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.

 Jayden63 wrote:
So much has already been said the seven pages that at this point people are either trolling, or genuinely unwilling to accept what the numbers show.

If your winning with Tau good for you. Especially if your build is not suit heavy or Forgeworld influenced. Playing straight out of the codex. But I think most all Tau players are finding our troop choices exceedingly lacking and believe that when we win it is dispite the performance of the Firewarrior rather than because of it.

Pretty much this.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
A codex's troop choices should not be made solid with allied troops.... they should be solid on their own.

I agree with that so much. The troops are really the backbone behind an army. It makes the ally system essential and not just fun.

Ninjacommando wrote:
A codex's troop choices should not be made solid with allied troops.... they should be solid on their own.



I agree with that so much. The troops are really the backbone behind an army. It makes the ally system essential and not just fun.

Don't misunderstand me. I agree as well. It was almost an anecdotal response. Tau become better allies because of a cheap troop choice. It doesn't really matter if they are just fodder. A sixty point tax is not so terrible and they just might do some damage. Of course they should be playable in a stand alone list. This thread is pointing that out painfully. Tau are reduced to being played as allies if you intend to reach the top tables. This much is understood in 6ed with its reliance on troops.

 Jayden63 wrote:
So much has already been said the seven pages that at this point people are either trolling, or genuinely unwilling to accept what the numbers show.

If your winning with Tau good for you. Especially if your build is not suit heavy or Forgeworld influenced. Playing straight out of the codex. But I think most all Tau players are finding our troop choices exceedingly lacking and believe that when we win it is dispite the performance of the Firewarrior rather than because of it.

Well the problem is that the thread sorta gives the impression that because FW doen't compare to Marines/IG = FW is the worst Troop choice in the game. While from what I can gather the unit itself is a middle/high middle tier unit, that is being let down by it's support units. (ie. Ethereal/markerlights/transport)

I wouldn't give it high middle, maybe low middle. It is being let down by it's support units for sure, but the unit it's is a little overpriced and/or a liable to run away for the price you pay.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Oh. Throw them behind a fortification that every army has access to? Why don't I just factor in bringing allies when I'm looking to explain the weakness in a Tau codex.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

They don't have to be marines. I'm not asking them to be that. I'm just saying they shouldn't pay the elite troop price tag if they aren't elite troops.

If you don't want to use fortifications, the allies rules or elements of your codex like markerlights then you are gonna find FW weak per point, they are all legal parts of the game, if you want you can also refuse to fire 30" after moving your FW. That however is a conscious decision you are making and the codex shouldn't be balanced around it. It's like how everyone has become petrified of taking a break test, as an Ulthwe player I find it hilarious having been running LD8 troop choices for years.

You are claiming, T3, BS3, 4+ and LD8 is too flimsy and poor, you *are* asking for marine stats if they go up. They are Guardsmen with better armour and a far superior gun with less CC potential. 10/11pts per head is not an elite price tag, marines are 15/16 base, Immortals 18, GK's are 20+, Terminators are 40+, those are elite costs. FW are in the mid infantry range and are... medium infantry. Also you keep mentioning grenade costs, a device mostly useful in assault that you want to avoid like the plague, why? You are *not* tac marines!

They butcher light infantry at significant range and with the right support can drill a horde squad before they arrive and do all this clad in 4+ save armour with a respectable LD of 8 w/sarg, which as it has been said is the Space Marine base.

And sorry, complaining about your 110pt Devilfish FOC-less transport with 7x S5 AP5 (w/seeker missiles), BS4 shots with a 3+ cover save when moving and front armour 12? So many Tau players have a pariah complex about how bad off their army has it. Congrats, you are not one of GW's favoured sons and don't get the most broken point per toy comparison, merely average. You can come hang out with the Eldar, DE, Nids, SoB, Orks, Chaos, Daemons and the like in the middle tier (Ever noticed how Xenosy that tier is?), we have beer and pretzels and you compete just fine at that level. Let the Marines play their endless games against Necron Airforces.

I can see we both have differeing entrenched opinions so I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I didn't even finish the first paragraph of what you wrote. Fortifications and allies aren't in the codex. We aren't talking about other codecs except to compare troop choices. We are talking about the Tau codex troop choice Firewarriors and that's it.

Why do people insist on trying to change that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok. List of reasons why you're wrong in decending order.

1.) We showed numbers showing that the FW statline is inferior compared to other troops for it's point costs. You've not done anything to show otherwise.

2.) We aren't asking for marine stats. Necron warriors and IG Vets aren't marines but are good troops because of durability, rules, cost effectiveness, and/or firepower. Again, you do nothing but just try to say "FW are good. Cause I say so. Deal with it."

3.) 12 ppm for LD8 with defensive grenades on a unit that will still lose combat to even non CC oriented troops. That's BS. That's 1 point less than CSM and Necron warriors and the same price as SoB. We've shown the numbers and you keep ignoring them. And by elite, I mean that we're paying the points similar to IG vets but don't get BS4, worse stats overall, and no special weapon options.

4.) Yeah, I keep mentioning grenade cost. That thing that most units get for free. The thing we have to pay for. Like it is even going to help with such a poor stat line. That for some reason we have to pay out the yang for it.

5.) They don't butcher light infantry! BS3! 12 model count! And again, we've shown how the inclusion of heavy weapons and special weapons makes other units far superior. That and the standard troop is MEQ. Which only manages to be on par with the bolter, and barely so. Again, the lack of special weapons and heavy weapons hurts. Show numbers to prove otherwise.

6.)Sorry, you mean 4 shots. Unless I want those three burst cannon shots that put the devil fish in perfect range for the enemy to move up 6" and completely IGNORE THE DISRUPTION POD BONUS! SO YEAH! 110 points for 4 S5 shots. At BS4. SO WORTH IT! Numbers are not your friend.

7.) How bad our army has it?! I've said nothing about how bad the army is. Only that the troop choice is BS. And the ethereal being crap.

8.) What are you talking about? Balance be damned? Lets go ahead and just deal with it? Love that attitude. So very Nihilistic.

9.) We don't want a broken unit. We want a decent unit. How is that asking for anything other than to be mid-tier?

10.) Chaos Space marines aren't Space marines now? With those straight 4 stat lines and 3+ saves? All at 13 ppm? With all those squad options?

11.) Oh and forgot to touch on it. LD8 base space marines with ATSKNF while we get LD7 base with no morale buffs. Outside of 1 liability. Here's an idea. Try playing Space marines where they have ATSKNF until their warlord dies. Then they take a morale check to see if they run away.

12.) We don't have different opinions. I have an opinion that's backed up by the numbers showing a huge gap between standard troops and FW. You have a distinct ability to completely gloss over every argument and number thrown out and just make Nihilistic comments or suggest that the ability to take FORTIFICATIONS and ALLIES which are available to EVERYONE (except nids) somehow balances that out.

13.) Fortifications make the units that get the options for heavy weapons better. This skews numbers even further in their favor.

Show one set of numbers. Show one tiny comparison to say that FW are fair. Don't just assume that the straight 4 stat-line is only reserved for Ward's Chosen. Don't think that the 3+ is something only the worthy may acquire. Show me, that the 4+ save, no heavy weapon, +1 bolter, small sized, T3, LD7(8), transport limiting FW is such a great troop.

Remember, even with allies FW are either going to be 50% or between 60-75% of your troops. Why is it bad to ask for a decent troop?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I didn't even finish the first paragraph of what you wrote. Fortifications and allies aren't in the codex. We aren't talking about other codecs except to compare troop choices. We are talking about the Tau codex troop choice Firewarriors and that's it.

Why do people insist on trying to change that?

I'd read the rest of what you said, but you just made an argument by dismissal; one of the most rank fallacies there is.

People aren't looking at just the fire-warriors against stuff like just tac marines, because fire warriors are the abosolute LEAST intended to be used that way. You pair them up with other parts of your army (and now, parts of other armies too). Their strength is in filling a synergistic gap, not in being the salt and pepper that you spread over everything you eat.

The first comment was me having to pause. When you're in a thread that seems... I dunno. For some reason I just get the idea that we are talking about Firewarriors. Just some weird feeling about that.

And then some guy runs in and says "Argument invalid. Aegis defense line and Space marines make a good objective holding troop."

Just needed a minute to clear the rage and blood from my eyes.

And again. I'm not going to argue synergy. They don't have synergy. They are meant to hold objectives or take objectives. That's what troops do. You don't just get to say they don't, just to dismiss the important troop roll because they aren't suited for it. They do neither well. Markerlights have been shown in this thread to be a poor example of synergy. Other units being good doesn't count as synergy.

This is how it's going.
"Firewarriors are subpar."
"Crisis suits are good!"
"Yeah, but the FW really have a lot lacking. Lets focus on that. Their point cost in partic-"
"And markerlights."
"What? Yeah. Back to firewarriors."
"They are fine. Crisis suits and markers good. Firewarriors are fine now."
"..... What?!"

This is really the wrong time to even have this argument. The Tau are due for a new codex. The real screaming can begin if they fire warriors are the same after that.

The only thing that is not debatable to me is that fire warriors got demonstrably better in 6th edition. Cough up for the LD 8 and they'll probably cause a good bit of damage before they die/flee.

These guys can move backwards and hit targets 30" away. This method can drag out assaults for quite a while. What about objectives you say? Objectives abandoned turn 2 can be reclaimed turn 5 after the occupants are shot to death or weakened to where they can be assaulted. I know this can work, because my BA cowards fight this way. Obviously, when the BA get around to the assault part, they are much better, but the Tau are better at the shooting part.

This is the perfect time to argue because this is what the thread is about and this is what we have right now. We don't know when the Tau will get a new codex or if it's even this year. Then we will start a new thread "Are the Firewarriors still overcosted?" and it will be GLORIOUS!

Firewarriors got better in 6th? You're almost there, but not quite. Rapid Fire weapons got better in 6th. So that means Bolters and Plasma got better in 6th. So that means Spacemarines got better in 6th. Firewarriors went up, but not at the same level as others.

The range issue is absurd. With the speed that other armies can bring with flyers and bikes and drop pods, there is no back for them to retreat to.

Drag out assualts for quite a while? You mean till turn 3. Thats if they don't get shot to bits until then.

And you just showed that BA can take objectives. Nice for you.

And Tau aren't better at shooting! We've been over this.

Tau Firewarriors have the problem surviving till turn 5 and getting deep into the field. The transport is expensive and gets worse the closer it gets. An explosion result hurts FW more and they are susceptible to Pinning. They can't get to the back field objectives.

So you claim that the Tau aren't better at shooting than the BA? That's quite a claim. It's also not my experience at all.

A 30" rapid fire weapon got more benefit than the 24" rapid fire weapons. Especially in the volume that the Tau deploy them.

There is nothing stopping the Tau from employing the same tactics I do with the BA. I count on heavily weakening foes with shooting for the first three turns before I contemplate assaulting. Often, though, my hand if forced, which is why I keep at least one full ASM squad on hand. 11 or 12 Kroot are pretty scary to space marine squad whittled down to 3 guys.

The range issue is not absurd. You are now bringing in flyers and bikes and drop pods to the discussion. The Tau army has elites and heavy support to deal with units that get too close. Are we comparing troops or armies here? A 30" infantry rifle on a guy with 4+ armor is a tactical asset. Yes, they're one dimensional. That doesn't make them bad in practice.

Enemy armies don't have infinite supplies of AP 4 weaponry. If they are shooting heavies at your fire warriors, they aren't shooting them at the units like crisis suits. Show me some troops that can shoot fire warriors "to bits". I sure don't have any in the BA codex. Yes, we will pound Tau face in HTH. How is this news?

I'd also like to point out that my BA took a massive kick in the nuts in 6th edition. I believe that we are demonstrably the worst marine list other than BT at this point. Comparing the BA codex to the Space Wolves is almost nauseating. But instead of focusing on how badly the BA took it up the rear, I try to help people here build functional BA lists for the new 6th edition reality. There's no reason to be so upset with the Tau with all the nerfs assaulting took.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So the devilfish, which is the most durable transport in the game with a 3+ cover save simply for moving, is not a good transport option? WAT

 Dunklezahn wrote:
And sorry, complaining about your 110pt Devilfish FOC-less transport with 7x S5 AP5 (w/seeker missiles), BS4 shots with a 3+ cover save when moving and front armour 12?

Oh wow, just wow...

I don't even know why I bother responding to all this.

1.) BA are better at shooting because they have base BS4. Throw in Storm ravens and predators to the mix and it gets silly really fast. I'm not familiar with BA, but generally Space Marine armies are base BS 4. Often times with superior weapons. Especially compared to pulse rifles. Instead of going from experience, show some numbers about how Tau shooting is so much better.

2.) 6" extra range means nothing in land of transports, bikes, drop pods, and flying transports. I really want to play games where I'm able to stay 30" away, unfortunately my opponents army is not abiding by the restraining order.

3.) The volume that Tau deploy them?! Are you kidding me?! 6-12 man squads is a large volume?! Of T3?! BS3?! 6 hits at 30" is so frightening now?!

4.) You're right. I can employ the same tactics as BA. Let me just get my Hammerhead to deploy some troops then drop off a broadside where I want to.

5.) You weaken with shooting? So that would imply that you're shooting must be pretty good. And then can back that up with assualting. Wish my Tau could do that.

6.) 11-12 Kroot are scary? You're striking first. You get armor saves, the kroot get none. That and you picked a loaded situation. That and Kroot shooting is worse than Firewarriors and they have Rapid fire weapons, so they can't shoot then charge. Must be terrifying.

7.) Ok. So my elites and heavy can deal with your drop pod troops and FA flyers. What about your heavy and Elite choices? What left do I have to fend against them?

8.) Being one dimensional is in bad practice. Look at every post you ignored to get to this last page. It shows quite clearly how. Drop pod space marines for example. Now FW are completely useless. Not going against Nid or Ork horde? Sucks to be you Firewarriors, but that doesn't mean you're bad. You just didn't get lucky enough to get the 2 out of 15 armies you stand a chance against.

9.) Enemies don't have infinite AP4, but now everyone has access to a bastion with 4 heavybolters and a quad gun. Marines can take heavy bolters. They can be taken on most tanks and even flyers. Autocannons and Heavy flamers can go on a lot of places. Besides, you only need enough to cause 3 wounds. That's two heavy bolters. How many armies can take 2? Or how about 4 to get rid of the minimum number of troops?

10.) They get the heavy bolters on troops so that leaves heavy weapons for troops. Hell even troops can take plasma weapons against suits. IG vets even get 3 per squad.

11.) Troops that can shoot Firewarriors to bits? You really did ignore the last 7 pages. I was joking at first, but this proves it.
2 marines. One heavy bolter and the other a quadgun. Just because I can.
Heavy bolter gets 3 shots, 2 hits, causes 1.67 wounds
quadgun gets 4 shots, 3.2 hits, causes 2.67 wounds
for a total of 4.3 wounds. That's enough for that LD7 Morale check to come into play. And that's just two weapons that all marines have easy access to.

12.) Why am I doing numbers for you when you are just going to ignore it anyways?

13.) Oh boo hoo. Codex BA is having a rough time. I shall cry endlessly in the shower while listening to My Chemical Romance while lamenting your woes.

14.) Tau still fail miserably at CC. But we're paying a premium price like we can stand it. Atleast other troops get access to power weapons and Melta bombs so they can stand up to walkers and MC and other baddies. You have the options. Tau don't. Even their statline couldn't support it if they did.

15.) And again. This is a thread titled "Tau Firewarriors Overpriced?" It's not whining if I'm just discussing the relevant issue in the thread. Go start a "BA under powered thread?" if you want. I sure as hell won't jack it to talk about Tau.

I'm using BA as a point of reference, not to jack your precious thread.

Given that this is a GW game, and they are not known to be paragons of balance, you have a few options:

1) Stop playing 40K, because its always going to have these kinds of problems.

2) Stop playing Tau, if you find their troops to be this unusable.

3) Find ways to make firewarriors work despite their point inefficiency.

4) Stop playing Tau temporarily and wait until the new codex drops.

Obviously you're pretty upset about this, but this is a GW game. Not worth getting this upset or being this snarky.

Savageconvoy wrote:I don't even know why I bother responding to all this.

1.) BA are better at shooting because they have base BS4. Throw in Storm ravens and predators to the mix and it gets silly really fast. I'm not familiar with BA, but generally Space Marine armies are base BS 4. Often times with superior weapons. Especially compared to pulse rifles. Instead of going from experience, show some numbers about how Tau shooting is so much better.

2.) 6" extra range means nothing in land of transports, bikes, drop pods, and flying transports. I really want to play games where I'm able to stay 30" away, unfortunately my opponents army is not abiding by the restraining order.

3.) The volume that Tau deploy them?! Are you kidding me?! 6-12 man squads is a large volume?! Of T3?! BS3?! 6 hits at 30" is so frightening now?!

You give the impression of just whining here; and your insistence on viewing the Tau in a selective vacuum is... odd.

1. Against T4 targets, BS3 + Str5 = 0.33 wounds per shot, wheras BS4 + Str4 = 0.33 wounds per shot. And the Tau get an extra 6" of range, which is huge considering they can RF at full range.

2. If you want to bring in transports into the argument, then it is only fair to point out that the Tau have arguably the best anti-tank weapon in the game. If you think your Firewarriors are going to reliably bring down the transport (although, they might, as Str5 can glance AV11 and pen AV10) and then eradicate the troops inside, then you are a bad general and the problem is you. A good general would smirk at the transport, fire his Broadsides to destroy the transport, and then let his Firewarriors RF the enemy.

3. You seem to be hung up on the number of models per unit, as opposed to the number of models on the board. Remember that as basic troops, you can have many units of Firewarriors, which always outnumber Marines if you compare an even number of points. For example: how many Firewarriors can you get for 300 points? how many Tac Marines? Compare that, not one-unit-vs-one-unit.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Tau are desperately in need of an update, and I think they are nowhere near as strong as the top-tier codices such as SW, -which are bordering on broken- for example. But your complaints about the Firewarriors being significantly overcosted really seems to belie your desire for the Firewarriors to be a jack-of-all-trades "easy button" unit like Space Marines are, which is demonstrated by your willful ignoring of the role that synergy plays in the Tau codex. In other words: the Firewarriors are great as a gunline, and terrible at everything else. And the entire Tau codex is geared around this notion. So you have to think about what your gameplan is when you build your army; you cannot simply select 4x troops units and then use the rest of the codex to season to taste as you can with Marines. Welcome to Xenos, their armies require synergy.

I think I'm staying in 40K just for these threads now these days.

And it's not just you. The majority of comments against Firewarriors being overpriced are simply people saying "I wish my marines could take devilfish." Or "I wish my marines could take S5 30" ranges guns."

And I am doing just fine in my games. (Why are so many people concerned about how I play?) But how I'm doing isn't important. But my game record doesn't help the fact that the Troop choices in the Tau codex are terribly out of place and overpriced. That's all I'm trying to cover in this discussion.

Savageconvoy wrote:I think I'm staying in 40K just for these threads now these days.

And it's not just you. The majority of comments against Firewarriors being overpriced are simply people saying "I wish my marines could take devilfish." Or "I wish my marines could take S5 30" ranges guns."

And I am doing just fine in my games. (Why are so many people concerned about how I play?) But how I'm doing isn't important. But my game record doesn't help the fact that the Troop choices in the Tau codex are terribly out of place and overpriced. That's all I'm trying to cover in this discussion.

How is a gunline-oriented troop out of place in a gunline-oriented codex?

How are they overpriced? Compare 300 points of Tac marines to 300 points of Firewarriors. Let both sides be footslogging, without support. See how the math works out. I bet its pretty close.

 azazel the cat wrote:
1. Against T4 targets, BS3 + Str5 = 0.33 wounds per shot, wheras BS4 + Str4 = 0.33 wounds per shot. And the Tau get an extra 6" of range, which is huge considering they can RF at full range.

Why do you choose to ignore Special and heavy weapon options? We discussed earlier how that tilts the scale. 30" range is nothing when the enemy is moving down field with bikes, transports, and flyers or deep striking with drop pod troops. 3" extra to rapid fire is hardly a game changer here. But seriously, why do you only focus on the base gun and ignore the importance of special weapon options?

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. If you want to bring in transports into the argument, then it is only fair to point out that the Tau have arguably the best anti-tank weapon in the game. If you think your Firewarriors are going to reliably bring down the transport (although, they might, as Str5 can glance AV11 and pen AV10) and then eradicate the troops inside, then you are a bad general and the problem is you. A good general would smirk at the transport, fire his Broadsides to destroy the transport, and then let his Firewarriors RF the enemy.

I'm pretty sure the Vendetta is a better anti-tank option. And Still if they go first turn and move forward to ignore my 30" range advantage, or run bikes, or heaven forbid a flying transport then I'm going to be pressed to handle the situation. And I don't assume FW can do that. I've done math showing how I can't. But what about when they have too many transports or even Landraiders and flying transports. Too many for my broadsides and Crisis suits to handle? My Firewarriors serve no other purpose. At least other troops could still bring special and heavy weapons for the job. Other troops could bring better transports.

 azazel the cat wrote:
3. You seem to be hung up on the number of models per unit, as opposed to the number of models on the board. Remember that as basic troops, you can have many units of Firewarriors, which always outnumber Marines if you compare an even number of points. For example: how many Firewarriors can you get for 300 points? how many Tac Marines? Compare that, not one-unit-vs-one-unit.

... We already went over how flimsy FW are and how they can't hold their ground, but I'll humor you on this one. For 300 points I could bring 21.4 DA tactical marines with ATSKNF and Stubborn or CSM with VotLW or 23 Necron warriors with RP.
Or I could bring 25 Firewarriors with LD8 and defensive grenades. Huh. It's... It's almost like these numbers show a distinct advantage.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think the Tau are desperately in need of an update, and I think they are nowhere near as strong as the top-tier codices such as SW, -which are bordering on broken- for example. But your complaints about the Firewarriors being significantly overcosted really seems to belie your desire for the Firewarriors to be a jack-of-all-trades "easy button" unit like Space Marines are, which is demonstrated by your willful ignoring of the role that synergy plays in the Tau codex. In other words: the Firewarriors are great as a gunline, and terrible at everything else. And the entire Tau codex is geared around this notion. So you have to think about what your gameplan is when you build your army; you cannot simply select 4x troops units and then use the rest of the codex to season to taste as you can with Marines. Welcome to Xenos, their armies require synergy.

So... Tau are fine because they have a flimsy troop that is limited to one role with no options. Even if that role is terrible except against 2/15 armies? Well atleast I have synergy. I can use Crisis suits to give them Fearless. And my broadsides will give them FNP. OH... wait....no... They don't have synergy. That's right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
How is a gunline-oriented troop out of place in a gunline-oriented codex?

Gunline is bad when your leadership and durability are low enough that it's easy to force break tests. So one failed check, units off the board. That's why that is bad.
Second, IG are a gunline codex, not Tau. IG have heavy and special weapons to back up their platoons with heavy weapon squads and the like, throwing in leadership buffs and transports with firepoints just sweetens the deal. They also have the option for more. Look at mechanized Vets and how much damage they caused and still do.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're saying FW are inferior because FW alone cannot match up to Tac Marines with bikes, transports and flyers. How can you seriously not see the problem with your methodology?

Savageconvoy wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
2. If you want to bring in transports into the argument, then it is only fair to point out that the Tau have arguably the best anti-tank weapon in the game. If you think your Firewarriors are going to reliably bring down the transport (although, they might, as Str5 can glance AV11 and pen AV10) and then eradicate the troops inside, then you are a bad general and the problem is you. A good general would smirk at the transport, fire his Broadsides to destroy the transport, and then let his Firewarriors RF the enemy.

I'm pretty sure the Vendetta is a better anti-tank option. And Still if they go first turn and move forward to ignore my 30" range advantage, or run bikes, or heaven forbid a flying transport then I'm going to be pressed to handle the situation. And I don't assume FW can do that. I've done math showing how I can't. But what about when they have too many transports or even Landraiders and flying transports. Too many for my broadsides and Crisis suits to handle? My Firewarriors serve no other purpose. At least other troops could still bring special and heavy weapons for the job. Other troops could bring better transports.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Tau are unable to deal with Landraiders and transports? Use your railguns. How many transports do you think are going to be rushing up the field at you? I don't have an answer for Flyers for you, because, well, that's currently an imbalance in 40k with many armies; and altogether not related to the FW question.

Savageconvoy wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
3. You seem to be hung up on the number of models per unit, as opposed to the number of models on the board. Remember that as basic troops, you can have many units of Firewarriors, which always outnumber Marines if you compare an even number of points. For example: how many Firewarriors can you get for 300 points? how many Tac Marines? Compare that, not one-unit-vs-one-unit.

... We already went over how flimsy FW are and how they can't hold their ground, but I'll humor you on this one. For 300 points I could bring 21.4 DA tactical marines with ATSKNF and Stubborn or CSM with VotLW or 23 Necron warriors with RP.
Or I could bring 25 Firewarriors with LD8 and defensive grenades. Huh. It's... It's almost like these numbers show a distinct advantage.

Go ahead, run the numbers. 21 DA Tac marines footslogging toward 25 Firewarriors. Remember to take kiting into account, and I think you'll find it's closer than you think.

Savageconcoy wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think the Tau are desperately in need of an update, and I think they are nowhere near as strong as the top-tier codices such as SW, -which are bordering on broken- for example. But your complaints about the Firewarriors being significantly overcosted really seems to belie your desire for the Firewarriors to be a jack-of-all-trades "easy button" unit like Space Marines are, which is demonstrated by your willful ignoring of the role that synergy plays in the Tau codex. In other words: the Firewarriors are great as a gunline, and terrible at everything else. And the entire Tau codex is geared around this notion. So you have to think about what your gameplan is when you build your army; you cannot simply select 4x troops units and then use the rest of the codex to season to taste as you can with Marines. Welcome to Xenos, their armies require synergy.

So... Tau are fine because they have a flimsy troop that is limited to one role with no options. Even if that role is terrible except against 2/15 armies? Well atleast I have synergy. I can use Crisis suits to give them Fearless. And my broadsides will give them FNP. OH... wait....no... They don't have synergy. That's right.

Synergy doesn't mean "units that buff other units"; it means units that work together to create a gestalt. broadsides open up transports, Firewarriors kill the occupants while they're stunned. That's synergy.

"But my game record doesn't help the fact that the Troop choices in the Tau codex are terribly out of place and overpriced. That's all I'm trying to cover in this discussion."

The Eldar called and would like to discuss the incredible suckitude of guardians with you. I'll agree that fire warriors need some kind of discount or upgrade. But how much depends on what your standard is. If your standard is grey hunters, my tactical marines are getting in line with you.

But firewarriors are not terribly out of place or terribly overpriced. They are somewhat to slightly overpriced. Guardians are terribly overpriced. Ironically, largely because of their gun.

I don't understand the obsession with holding ground, either. Ground which is surrendered turn 2 and be retaken turn 5.

At the end of turn 2 or sometimes turn 1, the standard marine based army should have no transports left vs Tau. The IG will take longer depending on how they are constructed. I can't believe transports are being listed as an issue for the Tau.

My methodolgy? Firewarriors are the only usable troop option. They are only good for holding objectives, claiming objectives, denying objectives, and anti-light infantry. The standard army does not contain light infantry. They have also been shown to have terrible objective handling ability. Thanks for ignoring everything though.

Other armies are better prepared to take objectives. Thats the only point I was making. When Troops need Broadsides to slow them down, your problem becomes obvious.

I'm not going to run the numbers of footslogging marines against Tau. It will end up in the marines favor due to the small number difference, higher leadership, and better save. That and you're ignoring heavy and special weapons AGAIN.

Again. No synergy because the firewarriors don't become stronger or more useful. They're restricted to light infantry gunline. You pointed that out earlier.

And I'd love to bring Eldar into the mix except this is a comparison of Firewarriors to the standard match and bringing the second oldest rulebook thats two editions out of date doesn't help your case at all. So why bother?

Not out of place or overpriced? Your ignoring posts on the same page now. This is getting old.

Obsession with holding ground?! 5/6 games are objective based. The game is obsessed with holding ground.

Sounds like you really should shelve your Tau until the codex drops, since they have such crappy troops.

Who's ignoring whom? It's pretty easy to hold ground when your opponent is dead. You don't need badass troops then. You just need your opponent scooping models in the shooting phase.

I guess this thread is supposed to invalidate every Tau battle report I've ever read or watched and every game where I've used fire warriors or fought against them. What was I thinking letting evidence sway my opinion?

You apparently do not seem to understand what "synergy" means, despite my concise explanation, and you clearly do not understand what "methodology" means either. Since you obviously have also decided not to even bother learning those terms before responding, I have no choice but to either repeat myself, or cease to take part in this discussion.


And I hate repeating myself.

Yes, you need to frame this complaint in terms of troops vs troops or army vs army focusing on the troops. You can't use bikes or flyers as a measuring stick for troops. Except maybe grey hunters

Ok. Let's go ahead and play the ignore game.

You two said absolutely nothing since I last posted, so I must be right.

I'm just going to pretend that you're not saying anything and there aren't 8 pages to go back and read.

So I'm right.

So what's even the consequence of you being right? None of us are GW writers. So even if you are right, you're back to waiting for a codex because no one is going to let you use non-codex fire warriors.

Are we supposed to be in awe of your ability to win games with these allegedly terrible troops?

I'd say nine points is probably a more fair price for the fire warrior, but it sounds like you want an even bigger reduction, which I would oppose vehemently.

This is a thread asking if Firewarriors are overpriced. I have made my point. You have not made yours. Please stop making inane comments and prove your point or find another thread to comment in.

So what should they cost then? Quit complaining and propose a fix.

Look who is talking. You suggested I shelve them and stop complaining. Go back and read the other 7 pages that you conveniently ignore every time and You will see my suggestions.

Besides, it's not about suggesting a fix. It's showing the points don't match the value which has been done time and time again.