Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Firewarriors
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5571		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
It seems evident that many consider (well Tactica at least :) ) that FW don't cut the mustard.

For me I can't see their purpose. Markerlight/disrupt wise I prefer my scouting pathfinders, garrisson/static infantry wise the humans. Since these are what I use infantry for in mech forces that leaves mechanised infantry themselves.

Certainly at 450 points 10 FW and 6 Devilfish compares well firepower wise to other mechanised formations firepower wise. Indeed at fighting through cover as long as they keep the upper hand to discourage assaults their high armour serves them well.

But do such situations normally get dealt with by pathfinders, hammerheads and crisis suits if needed?

Those that do use them, what do they normally do?
Author:  asaura [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
I generally use at least one formations worth, on foot. They start the game on Garrison+Overwatch to guard against fast-movers and deep strikes. Once this initial mission is done and the battle is underway, I pick them up with an Orca and use them as a strike force.

Sometimes I don't have the Orca. In these cases, I admit, a Human auxilia formation could be as good or better, but the question becomes an army composition issue -- it's good to have Cadres.  :p
Author:  Honda [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
I have started to gravitate toward one large cadre that is supported by all the other units.

Generally, either of the following configurations:

a) 1 x FW cadre + Devilfish, + HH-IC, + Pathfinders

b) 1 x FW cadre + Devilfish, + FW w/DF, + HH-IC

I use it as an AP "hammer" to break large or dangerous infantry units. The trick is getting it within 15cm in one move so that large number of shots can be deployed effectively, hence the mechanized requirement.

The concern is that after they are deployed, they seem to attract everyone, including Girl Scouts with butter knives, who tend to treat them rather severely.

So, I don't just throw them out on a whim.
Author:  Steele [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Aren?t they 12 FW + 6 DF with one upgrade?

Well I use them with one FW&DF upgrade + Ethereal and either guard my rear or if I field 2 of them I rush forward with the intention of delaying the enemy while marking and/or contesting Objectives. Sure, they tend to attract a lot of fire , but along with the Ethereal they stay long enough to be relieved by other units.
Generally I will ever field them , not only because I like the minis.....

Cheers!
Steele
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Quote (Steele @ 22 Feb. 2006 (03:09))

Aren?t they 12 FW + 6 DF with one upgrade?

Yes - you have it right Steele.

TRC had a typo me thinks... :p

Well I use them with one FW&DF upgrade + Ethereal and either guard my rear or if I field 2 of them I rush forward with the intention of delaying the enemy while marking and/or contesting Objectives. Sure, they tend to attract a lot of fire , but along with the Ethereal they stay long enough to be relieved by other units.

So you use them as objective claim, pin-cusion, and tarpit formation more than anything else?

Such should seem to be the duties left to those in servitude, not those in pursuit of the Greater Good in the Warrior Fire Caste.

Generally I will ever field them , not only because I like the minis.....

Cheers!

You confused me here Steele... "I will ever field..."

I think you meant "always"?

Cheers,
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
For me I can't see their purpose. Markerlight/disrupt wise I prefer my scouting pathfinders, garrisson/static infantry wise the humans. Since these are what I use infantry for in mech forces that leaves mechanised infantry themselves.


TRC sums it up quite nicely actually.

FOR ME: (since TRC cited me in the openning of this thread) from 40K to E:A, the FW have lost their ability to be flexable at dealing with both infantry and vehicular targets. They are relegated to duties in E:A that are better handled by other formations in E:A.

Which means, short of liking a 200 point cadre so that I can get more 'other stuff' - the FW cadre doesn't suit my purposes much in E:A.
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Quote (asaura @ 21 Feb. 2006 (06:26))
but the question becomes an army composition issue -- it's good to have Cadres. ?:p

I'll agree with Asaura here. Its a very valid point.

The cadre at 200 points has its value to me, but not for the right reasons.

:/
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
FW are the flexible core of the army - the jack of all trades.  Yes, other formations can perform their specialty roles better than the FW, but the FW can do any of it when needed.

That means their primary purpose should be as a reserve/reaction force.
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Quote (Honda @ 21 Feb. 2006 (07:03))

I have started to gravitate toward one large cadre that is supported by all the other units.

Generally, either of the following configurations:


Help me understand a bit more Honda - do you mean:

1) in your army play style that you have one central fighting element that's rather large and the rest of the army supports tha formation?

or

2) Are you talking about simply at 'each formation' level - one large cadre with lots of upgrades. This then makes up your entire roster.

or

3) something else?


The trick is getting it within 15cm in one move so that large number of shots can be deployed effectively, hence the mechanized requirement.

Tricky indeed. For the FW to be effective in E:A - they have to get extremely close. This is odd because in 40K, they so many guns at 30 inches while the typical trooper has guns at 24" - so the FW are actually standing still firing while forcing the enemy to advance. This tends to give the Tau Firing discipline and field control advantages. In E:A, the formation has to get within 30cm to affect the enemy with a single shot from their standard issue weaponry that each one carries while IG and Marines that have 1 heavy weapon each are moving and firing those weapons just as often in E:A.

For marines/IG - 1 heavy weapon in 1 unit in 40K means don't move and fire your single shot or get on the move and sacrifice the shot. In E:A, IG/marines can now move and fire that same heavy weapon which is 1 per unit or 1 per E:A stand.

(OK, IG get 1 shot for every two stands...)

Firewarriors went from multiple shots per unit (1 shot per model in 40K) that also outranged the other 9 out of 10 models in a 40K IG/Marine unit - down to the same 1 shot per unit in E:A - so they lost their fire superiority.

IG/Marines/Tau can move and fire. So Firewarriors lost their move and fire advangtage over the typical 40K infantry unit.

FW used to outrange the majority of the IG/Marine squad - now their longest range is 30cm - which is shorter than the typical 45cm heavy weapon. This is a problem due to the loss of shot count on FW units in E:A - the 1 heavy weapon always outranged the FW - but when everyone gets one shot - this range imbalance hurts! (1 IG lascannon shot to FW 30" away meant at most 1 dead FW - then 9 FW would fire back at the unit with the 1 lascannon in it!). Now in E:A, the tau get within the enemy infantry's weapon range in order to deal any damage back, and they don't get more shots unless they are so close that its dangerous.

Tau can draw the enemy to them without fear of being charged in 40K for a couple rounds of shooting at least before combat situations are an issue - in E:A - they have to get into enemy charge range before their weapons are effective. Unfortunately they fight horribly in either game so getting in charge range in E:A is more deadly to the FW unit.

6-12 Strength 5 weapons from a single Firewarrior infantry unit in 40K meant any enemy vehicle with armor 10 and/or armor 11 in 40K had to fear the basic infantry as well as the big guns in the Tau army.  That meant that rhino front armor, chimera side armor - basalisks had to just hide, and even Leman Russ and Demolisher rear armor was not safe from the Tau FW! Thus - the mobile cav of the FW in a skimmer was truly a force to be reconned with - Tau and Necrons are the only standard infantry issue weapons that not only due to mass Firepower against infantry, but the enemy vehicles weren't safe from the standard issue warrior either! In E:A - this concept is completely lost unless you want to engage vehicles with Tau, get really close, and risk your own BM and damage to your Tau formation - assaulting - even to FF just isn't a good proposition for the Tau Firewarrior, so that means FW in E:A are somewhat preordaned to deal with enemy infantry only.

Then there are things like - their markerlight isn't as effective in E:A as it is in 40K. The loss of bonding.

These types of things have severely hindered what the FW unit can do in E:A vs. their leading and valued role in 40K when compared to other standard issue infantyr. Well - in *my* opinion anyway.

The concern is that after they are deployed, they seem to attract everyone, including Girl Scouts with butter knives, who tend to treat them rather severely.

So, I don't just throw them out on a whim.
Agreed, you have to be careful where you deploy in E:A.

You have to align your approach so that in a single move - you can move 30 with the skimmer, deploy withing 5cm of your vehicle, then be within 15cm of the enemy with your infantry in order to maximize your 15cm shots as well as your 30cm shots. This alignment can be a daunting task while still trying to remain out of LOF as you set up for this situation.

If you want your Devilfish to be within 15cm - now you have to be within 45cm of the enemy which means you are in many E:A enemy units FF engagement range!

If don't worry about the devilfish, or the 15cm shots, you can line up 65cm away which is easier. Now, you get all 8 of your models within 30 only - you are looking at 2-3 hits from the FW though at best, their 15cm guns are not used, the Devilfish 15 cm guns are not used, and their 4 seeker missles hitting on 5's will get you 1 AT hit if there are any AT targets in there - which means you are paying a lot for the FW and DF unused abilities to get 3-4 hits total out of your 300 points.

If you still abandon the idea of getting your Devilfish within 15cm range, you still need to line up 50cm away on a formation that has already moved - and you need to be out of LOF... so this can be tricky to set up in itself. However, at least you are out of engagement range, but your Devilfish are not really providing any covering fire either after you move as you'll be 20cm away from the enemy... :/ (But, you can assure you are not getting engaged as you are not lined up 45cm away...) so now you can get all 8 within 15cm, after your DF move's 30cm and you deploy 5cm away from the DF. Your FW are now looking at 16 shots and hitting on 5+ so should get 5 hits and your 4 DF are looking at still getting 1 AT hit on 5+ if there are those targets there. So 5-6 hits if you can line up 50cm away and the enemy isn't in cover. For 300 points and he's going to save some still... Well, at least I get disrupt on some of those (heh, if he's not fearless). :/ Again, I sacrifice the DF's ability to support my formation - lest I want to line up in what could be the enemy's charge range.

Now if you pull off the single move alignment (frankly, I find this hard to set up btw!) if the enemy is in cover, your hitting on 6s. This is very common. So in the majority of the above, you can shave all the numbers.

In any cases where I have to double to get into firing range - its just not typically worth it. So that means I'm doubling or tripling first turn to get them in alignment. It also means the FW is typicall of little more value than

1) Markerlight
- others do just as well - and deliver other functionality

2) Tarpit (if I give them an Ethereal)
Over 300 points just to tie up the enemy - IG does it better

3) Objective holding
others do it better while delivering other functionality

4) Satisfying a Cadre spot so I can buy other stuff.

I can tell you this... if Pathfinders were a cadre, I'd have no use for Firewarriors - at all in E:A. So when it comes down to it, I'm only buying FW for item 4 above... pretty sad considering how good they are to me in 40K.

BTW: To digress a bit, back to the SMS on Devilfish idea (LINK - Honda's SMS on DF thread - LINK) - at least a 30cm AP4+ SMS ignore cover shot on the DF would allow the DF to support the FW from further than 15cm away and would help in the dealing with cover situation.

Ironically, this is the same situation that many 40K Tau players wanted a longer range gun on the DF. So it could support the FW without getting right in the middle of the fight.

Now - admittingly - although SMS on the DF would help the Devilfish be useful to the FW vs. infantry, it will not solve the FW problems themselves that I note above in E:A. As I told NH though, I encourage any FW cadre improvements at this time - for the personal opinion reasons I mention above.



All just personal commentary though folks - since TRC cited *my* concerns in this thread. Also, it appears we agree on "Why Firewarriors in E:A?" and "What do they do that nobody else is doing for you?"

Cheers,
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Quote (nealhunt @ 22 Feb. 2006 (09:53))
FW are the flexible core of the army - the jack of all trades. ?Yes, other formations can perform their specialty roles better than the FW, but the FW can do any of it when needed.

That means their primary purpose should be as a reserve/reaction force.


are the flexible core of the army - the jack of all trades.


NH,

*If* you are not considering the Firewarrior's 1. upgrade options 2. Cadre status and maybe 3. total formation size - then I would say you are describing Pathfinders with Devilfish in E:A more than the FW.

The 2x disrupt, scout, sniper and ML (and to a lessor extent, the CF) are more valuable to *me* in a basic E:A Tau infantry role in my E:A games for the price.

Keep in mind, I'm not a big proponent of taking mass infantry like others are either - but TRC has a point. If/When I'm taking infantry - I'm looking at crisis and pathfinders first. For me - its the 200 point cadre - as Asaura mentioned that has any appeal.

Short of the cadre and *maybe* upgrade options and potential formation size - the FW themselves have little value to me. At least in *my* uses anyway. so this is a *personal* opinion of course.

Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
The 2x disrupt, scout, sniper and ML (and to a lessor extent, the CF) are more valuable to *me* in a basic E:A Tau infantry role in my E:A games for the price.


Actually, I agree.  The unit points are incorrect.

Subtract out the cost of the DF, and pathfinders are 31.25 points each v 25 for the FW.  For the 6.25 points per model, they get an extra Disrupt, Scout, Sniper, and Coordinated Fire.

I think we've safely passed the "no brainer" zone on 6 points for all that.
Author:  Steele [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
Quote (Tactica @ 22 Feb. 2006 (16:00))
[quote="Steele,22 Feb. 2006 (03:09)"][/quote]
Aren?t they 12 FW + 6 DF with one upgrade?

Yes - you have it right Steele.

TRC had a typo me thinks... :p

Well I use them with one FW&DF upgrade + Ethereal and either guard my rear or if I field 2 of them I rush forward with the intention of delaying the enemy while marking and/or contesting Objectives. Sure, they tend to attract a lot of fire , but along with the Ethereal they stay long enough to be relieved by other units.

So you use them as objective claim, pin-cusion, and tarpit formation more than anything else?

Such should seem to be the duties left to those in servitude, not those in pursuit of the Greater Good in the Warrior Fire Caste.

Generally I will ever field them , not only because I like the minis.....

Cheers!

You confused me here Steele... "I will ever field..."

I think you meant "always"?

Cheers,
Yep , You are correct - always suits it better.

Why should I let the ones in servitude get all the fun? :D


Cheers!
Steele
Author:  Honda [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors

Quote ?
I have started to gravitate toward one large cadre that is supported by all the other units.

Generally, either of the following configurations:


Help me understand a bit more Honda - do you mean:

1) in your army play style that you have one central fighting element that's rather large and the rest of the army supports tha formation?

or

2) Are you talking about simply at 'each formation' level - one large cadre with lots of upgrades. This then makes up your entire roster.

or

3) something else?



Sort of something else. :P

What I should have taken the time to say is that when I field my forces, there tends to be a center of gravity where I place a core of forces that are waiting to lure the opponent into a particular position. Other units, then act like supporting satellites around this core to influence the behavior of the opposing forces.



"When" I take a FW Cadre, I take a larger formation because of the number of shots and relative staying power of the larger formation.

However, I do tend to take at least one of these on a pretty regular basis. I've been experimenting with my force make ups of late, so sometimes I only get one because I'm trying other combinations.

What I am coming to understand for how I play, is that the 8 x FW + 4 x DF is a bit too fragile to me because it doesn't put out quite enough shots unless the target is unarmored.

Hence the extra FW and IC-HH.


The trick is getting it within 15cm in one move so that large number of shots can be deployed effectively, hence the mechanized requirement.


Tricky indeed. For the FW to be effective in E:A - they have to get extremely close. This is odd because in 40K, they so many guns at 30 inches while the typical trooper has guns at 24" - so the FW are actually standing still firing while forcing the enemy to advance. This tends to give the Tau Firing discipline and field control advantages. In E:A, the formation has to get within 30cm to affect the enemy with a single shot from their standard issue weaponry that each one carries while IG and Marines that have 1 heavy weapon each are moving and firing those weapons just as often in E:A.





I think you are partially correct. One of the things that was pointed out to me about our infantry doen't have to engage in order to fire their basic weapons. This means that if I am willing to accept the -1 to hit, I can double to get within 15cm and then all of my units have two shots.

So when I said, "It's tricky getting within 15cm", I don't want to infer that I was engaging with the opponent, only that I don't usually like to give up the -1 for a double.


Tau can draw the enemy to them without fear of being charged in 40K for a couple rounds of shooting at least before combat situations are an issue - in E:A - they have to get into enemy charge range before their weapons are effective. Unfortunately they fight horribly in either game so getting in charge range in E:A is more deadly to the FW unit.


I'd agree that the downside of getting in engage range in EA is quite severe.


6-12 Strength 5 weapons from a single Firewarrior infantry unit in 40K meant any enemy vehicle with armor 10 and/or armor 11 in 40K had to fear the basic infantry as well as the big guns in the Tau army. ?That meant that rhino front armor, chimera side armor - basalisks had to just hide, and even Leman Russ and Demolisher rear armor was not safe from the Tau FW! Thus - the mobile cav of the FW in a skimmer was truly a force to be reconned with - Tau and Necrons are the only standard infantry issue weapons that not only due to mass Firepower against infantry, but the enemy vehicles weren't safe from the standard issue warrior either! In E:A - this concept is completely lost unless you want to engage vehicles with Tau, get really close, and risk your own BM and damage to your Tau formation - assaulting - even to FF just isn't a good proposition for the Tau Firewarrior, so that means FW in E:A are somewhat preordaned to deal with enemy infantry only.


I'm not sure I agree with this. Our +5 FF is respectable. If we were to engage anyone of those targets, I think the weight of shot we produce could take those targets down. However, I will grant that it isn't something you bet the house on.


Quote ?
The concern is that after they are deployed, they seem to attract everyone, including Girl Scouts with butter knives, who tend to treat them rather severely.

So, I don't just throw them out on a whim.

Agreed, you have to be careful where you deploy in E:A.

You have to align your approach so that in a single move - you can move 30 with the skimmer, deploy withing 5cm of your vehicle, then be within 15cm of the enemy with your infantry in order to maximize your 15cm shots as well as your 30cm shots. This alignment can be a daunting task while still trying to remain out of LOF as you set up for this situation.

If you want your Devilfish to be within 15cm - now you have to be within 45cm of the enemy which means you are in many E:A enemy units FF engagement range!


Agreed, but definitely doable.


Now if you pull off the single move alignment (frankly, I find this hard to set up btw!) if the enemy is in cover, your hitting on 6s. This is very common. So in the majority of the above, you can shave all the numbers.


Agree that it isn't easy, but that it is worth it.


In any cases where I have to double to get into firing range - its just not typically worth it. So that means I'm doubling or tripling first turn to get them in alignment. It also means the FW is typicall of little more value than

1) Markerlight
- others do just as well - and deliver other functionality


Perhaps, but are also more fragile. So for sustained ML abilities, the FW cadre tends to last longer.


2) Tarpit (if I give them an Ethereal)
Over 300 points just to tie up the enemy - IG does it better


I never use Ethereals. I just don't see the value in doing that in a Mechanized force.


3) Objective holding
others do it better while delivering other functionality


In character, Tau never do this. Tau will always trade "terrain" for a better situation. Consequently, I tend to only hold objectives (i.e. mine) with broken/rallying units that are too severely understrength to contribute.


4) Satisfying a Cadre spot so I can buy other stuff.

I can tell you this... if Pathfinders were a cadre, I'd have no use for Firewarriors - at all in E:A. So when it comes down to it, I'm only buying FW for item 4 above... pretty sad considering how good they are to me in 40K.


I don't do this. I build a function or plan around my cadres and my contingents are then designed to support that function or plan.


Now - admittingly - although SMS on the DF would help the Devilfish be useful to the FW vs. infantry, it will not solve the FW problems themselves that I note above in E:A. As I told NH though, I encourage any FW cadre improvements at this time - for the personal opinion reasons I mention above.


I'm Ok with how they are working now.


All just personal commentary though folks - since TRC cited *my* concerns in this thread. Also, it appears we agree on "Why Firewarriors in E:A?" and "What do they do that nobody else is doing for you?"

Cheers,


Hey that's why we're here, to learn from each other.
Author:  RedDevil [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors
I think my view would be well remembered.  I don't like the lists portrayal, stats, and uses of the firewarriors.  I'll leave it at that, as all my suggestions to fix them have thus far always been shot down.  Hopefully you guys can succeed where I couldn't.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/