Page 6 of 8

[ 111 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Firewarriors vs Pathfinders
HecklerMD	Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:23 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201	Quote (Hena @ 01 April 2006 (08:51)) Well I'd change the firewarriors to have 2 * 30cm AP5+ shots. And remove the carbine from stats althogether. This would change the firewarriors to be medium range support and leave the carbine shots to pathfinders. I think that would take away one of the major balance factors that the Tau get for the lowered FF values.  I've come to depend on that short range disrupt ability to push off otherwise tough units before they are able to engage me. I also like the idea of the FW Cadre having to get to within the enemies striking distance to get the maximum effect.  Just sitting at 30 CM seems dull by comparison. The FW team in 40K can take carbines or rifles on a 1 for 1 swap, no extra points cost.  Any wounds inflicted by them force a pinning test, which fits well with the disrupt ability.  Most tau players I know take at least 2-3-4 carbines in a team of 10 in hopes of pinning an enemy before that enemy is able to get into assault range.  It can be something of a critical tactic when faced with fast moving CC troops.  We should continue to reflect that in this list. As for the PFs:  the Carbine shouldent have Sniper, I agree with that, but both the RR and the Carbine are Pinning in 40K, and so both should have Disrupt in E:A.  As to weather PFs should have RRs at all, perhaps we should have every other PF team have 1 (AP5+ Sniper/Disrupt) like the IG infantry w/ autocannons; or each team has a RR, AP6+ Sniper Disrupt, which cuts the amount of hits in half (?), to relfect the lower number of RRs. Since either of the changes lower the abilities of the PFs, and many say they are already undercosted, with these changes no price change should be immediatley needed w/o testing first.
Top

HecklerMD	Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:04 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201	Yes, but Marines, and any other race making the 40K -> E:A jump, are not having FF values artifically lowered like the Tau. FW Vs. SM Tacs: Tau Pulse Rifles are Str 5 AP 5 with a 30 Inch range SM Boltguns are Str 4 AP 5 with a 24 Inch range. Tau "Small Arms" have a 25% strength advantage and a 25% range advantage in 40K, and are 20% less effective in E:A FF More liberal use of weapons abilities like Disrupt, Ignore Cover, ect... are there to make up for the fact that in a FF, Tau units should out-shoot opponents, but cannot. This is why I think its more important to let the Tau have more of these abilities, to compensate for the FF "cap", and price the abilities correctly, rather than remove them to match other armies.
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:51 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (Hena @ 01 April 2006 (10:06)) Because it is not standard equipment. That has been said over and over again. Hena, perhaps the statement just doesn't have much basis for supporting your claim. In fact, one may see the statement as an argument against your point. Just an Observation... IN 40K: ====== Missile Launchers are not standard equipment for Tactical Marines. Bolters are standard equipment for Tactical Marines. As an upgrade - a 5 to 10-man Tactical Squad can only have 1 missile launcher and the rest are still Bolters. IN E:A ===== We give Tactical Marines the Missile Launcher shot to represent the shot of the entire 5 man stand. The same can be said for IG and Autocannons... ...and we can further talk about more upgrades to basic 40K units in various lists once converted to E:A if needed. However, back to Tau... IN 40K ===== Tau Pathfinders may take up to 3 Railrifles as an option in a 4-8 man stand. They get 3 of them instead of 1 missile launcher / autocannon per unit. In E:A ===== That equates to 1 Railrifle shot per stand for all 3 of our upgraded weapons. _________________ Rob
Top

semajnollissor	Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:53 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm Posts: 1673 Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA	Quote (Tactica @ 03 April 2006 (09:51)) IN 40K: ?Missile Launchers are not standard equipment for Tactical Marines. Bolters are standard equipment for Tactical Marines. As an upgrade - a 5 to 10-man Tactical Squad can only have 1 missile launcher and the rest are still Bolters. IN E:A ?We give Tactical Marines the Missile Launcher shot to represent the shot of the entire 5 man stand. IN 40K ?Tau Pathfinders may take up to 3 Railrifles as an option in a 4-8 man stand. They get 3 of them instead of 1 missile launcher / autocannon per unit. In E:A ?That equates to 1 Railrifle shot per stand for all 3 of our upgraded weapons. I don't agree with this comparison, and here's why: the stats given for the missile launcher on a SM stand represent just that one guy with the missile launcher, not the Missile launcher + the 4 bolters. The bolters are there, too, but they only affect the FF value. This is supported by the stat line of missile launchers in other units, even across army lists of different races (an eldar ML is only different by the AA shot). In the case of the PFs, in order for there to be enough rail rifles on a stand to have a noticable effect in the game, a majority of the stand must be armed with the rifles (which everyone agrees is okay by 40k). However, if the majority of the stand is armed with Rail Rifles, that means that the stand no longer has enough pulse carbines to justify their inclusion in the stat line. Whereas, the difference of 5 bolters vs. 4 bolters on a SM stand is negligible, especially when bolters have no ranged ability. That is another reason why I suggested that the rail rifle be treated in the same way that SM scout can take the sniper ability. Now, as for the the PFs and the FW having an artificially lowered FF value, I have to question that descision. I understand why it was done, given the Tau's special rules, but it seems like a bad way to go about balancing things. I'm in favor of bumping both FWs and PFs up to FF4+, but with the caveat being that they have ranged weapons that better follow the pattern followed by the rest of the army lists. Just out of curiosity, what is the target point value for a FW stand (relative to the mainline infanrty in other armies). I assume they are supposed to be for valuable than IG regulars, ork boyz, and probably eldar guardians, but less than SM tacticals. Is that about right? Also, how many bodies should the tau really have on the ground an Epic scale battle? It seems to me like they would be vehicle heavy, and fairly light on infantry. So that would make them the most mechanized force in the game (though not necessarily the force with the most vehicles total - orks and IG will always win that distinction).
Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:22 pm

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

Now, as for the the PFs and the FW having an artificially lowered FF value, I have to question that descision. I understand why it was done, given the Tau's special rules, but it seems like a bad way to go about balancing things. I'm in favor of bumping both FWs and PFs up to FF4+, but with the caveat being that they have ranged weapons that better follow the pattern followed by the rest of the army lists. If you do not agree with the current Tau design philosophy then it is completely understandable why you do not agree with the way the weapons have been represented. You may be quite right that it would be easier to balance the Tau if they were treated more like other races.  However, IMO, that approach would make them less interesting. Since they would play a lot more similarly to the other races. Unless CyberShadow decides to abandon the current design philosophy (boosted shooting, weakened assaults) it is unlikely that the weapons will be treated in the way your propose. So, beyond the desire to have the Tau weapons converted from 40k in a way more consistant with other armies, how would you persaude the forum that abandoning the current design philosopy would be better?

Top

BlackLegion	Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:20 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am Posts: 8711 Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe	Taking the longer ranges for pulse rifles of the Firewarrors in account wouln't it be more logical do give them FF4+ and a "small arms" range of...say 20cm instead of 15cm? This woul dmake the tau stand out from other armes. Assaults should be common for tau, but with firefights and not with closecombat. _________________ We are returned! http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:53 pm

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

Quote (semajnollissor @ 03 April 2006 (10:53)) Quote (Tactica @ 03 April 2006 (09:51)) IN 40K: ?Missile Launchers are not standard equipment for Tactical Marines. Bolters are standard equipment for Tactical Marines. As an upgrade - a 5 to 10-man Tactical Squad can only have 1 missile launcher and the rest are still Bolters. IN E:A ?We give Tactical Marines the Missile Launcher shot to represent the shot of the entire 5 man stand. IN 40K ?Tau Pathfinders may take up to 3 Railrifles as an option in a 4-8 man stand. They get 3 of them instead of 1 missile launcher / autocannon per unit. In E:A ?That equates to 1 Railrifle shot per stand for all 3 of our upgraded weapons. I don't agree with this comparison, and here's why: the stats given for the missile launcher on a SM stand represent just that one guy with the missile launcher, not the Missile launcher + the 4 bolters. Semaj..., You are now arguing a point that I was not attempting to address when I wrote the above to Hena. The point I was addressing was that E:A unit weapons ARE regularly based upon 40K upgrades to units, therefore, the Rail Rifles are justified weapons on EACH E:A pathfinder stand. If we agree with that Semaj, we can now move on to the rest of the issues/points that you raise. Using Cw language, I would just like to establish the above as common ground. Right, moving on... The bolters are there, too, but they only affect the FF value. For marines, bolters = FF value only, we agree. This is supported by the stat line of missile launchers in other units, even across army lists of different races (an eldar ML is only different by the AA shot).

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this bit - but I think the point you are making is marines have two weapon types, 1 guy with a ML (40K unit upgrade) and 4-9 other guys with bolters (40K unit default weapon) and in E:A, as a result the entire stand has a FF value, and the entire stand has a single ML shot for the guy with a ML. If that's all you were stating - we also agree.

At this point in time, I would also like to note that PF do not get 3 Rail Rifle shots per stand for their 3 Rail Rifles. Rail Rifles and ML are both 40K heavy weapons. Both impact E:A scale gaming. On Devistator stands and IG support stands where there are two heavy weapons per stand, the E:A units in question get 2 shots per stand. I'm not lobbying or suggesting change, I'm just noting that PF's have 3 heavy weapons (rail rifles) per stand, but we are still only giving them 1 shot per stand - unlike the precident - and thus keeping them artificially lower in power when converted from 40K to E:A.

I would also like to take this time to note that there's a standing Tau Development principle that artificially lowers all FF values across the board by 1. This is an intentional abstraction to reduce the probability of Tau engaging in FF. Although its not logical from a fictional history point of view, it was an intentional divergence to keep Tau out of combat. This was an Aspiring Champion's decision and simply a Tau core design concept. Again, not suggestiong change, but would note that PF's have a FF of 5+ artificially lowering their FF values compared to what they could be - which Marines and IG do not follow the same design principle. Noting that this is a second 'lowering' of power in converstion from 40K to E:A from other list precidents - nothing more.

Now, moving on...

In the case of the PFs, in order for there to be enough rail rifles on a stand to have a noticable effect in the game, a majority of the stand must be armed with the rifles (which everyone agrees is okay by 40k).
What? Why? Who agrees to this? ML and Rail Rifles are heavy weapons in 40K. Rail Rifles have a single shot and so do ML in 40K on a per turn basis. One shoots 48" and the other shoots 36". One is Strength 8 and one is Strenth 6. Why would you say you need multiple Rail Rifles to have an impact on E:A? Even if you say Ballistic Skills are different from Marines and Tau (one hitting on 3+ and the other hitting on 4+ in 40K, the Tau also have other equipment upgrades to benefit from and ML may also help them in 40K differently than in E:A... disregarding all that though - the "40K to hit" of 4+ vs. 3+ may account for a small adjustment in E:A, but not for a 3 weapons required to equal 1 hit... hell, IG only require 2 weapons to get 1 attempt... we have 3 on the same stand! If a pure conversion was applied, we'd get something like 2 hits per stand for having 3 Rail Rifles - but nobody here is proposing that. So I'm not sure I even understand what you are trying to establish by claiming this point.

Suffice it to say, we definitely do not agree here.

Regardless, we do agree that Tau only have a single shot with Rail Rifles per stand in E:A, regardless of how many models carry the rail rifle weapon on the stand.

However, if the majority of the stand is armed with Rail Rifles, that means that the stand no longer has enough pulse carbines to justify their inclusion in the stat line.

You also appear to be assuming there are only 4-5 models represented by an E:A stand - thus a Rail Rifle majority declaration.

You then draw conclusions from the assumed majority weaponry - which I'm not even sure is accurate...

1. ?With the assumpion, then your first point is whether the Pulse Carbine should or shouldn't be included in the stat line of the weapons.

2. ?From the assumption, your second point is whether or not the Pulse Carbine should impact the FF value of the stand.

So... to talk to your assumption,

In E:A, at the begining of the book, it says the infantry stand is representing of 3-7 models on the stand if memory serves.

With that in mind, 40K pathfinders have 4-8 models in a 40K unit. 3 of those models carry Rail Rifles (weapon upgrade).

So in E:A, we could easily say a stand of PF's equalled 4 models, and 3 had rail rifles. We could also say in E:A that a PF stand had 7 models, 3 of which have Rail Rifles and 4 of which have Pulse Carbines. This is all well within the rules, its just a matter of how the Aspiring Champion wishes to impliment the design philosphy of the stand. I don't know that its relivent one way or the other in the end, but just so that we agree on the possibilities of E:A stand representation - we can move on.

Regarding Carbines, we agree that they could be rolled into the FF value. The position of the champion thus far is to keep them at the weapon stat line level. The reason is two fold.

1. ?Other 18" range weaponry in the list was given a weapon stat range. Primarily as a development of item 2 below.

2. ?FF values are artificially lowered to discourage Tau of E:A Engagement. In true converstion, Tau are very good at FF, but are reduced intentionally to avoid what would seem like an unflavorful result of Tau FF engagement attempts.

Whereas, the difference of 5 bolters vs. 4 bolters on a SM stand is negligible, especially when bolters have no ranged ability. That is another reason why I suggested that the rail rifle be treated in the same way that SM scout can take the sniper ability.
You lose me a bit here. I think you are simply attempting to support your argument of Pulse Carbines becoming part of the FF value and removing them from the weaponry stat line.

If you eliminated the carbine weaponry stat, then one may argue that we should have the justified second railrifle shot. Afterall, the FF values of the Tau are still reduced. Now you'd take away the carbine, and still expect that we take a reduced amount of Rail Rifle shots per stand? Some may see that as too much reduction in conversion from 40K to E:A.

Now, as for the the PFs and the FW having an artificially lowered FF value, I have to question that descision.
Now you are opening a completely different can of worms. see Design principle comments early on in my reply. This is something for a complete seperate thread in its own, however, I'll try to briefly address here without drifting too far off the beaten path and topic of the thread...

I understand why it was done, given the Tau's special rules,
Correction, Tau artificially lowered FF values, a design concept across the entire list - has absolutely nothing to do with our E:A Tau Special Rules, if you feel otherwise, I would suggest that you are working off of a false assumption.

but it seems like a bad way to go about balancing things.
FF values are lowered to discourage Tau taking engagement actions in E:A - plain and simple. Its a developed design concept, but a design concept nonetheless.

Actual FF values were entertained once. However, Tau had a special rule across the entire list that allowed them to withdraw from combat prior to the enemy assault (what is now currently a Tau Jump Pack special rule.) The result of actual FF + special rule allowing all infantry in the army to get out of combat lead to Tau being the hands down - champion of E:A combat. That was very wrong.

The first step was to artificially reduce FF values. That helped.

The second step was to make the Tau withdraw instead of pile-in rule only available to the Tau Jet Packs.

The combination addressed the issue.

It also worth noting that many fealt that it wasn't the 'true' FF values that caused the historic problem I speak of, it was the army wide withdraw from combat rule that was the core issue. When the rule was given only to jet pack equipped troops, the issue died.

Since the artificially FF values have been adopted an army wide negative in combination with our poor FF values, there has been justification of increased ranges of some weaponry to compensate for the FF adjustments. Examples would be any 18" range weaponry have a 15cm range in E:A. Precident from other lists would have it that all of our 18" weaponry was FF only. Other lists don't employ true weapon ranges until you get to 24" (plasma guns in IG) and even then, most 24" range guns end up in FF values.

Its also worth noting that if my memory serves, we've never tried to go back to actual FF values of the Tau with the Jet Pack rule in place.

I'm in favor of bumping both FWs and PFs up to FF4+, but with the caveat being that they have ranged weapons that better follow the pattern followed by the rest of the army lists.

What you are proposing would cause a list wide impact. What you are proposing here would take CS, our Aspiring Champ to change.

Not only would we have to make a decision about 30" 40K guns becoming FF or ranged attacks and how many attacks, but we'd also have to look at increasing the amount of rail rifle shots from 1 to 2. Furthermore, we'd have to entertain the elimination of 15cm pulse carbines from the list. That would then require looking at the removal of all 18" range guns from the list and increasing the FF vaule of the list across the board.

Be forwarned, what you propose here is no small mod to the existing E:A Tau. Sometimes out of the box thinking is good and change is needed, but this is significant change.

This will change how the E:A Tau operate in the game.

Just out of curiosity, what is the target point value for a FW stand (relative to the mainline infanrty in other armies). I assume they are supposed to be for valuable than IG regulars, ork boyz, and probably eldar guardians, but less than SM tacticals. Is that about right?
That would seem accurate. From a 40K perspective, they are the cream of the crop for RnF. They are the best equipped, best ranged basic infantry in the game by some measures. They are definitely on par with the bracket you define them in 40K. Not so in E:A.

Also, how many bodies should the tau really have on the ground an Epic scale battle? It seems to me like they would be vehicle heavy, and fairly light on infantry.

The 40K president has yeilded 3 distinct ways to field the tau, the Hybrid being the most popular.

Infantry Focus
? - drones, alien/human aux, FW, PF, Stealth, Crisis, & BS
? - limited vehicles
Hybrid
?- all 3 suits, PF in DF, & vehicles
?- limited FW
?- limited alien/human zux
Mech Focus
?- FW in DF, PF in DF, HH, Tetras, Piranhas
?- limited suits
?- limited alien/human aux

So in 40K, the Tau always seem to have a lot of infantry - if you are including the suits and infantry in devilfish in your definition. Remember, stealths, crisis and broadsides are all infantry in the 40K world.

So that would make them the most mechanized force in the game (though not necessarily the force with the most vehicles total - orks and IG will always win that distinction).
Perhaps a false assumption, just don't know where you were going with the thought process. See above for 40K distinctions amongst Tau play styles.

Cheers,