Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

• Board index
• Search
• Register

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Firewarriors vs Pathfinders Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:51 pm

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

[quote="semajnollissor,03 April 2006 (13:47)"][/quote] On missile launchers vs Rail Rifles: A single ML shot in 40k can kill multiple individuals, because it has a blast template (it generally gets three hits per shot). Sorry, but this is just not accurate from this players perspective. In 4th Ed 40K, model coherency is 2" inbetween bases. The small blast template that you are referencing is 3.5" in diameter. First, the firing unit needs to roll to hit - in this case, Marine. He needs a 3+ in order to place the blast marker, other wise he missed. 4th Ed 40K says that some part of the hole in the center of the template must be placed on one model when firing a template weapon! This is huge.... So assuming you are not playing against somebody who intentionally bulks up his models for his opponent to fire at... then at most you are going to have 1 model completely under the template and another model partially under the template. Models partially under the template are only hit on a 4+. So if you hit and if you hit both models under template, now you need to roll to wound. Missile Launchers are S8 and don't allow most models an armor save when firing their singl shot Krak missile, however, the Frag missile has a blast radius and is what we are talking about. That missile is a Strength 4 Frag missile and has a 40K Armor Penetration value of 6. That means against an IG bob (Toughness 3) he needs a futher 3+ to wound each model, against a Marine (Toughness 4) he needs a 4+ to wound each model. Regardless of how many wounds he may have gotten, the defending player now gets a chance to save. IG will get a 5+ save, tau will get a 4+ save, crisis and marines will get a 3+ save. The reality is - you are lucky if you kill 1 IG much less anything else *IF* you fire a Frag Missile in 40K under 4th Ed 40K rules from that single marine squad!! Now - compare that to PF squad with 3 Rail Rifles. They need 4+ to hit (assuming they didn't use any ML to better their shots to 2+ to hit) and they yield 2 hits on average. Their weapons are Strength 6 and have an AP3. This is MUCH better than the frag shot. They wound those two IG or marines on 2+ as a result. (much better than a frag shot) As it's a 40K Armor Penentration value of 3+, only terminators have a chance to save. Everything else just receives no armor save. 1-2 deaths are MUCH more likely from a single unit of PF's with 3 Rail Rifles. On FF values and discouraging assaults: Well, I understand the reasoning behind lowering FF values, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. You say that there was a change from A to B, but that doesn't mean that choices C through Z aren't also viable options.

Agreed. I was simply relaying where we've come from and how we got here... doesn't mean "over there" isn't a better place to get too.

As it is, I would think giving a fire warrior stand 2x30cm AP5+ shots would be enough to discourage the tau player from assaulting, even if they have a FF4+.

You may have a point there. The 2x 30cm shot is something I suggested some time ago and makes much more sense to me. I'm all for removing the carbines from the FW stand. I've mentioned that it should be looked at on more than one occasion in the past - but that's the FW, not the PF's we are talking about now. Its also not the FF values that we are talking about.

I'm all for testing this weapon change with the elimination of the carbine from the FW unit.

Suych a weapon stat would even encourage players to avoid getting within 15cm an enemy (which they'd have to do now in order to get in the most shots).
I agree. The Pulse Carbine isn't even a favored weapon of choice to the FW unit, so I'd fully support testing this recomendation on the FW unit in Epic. Its more flavorful and logical IMHO. It was also make the cadre a mildly more appealing choice to me.


Similarly, a PF stand with 2x15cm AP5+ disrupt shots would still rather shoot than assault.
You lose me here. I would not recommend this for a PF stand and I would not be behind this change.

The rail rifle is a core asset to the PF's.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it giving the stands multiple shots almost seems enough to discourage the tau player from assaulting. Where as lowering the FF value will do the same, but also encourage opponents to assault the Tau.
So you really start to lose me with your proposition here - I'm just not sure what you are getting at in the end. FF 4+ or FF5+

I think I can support your suggestion on FW weaponry, I don't think we agree on PF weaponry. SO - perhaps progress, but work to go.


On the predominance of infantry in 40k vs E:A:

40k is an infantry game by the very nature of its scale.
Agreed.

There's only one true vehicle army (IG tank company), and it is the odd man out and requires special rules.
Well, all mech infantry armies of the IG, Tau, Eldar and Dark Eldar may disagree with this stement. I know many Steel Legion Tread heads that would disagree with you.

From the Armored Company (GW) and Armored Battlegroup (Forgeworld) alone, we have at least two all vehicle armies with MBT as troop choices - maybe that's what you meant by all vehicle armies... however, both of those still allow for infantry in the form of Armored Fist units. Each can have at least 3 of those units. One of them further allows for Enginseers with a retinue on board a chimera which is more infantry.

So its argumble that there's no all vehicle armies in 40K - or multiple all vehicle armies (with infantry inside them) - depending on your perspective.

I know the Eldar all wave serpent + falcon army my group fought at adepticon 2005 was very much all vehicle based as the 5 eldar inside each one was only there to claim on the last turn! ALL of the damage came from the wave serpents and falcons! It won the tournament of over 200 people btw!

Epic offers the opportunity to do the opposite. While I seek unit-to-unit agreement from 40k to E:A, organizational differences are fine (they occur in all formations in all armies). I guess I feel like 40k has more realistic weapon effects but less realistic organization.

In general, I'll absolutely agree with this. Finding the middle ground is what we are discussing/debating.

In the end, there's a reasonable general approach - but beyond that, it becomes and abstraction in E:A that an Aspiring Champion has to claim as a demarkation of his view point - and we all design from there.

I think all of the discussion is valuable to CS as it allows him to see conflicting view points that may or may not get resolved here. He may or may not even agree with any agreed upon points. If nothing more, it may serve as food for thought - which he can further refine into something he calls his own.

So, good discussion.

Cheers,