A unit of 5 Terminators in 40k have a 5 wounds, a 2+ armour save and a 5+ invulnerable save.

A unit of 3 Crisis Suits in 40k have 6 wounds, a 3+ armour save and a 4+ invulnerable save (with Drones).

So they're roughly equal in terms of firepower required to kill them, a bit more vulnerable to basic small arms but a bit less vulnerable to high powered weapons (Due to the better Invulnerable saves).

-----

A single character with an Iron Halo as part of a full squad of 5 men grants his unit an Invulnerable Save, but that's a bit different to every model in a squad having an "Iron Halo".


Yuppers.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hey brothers, whether or not we agree on unit abilities, I've kinda had enough of critical comments about my gaming abilities (overt or indirect).

The games were play tests and we tried (sometimes accidently) to cover many tactical sutuations.

My number crunching is available in previous threads and it is solid. The Land Raider Crusader is not going to have it's Armour save modified. It's not the damage output of the Crusader that was the problem. It was the lack of damage output by the Tau, at one of their optumum ranges, that was abysmal.

A possible increase to the Manta's FF would help (although I can't see the thing being used as often as it should). An increase to the Crisis Suits armour save would help a bit. Improving a Hammerheads shooting will not help in a FF. That leaves Fire Warriors...

I believe that if Jervis had never uttered those army shaping words (all those years ago), Fire Warriors would be FF4+ and the Tau would have a modifier to their Engagement action that would shape their play just as well as the Ork modifiers shape their play.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

But it will help crush that FF before it even begins.



No insult was meant; I honestly think Mantas and Hammerheads are awful choices that fundamentally cripple Tau army lists that select them.

They need large boosts in power, because they're as bad a choice as 300pt, original stat, Vindicator formations.

And I would back up Zombo's assertion that Fire Warriors are now very good. 6 Fire Warrior units with a Markerlight on the enemy output 6xAP3+ shots and 6xAP4+ (Disrupt) shots. Compare that to a Marine Tactical formation, which outputs 6x AP5+/AT6+ shots... quite simply Fire Warriors garrisoned on Overwatch turn Engaging formations into mincemeat.

With sustaining, you can get those AP stats down to 2's and 3's.
That's simply unmatchable ranged firepower... Fire Warriors are brilliant now.


I think it would help you anchor your lines, as backed up by a Fire Warrior formation nearby that's a very respectable Firefight output for any army, even Marines.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have no experience of your gaming experiences, all I have experienced is my own experience and the experience of experienced Tau players, and what they have experienced while experiencing the tau experience.

Both of the Tau players I know are extremely high level players (yme-loc is a regular epicuk tournament winner for example) and both consider fire warriors to be utterly brilliant in their current incarnation. As I mentioned, yme-loc even uses them very successfully as an air assault formation in an orca.

I don't mean that this reflects on your abilities, I can't know that, all I can state is what I know.

I cannot comment on the experience that your experienced or inexperienced opponents experiences either, only the experience of reading the comments about the experiences of others

Back on-thread, some general comments as I neither fight with or against Tau:-

On Orcas at 125 points each, you should think carefully before dropping the points. There is a risk of spamming which TRC did demonstrate some time ago. I would also suggest that Yme-loc demonstrates the effectiveness of the Orca when used appropriately.

On Crisis with drones, has anyone considered using the 'shield' rule to represent the shield drones? My suggested alternative is a slight variation to the 'shield rule:- any hit that their amour fails to save takes out a 'shield' instead (representing the loss of a drone). 'Shields' are not replaceable. This would provide an effective compromise between RA and their current armour values.

Well I would like to add that when Crisis had MWFF with a 3+ save (4.0??) they were actually good but not over the top and not invincible....


This line of thought seems wrong E&C. It seems to prove what I mentioned before - Broadsides stick out because they actually work as intended.... They look overpowered because a lot of other units are underpowered... so now you want to increase their cost because other things don't work right..? That's a bit ass-backwards to me - not calling you ass-backwards BTW.


Well giving 4+ to one unit type is not "prevalent access across the board" BTW....


At the moment this is probably very true. Better firepower would change this and I really like and agree with Ares' take on the issue re: Broadsides vs HHs railguns. Nice one Ares.


Yme-loc have you tried them with only FWs aboard? I've found FWs pretty lack-lustre without the add-ons (even with, in some cases)


So then using them correctly you have to sit still in cover on overwatch waiting to be assaulted...? You don't win games sitting still. Especially since FWs are supposed to be the manouvre element of capturing objectives or ground etc. (yes I understand that they don't in the fluff - however they need to in Epic the game)

You can't automatically go on overwatch when assaulted if you've moved up to bring firepower to bear in the activation previous. My point is you have to move at some point so the above examples look good on paper and in theory but in play it's not so cut and dry.

Anyone stupid enough to Fire Fight a Fire Warrior Cadre on Overwatch will get what they deserve.

And when would a Tau player ever be able to Sustain Fire with Fire Warriors on an enemy? Again, an opponent that let that happen deserves to be thrashed.

I hope that the modifications that eventually are made will help the Tau play Epic Armageddon in a more fun way.

I can see that we are starting to go down paths that have already been trodden down often. I have no intention of participating in these endless arguments again...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Steve, I suggest just using your own house rules mate. If you can show your rules/stats design works you'll have more ammo to prove it - you know no one else wants to try changing. Maybe we can hash something out together??? Do you have Vassal? Send me a PM with your thoughts.

I am not going to get involved in opinions about the Tau.

What I will state is that as an Assault player, at some time I have to get into a position to assault. That usually means being as close as anywhere between 15cm-30cm.

Last time it happened vs Tau, I had disposable units and they were the only reason the game went beyond the 2nd turn.

I hope this contributes to the discussion without involving me in endless debates.

For some reason I feel the need to start talking about known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown knowns....


I remember TRC's tests, which were IIRC done when they were 100pts, and when you were allowed to land and claim objectives in the same turn?


Interesting idea, but possibly too fiddly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I would note that I've always had my eye on them as being too good.

RA 4+ units that can garrison on overwatch in cover with 75cm range guns that hit on 3's... that's a fantastic unit whichever way you look at it.


Well in this thread there are calls to add FF 4+ to the Manta, the Crisis Suits, and the Fire Warriors.
That is across the board.


I agree it's a nice idea in concept.
However in the 40k rules they are armed with weapons that have an identical damage profile, so it's not a direction I would support unless there was no other choice.


No it was just an example.
You can also Double and shoot into cover and still have some to-hit stats that make any other army jealous.


The "Firefighted off the board" example also looks good on paper... and I suggest the real truth lies somewhere in between.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I would agree.

Saying you dropped out of playtesting 2-3 months ago isn't a position of strength to be debating from... if you'd like to make the Tau into a Firefight army, I suggest you do that in-house then present your data after some games.

There's no reason that your army need sit on the shelf just because you don't like the NetEA rules, and every reason to get experimenting and try and get the NetEA rules changed, once you have actual battle reports to show how a Firefight-style Tau army works.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

On Railguns:

If the Hammerheads gained Lance, then Broadsides should by rights also gain Lance.

Hammerheads could probably stay at their current points level, but Broadside formations would have to go up to ~375points (As everyone agrees they're already either "good" or "slightly overpowered" at their current power level), and the Upgrade choice would have to go up in cost likewise.

Would that power boost to Broadside suits be acceptable to people?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Nope. Don't want Lance for Broadsides unfortunately. Other weapon systems have had slight name changes to make them fit in the game, Broadsides can too.


That's provided there is cover You have to bank on woods or ruins being available near an objective... smart opponents give you no options. They're also LV.... I'm not doubting they are a good formation, but they have limits.


Umm, -1 to hit for Doubling and -1 to hit for cover means a 5+ and a 6+ to hit with a ML at the varying ranges.... with cover saves etc that's poor results in terms of kills.

At Cancon it took me two FW formations (one maximum size with upgrade and a PF attachment) to break a single guard company in woods.... and that was being as aggressive as FW can be.

Well if FWs had a 4+ FF I assume they wouldn't have shooting stats so your worries will be unfounded.

But the arguments for 4+ FF always fall on deaf ears so I'll stop talking about them now and get on with debating the list of stuff preceding the FW divergence.