Pathfinders... Not worth thier points?? What do you think

A review of past Tactics by commanders during the First, Second, Third & Fourth Phase Expansion.
User avatar
Aun'Samadhi
Shas
Posts: 2
Contact:

Post#19 » Apr 08 2006 04:05

How do Stealth markerlight teams work? Shas'vre with markerlight and two marker drones?
~Aun'Samadhi

User avatar
Mephet'ran
Shas
Posts: 1510
Contact:

Post#20 » Apr 08 2006 04:10

2 Stealth with 2 ML drones each and a Team Leader with ML, TA, TL. Costs the same as a PF team, +-240pts.
Mephet'ran
-MTT Old School

User avatar
Flashman
Por'Ui
Por'Ui
Posts: 468
Contact:

Post#21 » Apr 08 2006 04:12

Hey Met how much does your Stealth marker team cost and how many lights do you get? Have to say I find it funny coz everyone is talking about spending 200+ points... I scrimp on the fish and weigh in at 181!

That's the Lightweight-markerlight-Champion of the World! Thinking about it 22pts per Markerlight giving BS2 to whatever I like... hmmmm sounds good to me. Flexibility that's the name of the game.
#43 formally known as El' & yes I still come here

User avatar
P'Shar's Rifles
Kor'O
Kor'O
Posts: 2041

I still like them...

Post#22 » Apr 08 2006 04:14

The markerlight stealth team is growing on me. I'll be playtesting that sometime soon.

Hey, where are you guys getting your marker drones? Kitbash or as part of another kit?

Ghostfire
Shas
Posts: 5

Post#23 » Apr 08 2006 04:21

There's two basic ways (at least, in my opinion) of building a stealth markerlight team.

1) Take a normal XV15/25 team of whatever size you like. Upgrade one to a team leader, and give him a markerlight, hardwired target lock, and a hardwired drone controller with 2 marker drones -- the cost, above a normal stealth team, isn't that bad, really -- 80 more points for three markerlights, 2 of them networked, and one of them able to be fired at a different target.

2) Take a min-sized Stealth team (3 models) and equip all of them with a drone controller (remember, if anyone takes the hardpoint option in stealths, all of them have to). Give all three a marker drone and, if you like, a HWTL and markerlight to a team leader. Minimum cost is 90 points for 3 markerlights, but if you want to scale it to full pathfinder levels, you can spend 200 points on top of the base model cost for 7 markerlights, all of which are stealthed.

Any way you cut it, it's cheaper than a fully tricked out PF squad -- but, then, you don't get a devilfish that can guide deepstrikers either.

User avatar
A neutral shade of black.
Shas
Posts: 92
Contact:

Post#24 » Apr 08 2006 04:39

My version of it is actually three Stealths, all DCs with two MDs each, which ways in at 270 points. Since the pathfinders I theorise usually cost 234, it's not that much more expensive.

As for the MDs, kitbash. Actually using GW's "suit wargear" article's BSF to make MLs.

mont'ka
Shas
Posts: 204

Post#25 » Apr 08 2006 04:43

But then the PF's always deploy and have their own seekers[at 234pts?] that could just neutralize a threath in turn one, were as with a Stealth team you might have to wait till turn 4 or orse for them to turn up and use the ML's.

User avatar
A neutral shade of black.
Shas
Posts: 92
Contact:

Post#26 » Apr 08 2006 05:58

mont'ka wrote:and have their own seekers[at 234pts?]


Eight PFs + Shas'ui with gun drones + DF with SMS, DL, MT and TA. 234 may not have been the exact number. I'm guessing the gun drones are what had you confused.

I don't play much escalation (in fact, I've never played escalation), so Scout is a moot point for me, but Stealths have Infiltrate, so the rest of the time give you the advantage of deploying last and where you want.

User avatar
shasolenzabi
Por'Ui
Por'Ui
Posts: 395
Contact:

Post#27 » Apr 08 2006 06:08

[[[ Stealth Suits, the other pathfinder! Brought to you by the battlesuit makers Union. :)

User avatar
Grey Man
Shas
Posts: 25

Post#28 » Apr 08 2006 06:55

T0nkaTruckDriver wrote:Markerlight carriers don't actually kill anything, what they do offer is versatility.


This is the best rationale I have heard yet for including them. But my problem is still keeping them alive. I play a mech list with kroot, so just about everything on the table is out of LOS or a tank except the PF, which means they take a LOT of abuse. If I go first, they'll give me a leg up on the opponent before they die. If I go second, they just die, and if I had invested the points in something that could be hidden, then I'd have more stuff alive.

Most interesting idea I've heard so far is to not deploy them out of the DF until Turn 1. With all those other juicy targets out there, they might last a little longer.

User avatar
P'Shar's Rifles
Kor'O
Kor'O
Posts: 2041

but you can...

Post#29 » Apr 08 2006 10:05

You CAN hide them, you just can't do that AND get first turn shots with them.

User avatar
Mephet'ran
Shas
Posts: 1510
Contact:

Post#30 » Apr 09 2006 01:45

You can hide your PFs, but then they're not shooting and are being wasted. Whereas Stealth don't need to hide adn can shoot from turn 1 onwards (unless you're playing escalation, but I never do).
Mephet'ran

-MTT Old School

User avatar
kai'lore
Aun'O (Ret.)
Posts: 3480

Post#31 » Apr 09 2006 03:12

hey, nice turn around guys, this is actually going somewhere!

Models painted and want to use -thanks Upgrade, now at least we know you have paid the price to want to use these guys too.

T0nka's rationale is the solid backbone of "why take Pathfinders" as they are a kind of transferable BS upgrade. They allow any particular needed unit or weaponry type of your army to over perform for short periods of time.

Yes you pay a premium for that versatility but that is a war gaming mechanic, the more something can do, the more it costs.

P'Shars idea is always a favourite of mine, using Pathfinders for area denial. It's not always about the immediate LOS, which I learnt a great deal about when fielding Space Marine Vindicator Tanks -especially back when they couldn't move and shoot. They are kind of similar in some respects, in that an opponent will be very wary of the big template and that they attract a great deal of fire.

The short range meant putting them out front would result in their being destroyed before being able to shoot themselves. So I learnt to position them in a "passive aggressive" manner, back behind a Terrain piece with an oblique LOS across an OPFORS likely avenue of approach. That way an enemy unit would have to move into position to shoot, allowing me to get the first shot off and hopefully stall their offensive. Just like an AT gun set up for those who play more real world type games.

I often use Pathfinder's in such a way, taking full advantage of their 36 inch range and factoring in that an enemy unit will have to move into their LOS they can be positioned quite far back -incidentally this is another simple mistake with Pathfinders, do fight the urge to use them "upfront" because they are scouts unless you are both really on the Offensive and can stomach the losses! Give them a nice oblique across the battlefield, the area that you know is going to be the crux of the battle. When the enemy moves into this, spring your Mont'Ka!

If they don't, your plan has still worked by negating your opponents obvious plan. You may have successfully forced them to use a different approach to attack you and more likely a less favourable one. Small tactical advantages like that can really add up and easily outweigh the perceived cost of the Pathfinder unit. Allowing you to then target attackers across a narrow front, bottled up and coming through a less desirable area of the board can also bee worth far more than the 200pts you put into your PF unit even though they may cause no losses at all during the battle. If they can contribute to you fighting at a ratio of 2:1 elsewhere, they are working a charm.

Not sure if I have conveyed that sort of idea well, it's quite hard without diagrams and by relaying on much hand waving and hypothetical discussion. It's the kind of talk that is hard to get across on a forum and why MathHammer is so easy. Pathfinders might be good vs. 200pts = 1 more Hammerhead + 2 Seekers and 2.83 Meq Kills Per Turn.

Moving along, we've gone over that idea for the Passive Aggressive Pathfinder team before, I know I went into it in another PF thread not more than a couple of weeks back. How about a diagram for it? I will do my best to put together a mud-map sketch and see if I can't get the talented Tael to give me a hand on it. How about a name, the Pathfinder Ambush? The Pathfinder Run'Al.

Any supporting ideas or better names do please let me know.

kai

User avatar
kai'lore
Aun'O (Ret.)
Posts: 3480

Post#32 » Apr 09 2006 03:25

You can hide your PFs, but then they're not shooting and are being wasted


yes and no Meph. Although I understand the simple, linear equation of a unit needing to shoot to "earn it's points back", I'm also a fan of playing the army and the mission.

The linear model of shooting every turn to earn back points is the obvious thinking that produced the first Tau army tactica and the most simplistic one, The Static Tau army.

Mech Tau and it's variations are quite different as you know very well. We look at the overall battle, winning the mission and economy of force whilst preserving our own army.

The simple idea of not shooting = waste is not really appropriate here, I am sure given a second look at it you will agree. Of course, taken to an extreme over your entire army and yes, if nobody is shooting then things will go downhill for you very quickly. However, with the Tau it's the selective destructive of key enemy assets in order of Target Priority that are key, not just shooting for shootings sake -although sometimes that might be all you have available to you.

Stealth ML's -I'm also a fan of this idea and will make some Marker Drones just to play with them. This unit will equally suffer from the Linear Waste of Shots gripe as they are not using their BC's much of the time as well as their Mobility and use a precious Elite slot.

Sorry to pounce on this idea, just wanted to keep things very open and fair with regards to any comparisons of ideas.

kai

mont'ka
Shas
Posts: 204

Post#33 » Apr 09 2006 04:31

A neutral shade of black. wrote:.

I don't play much escalation (in fact, I've never played escalation), so Scout is a moot point for me, but Stealths have Infiltrate, so the rest of the time give you the advantage of deploying last and where you want.



Well thats your loss I guess.
And you then can't thus really make a good judgement on the benevids of a scouting vehicle, I think Tau are the only ones to have that.
Those missions and stages aren't there for nothing and make for a whole scala of difficulties not included in straight slogging matches.

User avatar
Mephet'ran
Shas
Posts: 1510
Contact:

Post#34 » Apr 09 2006 05:18

Kai, sure I agree with you, but if your PFs are spending 3-4 (very reasonably if you think about it) turns moving around not shooting then you can hardly say that that is very effective in comparison to Stealth who shoot every turn.

And that Stealth don't aren't using their BC, well that just isn't true. Sure they don't use them as often as they would normally, but in the last couple of games I've fired my BCs in 3-4 out of 6 turns. So not only are my Stealth marking for the rest of my army every turn, not only are they more durable (they only ever die if I get massacred, otherwise they always surive to the end) and more mobile, they also do damage to boot.

Honestly, apart from the DF, I don't see how PFs can claim to be better.
Mephet'ran

-MTT Old School

User avatar
Flashman
Por'Ui
Por'Ui
Posts: 468
Contact:

Post#35 » Apr 09 2006 06:02

Oh man I think your becoming my hero Kai :biggrin: *laughs* Brown-nosing aside. I really, really like Pathfinders and hope to use them more often now. Looking at the numbers for a Stealth marker team I add it upto about 55pts per marker (am I right Met?). That doesn't sound like 'economy of force' to me. I also don't like the idea of kitting a Stealth team out to fullfill the role of a Pathfinder squad. Just doesn't seem right to me. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it works but it seems to be an overly cautious, some might say paranoid, way of getting markers on the table. Not to mention an ineffective use of a Stealth team.

For me I look at the apparent loss of 200+ or so points as a worthy investment. I don't spend that much myself I must say, currently I'm scrimping on the upgrades so my Pathfinder unit weighs in at 181pts. Which I might add is little more than the cost of a three man Stealth team with 2xMD and Vre' with Marker. For which I get eight markerlights instead of three. This investment allows me to spread my acquisition of forces. Based upon my four corners principle where by I try to cover all angles.

Not to mention the 200pt 'chunk' which most people are refering to is in actual fact two parts. One of 96+pts and another of 80+pts. For your opponent to gain both easily they'd have to destroy your 'Fish with the 'Finders in it. Not an easy task (at least you shouldn't be making it one!) and the reality is the 'Fish can be denied them quite easily. If you really want to go all out on arming a Devilfish Gunship, you could create a 120pt+ monster with SMS and seekers. Thus giving your opponent a real pain in the neck while being able to sit back happily out of LOS. Meanwhile the Finders are only 48pts to your opponent if reduced below half strength (the cost of a 4xGD squad) and if he really wants the lot that's going to take some dedication from his firepower. No doubt taking the heat from other more worthy targets.

Like Kai I believe said most people seem to have a pathological fear of markerlights and will go to obscene lengths to eliminate them. For instance in one of the last games I played a force of some 100+ Orks (I think it was something like 120). It was a long game of take and hold. I'd placed my five Pathfinders away from the bulk of his forces with a LOS on the objective and a Balisik he had on the flank. As a reaction to that he placed a unit of about 15xFlashgitz and a Warbuggy opposite them. After their shamefully poor performance in the first two turns the Flashgitz made it into the jungle opposite and proceeded to gun them down. Now while it is always upsetting to lose a treasured unit I only lost 60pts in the end as the Pathfinders ran off the field, but he'd wasted a large elite unit and a Warbuggy trying to kill what he perceived as this high priority threat. In the end the Gitz were miles from the objective and got ignored by the rest of my forces. Complete overkill for him and a morale victory for me. The point is used wisely, with forethought and in unison with your other forces Pathfinders exemplify the tenents of the Greater Good.

Finally I'd like to pick up on the point of 'needing' to get the Pathfinders working from the first turn onwards. I'm slowly coming around to the idea of avoiding their deployment pre-game and instead deploying them in the first turn. The extra turn gives them some more time to manouvre into position and gives your opponent time to 'consider' the merits of my other units. My thinking is Pathfinders can offer a Tau force continued fire efficiency throughout the course of a game. As opposed to only within your first turn.

Consider this: on your first turn or turns most likely a Mech force will have suffer little or no loses. Later in a game a Mech force will suffer greatly under but a few loses. Using a unit of Fire Warriors rapid firing at a unit of MEq's as my example; 12xFirewarriors striking with BS3 score 12xRapid fire shots, wound 8 and kill 3. Take the same unit later in the game, say they've at half strength, but now supported by a Pathfinder unit; 6xFWs striking at BS5 score 10xRfS, wound 7 and kill 2. The same unit without Pathfinder support would only score 1 kill. You can apply this to all Infantry unit types. Pathfinders continue to offer Fire efficiency equivalent to a full squad for depleted units later in the game.

With this thinking in mind I consider Pathfinders more valuable later in the game than in the first turn. Now discuss... ;)
#43 formally known as El' & yes I still come here

Marc
Shas
Posts: 56

Post#36 » Apr 09 2006 07:57

i think Flash mens right about keeping the cost down

you start off with a base cost off 176, but its very easy after upgrading the fish giving them rail rilfes and shas'ui with sheild drones. and wait look they are now 303 pionts. alternivtly i could have 2 units for 352 with double the markers.

i think the new tau codex has the majour trap of upgrading. to much choice leads to extra pionts being speent every where. to many upgrades and not enought base units.

Return to “Archival Datacore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests