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.

They're not as good as geq, but they are far closer to geq than meqs are. Those "flaws" aren't s bad in 8 man squads, especially the T3.

T3 is worse agaisn't S3, S4, S6 and S7. Compared with T4.

Then, again, their gun has +1S and +6" range compared with other units of similar cost with a Bolter. But then, they hit on a +4, so they hit 25% less than models with +3BS. And in 8th, the difference between S4 and S5 is that S5 wounds on a +1 compared with S4: T4, T5, T8, T9, T10
If you are hitting T8 or better with your Firewarriors you are doing it wrong.

Yeah, they are much better at shooting than ork boyzs, for not much of a price difference... but yeah. They are Tau, what do you expect?

Actually, the 90+ firewarrior list is quite good at chipping out T8.

Firewarriors are much better at shooting than nearly everything in practice.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, the 90+ firewarrior list is quite good at chipping out T8.

Which Fire Warrior, Strike Teams or Breacher Teams?
What's the HQ?
Where's the Markerlight support?

You can't just keep throwing out ridiculous statements like this and not expect to get called out.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, the 90+ firewarrior list is quite good at chipping out T8.

Firewarriors are much better at shooting than nearly everything in practice.

90+ Firewarriors, plus support as Cadre Fireblades, etc... are nearly 1k points. Half of a 2k list. And they are still T3 models with a +4 save. (Yeah, 3+ in cover. Where do you put 100 models in cover?)

You are , as always, just chosing the good parts, ignoring the bad ones, to make they appear much more powerfull than what they really are.

Okay, little math on Fire Warriors vs. Marines. We'll assume they're at 15"-24" away, so they each get one shot, and we'll do both in cover and out of cover. Assume 10 Marines and 16 Fire Warriors.

In cover:

10 Marines fire 10 shots, hitting 20/3 times, wounding 40/9 times, and getting 40/27 unsaved wounds through. 1.48 Tau dead. 11.84 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors fire 16 shots, hitting 8 times, wounding 16/3 times, and getting 16/18 unsaved wounds through. .89 Marines dead. 11.57 points killed.

They're just about numerically equal, in cover. Out of cover, though:

10 Marines have the same math up until unsaved wounds. 40/18, or 2.22 dead Tau. 17.78 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors again have the same math until unsaved wounds, which grants 16/9 dead Marines. Which is 23.11 points. Fire Warriors come out ahead by a decent amount.

That being said, it's easier to put 10 Marines in cover than 16 Fire Warriors, and I wasn't accounting for chapter tactics or reroll auras, which are easier for Marines to get. Overall, though, they seem to perform similarly against each other.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, little math on Fire Warriors vs. Marines. We'll assume they're at 15"-24" away, so they each get one shot, and we'll do both in cover and out of cover. Assume 10 Marines and 16 Fire Warriors.

In cover:

10 Marines fire 10 shots, hitting 20/3 times, wounding 40/9 times, and getting 40/27 unsaved wounds through. 1.48 Tau dead. 11.84 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors fire 16 shots, hitting 8 times, wounding 16/3 times, and getting 16/18 unsaved wounds through. .89 Marines dead. 11.57 points killed.

They're just about numerically equal, in cover. Out of cover, though:

10 Marines have the same math up until unsaved wounds. 40/18, or 2.22 dead Tau. 17.78 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors again have the same math until unsaved wounds, which grants 16/9 dead Marines. Which is 23.11 points. Fire Warriors come out ahead by a decent amount.

That being said, it's easier to put 10 Marines in cover than 16 Fire Warriors, and I wasn't accounting for chapter tactics or reroll auras, which are easier for Marines to get. Overall, though, they seem to perform similarly against each other.

10 Marines is also a legal squad size while 16 Fire Warriors isn't.

This is where some of the silliness of these comparisons come from. You've used 16 Fire Warriors--Meaning a full squad and 3/5ths of a second squad to fire at 10 Marines.

If you actually build around fire warriors which anyone taking 90 of them is going to do. You are going to take 2 fireblades as HQ and you are also going to take enough pathfinders to ensure the primary target has 5 markers on it. If you can get 2 units with 5 markers on it the better. Pathfinders take pulse accelerator drones which increases the range of a pulse rifle by 6. Does this increase the range of rapid fire? IDK. In any case - the fire warriors are getting 3 str 5 shots at 15 inches and if the target has 5 markers its bs3+ rerolling 1's. I can attest this is devastating damage. When I play tau I only bring 30 fire warriors though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, little math on Fire Warriors vs. Marines. We'll assume they're at 15"-24" away, so they each get one shot, and we'll do both in cover and out of cover. Assume 10 Marines and 16 Fire Warriors.

In cover:

10 Marines fire 10 shots, hitting 20/3 times, wounding 40/9 times, and getting 40/27 unsaved wounds through. 1.48 Tau dead. 11.84 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors fire 16 shots, hitting 8 times, wounding 16/3 times, and getting 16/18 unsaved wounds through. .89 Marines dead. 11.57 points killed.

They're just about numerically equal, in cover. Out of cover, though:

10 Marines have the same math up until unsaved wounds. 40/18, or 2.22 dead Tau. 17.78 points killed.
16 Fire Warriors again have the same math until unsaved wounds, which grants 16/9 dead Marines. Which is 23.11 points. Fire Warriors come out ahead by a decent amount.

That being said, it's easier to put 10 Marines in cover than 16 Fire Warriors, and I wasn't accounting for chapter tactics or reroll auras, which are easier for Marines to get. Overall, though, they seem to perform similarly against each other.

10 Marines is also a legal squad size while 16 Fire Warriors isn't.

This is where some of the silliness of these comparisons come from. You've used 16 Fire Warriors--Meaning a full squad and 3/5ths of a second squad to fire at 10 Marines.

Fire warriors are often taken in 8 man squads. However - as long as the points are the same - there is nothing silly about it. You can legally place 2 8 mans in the exact fashion that a 16 man would have been placed.

And that army is fragile as wet paper, and has 0 movility. Yeah, you can probably have 800 points in heavy support or movility but with how expensive are Tau, thats doesn't get you much if you are not spamming Commanders.

And I'm not saying thats a bad army per se. Fire Wariors are good. And with a proper strategy and investment they can put the pain in your enemy. But thats good. They have counter play and aren't underpriced. They are alongside Ork Boyz one of the more balanced troops in the game. Tau's are all about sinergy between the army components. "Kill the Markerlights" has always been the primary counter-play agaisn't Tau.

I've stated before our tables have a lot of cover, and not as much los blocking typically.

The reality is that there are no bad parts to horde shooting.

The counterplay isn't as obvious as you think it is, especially for marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If you actually build around fire warriors which anyone taking 90 of them is going to do.

This is Brigade levels of Fire Warriors, or multiple smaller Detachments.

You are going to take 2 fireblades as HQ and you are also going to take enough pathfinders to ensure the primary target has 5 markers on it. If you can get 2 units with 5 markers on it the better. Pathfinders take pulse accelerator drones which increases the range of a pulse rifle by 6. Does this increase the range of rapid fire? IDK.

Er no.
Realistically, if someone is committing to 9 squads of Strike Teams maxed out at 12 models(which gives you 108 Fire Warriors, not 90 so I'll ignore that for the remainder of the example) each as part of like a 2k point list?

You're going to have more than 2 Fireblades as HQs. You're going to be sitting on something like 4-5 Cadre Fireblades with some Ethereals spread out as well to ensure that you can get max coverage for Volley Fire and Storm of Fire(reroll hit rolls of 1s if you're stationary during the Movement phase) and/or Sense of Stone(Roll a D6 when suffering an unsaved Wound, 6s ignore the wound).

Also, Pulse Accelerator Drones increase the range of Carbines, Pistols, and Rifles by 6"...with the requirement that units have to be within 3" of the PAD. Rapid Fire is half the distance of the weapon. Half of 36" equals 18".

In any case - the fire warriors are getting 3 str 5 shots at 15 inches and if the target has 5 markers its bs3+ rerolling 1's. I can attest this is devastating damage. When I play tau I only bring 30 fire warriors though.

3 S5 AP0 shots at 15 inches, if stationary and if within 6" of a Cadre Fireblade.
The remainder is dependent upon you making at minimum 5 hits from a Pathfinder Squad using their Markerlights.

So just to be sure about this?
Your proposal is talking about, at minimum:
78 points for two Cadre Fireblades, with 6" auras(which is a laughable suggestion at best since with 90 Fire Warriors finding a spot where all 9 units are within 6" of the Fireblades is...lol. Just lol.).
720 points for 9 10 model Strike Teams.
144 points for 3 5 model Pathfinder Teams(remember: 3 points per Markerlight; the ML is almost as much as a Pathfinder by itself! 8 points per Pulse Accelerator Drone)
That is 942 points before any more Drones or wargear is added. That's also 9 Troop choices, 3 FA choices, and 2 HQs.

All of that has a 4+(Fireblades and Fire Warriors) or a 5+(Pathfinders) save outside of cover. They have zero way of pressing wounds that have an AP value as well or singling out characters.

Against infantry heavy Guard? Sure, I can see this working. It basically becomes an old world style musket match...but against anyone that has a decent armor save or can force negative modifiers for shooting?

It's going to get ripped apart piece by piece.

Martel732 wrote:
I've stated before our tables have a lot of cover, and not as much los blocking typically.

The reality is that there are no bad parts to horde shooting.

The counterplay isn't as obvious as you think it is, especially for marines.

I have seen 0 Tau Firewarrior spam list in any kind of Tournament. I have seen many Space Marines. By your own metric and Xenomancers one I suppose that means Firewarrior sucks?

With how crowded the Firewarriors need to be to benefit from the Drones auras + The Fireblades Auras (Plus Cover if we asume they have cover because of course in this kind of mathhammer pornfests everything is perfect and ideal for the army we want to make appear as OP) any kind of meele list can just jump and consolidate with every meele unit charging and locking in meele a minimun of two Firewarriors Units. And yeah they can fall back and shoot at you. Unless you make half or more of their units fall back. Then they are death next turn.

Martel732 wrote:
I've stated before our tables have a lot of cover, and not as much los blocking typically.

That's YOUR problem. People have told you, repeatedly, in the past that your "tables" are pretty bad if there's tons of cover but not much LOS blocking.

The reality is that there are no bad parts to horde shooting.

Other than, y'know, the whole "hordes" part?

90 Fire Warriors isn't cheap, modelwise.

The counterplay isn't as obvious as you think it is, especially for marines.

It really is. Stop playing on crummy tables.

Also, take advantage of things that are in your army. I can set up a Raven Guard army that would fare pretty well against that Fire Warrior list.

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I've stated before our tables have a lot of cover, and not as much los blocking typically.

The reality is that there are no bad parts to horde shooting.

The counterplay isn't as obvious as you think it is, especially for marines.

I have seen 0 Tau Firewarrior spam list in any kind of Tournament. I have seen many Space Marines. By your own metric and Xenomancers one I suppose that means Firewarrior sucks?

With how crowded the Firewarriors need to be to benefit from the Drones auras + The Fireblades Auras (Plus Cover if we asume they have cover because of course in this kind of mathhammer pornfests everything is perfect and ideal for the army we want to make appear as OP) any kind of meele list can just jump and consolidate with every meele unit charging and locking in meele a minimun of two Firewarriors Units. And yeah they can fall back and shoot at you. Unless you make half or more of their units fall back. Then they are death next turn.

Don't confuse me with Xenomancers here. Tournaments are too sparse and codices are coming out too quickly for that to be THE only thing. Yeah I've played both shooty marine lists and punchy ones against this list and it doesn't work the way you think it does. It goes south for the marines REALLY fast. Maybe I could list tailor and beat it.

They are cheap enough that they don't HAVE to have the auras to be utterly lethal. But sure, think whatever you want at this point. Cheap and/or undercosted shooting rules this game.

To be honest I don't have a problem with Firewarriors costing 9ppm. Even costing the same as Sisters of Battle is fine by me. They don't are of the same army, and having a worse save and worse stats isn't as important as having a better gun and access to better sinergies for Tau at least. I firmly believe that Tau should be a fragile but long range shooting and movile (Not as movile as Eldar) force that has a high skill cap to play because is strenght comes from sinergies and supporting units with other units.

But as I said, taking Space Marines as the basis to balance everything else is a mistake at least in my opinion. Space Marines have terrible internal balance.

If Intercessors costed something like 18ppm, then they could be used as a balance point for everything else.

Kanluwen wrote:
That's YOUR problem. People have told you, repeatedly, in the past that your "tables" are pretty bad if there's tons of cover but not much LOS blocking.

This is a criticism I have of my current local gaming place, as well as the ones I gamed in back in 3e/4e times. Table terrain was sparse and typically offered little real cover let alone anything approaching LOS blocking. Perused the table at the local Escalation League spot and it was much the same - maybe one table had something decent. It's almost like most gamers don't care, and that it speeds up gameplay...

Kanluwen wrote:
90 Fire Warriors isn't cheap, modelwise.

About $450 US (assuming you're still paying retail at this point), which isn't all that much. Doubly so if you don't buy it all at once. The bigger issue I guess is time you put into getting 90 troops looking decent for the table.

M.

I thought they were 8 ppm. 9 ppm sounds a bit better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also prefer low los blocking tables now that almost every indirect fire ig unit is undercosted. The gunline can't be engaged effectively on a high los blocking table. It autowin for the guard.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, the 90+ firewarrior list is quite good at chipping out T8.

Firewarriors are much better at shooting than nearly everything in practice.

Are they though? I mean, 90 Fire Warriors beyond half range are going to deal 2.5 wounds to a T8 model with a 2+ save (90 shots, 45 hits on BS 4+, S5 against T8 wounds on 5+ resulting in 15 wounds, 2+ save means that 2.5 wounds go through). Even if you factor in support from Markerlights, Fireblades, and Ethereals, it doesn't change much. Fireblades and Ethereals only add firepower within half range, Ethereals Storm of Fire only works if you remain stationary and renders Markerlights redundant. So this list, whatever it might be (your point would really be helped if you actually included this list in full rather than just saying its really really good and we should totally just trust you on it), would end up being a list that is most effective within 15" but has next to no mobility, and relies entirely on weight of fire coming from models that are T3 with a 4+ shooting S5 AP0 shots.

I've stated before our tables have a lot of cover, and not as much los blocking typically.

As others have said, this is decidedly a problem for you and your group. Local metas or local ways of setting up tables cannot be taken into consideration when discussing the power of units nor codices. Set up your tables with less terrain, more LOS blocking terrain, or both.

As i said, i don't really want more los blocking stuff. It won't help. And it hurts a LOT vs ig.

Most t8 things only have 3+ armor and can't get cover.

Martel732 wrote:
As i said, i don't really want more los blocking stuff. It won't help. And it hurts a LOT vs ig.

Most t8 things only have 3+ armor and can't get cover.

Then don't complain about how good an army or a unit is at shooting. Simple as that. If you know what the solution is and refuse to implement it, you have lost your right to ever complain about the problem.

Some T8 things have 3+ saves, some have 2+ saves (there are these rare little models called Land Raiders, maybe you've heard of them before?). And they certainly can get cover, anything can claim cover if it is 50% or more obscured (considering you talk about how FWs, infantry, constantly have cover on your tables I'm assuming you play with a lot of ruins, and the rules for ruins specifically states that non-infantry models can claim cover as long as they are 50% or more obscured by the terrain). And even against a 3+ save, those same 90 FWs are doing 5 unsaved wounds a turn on average. Yeah its double the damage, but its still only 5 wounds a turn, most T8 models have enough wounds that they will laugh off that kinda damage output.

Martel732 wrote:
As i said, i don't really want more los blocking stuff. It won't help. And it hurts a LOT vs ig.

Most t8 things only have 3+ armor and can't get cover.

So... you refuse to fix a problem with YOUR GROUP'S table, therefore it's tau's fault? As everyone before me has stated, that's on you. Hell, do it army by army basis if you have to. IG? Less LoS blocking cover. Tau? Add some more. Group won't agree to it? Stop playing with TFGs who are looking to just wipe the floor with a weaker army and aren't interested in a fun game for both sides.

At this point, this guy became a Traditio, but chimping out at Tau instead of AM. Stop falling for his bait.

But I'm bored and he makes it easy to feel smart...

 BoomWolf wrote:
But I'm bored and he makes it easy to feel smart...

lol

anyway, let's see what the chapter approved book will bring. some new shenanigans could immensely help Tau in the actual situation

There won't be any new shenanigans.

Point changes yes, and many units CAN be salvaged with a point fix, but core issues like the markerlight being both mandatory and completely redundant due to overlaps with suit systems you really can't afford not to take.

But CA won't have any new rules beyond maybe giving us one sept tactics and one relic.

I play guard and my best bud plays Tau. It was rough for him when I played fluffy index lists. I haven't played him since the codex dropped. I was thinking of giving him 500 more points than me to make it an interesting game. What do you guys think we can do to have an exciting game? I was also thinking of some home brew scenario. Where I have an armored column and he ambushes me on 3 sides and I have to get off the far side of the board.

Keep a Guard unit in a Chimera near your backfield? Drop his least favorite unit to see, and bring something else?

It depends on how fluffy or competitive he is. If he's competitive, you'll need to quantify a handicap if your army is simply stronger. If he's more fluffy, find a fluffy reason to keep part of our forces out of position or make some bad listbuilding decisions.

Does he love listbuilding, tabletop strategery, or cool battles most? If it's listbuilding, that's going to be hard. If it's tabletop strategy, make a worse list yourself. If it's cool battles, suboptimal tactical decisions that just look cool are the best way to go.

Having played CWE through an OP dex, a bonkers OP dex, and now a strong dex, and playing in a noncompetitive meta, I've had the same problem. I started CWE to do Mechdar, but then Serpent Spam happened. Pivoted to an Aspect Host, then the 7E dex hit making my 1500 list 1427 - while making every unit stronger. Now I need to add a tank or two to make that list 1250.

How I make it fun for the other guy varies. Against some people, I drop in my Hawks on an upper ridge and surround a force, and have a scenic shootout. Others, the best way to give them fun is to embark some unit early and never let them out of their transport. Against others, I need to list tailor. Even different players with the same codex require different strategies. And, of course, against some players I needn't tone it down at all.

If you slough some forces against a tabletop-strategy focused player, they will feel cheated. Don't do that.

If you intentionally build poorly against a listbuilder fanatic, they'll hate it.

If you set up a specific points handicap against a fluffy player, they may feel dirty.

What to do really depends on what your friend wants.