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

Pathfinder question
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5585		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  thurse [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:53 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
Here are may 2 cents :D

- Heavy weapon is an option for SM tactical squads, and every squad has one of them.
- To keep on with the same example, all the five men in a unit do not need to have the same weapon : there is only 1 marine with a missile launcher and you get 1 shoot
- So we can imagine that the average pathfinder unit has some carbines and some rifles, thus the 2 attacks.

So IMHO, they fit quite well with the 40k fluff. However, they would also fit well without the rifles... So it is more a matter of game balance / unit fun for me.

The other 40k options could be represented in epic if we want to change the flavor/power of the unit.
Author:  thurse [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:30 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
Hum, it seems that I wasn't very clear in my post Hena, as you misunderstood me...

I agree with your statement : all upgrades should not be represented in epic and you can imagine that the marine ML is an average of all those heavy weapons and that their FF/CC values also represents special weapons. I think everybody is fine with that.

For pathfinders and tau infantry in general, we are perhaps a bit too much concerning the weapons they get, but consider that if you want to stick more to the 40k background, the change would be :
- most Tau infantry weapons should be removed as they are not long range heavy weapons
- all Tau infantry units comes with a good firefight values as carbines and rifle are small arms weapons. Tau have one of the best range infantry in 40k, which translate in a good FF value in epic.

Yes it would be more logical to remove all the upgrades and improve firefight.

But wil it be more fun? would it add uniqueness to the army? I dont think so.

I think that Tau upgrades appear more just because Tau need to be shooty in epic, and not about assault.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
This is an issue that I have have been thinking about recently, and the related issue of Firewarriors with Pulse Carbines.

As a general rule, the Epic units should represent the minimum or most often taken configuration of the unit in 40K. So, the question here is 'how many Pathfinder Units dont take a (single) Rail Rifle'? This is something that I guess only experience of the 40K game will illustrate.

In addition, there is the problem that taking the minimum configuration in most units would make the Tau undergunned compared to other races in EA.
Author:  baronpiero [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
Well personally I ask myself a lot of questions about the mixed armaments in our infantry. Is it realistic in the first place?

In the 40K codex, you have the option to swap half of the rifles for carbines. Since the option is a bit poor game-wise, i suspect there is a fluff reason behind that, otherwise this option wouldn't have made it into the new codex.

Do some of you know if such mix-up happens in our real world?
Author:  asaura [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
IRL, there are certainly examples of mixed weaponry in a squad. The first that comes to mind is a German late-WWII infantry squad fighting in an outfit that has received some MP44 assault rifles. The squad could have an SMG, an LMG, a few bolt-action rifles and a few assault rifles. This thing probably is not described in official TO&E papers.

Another case is an SMG platoon found in some Volksgrenadier divisions in '44-45. An SMG platoon included both SMG-only squads and SMG/rifle mixed squads. I don't know the rationale for the mixed squads, but I'm guessing bounding overwatch and the like. That's pretty hard to do with SMGs only. I think this kind of squad was codified in some manner, but I don't have any good sources in mind.

In the first instance, the idea is that we have some of these assault rifles, which are new and nice. There's not enough for everyone, and experienced folks are likely to be comfortable with their bolt-action rifles. Thus, the mix of assault rifles to long rifles is not "by design", but just something that happened.

In the second instance, we have an idea of equipping a platoon with many SMGs. This raises a problem with weapon ranges, as it'd be nice if there were at least some long-range rifles in the mix. IIRC, the solution used by the Germans was to include a few rifles in the mix (in addition to LMGs, of course).
Author:  thurse [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question

But current tau pathfinders are undercosted. They also have things which IMO they should not have

Well I agree with you here.
Here are the problems I see in my games :
- one of the best anti heavy infantry unit in the game with 2 sniper/disrupt attacks.
- for the cost, the best markerlight unit ( well tetras are perhaps better but for the price you have 4 pathfinder and 2 DF )

As you said, we could perhaps remove the disrupt on the rail rifle if this weapon in not supposed to do that. and sniping with a pulse carbine, well I don't know. I've always imagined this weapon as some sort of advance shotgun
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
Quote (Hena @ 29 Mar. 2006 (09:32))
1) Most option in 40k are not visible to epic
2) Rail rifle is option in 40k
3) Rail rifle is limited option in 40k (meaning not whole unit can get them)

So why does every unit in epic have them?

I think your statement breaks down in #1.  "invisible" doesn't mean "not present."  In fact, a mix of various gear loads is assumed to be present as it would be "in real life."

CS commented on it also, but the typical gear is what would be expected according to the background, with a strong dose of the intended feel of the army according to the background and an occasional nod to the standard 40K loadouts.  To that extent, figuring out what is and should be present is not based on a set formulat.  It is something of an art rather than an exact science.


None of that is to disagree with your suggestions on sniper/disrupt/carbine/rifle issues.  I'm just saying that if the manner in which things are translated into Epic varies from army to army or even unit to unit, that is not necessarily a problem.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
As far as it seems all units in epic are equipped with the same weapons the pictures of the WH40k boxed sets illustrates.
So SM have missile launchers and flamers, Leman Russes have the battlecannon, a las cannon and sponson mounted heavy bolters, eldar guardians have all shuriken guns, orks have big shootas, pathfinders have pulse carbines only and firewarriors have pulse rifles only...
Author:  Chroma [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question
Quote (BlackLegion @ 29 Mar. 2006 (17:19))
pathfinders have pulse carbines only and firewarriors have pulse rifles only...

But to compensate for their artificially lowered FF ability, the Tau units are given a little bit of shooting "oomph".
Author:  Honda [ Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinder question

Quote (BlackLegion @ 29 Mar. 2006 (17:19))
pathfinders have pulse carbines only and firewarriors have pulse rifles only...


This statement is not correct. FW can take pulse rifles or carbines in a mix as desired.

PF can take pulse carbines, and replace some with Rail rifles.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/