/implied that an all-skimmer, all-AV list is an abusive use of the AV cadre. Is this really an over-the-top situation? Does it compare to the all-Warhound army that AMTL v2 allowed? (I ask because that would give me a frame of reference that I could understand)

How can the fire warrior cadre be abusive? If they were 175 points instead of 200 points, would it be more obvious how they could be abusive? If they point-per-unit cost seems correct at 25pts, can the number of units in the formation be varied +/- 2 units to get a better sweet-spot?

I think this will be my last post in this thread, like I stated in my first post, I don't have a dog in this fight. I think I've gotten wrapped up in playing the devil's advocate here. Still, I think it would be a mistake to ditch the armored cadre. There is nothing wrong with a all-AV, all-skimmer army. I don't think any generic force would have too hard a time counting them (even orks, who may have crappy FF values, but they sure do have a lot of them). Without a third cadre, the list just seems like an Eldar list with different clothes on.

Suggestions to make Fire Warriors worth using -

- Up the Pulse Rifles to 2xAP4+
- Change the Pulse Rifles to 2xAP5+ Disrupt
- Change the Pulse Rifles to 2xAP5+ Ignore Cover

I really don't know what else to do. I believe their FF should be 4+ (fluffwise) but I also appreciate the present stats and the way they help guide the Tau player into playing as a Tau army should. The above examples also help to portray that death at close range effect we have talked about before.

With the above examples, the FW's initial attack would be more effective and reduce the inevitable, counter-attack/FW destruction that usually follows.

Maybe it's a bit late to be discussing this now though...

_________________
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.

My personal fix for FW is to give them ML...

But the fact is that FW are, outside the context of the Tau list, excellent mechanised infantry. Seriously, most lists would kill to have them as an option. If they were in the Guard list Storm Troopers would become obselete. It's only when compared to the other underpriced options available in the Tau list that they seem weak in comparison.

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

So what would you like to see the Fire Warriors actually do? I think it's a more effective approach than looking on where to prop them up. They're failing to do... whatever it is that they're failing to do (holding objectives and killing infantry were mentioned).

What of those weeknesses should they retain (this shouldn't ever be forgotten when considering things like this), and which of them should be mitigated somehow, all by accordance with the fluff and the gameplay considerations?

Oh, and as zombocom said, are they bad by looking at themselves or is it that the rest of the list is just better?

TRC is offline at the moment, but in the past he has frequently observed that FW are inferior to many / most Tau alternatives which is why they are generally shunned. But compare them with IG, Eldar Guardians and Ork Boyz and they look quite good. At this point the FW proponents will point out the additional advantages enjoyed by those troops (Farsight and an avatar, Grotz or cheap transport) and as Dobbsy said earlier, the argument circles again.

How much of this debate depends on How the FW are actually used? Just to pick on a recent statement, Onyx says they suck at holding Objectives - but isn't that supposed to be contrary to Tau philosophy?? Surely they ought to suck if used inappropriately.

So just how should they be used, and in conjunction with what other formations and circumstances?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Fire warriors are quite a large fm compared to most Tau ones and take some effort to break.

A FW cadre with some form of ML add on (I prefer the skyray)has definate potential. Advancing on a target and firing gets them 16 x Ap 5 shots + the fish shots and then 6 guided missile shots.  Retaining the initiative then allows a Scorpionfish or any other GM carrying unit to lay additional massive hurt.

The trick to FWs (As in 40K) is to strike first with massive overwhelming firepower by using their maneuverability and combined arms so that any assault related retaliation is negligable  due to the damage they just caused on the target unit and then getting the hell out of dodge.  Playing Tau is about patience and then instituting the killing blow.  

I also agree with the above statements that FWs are pretty good infantry all things considered.  5+ FF with a 5+ save is really not that bad compared to a lot of basic infantry out there.

The trick to FWs (As in 40K) is to strike first with massive overwhelming firepower by using their maneuverability and combined arms so that any assault related retaliation is negligable  due to the damage they just caused on the target unit and then getting the hell out of dodge.  Playing Tau is about patience and then instituting the killing blow.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Perhaps Devilfish upgrade should be mandatory for FWs then, to hammer that point home? If for whatever reason you wanted fishless FWs, those could be added as a support option but the core troops would be mobile by default.

They can ride in an orca for a pretty good ground attack formation too. I wouldn't limit them to mech only.

Firstly, I applaud you for cutting the Tau list back to one single page! I was allways annoyed that Tau were the only main list which spread over two pages. I really like how Epic:A fits a whole army list on one page.

Secondly, please cut either the Hammerhead cadre or the Hammerhead support group.

Thirdly, I would like to see that you incorporate the Kroot into the normal support formation. It is kinda weird that Tau have two different kinds of support formations.

Maybe the last two points could be combined? Cut the Hammerhead Cadre, move Kroot to the Support Groups and raise the number of Support Groups that may be taken per Cadre to 3.
That should balance that Kroot are now part of the Support Group limit and that the only way to take Hammerheads is to take them as a Support Group. The advantages are that the list has a clear focus on FW and Crisis, but still allows to take many Hammerheads and other tanks. At 3000 point you could take 2 cadres (e.g. one FW and one Crisis) and 6 Support Groups. With some Upgrades and half the Support Groups being maxed Hammerhead formations, you are already over 2000 points. The rest may be spent on Air Caste formations and voilá: Still many tanks and WE / flyers with only one of the dreaded FW formations!

If they were in the Guard list Storm Troopers would become obselete.

_________________
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.