Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Requizen wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Yes, I think as an add-on to a CAD. I use many FW things, so outside testing I'm not gonna field Hunter Cadre.

You know, I said the same thing about the Decurion when it first came out... but dang is it hard to say no to free rules after a while.

I rather work in a mix: CAD + Formations. While (and if) FW doesn't update its units to work within Hunter Contingent, I'll need a CAD anyway. Cheap Ethereal (as you need TWO commanders to get the attention of Ethereal-senpai in a Contigent), 2 Strikers and the rest I fill with FW stuff. Retaliation and AIC alreay cover what I have from GW

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm starting to think that the Hunter Contingent's bonus for shared special rules is limited to the Hunter Cadre, ala the Space Marines/Dark Angels book where the Detachment bonus only affects the Core choice.

Hunter Contingent benefit isn't inherently "shared rules" - it's join units together when shooting and count them as a single unit. That's like the Decurion's +1 Reanimation roll bonus.

Hunter Cadre, as the core - it's benefit is 12" supporting fire, and Run then Shoot. That's like the Demi-Company's +1 Tactical Doctrine per game bonus.

And if you read the benefit for the Gladius Strike Force Detachment, it makes it so that the units in the two Demi-Companies get free Dedicated Transports if they meet a certain criteria.

 Talys wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ultra-niche? Hardly. It's a great model (especially when compared to the codex flyers), has strong (but fair) rules, and is an asset to any tau army. It's pretty much the go-to tau flier.

There isn't a lot of flyer love these days, though, and most people won't blow the big bucks on a FW model unless it's truly outstanding (like a thunderhawk) or really special for rules.

It's nit hard to imagine that this isn't a popular model .. After all, how many have you seen IRL?

100% of the tau armies in my area have one.



Although that doesn't mean much because I'm the only tau player.

Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm starting to think that the Hunter Contingent's bonus for shared special rules is limited to the Hunter Cadre, ala the Space Marines/Dark Angels book where the Detachment bonus only affects the Core choice.

Hunter Contingent benefit isn't inherently "shared rules" - it's join units together when shooting and count them as a single unit. That's like the Decurion's +1 Reanimation roll bonus.

Hunter Cadre, as the core - it's benefit is 12" supporting fire, and Run then Shoot. That's like the Demi-Company's +1 Tactical Doctrine per game bonus.

And if you read the benefit for the Gladius Strike Force Detachment, it makes it so that the units in the two Demi-Companies get free Dedicated Transports if they meet a certain criteria.

I'm going on the (risky) assumption that had the command benefit for combining shooting attacks only applied to the core formation, Iuchiban on warseer would have mentioned it when he revealed it to the warseer forum.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm starting to think that the Hunter Contingent's bonus for shared special rules is limited to the Hunter Cadre, ala the Space Marines/Dark Angels book where the Detachment bonus only affects the Core choice.

Hunter Contingent benefit isn't inherently "shared rules" - it's join units together when shooting and count them as a single unit. That's like the Decurion's +1 Reanimation roll bonus.

Hunter Cadre, as the core - it's benefit is 12" supporting fire, and Run then Shoot. That's like the Demi-Company's +1 Tactical Doctrine per game bonus.

And if you read the benefit for the Gladius Strike Force Detachment, it makes it so that the units in the two Demi-Companies get free Dedicated Transports if they meet a certain criteria.

I'm going on the (risky) assumption that had the command benefit for combining shooting attacks only applied to the core formation, Iuchiban on warseer would have mentioned it when he revealed it to the warseer forum.

He had a few instances of having to correct himself and made a note of his English not being so great to begin with.

Fishboy wrote:Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

You njust have to let markerlight units to fire before the others. Then you combine units and use the markerlights that already exist

 Fishboy wrote:
Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

I think you are correct, in the sense you don't want to have Pathfinders as part of the "mega unit" so to speak, and you are focusing 4 units on a target. Pathfinders shoot first, light up the target unit, then the other 3 combine fire spreading the marker light and other bonuses between them.

 Fishboy wrote:
Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

The way he worded his post, it made it clear that it was something you chose to do at any point when a unit fired.

So if you have Pathfinders put Markerlights on target first? You can choose not to fire the "mega pewpew" right at that moment.
You then fire a unit of Broadsides with HRRs. At this point, you then choose to also use Markerlight benefits(Scour and Pinpoint x2).
You then opt to do your "mega pewpew", adding in units that have not fired already that turn.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

The way he worded his post, it made it clear that it was something you chose to do at any point when a unit fired.

So if you have Pathfinders put Markerlights on target first? You can choose not to fire the "mega pewpew" right at that moment.
You then fire a unit of Broadsides with HRRs. At this point, you then choose to also use Markerlight benefits(Scour and Pinpoint x2).
You then opt to do your "mega pewpew", adding in units that have not fired already that turn.

Yeah but as soon as you start adding units to the attack, they count as one unit, and as that "unit" is the one that fired the markerlights, it can use them unless networked. So you would have to have the pathfinders fire first as thier own unit. Then, the HYMP Broadsides would fire, using the markerlights laid down by the pathfinders, then add units 2 and 3 to that attack.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

The way he worded his post, it made it clear that it was something you chose to do at any point when a unit fired.

So if you have Pathfinders put Markerlights on target first? You can choose not to fire the "mega pewpew" right at that moment.
You then fire a unit of Broadsides with HRRs. At this point, you then choose to also use Markerlight benefits(Scour and Pinpoint x2).
You then opt to do your "mega pewpew", adding in units that have not fired already that turn.

Yeah but as soon as you start adding units to the attack, they count as one unit, and as that "unit" is the one that fired the markerlights, it can use them unless networked.

Read what I wrote.

Iuchiban posted that any firing unit which joins into these attacks gains the same special rules/Markerlight bonuses that the initially firing unit got. If you opt to fire the Broadsides, gaining Scour and Pinpoint from the Markerlight tokens, and then add in the mega pewpew from the remaining units--you're not the unit that fired the Markerlights.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Interesting thought on the formation that shares rules:

If multiple units firing at one unit (3 min I think) count as one unit then you will need a unit with networked marker lights to get marker light benefits. As soon as the unit with marker lights fires it is part of the "mega firing unit" and a unit can not benefit from its own marker lights. I think the sniper unit just became an auto take with this formation.

Am I mistaken?

The way he worded his post, it made it clear that it was something you chose to do at any point when a unit fired.

So if you have Pathfinders put Markerlights on target first? You can choose not to fire the "mega pewpew" right at that moment.
You then fire a unit of Broadsides with HRRs. At this point, you then choose to also use Markerlight benefits(Scour and Pinpoint x2).
You then opt to do your "mega pewpew", adding in units that have not fired already that turn.

Yeah but as soon as you start adding units to the attack, they count as one unit, and as that "unit" is the one that fired the markerlights, it can use them unless networked.

Read what I wrote.

Iuchiban posted that any firing unit which joins into these attacks gains the same special rules/Markerlight bonuses that the initially firing unit got. If you opt to fire the Broadsides, gaining Scour and Pinpoint from the Markerlight tokens, and then add in the mega pewpew from the remaining units--you're not the unit that fired the Markerlights.

Doh, gotcha.

So, uh, infiltration cadre.

Suicide Piranha zooms up, starts throwing fusion at things. If your enemy kills it, the rest OF THE ENTIRE FORMATION SUDDENLY APPEARS.

Or your opponent ignores it, and it fusions things.

Also, Did anyone else notice the "3 ML hits and you get automatic, offboard missile strike"? Sweet.

Still not quite sure about one thing. Do you have to declare which units merge into the "superunit" before any of them fire, or can you keep adding additional units as needed one at a time?

 JimOnMars wrote:
Still not quite sure about one thing. Do you have to declare which units merge into the "superunit" before any of them fire, or can you keep adding additional units as needed one at a time?

All firing declared before to hits are rolled within a single unit, So I would assume it's the same for super unit. Guesswork until we see the actual rule.

maceria wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Still not quite sure about one thing. Do you have to declare which units merge into the "superunit" before any of them fire, or can you keep adding additional units as needed one at a time?

All firing declared before to hits are rolled within a single unit, So I would assume it's the same for super unit. Guesswork until we see the actual rule.

This. Plus it's good form to call your shot before you take it so there's no confusion or "Gotcha!" tactics in the game. I hate Gotcha tactics.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I'm not big on Forge World models, simply because it's kind-of-sort-of its own company and some people might not even know about it when it comes to more casual play.

I am always amused when I read these about Forgeworld comments of them as unofficial/kinda gw/etc... Yeah, in the past when there was a US based Forgeworld company (now out of business) GW was banning those models because they were unofficial. Then After the USA went byebye, a UK Forgeworld emerged! GW & FW finally merged (check out FW site "we are part of GW")....

Anywho,

I remember, and now I am aging myself, when I had the FW Valkyries (heavy solid resin) & they vanished from FW site. A few months later GW was making plastic kits! Might be the case here, IMHO.

Actually, I'm not saying they are "kind of a GW company" I'm saying they are "kind of almost their own company". The difference being that while they are officially part of GW, there are instances where they aren't treated properly, almost like a "separate but equal" mentality as opposed to a unified front.

I know I harp on this a lot lately, but as long as stuff like this exists: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664955.page , there just can't be a world in which they are treated as one company, despite how they may be one officially.

And while I understand that the summary of this is:

It's very much a case by case basis. It's not a company policy to not allow FW products in their stores.

The problem isn't whether or not there is or isn't a company policy to not allow FW products in their store, but rather that there isn't a company policy that says "You must allow FW product in our stores" at least for non-tournament based activities, as tournaments can vary in format and restriction.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

maceria wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Still not quite sure about one thing. Do you have to declare which units merge into the "superunit" before any of them fire, or can you keep adding additional units as needed one at a time?

All firing declared before to hits are rolled within a single unit, So I would assume it's the same for super unit. Guesswork until we see the actual rule.

This. Plus it's good form to call your shot before you take it so there's no confusion or "Gotcha!" tactics in the game. I hate Gotcha tactics.

Thumbs up to this in general. When you are firing a unit, garg creature, super heavy, something with target locks and/or split fire, always ALWAYS fully list all weapons and their targets before rolling dice. Otherwise you are gaming the system by resolving weapons at your own pace and declaring secondary targetting after the fact (once you already know how the previous shot(s) have resolved) In a Tournament setting if it happens more than once I will always notify the TO of an opponent essentially gaming the rules. It may not be resolved in my game, but if more than one report like that comes in during the course of a tournament you can easily see the person doing it lose points or even get disqualified.

Of course in a friendly setting I just make sure to walk people who aren't doing it right through their shooting a bit to make sure they get properly into the swing of proper play.

Back on topic. I'm curious to hear the minimum point cost for the Breacher squads if you wanted to minimize your points cost in the troops slot. Any word on that yet?

GreyDragoon wrote:

Back on topic. I'm curious to hear the minimum point cost for the Breacher squads if you wanted to minimize your points cost in the troops slot. Any word on that yet?

45p

Some people ban FW because of the price tag, saying that only people with big bucks can get them and thus get the unfair advantages they tend to offer most of the time. Price of the model isnt what deters me from it, its the vastly outdated and just as expensive rulebook.

Though these days thats a pretty moot statement. Lot of normal GW stuff costs as much or more as most FW stuff now. Only exceptions being the REALLY big stuff like the Ta'unar or any Titan.

Quite frankly i wish FW would just merge into GW officially, as in the website goes away and everything. Have any non-normal unit just come with its rules/has a mini book on the side you can get for it. That way they can keep making models and not have to release "experimental rules" or a completely new IA

Breachers cost identical to Strikers (the normal firewarriors). This is of course without the drones, meaning no invul save, shas'ui, turret, or bonding knives. Remember they dont come with that drone, they buy it via 10pts for the Shas'ui then 12pts for 1 drone from the list (might as well get a gun drone or a redundant guardian drone at that point)

5 Breachers are 45 points.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I'm not big on Forge World models, simply because it's kind-of-sort-of its own company and some people might not even know about it when it comes to more casual play.

I am always amused when I read these about Forgeworld comments of them as unofficial/kinda gw/etc... Yeah, in the past when there was a US based Forgeworld company (now out of business) GW was banning those models because they were unofficial. Then After the USA went byebye, a UK Forgeworld emerged! GW & FW finally merged (check out FW site "we are part of GW")....

Anywho,

I remember, and now I am aging myself, when I had the FW Valkyries (heavy solid resin) & they vanished from FW site. A few months later GW was making plastic kits! Might be the case here, IMHO.

Actually, I'm not saying they are "kind of a GW company" I'm saying they are "kind of almost their own company". The difference being that while they are officially part of GW, there are instances where they aren't treated properly, almost like a "separate but equal" mentality as opposed to a unified front.

I know I harp on this a lot lately, but as long as stuff like this exists: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664955.page , there just can't be a world in which they are treated as one company, despite how they may be one officially.

And while I understand that the summary of this is:

It's very much a case by case basis. It's not a company policy to not allow FW products in their stores.

The problem isn't whether or not there is or isn't a company policy to not allow FW products in their store, but rather that there isn't a company policy that says "You must allow FW product in our stores" at least for non-tournament based activities, as tournaments can vary in format and restriction.

Yeah, I agree, even if it doesn't sound that way.

FW was a seperate entity for a while until, for legal & tax purposes, GW made them a "subsidiary of Games Workshop" (actual wording from GW & FW). It's like Lexus (FW) is to Toyota (GW).

My GW store & the 40ish blokes I play with have never ever cared either way. Bring it. Play it. Let's have fun! Is our motto.

Heck, I even order FW through my GW store so they get credit for it. They have FW displayed in their cases. During tournies & painting competitions, there is FW entered, and everyone is fine with it.

I think folks are digging too deep and splitting hairs nowadays in regards to FW. "Is it allowed in the store?" "I don't know, they didn't say it wasn't." "Well they didn't say it was." Now that is getting into semantics!

vitae_drinker wrote:
5 Breachers are 45 points.

It's 9.5 meltaguns guys. sheeeeeesh.

Can you guys please take the FW argument elsewhere?

So these formations will be in the Codex or just the Campaign book?

Also did anybody check up with FW to confirm the death of Barracuda?

So, the Hunter Contingent consists of

0-1 Command
1 or more Basics
1-10 AUXILIARIES ---- what are these, Kroot and Vespid? So i HAVE to take Kroot?


Also, while the formation rules seem really strong, i am somewhat sad about no crisis centric formation. Or is the Firebase Support Cadre now Riptide + suits-i-want-to-take, instead of 3 man Broadside Teams?

Auxiliary formations can consist of almost anything, it is not referring to Kroot or Vespid.

Auxiliary's are any of the other formations.

Retaliation Cadre is fairly Crisis Suit heavy.

No, Auxiliaries are the smaller formations. There is some that has Kroot and Vespsid but compared to some of the other Auxiliary formations there's way better.

 Tombard wrote:
So, the Hunter Contingent consists of

0-1 Command
1 or more Basics
1-10 AUXILIARIES ---- what are these, Kroot and Vespid? So i HAVE to take Kroot?


Also, while the formation rules seem really strong, i am somewhat sad about no crisis centric formation. Or is the Firebase Support Cadre now Riptide + suits-i-want-to-take, instead of 3 man Broadside Teams?

BAsic is the hunter cadre - the commander, 0-1 fireblade, 0-1 bodyguard teams, 3-6 troops (breachers or strikers or kroot), then 1-3 fast, 1-3 elite and 1-3 heavy (basically).

the auxiliaries are all the other formations contained within the codex/Kauyon books. (both books contain all the formations) One of the formations IS kroot and vespid, but they all aren't.

edit- - WOW triple ninja'd