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

Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5597		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Pathfinders for the various reasons I've said before are my favourite Tau unit, especially since all the discussions and I've discovered they are better than I thought!

For me Firewarriors lose out to Pathfinders, but stuff like human garrissons don't. I wondered if everyone else here felt the same?

Firewarriors of course have some advantages - they are a core choice, can become fearless with an upgrade, cost less if I don't want devilfish, can have more upgrades in general, cost less for the same number of mechanised units, more resistant to breaking etc.

Otherwise Pathfinders seem to have all the advantages from firepower and assualts to deployment.

Do you think they are what firewarriors should be?
Author:  CyberShadow [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
There are quite a few threads coming up regarding Pathfinders and their relation to Fire Warriors. I am taking note of all of these, but I thought that I would point out that it is probably best not to make changes to these two units this revision. Once we get version 4.4 uploaded, then we can go to the new Codex and examine these two infantry units.

Feel free to continue discussion, I just wanted to be clear.
Author:  VanDamneg [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Quote (Hena @ 13 Mar. 2006 (08:01))
IMO few simple changes makes a lot of difference:

1. Firewarriors 2*AP 5+ 30com, Lose the secondary weapon completely.

2. Pathfinders move sniper to rail rifle and lose the rail rifles disrupt.

This was what I thought but I now see what people were saying about FWs pulse carbines giving them an alternative to assaults.

I do agree with the suggestions on pathfinders.  Maybe the key isn't to try and make FWs better but to make pathfinders slightly less good.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders

For me Firewarriors lose out to Pathfinders, but stuff like human garrissons don't. I wondered if everyone else here felt the same?


I do not. I ALWAYS take at least one FW cadre and depending on who I am fighting, then bolt on the appropriate upgrades. After my successes with Pathfinders, usually one of the upgrades is a PF contingent, but then the other might be either a HH-IC or Stingrays.

This formation is fairly resiliant (excluding HtH action) and delivers a large number of shots on target. The PF's are protected by the bulk of the FW, the FW's get the benefit of CF if they need more firepower, and the PF's snipers help eliminate those pesky HtH monsters that some lists like to scatter rather liberally throughout their lists.

So, it's not a straight up comparison to just say that PF's are better than FW's. They both must be used (I used to think that PFs weren't worth the bother) and play off of what each brings to the table.

My opinion, neither needs adjusting.
Author:  VanDamneg [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Quote (Honda @ 13 Mar. 2006 (13:53))
My opinion, neither needs adjusting.

I basically agree with you on that, I just don't think sniper should apply to pulse carbines, it seems wrong.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone.  AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders

[Quote]
(The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone.  AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.
[QUOTE]

Hmm...I had never assumed that Sniper applied to anything other than a shooting attack. So...that'll be interesting to hear what comes out of that question.

@VanDamneg

I can't say that I disagree with you conceptually. I think that the fact that the PC has sniper is balanced by the fact that you have to get closer to take the attack, very likely incurring an assault in return, which pretty much wipes them out.

So, not saying one way or another, but if there isn't a real good reason to use the PC, the likelihood of PF's using the weapon goes down because the reward doesn't outweigh the risk.

A valid point though, from a 40K perspective.
Author:  VanDamneg [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
The more I think about it the less I think things should be changed.  I wouldn't mind seeing FW get 2 pulse rifles instead of their pulse carbines but I can see that PF are basically ok.  

However I'd still question whether they need (or should have) disrupt on their rail rifles (I know they cause pinning in 40k but then so do guard, space marine and eldar sniper weapons).  Maybe this is all that needs changing.
Author:  Tactica [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Quote (nealhunt @ 13 Mar. 2006 (11:20))
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 Mar. 2006 (16:46))
Sniper also applies to FF and CC attacks as well, there is no distinction in what you are using to attack with.

That's not set in stone. ?AFAIK, that is a pending question for the FAQ.

NH,

Agreed. My group has never have applied sniper to FF attacks.

It would take a FAQ mod for us to change our practice.

cheers,
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
Don't you mix something up?
Aren't the longer barelled, long ranged guns the pulse rifles (main weapon of the FW)and the short barelled, short ranges guns the pulse carbines (main weapon of the PF)?
Author:  Tactica [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
BL,

We are talking about 3 guns.

I think you are confusing the Rail Rifle with the Pulse Rifle. From 40K, here are the differences...

1. ?Rail Rifle:
?longest rifle looking weapon
?used for sniping and armor busting
?36" Range, S6, AP3 (marines get no armor save)
?Causes Pinning Test, Target Lock
?3 of these are allowed in a 4-man Pathfinders squad

2. ?Pulse Rifle:
?longer rifle looking weapon
 used for main gun of the tau, some auxilleries carry these
?30" Range, S5, AP5
?Rapid Fire at 12" Range
?All FW have these be default
?Pathfinders DO NOT carry these

3. ?Pulse Carbine
?shorter ranged looking weapon
 used by forward units and those on the move
?18" Range, S5, AP5
?Assault weapon which fires gernades into the enemy while it fires
?Causes Pinning
?All Pathfinders have these by default
?Up to 50% of a Firewarrior squad may carry these

Hope that helps all,

Cheers,
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:01 am ]
Post subject:  Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
So Epic Tau have all their upgrades bought?
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/