Tactical Command | View topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 25 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Crisis Cadre

CyberShadow

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:52 am

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Not a suggested change, but more of a set of random thoughts. The Crisis Cadre doesnt seem to fit both the background or the rest of the list. It is a smaller size than the other two (and I would not want to double the cost just to increase the size) and is the size of a standard Contingent. In addition, these guys are supposed to be the leaders and higher ranks of the rank and file. On paper it would make more sense to make this either an upgrade or Contingent. This would leave us light on Cadres, but I just wondered on the comments on this. If we could add a new Cadre, would there be mileage in dropping the Crisis as a Cadre?

(I should re-iterate, I am not at this point suggesting changing this, just raising it as a point of discussion.)

(Also, this may combine with a few thoughts that I have been having about the auxilia troops. Right now, I am not a fan of 'but an extra contingent if you take to auxilia', and I wondered whether a special Cadre, a unique combination of troops, which was only available to Tau-only forces is a better way forward. For example, and this is off the top of my head, Fire Warriors + Devilfish + Hammerheads as a unique formation, not available if you took Kroot et al, or even making the Dragonfish only available to Tau-only forces.)

Thanks.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Top

Steele

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:56 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

I don?t know if it?s wise to do that. I see the prices from Forgeworld as a hindering Point to buy any Models en masse, and as most players ( I suppose) build their armies around V.4.1 or later, they will have only Firewarriors and some crisis in sizeable forces to field as Cadres. Dropping them would implicate that most players have to buy more of the others to compensate if they wanto field the same amount of Contingents.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:51 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Actually, the Aremoured Hunter Cadre is relatively cheap - cheaper than Fire Warriors (partcularly if you want Devilfish for them), and this does partially address your point. Currently, with 3 to a base, you need two packs of Crisis suit for your first Crisis Cadre, makiing twenty pounds in the UK - so they are not necessarily a cheap Cadre anyway. (At least, they are cheaper than Kroot, which currently costs thirty pounds for ten bases!)

Yes, players may need to restructure their forces, but the Crisis suits would remain, and this is one of the 'joys' of playing with a WIP EA force.

Thanks.

Top

colonel_sponsz

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:03 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390

I know this doesn't realy answer any question but I've put together a summary of the Tau T&OE for Taros that I did when this was being discussed earlier.

Taros TO&E

Orde

_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive

Top

Steele

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:09 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Second thought:

If we put them into the Contingent Section , we also must take one if we want a SC. Loosing one of the Contingent Choices, not kind a good thing on Low Points Games. But either way, we?ll try it if you want.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

Steele

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:33 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (CyberShadow @ 25 Nov. 2005 (11:52))

If we could add a new Cadre, would there be mileage in dropping the Crisis as a Cadre?

What comes to your Mind? A mixed Cadre - FW & Crisis?
Or something bigger like the List in the Taros Campaign, see post from Colonel_Sponz?

I?m curious... :oops:

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:00 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

I was thinking along the lines of a 'specialist Cadre' something like a 'recon Cadre', a 'drop Cadre' (which is very tempting) or 'take and hold Cadre'. I dont have anything fixed, but just some unformed ideas right now.

It all comes from the thought about what type of Tau force would not take Kroot or other auxilia, and what would the role of this all-Tau force actually be - alongside the desire to create a characterful reason to take a Tau-only force without causing too many problems, and a dislike of the 'take an extra Cntingent at the usual price' (since I rarely max out on these formations anyway). The option of a unique Cadre, not available to auxilia-included forces is something that I use in other lists and it works quite well as it creates character without new units.

Top

Soulless1

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:50 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 14
Location: Leicester, UK (termtime). South Essex, UK (holidays).

The thing is that, though low in physical numbers, Crisis suits *are* a mainstay Tau unit. They either need to be part of the Fire Warrior Cadre selection (which would limit their usefulness by tying them down), or have their own cadre - which I think is working fine as-is IMHO.
Having a SC limited to contingents is also probably a bad idea.

_________________
'Of course you should fight fire with fire; you should fight everything with fire!'

'Those who live by the sword, die by the rifle'

Top

Honda

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Ok, I'll run against the grain a little and say that I think your idea of only having crisis as a contingent or upgrade is very sound from a fluff perspective.

The crisis after all are the cream of the crop and listed as "Elites" in the 40K Force Organization Chart.

So I think that change is a good one.

A possible replacements for the crisis cadre that are generally discussed in IA3:

1. FW + Broadsides. I would expect this cadre to be able to teleport (as they were primarily shipped around in Mantas)

2. Pathfinder cadre. Again, in the fluff, the Imperial forces time and again ran into Pathfinders + Skyray as the forward forces. The whole purpose of this formation would be to degrade mobility of the opponents forward formations. I would think a max of 4 Skyrays in order to fit the transportation capacity of the Manta. Again, this unit should be able to teleport.

3. Just shooting in the dark here, but what about an Air Cadre? Barracudas + Tigersharks?

As far as mixing HH + DF, we can sort of already do that and unless you are talking about mixing IC-HH's in with FW, then the capabilities of the two units don't mesh very well.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:05 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

CS,

I have mixed feelings on this suggestion.

On one hand, As long as crisis remain an upgrade that the existing FW cadre can take, and they also become their own contingent, I'd be OK with that suggestion.

On the other hand, their are all battlesuit armies - farsight enclave. In these armies, the tau battlesuit becomes the main fighting element.

Regarding a new cadre type, it depends.... I really like the way the FW and Armoured Cadre are working and the upgrades for those cadres work good as well - including the hh and crisis for the firewarriors.

We already have access to FW + HH so making a special cadre for that might not make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

A broadside plus firewarriors combination already exists from our FW cadre.

An aircaste cadre is probably a no-no as aircaste is support of the main effort by design. Aircaste is restricted points, and in the end, would cause all kinds of non-standard headaches I personally don't want.

A pathfinder / tetra / scouting party cadre definitely would fit the tau way of combat, and I would be in support of something like that.

=========

In the end, I think the crisis cadre is working. I think its really supported/justified well enough from the farsight enclave perpsective alone.

Unless we were just trying to change things around, I think the crisis cadre offers a nice alternative to the other two. I really don't want to see it taken away unless there's a concern for balance.

Crisis suits are almost as common as firewarriors in some armies. I think it would be a shame to lose that feel.

Now all this said, i really don't even play crisis suits much in E:A. This is ironic because they are a staple in my 40K force. I personally don't use hte crisis cadre much in E:A (40-50% of the games they are used) and if I had to see them go to a contingent, it wouldn't be the worlds end for me personally. From principle and fluff vantage point, I do think they are a 'core' force in E:A for the Tau though.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:17 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

I have been using the crisis cadre regularly, and I would miss this formation. If it became a contingent which upgrades would be available?

The crisis cadre fills the "emergency" roll well. "it is their role to get to the right place and take out the right targets."

As an upgrade to FW they wouldn't (IMO) be able to fullfil this role as well.

As a contingent (if it wasn't the same size, i.e. 4 plus 3 upgrade etc) they wouldn't have the same firepower to deal with bigger/tougher threats and would be very vulnerable to assault.

The recon cadre sounds interesting though. Some combination of pathfinders etc, available if no auxiliaries are taken. How different to a pathfinder contingent would it be though?

Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:34 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201

I would prefer that they stay as a Cadre Choice, if only to further differentiate this list from say the IG. Both IG and Tau get foot Inf, Mech Inf, and, now, an Armor core choices, IG also getting SHT and Arty core choices, we should keep our battlesuit core choice. Other differences exist between the two armies, I know, but this seems like unneeded convergence.

Its seems like bad mojo to have to burn up a contingent choice to take a supreme commander.

An option that might be worth exploring is: instead of 4 for 250, perhaps 375 for 6 and add a contingent choice of 4 for 250? Perhaps even 225 due to the lost contingent choice.

Top

asaura

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:05 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481

Quote (HecklerMD @ 26 Nov. 2005 (07:34))

Its seems like bad mojo to have to burn up a contingent choice to take a supreme commander.

You can get a Crisis upgrade and put the SC on that. No need to use a contingent choice.

Top

Steele

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:16 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (asaura @ 26 Nov. 2005 (11:05))

Quote (HecklerMD @ 26 Nov. 2005 (07:34))

Its seems like bad mojo to have to burn up a contingent choice to take a supreme commander.

You can get a Crisis upgrade and put the SC on that. No need to use a contingent choice.

Why slow down a Formation ( Firewarriors w/ Devilfish) ? Narrowed use of Jetpacks aside.

Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Crisis Cadre

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:50 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore

Thanks for your comments guys. I take your points. Things will stay as they are for now, but I do want to make the point that nothing is sacred in the list and I like to continually re-evaluate issues to check that they are still working as expected without too many problems.

I guess that there are two issues here:

- Crisis Cadre: It seems that the general feel is that this Cadre works OK and that people like it. It doesnt sit 100 percent with me concerning the background, but I have no real reason to get rid of it... although uping it to 6 units is worth of consideration.

- Auxilia/Additional formation: I must admit that I would like to add a formation to Tau-only forces... My warped brain has been thinking of this recently and I stumbled on the potential of a modified Tigershark formation (called a Whiteshark? :devil:

) with modified cargo of a second formation of Drones and Crisis suits which could be dropped as per the normal rules...?

Comments?

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 25 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Crisis Cadre

Who is online