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.

Just for the record I don't think fire warriors should have BS4. I think markerlights should be cheaper though, and more widely available.

I guess that's generally GW's problem when it comes to fluff; inconsistency.

@ Flingitnow : Didn't you just say that they were point costed fine? Why make them cheaper? Why FW so cheap? That's only three points more over a Guardsmen for S5 AP5 longer ranged weapons and a 4+ armor save? If Guardsmen could do that, you know what every Guard player would be doing....

@ skinnattittar: We all know that there are so many ap4 weapons out there that have a 4+ save is the same as a 5+; worthless against anything but guard and that 4+ save doesn't do anything for a firewarrior stuck in close combat with an MEQ (power weapons and power fists). I, personally, don't think firewarriors should be lower in price but I'd give them something to help them live one round of close combat.

@flingitnow: Concentration of firepower doesn't do a whole lot these days if you can't withstand an assault. 3 units of plague marines and you just spent your entire shooting phase to kill most of one unit; the other two are in close combat the next turn. You might pop a rhino or two depending on who goes first and if they popped smoke and how effective your markerlight shooting was but at least 2 units of PMs are getting to you and the daemon prince will jump there too.
Castling and ninja Tau are both extremely boring tactics (for the tau player and his opponent); unfortunately, they're all that seems to work currently.

Basically, Tau need to be better at shooting, better at close combat, or become a shooty horde like guard or orks to be a truly competitive army in 5th edition.

ML in general are points costed fine. I've not changed their points cost. ML Drones however are well over priced.

I thought a vanilla squad of GUardsmen was 50 points for 10 men. The FWs would be 60 points for the first 6 men...

4+ save is nothing particularly special these days where everything gets a 4+ cover save anyway. So yeah the weapon is better for 3 points but the initiative is lower and their WS is lower and they can't take heavy or special weapons, can't squad up into large units either and don't get orders. So overall that seems about right especially considering the start up price.

But you are right the fluff is not consistent and doesn't really tie too closely into the rules. If it was a squad of 10 marines should be 1,500 points of win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd give them something to help them live one round of close combat

That's the last thing the Tau need. The fact they get massacred in 1 turn of assault is a strength as it allows you to then shoot whatever assaulted you. The last thing you want is the enemy to still be engaged!

What I've suggested would help the Tau shoot better. Fixing the Vespids gives them better MEQ firepower, giving the fierwarriors just that little extra weight of fire will also help against almost anything.

Making Pathfinders not have to take the fish means you could take more units and still keep your scorefish in reserve.

My final peice was to give the suits more long range options. As missile Pod asside they don't have anything at the moment, whilst the reduction in points cost of the marker drones means you could afford to take a few in the squads again increasing both the diversity and effect of your firepower.

I've heard people suggesting making the crisis suits T5 I think this would help too and make them less susceptical to small arms fire and instant death.

Yes you are going to get assaulted and you have to accept that you just want to ensure you can do as much damage as you can before hand and that you are as well equiped to return fire after the assault. If you position your troops well each of his units should only be able to assault one of your units.

I know castling is a bit lame and dull as is the everything is reserve tactic (for both Tau and Cheesdar). However they have slanted the game so towards assault (have done since 3rd Ed.) you have to accept in a purely competitive environment that is your only option and always will be with a mobile shooting army that sucks in CC. If you want a more fun game play less cheesy lists against each other...

Well if 4+ is just as effective as 5+, lets just make Firewarriors SV5+? If you want them as cheap as 5+, give them 5+.

I think you're blowing smoke to try and make anyone believe 4+ is useless. Maybe against big guns, which is reasonable, but against everything else, such as issue weapons (bolters, lasguns, etc..) you get your 4+ save and in close combat, half of those 5+ doesn't cover (I can only think of the Lasgun that doesn't have AP5 of the issue weapons. What's the AP on an Ork Slugga?). Yeah, there are a lot of power weapons/fists out there, but for one, they don't make up a third of the attacks in close combat, and the owning unit should be paying for them. Yes, they make up for the effective number of attacks, but that doesn't make SV4+ worthless at all. Why do you think Grenadiers were so popular for IG? I never took them, but a LOT of people did!

I think the main problem with Tau SV4+ is that it's what your aggregate has. So whenever an AP4 weapon hits your troops, you see a swathe of them get blown away! Which is shocking, agreeable. That does not mean it is useless.

A question I have posed to most all Guard players, and one to ask whenever you think something is "useless":
Would you trade 6+ Armor Save, for Guardsmen, for a single point off per model? The usual answer is an emphatic "Yes!" Even ask them if they would give up their Armor Save altogether, you'll hear "Yes!" a lot (I would take 15pts off per squad for no Armor Save, personally).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why not give Vespids the Power Weapons? They're jump troops, right? Why not have them be the "tech fighters" that Tau need, and have Kroot roled for counter assault tactics (but no power weapons). But you need a plastic kit for Vespids first...

We're not saying the 4+ save is entirely useless. Just that in most cases you are getting a 4+ cover save anyway. In CC I2, WS2 and max squad size of 12 means you are all dead irrespective of saves anyway, so in reality it is of no use in CC. It helps if you are out in the open (I can't imagine why you would be in a competitive game) or if facing flamers or sternguard or other AP5 ignore cover weapons of which there are not a lot and which almost all mean you are then in CC so dead anyway...

It is not useless but it is no more effective than the stat line decrease mixed with the inability to take heavy weapons not to mention the difference is consistency between orders and MLs, not to mention the fact you can't horde them to protect against CC. Then 3 points for the improved weapon sounds about right.

fireknife teamleader /w TA and then twin linked regular suits /w TA. Commander /w CIB and Plasma, bodyguard fireknives /w TA. Works well.

It's kind of ridiculous that there are so many armies out there with weapon skill equal too or greater than SM, but oh noes, no one can have BS equal to them!

BS 4 would hardly make Tau SM, as would be readily apparent to anyone who gets them into CC

You're forgetting that Firewarriors still have the most powerful issue weapon in the game's history. Yes, they lack Heavy and Special weapons, but so what? You have R30 S5 AP5 Rapid Fire weapons! Tau lack anti-tank abilities in their squads, but they also have some of the best ranged anti-tank weapons in the game as well! Maybe drop some fusion blasters in their squads, but BS4 isn't really required.

The simple fact of the matter is, Tau have Marker Lights, which while they may need some tweaking, Ballistic Skill is the least of Tau's worries...

I beg to differ as a 4+ save is useless in the current rules set. I have yet to play a game where my firewarrior teams were not able to benefit from a cover save. Cover save > armor save. The only possible benefit from the 4+ is in close combat where they'll die anyway from power weapons or if you run them outside of cover which is suicide.

Tell you what, give firewarriors BS4 and heavy weapons options and I'll take no armor whatsoever.


@Skinnattittar
Tau also lack unit choices. For HQ you can have a crisis suit HQ or an worthless ethereal, for elite you can have a crisis or stealth suit unit of 3. For troops you have kroot or firewarriors, for fast attack you have piranha, worthless vespid, or expensive pathfinders (expensive because they have to have a 80 point transport) and heavies you have a choice of broadsides, hammerheads, or skyray. A grand total of 12 unit choices in total.

Sure they have a good troop weapon but shooting takes a back seat to close combat in this rules edition so you get maybe 1 or 2 rounds of shooting with that great weapon before the entire unit is killed by 1 unit of pretty much everything else in the game.
A recent game I played I rapid fired into a squad of plague marines and killed 2 (lucky me) after the opposing player made his armor saves and feel no pain saves, etc. They got charged the next turn and all died after they lost by three, ran and were caught because their WS is 2 and initiative is 2.

Why do so many people compare the effectiveness of things against one of the toughest units in the game? Of COURSE you're not going to do much damage to them! I have had units of 50 Guardsmen with Missile Launchers and Plasma, and still I only killed four or five Plague Marines. It is not uncommon. Granted, they were dead before they could assault, I had a great number of the bugger Guardsmen against one squad of Plague Marines. Still, it is not a fair or proper comparison.

Compare equal points values of equally comparable units. Which is why Space Marines are so popular to compare against.

We are not here to talk about the number of units Tau have available to choose from, or that Pathfinders have to buy a Hammerhead (which is an easy fix, so don't hide behind that). We're here to talk about Firewarriors, more specifically debating about them having BS4.

So about your on topic statement: I think you are using their Armor Save wrong, if that's the case, which is rather common, and not disrespectable. I, for one, think there is far too much cover on the average board, and my tables tend to be more sparse. I play Guardsmen, and often they are not in cover at all, and I do well, thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I posted this before, analyzing Firewarriors for points values.

Let's start by comparing them to your average Guardsmen at 5ppm. Well, FW have inferior WS and I, so let's say 1ppm for each. Ah! But Fire Warriors have superior weapons! S5 is at least 2ppm better, so add in that, and AP5 so plus 2ppm. Let us not forget that 4+ Armor Save either, Guard had to pay 20pts per ten, so why not Tau, too? Plus two points. Guardsmen had Frag Grenades, which doesn't really help them, since they don't do much in the way of assaulting, not are the effects particularly thrilling (they only work against enemy in cover). Firewarriors, on the other hand have Photon Grenades, which means assaulting units lose their additional attack for charging, very useful and has no caveats to effect (unless the unit is already locked in combat). I would say that's worth another point.

5pts(Base) -1pt(WS) -1pt(I) +2pts(S5) +2pts(AP5) +2pts(SV4+) +1pt(Photon) = 10pts.

Well, we have 10ppm for Firewarriors. It's not perfect, WS2 isn't a big loss for counter attacks (since so much hits on a 4+ these days, your opponent will have to be WS5 to make it worse), but also I2 acts a lot like I3, so those can sort of wash together to -1pts in the current edition. That makes 11ppm for FW.

On the other hand, AP5 isn't a huge deal most of the time, and while SV4+ is nothing to laugh at (like SV5+), it still isn't that big a deal with 4+ Cover being so ubiquitous. So lets say +3ppm for the two, which gives us a 10ppm Fire Warrior again.

I use plague marines as a comparison because that's mostly what I play against.

Unit availability does make a difference; if you look at every other army you'll note that they have units for nearly every need. While crisis suits are flexible, they are also expensive and available in limited quantities.

It is job redundancy that makes a successful army we can tout the marker lights all day but once the pathfinder unit is killed or the drones destroyed there are no more marker lights. However, with armies that have access to a variety of units that may accomplish the same job, losing one unit does not see the army fold.

Take guard for instance; someone shoots down your vendetta, that's ok you have battle tanks or artillery that can accomplish the same job.

Your units are generally not successful in close combat, that's ok you have numbers and the ability to "blob up" and access to heavy weapons and even powerfists; you can even buy veterans as a troop choice, a unit of 10 (including sergeant) with BS4 for 70 points, they're cheaper and have better stats than a firewarrior, access to heavy weapons and combat doctrine. Put your veterans in carapace armor and they're still cheaper and better than firewarriors. Your unit of 10 veterans can have 3 meltas, now talk to me about who has the best troop weapon. I'll shoot strength 3 weapons all day if the unit has 3 shots that have a better than 50% to hit and will insta-kill nearly anything they wound.

If you look back on my posts in this thread, I've alternated between being a fan of the BS 4 idea and the concept of being able to pay for units that have BS 4 separate from the average firewarrior. Either way is fine with me.

Armor saves are what they are and in the current rules, they're not that great unless you're in terminator armor. I don't think you can use armor saves incorrectly, if the ap of the weapon allows it, you roll; cover saves are more plentiful and more beneficial. If you want to leave your guard in the open, by all means do so but my Tau will use every advantage they can get. I don't see how there can be too much terrain considering most fighting, even in the 21st century, takes place in cities, not open fields.

None of this really matters; I started playing Tau because I like the fluff and the miniatures not because I thought they were an uber-army.


-----
Appended to respond to previous post.

Firewarriors do not come standard with grenades, they're already an additional 1pt per model and EMP grenades are 3pts. Firewarrior units also do not come standard with a sergeant that adds a +1 leadership, they have to pay an additional 10 pts.

Firewarriors don't come with photon grenades and no sensible Tau player would ever take them. Having photon grenades should be -1 point. AP5 should only be worth 1 point. So re-analyse:

5pts - 1(Ws) - 1(I) + 2(S5 weapon) + 1 (AP5 weapon) + 2 (4+ Sv) - 1 (Frag grenades) - 1 (no spec/heavy weapons) - 1 (can't horde to help in CC) = 5pts

If you add photon grenades they should be 4 points each

TopC wrote:The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.. (blade runner quote)
...alot of people think that the new codex will make them cheaper ..

Are the Tau getting a new codex?
Sorry if that is a silly question. I haven't been on the site in a few weeks.

Lets not forget sub-par leadership and no commissars.

Are the Tau getting a new codex?
Sorry if that is a silly question. I haven't been on the site in a few weeks.

Nothing in the immediate pipeline it is just that most people realise they are the army that most drastically needs a new codex except possibly the Necrons.

And Skinnattittar, you do realize Tau Gunline is dead now? That 30" range is a foot note of potential, not how they are used. The pulse rifle for all practical applications may as well have a range of 12". And you do realize that BS 4 Str 4 against T 4 is statistically the same as BS 3 Str 5, and that against T 3 BS 4 Str 4 is actually marginally better than BS 3 Str 5.

Here's the thing though. Tau are supposed to be better shooters. They can not soften a target up to finish in assault, because they lose assaults against almost any other unit, even if they out number them 4 to 1.

You're hung up one this whole thing that for some reason Tau should not be any better at shooting than a standard Guardsman, and that 4+ saves and Markerlights makes up any difference in the two. Look at the tournament scene. IG are top performers, Tau don't even place.

You can't even really blame codex creep, because some dark eldar players still do pretty well on the tournament scene.

It seems like we have a whole lot of alternatives, but not any good support for BS4 Firewarriors. What I basically just want to get across is this:

No good fluff support.
No good history support.
Won't fix the problems Tau is having.
Creeps BS.

I will agree that WH40k is moving too much towards assault and warp powers, neither of which I feel are going to help 40k in the future. But Tau getting BS4, in my opinion, won't help solve their problems.

Skinnattittar wrote:It seems like we have a whole lot of alternatives, but not any good support for BS4 Firewarriors. What I basically just want to get across is this:

No good fluff support.
No good history support.
Won't fix the problems Tau is having.
Creeps BS.

I will agree that WH40k is moving too much towards assault and warp powers, neither of which I feel are going to help 40k in the future. But Tau getting BS4, in my opinion, won't help solve their problems.

You, yourself said:

Skinnattittar wrote:I guess that's generally GW's problem when it comes to fluff; inconsistency.

If fluff and "history" are a problem, the good thing about a mythical universe is you can always rewrite it or add to it (genetic medicine took away their bad eyesight).

I'm not pushing for Tau to be kings of anything but I want them to at least be competitive; I don't mind losing but I would like to win once in a while, even against Nurgle.

You're right though, there are many ways to make Tau competitive and not all of them result in an across the board bump in BS.
Heck, why can't crisis suits at least be BS 4? They're "elite" after all, even in the fluff they're described as long-time veterans that have proven themselves repeatedly in combat and they can't shoot any better than the new recruits. Seriously? Even people in our current age learn how to compensate for disabilities so poor eyesight can't be the overriding excuse.

Skinnattittar wrote:It seems like we have a whole lot of alternatives, but not any good support for BS4 Firewarriors. What I basically just want to get across is this:

No good fluff support.
No good history support.
Won't fix the problems Tau is having.
Creeps BS.

I will agree that WH40k is moving too much towards assault and warp powers, neither of which I feel are going to help 40k in the future. But Tau getting BS4, in my opinion, won't help solve their problems.

All opinions that you have forcefully put out there as fact, while ignoring inconvienient pieces brought against your views.

I won't reiterate the arguments already put forth in this thread about fluff and history. It is vague enough, that BS4 could be argued. Clearly you are of the opinion that it isn't feasible...and that's okay.

The "problems" Tau are having are so hard to define in a thread.
You have the following people that enter with their opinions:
-the Tau players who want to change all stats to 10
-the Tau-haters, (mostly Americans who compare Tau to their arch-enemies, the Communists), who make useless comments about scrapping the Tau
-people who have differing opinions and are willing to compromise

The work done by the last category is often overshadowed due to wasted time on the first two kinds.

As I've said many times before, I hope a combination of mantaining/increasing Tau mobility where it is needed, special rules, and some slight additions to units can keep the Tau as a small, elite force...as opposed to Xenos Guard with a smaller variety of vehicles. I doubt GW will do this...it's not as good for model sales as dropping their cost and giving them grenades.

I meantioned using dronesto boost BS earlier. I thought up another idea for them to give Tau players another tactical decision with them! Give the little buggers a 3+ Armor Save! It will tempt players to stack wounds on them. When a squad is light, they might allocate a wound to the Drone, hoping the better save might deflect a wound or two. Might save a Firewarrior but you lose the BS boost.

No good fluff support.
No good history support.
Won't fix the problems Tau is having.
Creeps BS.

I disagree with the first two however I agree with the last 2. I think the Tau need other options and I think the game balance would be better addressed in the other ways I've suggested.

I'm with you on the no across the board Tau BS bump and I don't think it is necessary. MLs should still be a main stray of the Tau army, they are a cool mechanism that is unique to that army an across the board BS bump would give the Tau more consistency but would remove their flavour.

-the Tau-haters, (mostly Americans who compare Tau to their arch-enemies, the Communists), who make useless comments about scrapping the Tau

If they should scrap an army it should be the totally pointless and redundant mistake that is the Dark Eldar. However the Tau are supposed to represent the Americans they were designed to help boost GW sales in America. They are not communists they are an Oligarchy that righteously believes that everyone should follow their way of life and are crusading across the galaxy promoting it. Just like the Yanks with their religion of Democracy (the major religion of their country closely followed by the man made climate change religion). Tau are also the nearest thing to good guys in 40K (if the above comes across as yank bashing which it is not). So I don't see why Americans would be anti-Tau?

FlingitNow wrote:

No good fluff support.
No good history support.
Won't fix the problems Tau is having.
Creeps BS.

I disagree with the first two however I agree with the last 2. I think the Tau need other options and I think the game balance would be better addressed in the other ways I've suggested.

I'm with you on the no across the board Tau BS bump and I don't think it is necessary. MLs should still be a main stray of the Tau army, they are a cool mechanism that is unique to that army an across the board BS bump would give the Tau more consistency but would remove their flavour.

-the Tau-haters, (mostly Americans who compare Tau to their arch-enemies, the Communists), who make useless comments about scrapping the Tau

If they should scrap an army it should be the totally pointless and redundant mistake that is the Dark Eldar. However the Tau are supposed to represent the Americans they were designed to help boost GW sales in America. They are not communists they are an Oligarchy that righteously believes that everyone should follow their way of life and are crusading across the galaxy promoting it. Just like the Yanks with their religion of Democracy (the major religion of their country closely followed by the man made climate change religion). Tau are also the nearest thing to good guys in 40K (if the above comes across as yank bashing which it is not). So I don't see why Americans would be anti-Tau?

I would agree that Tau are not Communists, but many Americans are still stuck in the Cold War mindset of, "Is it leftist? KILL IT!".

And then proceed to make mindless comments about how worthless, spineless, Communistic, whatever...the Tau are, and why they don't deserve to be a 40k army.

I would agree that Tau are not Communists, but many Americans are still stuck in the Cold War mindset of, "Is it leftist? KILL IT!".

I always found this funny from a country that values democracy so highly which has exactly the same political ideal as communism...

I wouldn't even see the Tau as leftist they have a ruling elite who have to be obeyed without question how much more right wing can you get than that?

I've always seen the Imperium as their representation of the old British Empire (well drilled soldiers, insane genocidal leaders) with the Tau being the yanks (new upstart idealists that are destined to rule in the galaxy in the end).

LoL! This thread is quite funny.
It makes me smile to hear people comparing 40K races to our society. I have just taped two lamb chops to my pet cat. It is now a six legged Tyranid.
I have a few armies already & if I was to get another I'd probably get a Tau army, just for a laugh. It seems to me though from what everyone is saying that I shouldn't bother. I've only actually played against Tau twice. Both times I found them kinda tough. The first time some guy kept popping out from behind a wall & shooting me, then jumping back. The second time I faced a tank with a rather large gun on it that kept pummling me.
That is about all I have to say on the matter.
My cat has worked out how to get the chops off.
It is no longer a Tyranid. Unless it is eating itself.

Gentlemen, this is proposed rules. Lets talk about the rules and arguments about them, and not the efficacy of are Tau commie pinko Nazi zombie lovers. That belongs in 40K discussions or background.

Are we really starting a discussion about politics? And is the person crying "tyrant" really going to be the guy from a country that promoted tyranny openly and blatantly for how many centuries? A country that sailed the ocean openly trying to conquer the world and subjugate the people of the native lands with open abandon? And at the slightest sign of discent, open fire on thousands of unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with prior discent (I am of course talking about India, Ireland, America pre-revolution, Africa, the Middle East, Phillipines, Australia and the list goes on). All during that time claiming to be trying to "civilize the savages."

I'm not speaking in defense of America, we have our skeletons in our closets too, just like everyone else, but the pot should not call the kettle black, especially when the kettle (America) is closer to a shade of blue than the pot which is deepest pitch (230 years of American history doesn't even begin to match the eons of the world's bloodshed, so lets leave the history lessen and dead cat laying there). Again, I am putting this stupid argument in perspective. Shut the hell up about politics and talk about the subject!

On the subject of what inspired Tau, I have always heard, from anyone really, that Tau represent Japan/China, and were designed and marketed to improve sales in those countries, which I am told didn't fair so well. The tech and style certainly matches the trend of Japanese and Chinese fiction (Anime), and the Tau "religion" certainly matches the caste system of Asia (rulers, workers, warriors, etc...). The only thing doesn't really match (historically) is the "union" of other races. Both China and Japan have long histories of xenophobia or at least cultural isolationism.

Creeps BS on an army that has virtually no assault ability. Perish the thought. It's almost like they're ranged specialists or something.

Marker lights are great, I use them to strip cover for my BS 4 crisis suits and tanks. But marker lights are rediculously exensive, either 96 points for a pathfinder team that will be dead by turn 3, or 300 points for a SMT that might survive the game. And that's only enough marker lights to more or less gaurantee 3-4 ML hits on a single unit, which is enough to strip cover saves for one of your units, or boost the BS for two. and the number of marker lights drops rapidly as pathfinders or drones die.

24 FW firing 48 shots at a single marine squad at BS 5 kills 8.78 marines. at a minimum cost, that was 506 points that just went into killing 8-9 marines. And now your FW have to survive a turn being out on the board.

that's close to the cost of a fully diversified 9 Nob/1 Pain Boy squad with three PKs and a BW /w Deff Rolla. Would you care to guess how many marines that squad kills?

Now you'll have the people come in and say 'Tau are all about Synergy' and that's good. But there are ways to have synergy without needing 500+ points to kill 8-9 marines.

And just for amusement, 24 marines rapid firing at Tau at BS 4 kills 10.45

Skinnattittar

Firstly I didn't cry "Tyrant" heck I liked the Imperium to our old empire with all the Tyrant and Genocidal tones that go with it. Lighten up. It wasn't the pot calling the kettle black but the pot saying to the kettle I'm black your grey lets neither pretend we're white

Back on point Tau need a boost they are the weakest army in the game and they need to be more shooty. However an across the board BS bump is:

a) Not really solving the problem
b) Making the one unique thing about the army semi-redundant or OP depending on how you look at it and would either way have to go.
c) Totally bland

Can we agree on that?

I wouldn't say Tau are the weakest, they're just difficult. I used to say about the same thing about Guard until the recent Codex, which made them pretty interesting in fun again (though I would disagree with saying they are "strongest" in any sense. My general experience is that they are new and different, which many players have a hard time coping with).

I would agree that simply bumping BS would do little to solve their problems, it would help, but I don't think it's what is needed. Which is why I suggested a unit option to boost unit BS for Firewarriors and their vehicles (I always believed most BS3 vehicles need some reasonable way to boost to BS4, for tactical and fluff reasons), something already in their flavor; Drones. It helps their BS, adds to their fluff and depicts their dependence on technology, while adding a vulnerability, which is more interesting.

Kroot Loops wrote:that's close to the cost of a fully diversified 9 Nob/1 Pain Boy squad with three PKs and a BW /w Deff Rolla. Would you care to guess how many marines that squad kills?

My friend that got me back into 40k, and plays plague marines, tells me all the time that I should focus fire to kill off one unit at a time; many people on Dakka say the same thing. My answer to that is, why should my entire 1500 point army HAVE TO fire all their weaponry to kill one unit? Besides, while you're trying to kill one unit, the other 4 are killing you.

Kroot loops is right, even playing mech-tau when your firewarriors jump out of their 'fish and get all shooty they still have to survive to the next turn so they can jump back in the 'fish and whatever you just shot WILL assault you after you don't kill all of them.

Yes markerlights are good at removing cover and yes crisis suits can be reliable MEQ killers but they're 1) expensive and 2) fragile as if you get caught in assault, you're just as dead as the firewarriors.

Meh, this whole thread keeps going in circles.

On an interesting note; I picked up a space marine force for cheap on e-bay and played it for the first time the other night; they shoot better than tau and actually survive assaults...and win! Sergeant with power fist, free special weapon and one heavy weapon choice per full squad of tac marines? yes please. For slightly more than the price of a firewarrior squad plus devilfish, I fielded a 10 man tac squad in a rhino and did 4x the killing and assaulted and won assaults.

No wonder GW sells more space marines, they actually do something other than die.