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

Pathfinders
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5630		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  asaura [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:58 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Some more observations from a tournament held on Sunday.

Pathfinders seem to be too good as basic mech infantry. In one case, I Coordinated Fire with PFs and Stingrays to weaken or break a big untouched Eldar formation. What happened was that the Pathfinders broke the damn thing on their own and the Stingrays were not needed at all. There were some good dice rolls involved but, to my mind, 8 dice worth of Sniper+Disrupt shots is too much. Pathfinders should be good at being Scouts, being mechanized, having MLs and Coordinated Fire. Just plain old killing shouldn't be their strength.

Opposing players seemed to view PFs as "too strong".

These two observations seem to support downgrading PFs a bit. Perhaps lose "Sniper" or make it an optional upgrade or limit it to the Rail Rifles. I'd prefer not upping the points; maybe even 150 would be a better cost for Pathfinders (provided, of course, that they'd be downgraded accordingly).

Does anyone use Tetras? Why? Pathfinders seem much stronger. I know I stopped using Tetras the minute I painted up my first PF formation.
Author:  Ilushia [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
These are fairly common complaints. I'd like to see them lose Sniper altogether, personally. The only real reasoning I can think to have Sniper on the rail-rifles is that they're essentially the Tau equiv of Sniper Rifles, though they're not quite the same as other sniper rifles. If not removed it should DEFINITELY be moved to the rail rifles. I can't see any reason for the carbines to get Sniper. Disrupt fits with both. Most of the weapons which can cause Pinning in 40K do Disrupt, and both those weapons can.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Certainly for me they have better firepower than FW. And that was before I re-read the stats and realised they had sniper! :)

As part of the 're-focusing' of Tau infantry to give FW more of a role (firepower orientated) I suggested the following. Do you think it would stop criticisms?

Pathfinders
Move 15cm
Save 5+
FF 5+
CC 6+
Weapons
Rail Rifle 30cm, AP5+, Sniper
Pulse Carbines, Small Arms
Notes, scouts, markerlights, coordinated fire
Drop cost of formation and upgrade by 25 points.

Cuts the firepower though disrupt culd be better than sniper - I've no idea how the sniper ability correlates to 40k gear.
Author:  Ilushia [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Sniper would represent the Target Locks that the rail-rifles get. Rail Rifles can fire at different squads then the rest of the unit (And eachother) in 40K scale. They're not Sniper weapons in 40K, but the target-locks would likely make sense for making them Sniper in Epic scale. They really should have Disrupt though, since they cause pinning and with the exception of IG Snipers almost every weapon which causes Pinning has Disrupt in Epic. Though with Sniper they're probably good enough to approximate Tau Rail Rifles over-all.

I rather like that solution. It makes Pathfinders forward scouts and effective hunters of characters and the like, but if you follow it up by making Firewarriors have 2x shots at 30cm with pulse rifles the Firewarriors still outstrip them in total damage capacity.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Yes - the firewarriors go up in firepower with the 2x30cm shots (so you then have FW with the 2x5+, PF with 1x5+, Humans with 1x6+) putting them top of the firepower scale and making them a main battle unit compared to the other infantry formations.

Sniper does mean they get to blow away the enemy SC at -1 to his save, is that appropiate? Also sniper weapons seem to have sniper instead of disrupt in Epic, with stuff like barrages getting the disrupting ability - perhaps theres a scale issue in the correlelation?

Something also to consider is the 150 point formation cost - in epic quantity of formations has a quality all of its own.
Author:  baronpiero [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
TRC
Pathfinders
Move 15cm
Save 5+
FF 5+
CC 6+
Weapons
Rail Rifle 30cm, AP5+, Sniper
Pulse Carbines, Small Arms
Notes, scouts, markerlights, coordinated fire
Drop cost of formation and upgrade by 25 points.

Cuts the firepower though disrupt culd be better than sniper - I've no idea how the sniper ability correlates to 40k gear.


I agree with your analysis and I like these stats 100%.

About Disrupt or Snipers, I would keep sniper. Reason is we already have plenty of disrupt everywhere in the Tau list. Sniper just makes Pathfinders unique and characterful.



Asaura
Does anyone use Tetras? Why? Pathfinders seem much stronger. I know I stopped using Tetras the minute I painted up my first PF formation.

Pathfinders have more firepower, but Tetra are way better to use the Coordinate fire and the Markerlights. Main advantages of the tetras as I see them:
- no transports, so their mobility can hardly be reduced
- six ultra-fast scout units give you an insane coverage for coordinate-fire: it is often the case where I can spread the tetras to have a real lot coordinate fire opportunities.

In fact the area coverage of the Tetras seem a bit broken and I could see them reduced to 4 units for 150pts in order to keep them more in line with TRC's pathfinders. It would also be practical because there's only 4 of them in a reckon pack.



Author:  Tactica [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:04 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 13 June 2006 (05:24))
Pathfinders
Move 15cm
Save 5+
FF 5+
CC 6+
Weapons
Rail Rifle 30cm, AP5+, Sniper
Pulse Carbines Small Arms
Notes scouts, markerlights, coordinated fire

Drop cost of formation and upgrade by 25 points.

TRC,

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd be willing to try this version of the pathfinder in combination with the proposed change the FW.

I think the 're-focus' is a valid one between the two formations.

The elimination of disrupt on both weapons did initally give me some heart-burn, but the sacrifice is growing on me. After running through some concept excersizes and a couple map excersizes with an associate last week, the net change is a beneficial one in balance for the scale and considering the desired emphasis to the FW.

The loss of the second shot per stand also initially gave me some heart-burn, but again, its putting them closer in line with my feeling of where they should be as compared to their relative impact on the 40K battlefield for one and more importantly to me , back in line with how I feel they should compare to the E:A FW unit - again, assuming the FW changes presented in the other thread are adopted by CS. To me, these PF and FW changes do go hand and hand.

And yes... I'm still in favor of the SMS on the DF, moreso now than ever after the last two weekends of 40K Tau Emp games. But we can skin that cat later... :)

Back to PFs...

After playing several games of Tau Empires in 40K recently (and another scheduled this weekend) I think that sniper is much more reflective of the value the pathfinder would bring to the E:A field at range anyway. Baron also makes a good point, we get disrup in plenty of other ways - in the end its just not really 'needed' here.

The one err... gripe... I have here is that I still feel strongly that the version you suggest is missing an AT 6+ value from the rail-rifle to be in line with its 40K use of the weapon, and E:A conversions of many other S6 weapons from core design to E:A. The S6 railrifle can hurt the front armor of a rhino, wave serpent, chimera, defiler, vindicator or enemy DF for goodness sake!

If its not the front armor of a Predator, leman russ body, or land raider... the target vehicle could be in trouble against the rail rifle weapon system carried by PFs in 40K.

Mind you, if this weapon system gets into the side armor of anything but a land raider or demolisher - the weapon at S6 could still cause the vehicle an unexpected breach!

The Land raider is the only vehicle with rear armor adequate to protect itself against this weapon... all the above would be in significant danger.

So... with the other concessions in mind, I think AT 6+ for this weapon system is in order - along with your other suggestions here.

BTW: The AT 6+ is my personal gripe. I'm liking your suggestion whether we take this last idea I have and apply it or not... coupled with the FW change of 2 shots and removal of pulse carbine, this feels right. But as the AT6+ bugs me and I see us moving in the right direction, I had to mention it. :alien:

Cheers,
Author:  ragnarok [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Quote (Tactica @ 16 June 2006 (05:04))
[BTW: The AT 6+ is my personal gripe. I'm liking your suggestion whether we take this last idea I have and apply it or not... coupled with the FW change of 2 shots and removal of pulse carbine, this feels right. But as the AT6+ bugs me and I see us moving in the right direction, I had to mention it. :alien:

My only problem with AT6+ on the rail rifle is that it is sniper as well.  So a hit on a Leman Russ will give it only a 5+RA save.

Though the rail rifle could have the following stats
weapon  range firepower   notes
rail rifle   30m      AP5+       sniper
              or      AT6+
Author:  Honda [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Although I do not think that the PF are an overpowered unit, unless you have a list that is fearful of losing leaders, I would agree with Hena that a more conservative approach would be to try the proposed changes at 175 pts and if we find that we're not getting a good value for the points invested, then consider "looking" at the point cost.

As I said on the FW thread, I can support these changes if we keep the door open on looking at the costs at a later point.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
Or if you were desperate for AT6+ drop sniper all together.

Yes, like the proposed FW's they could be overpowered with a price drop. But they would be in line with the FW's and at least internal balance would be satisfid before external balance was tackled.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
I must admit that I do like the way that these guys and the FWs are evolving. They seem to be more themed and colourful, and that can only be a good thing. I think that the stats presented are a good starting point. I would like to drop the disrupt, and potentially keep the Sniper ability. My own vision is of them being the prime Markerlight advance force in the army, and with the Markerlights taken from the FWs they perform this role well. With this in mind, and the fact that they then have a niche, we can play around with the other stats with a slightly easier approach.

I like the idea of keeping the Sniper ability, and ragnaroks suggestion has merit, as long as it is not seen as overcomplicated.
Author:  Ilushia [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
I, personally, don't think that rail rifles should have an AT ability. While it is true that they CAN hurt those tanks, it's exceedingly unlikely that they WILL hurt them. If you look at the core army lists almost every weapon which is S6/7 in 40K scale and has AT ability has high rates of fire. Autocannons, Assault Cannons, Big Shootas. The only exception to this I can think of is the Plasma Cannon which has a blast-radius in 40K scale and under 2nd edition rules had significantly more 'punch' behind it. Things in other army lists are similar. Scatter lasers are only S6, but they get D6 attacks instead of 1. Multi-Lasers, also S6, get 3 attacks and are only 6+. The list goes on and on. Slower firing S6 weapons don't have AT abilities, IG Hellhounds for instance. I just don't think the rail-rifles have sufficient rate of fire to warrent giving them AT ability, really.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Pathfinders
The pathfinders CS are still the primary ML, even with the FW having it as they are mechanised and have co-ordinated fire - the old double, mark, successive units fire is a favoured Tau trick. And pathfinders have the mobility at a cheaper fomration cost than FW again making it easier to spread them and their markerlights all over the shop.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/