 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 4 posts ] |
|
Pathfinder Contigent |
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Pathfinder Contigent  Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
I have spotted a little cost issue with the Pathfinder contingent.
First, they seem to be a bit too much of a bargain compared to Firewarriors: for 175 pts, you get 4 Pathfinder units + 2 Devilfishs whereas the same amount of Firewarriors costs you 150 pts. 25 difference for scout, sniper and coordinate fire.
IMO, you should make the pathfinder contingent 200 points to make them significantly more expensive than Firewarriors. In addition, this will make the contingent and the upgrade the same cost, and therefore the Pf upgrade will become a more appealing choice to the Pf contingent itself.
Lastly, why isn?t the Devilfish made an option for +25 points each (considering 2 Pathinder stands for 75 pts in this case)? Indeed, I find the 'freeness' of the Devilfish to be unessecary complication.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimmyGrill
|
Post subject: Pathfinder Contigent Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm
Posts: 61
|
|
Actually, the 'free Devilfish' thing is there for several reasons. The least important one is consistency with 40K, though in Epic the obligation to take Devilfish is far more useful.
But it also has drawbacks. If you want to deploy your PF on foot or by Orca, you don't get a refund. This fact and the general fact that they are a more restricted choice than Shas'la (less upgrades, far smaller formation, contingent choice) already sets the both far apart enough IMO.
I would not have a real problemupping PFs to 200 points, but ATM I see no real obligation to do so. I haven't found them over-effective for their cost, and I don't see them as direct competitors to Fire Warriors.
In my experience, 'main' or 'core' infantry combat formations need a certain size to start with, and the Shas'la are much better at this with 8 base and 4 optional; the 4 base 2 optional of PF will only get them 6 strong at max (already using one upgrade), and they can't take some of the more useful upgrades.
I use them totally differently, and don't think the comparison can be applied...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jaldon
|
Post subject: Pathfinder Contigent Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:54 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am
Posts: 720
Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.
|
|
If there is one thing I have learned in over two years of playtesting/development of Epic-A, it is "What something looks like on paper isn't always how it functions on the battlefield".
For some time there was a very vocal group that believed the "Scout" ability was worthless, and on paper it does look worthless, but it is far from worthless used properly on the battlefield.
Pathfinders would make lousy replacements for Fire Warrriors on the battlefield, they just don't have the staying power needed for frontline duty.
Now the Stealth Contingent, I am taking a closer look at this one and I am planning on messing around with it this weekend.
Jaldon:-)
_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Pathfinder Contigent Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
In my experience, 'main' or 'core' infantry combat formations need a certain size to start with, and the Shas'la are much better at this with 8 base and 4 optional; the 4 base 2 optional of PF will only get them 6 strong at max (already using one upgrade), and they can't take some of the more useful upgrades. |
Maybe that is due to my plaing style then, as I always consider Tau infantry as support formation when building an army because they don't have their own AT.
But still I find that snipers alone is a great deal for the 25 points difference.
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 4 posts ] |
|
