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.

Note: This post is a revised version of my original post after getting some feedback

I lot of people don’t use FWs and many Tau list take as few as possible. I think the rules about FW should be reworked because with the 5th edition rules troop choices are very important but only taking one six man squad of FWs make a objective game impossible and just does not feel right as the Tau codex indicates that FWs are the bulk of the Tau army.

So what is to be done? At first glance a FWs stat line makes it looks like you are getting a good model for your points. I do not think that problem is that Fire Warrior are weak, it is just that they are not flexible. They have fewer options then any other army’s troops (except Necrons). They can’t be made into assault troops and unlike most other armies they cannot have heavy weapons added to the squad to give them added versatility. I think adding heavy weapons would be a mistake, as it does not fit with the feel of a Tau army. I thought that some special varieties of FW squads could give some badly needed tactical flexibility to FW.

I was thinking the rules would look something like this.

Fire Warrior specialist team:

Particularly talented Fire Warriors are recruited from standard teams and assembled in specialist teams were they receive additional training to augment their natural skills.

Can be chosen at 0-1 for every standard Fire Warrior team fielded.

Fire Warrior specialist squads must be lead by a Shas’ui and be bonded and cost +2 per model.
Specialist team types:

Assault team:
Unlike most other races Tau assault troops are not trained in hand to hand combat, but are rather train for close quarter combat. These teams are made up of hot blooded and aggressive individuals that have finely tuned target acquisition skills and fast trigger fingers. They excel in house-to-house combat in urban environments and are often used to spearhead assaults when attempting to capture fix positions.

Effect: Assault team members fire one additional shot with their pulse rifle or carbines when at a range of 12 inches or less.

Sharp Shooter team:

These teams are made up of cool headed and focused Tau who have impeccable aim. They have been trained to how to make shots count and pick off targets at a distance. These units frequently are positioned on high ground to provide cover fire or to protect key assets.

Effect: Sharp shooter FW teams may opt to fire their pulse rifles and carbines as a Heavy 1 weapon with the following additional effect: with the roll of a 6 to wound, count as an AP 2 weapon.

Anti Armor team:

These are Fire Warriors who are extremely perceptive and knowledgeable about mechanics. They have trained with Earth cast members and have an intuitive sense about all things mechanical. The teams combine this skill with a vast knowledge of captured enemy vehicles and have a keen understanding of their weak spots and vulnerabilities. These units are deployed against enemies that field vast amounts of armor, especially in areas were terrain, such as forests, limits the use of railguns.

Effect: Anti Armor FW teams may opt to fire their pulse rifle and carbines as a Heavy 1 weapon with the following additional effect: Counts as sniper rifle against vehicles. (The reason for this is anti armor team shots only count, as S3 is that since they are targeting weak spots, they fire at a lower rate due to careful aiming)

Additional notes of cost effectiveness

A full Specialist team would cost 183 (so 63 more points than standard team) without any grenades and an army could never field more than 3 at a time (3 standard teams 3 Specialist team would fill the troop choice).

Effectiveness:
Assault teams
At 12 inches or less could cause, on average, the following casualties:
With pulse rifles: 4 MEQ 15 GEQ
With pulse carbines: 2.6 MEQ 10 GEQ

Sharp shooter teams
Could cause, on average, the following casualties when “Sharp shooting”:
MEQ 2 GEQ 4
(Note: so at close range it is would be more beneficial to rapid fire as normal, but above 12 inches you would want to sharp shoot.

Anti Armor:
Could cause, on average, the following number of glancing hits
AV 10: 3
AV11: 2
AV 12 1
AV 13+ 0

Interesting idea, but way too expensive by the looks of it.

And an army full of Str 5 AP 5 guns doesn't cut it anymore, play a game against BA and watch how effective your fire warriors 'high strength weapons' are, or a double screen of FNP gaunts for that matter.

I think the assault team is pretty good idea-- but I think the second poster is correct-- S5 AP5 just doesn't cut it when you're facing MEqs with FNP to the entire army.

Either need much more mobility to the basic FW trooper or the pulse rifle needs a boost.


Would S5 AP4 be too much? Doesn't really solve anything against MEqs though.

I think a troops option that has a light-weight suit with jumppacks would be remarkable.

What if the additional cost was lowered to +2 per model and sharpshooters effect was " If a six is rolled to wound, count as AP 1"

Droping Tau FW cost just makes them Xenos Guard, somthing that is to be avoided.
While a rending option would be cool it would be OP on a unit of 12 FW rapid-firing.

I've seen a lot of these fix FW threads and I think the problem with them is that they are about changing only one unit in a combined arms army. Instead of making one big change to a unit, think about several smaller changes spread throughout the army. Changes like:

Shield drones giving a 3" bubble of +4 or +5 inv saves against shooting only.

Then give the FW a verssion of combat tactics that is tailored to work for the Tau by letting them voluntarily fall back in any direction after shooting if they didn't move in the movement phase.

Finally, stream-line and improve markerlights


Approach the idea on a broader army wide level.

focusedfire wrote:Droping Tau FW cost just makes them Xenos Guard, somthing that is to be avoided.
While a rending option would be cool it would be OP on a unit of 12 FW rapid-firing.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, compared to Genestealer's in assault who have more attacks and a better chance of hitting, plus enemies would still get cover saves from the rends as opposed to the CC Rends which allow nothing except invulnerables. Further lets stay away from the current Tau Psuedo rending and go with the real thing.

I've seen a lot of these fix FW threads and I think the problem with them is that they are about changing only one unit in a combined arms army. Instead of making one big change to a unit, think about several smaller changes spread throughout the army. Changes like:

Fire Warriors are focused on because of the importance of troops in 5e. The Fire Warriors need to be able to survive while still contributing to the army. For the most part all they offer is close range volume of fire. A BS 3 Str 5 rapid fire shooter is statistically average with a BS 4 Str 4 rapid fire shooter versus Toughness 4 and then becomes worse versus toughness 3. I'm in favor of boosting the Tau Army to BS 4 Army wide, except for alien auxiliaries (there are many WS 4 or higher armies), but I know there are many opponents to this idea so I will not press for it here.

Shield drones giving a 3" bubble of +4 or +5 inv saves against shooting only.

They would most likely make it a cover save. Even if they do make it an invulnerable save, it will most likely not be a key feature due to the prevalence of cover saves.

Then give the FW a verssion of combat tactics that is tailored to work for the Tau by letting them voluntarily fall back in any direction after shooting if they didn't move in the movement phase.

This is an interesting idea. I see a few problems with it, such as having to rely on rallying on Ld 7, you might get escorted off the board, and FW are just about as tough as Paper if they're out of their transports.

Finally, stream-line and improve markerlights

I'm almost willing to give up markerlights. It's the excuse nearly every Imperial player tosses out for why Tau should be BS3, because we have markerlights to boost ballistic skill. To me, marker lights are for stripping that 4+ cover save off of the LR that just popped smoke, not for making my marginal troops somewhat functional.

Approach the idea on a broader army wide level.

The problems facing Tau are almost mind boggling to me. Assuming that they are not going to change the fundamental nature of the army, when you have power armor troops deepstriking in your face with melta weapons out the arse, and coming in off your back edge, deep striking a Land Raider full of FNP Assault termies on your door step, or a drop pod with a rune priest that pops out and takes out an entire broadside team with JotWW that we have no defense against, it will pretty much force the situation of playing Ninja Tau and trying to hold out long enough for a 5th turn grab. I still love my little blue dudes, I think the Army is very unique looking with it's sleek Tau and Feral Kroot (I even like well painted Vespids, but they do kind of suck), and Tau seem to be closest to what you would think an army in the 41st millennium would be, not dudes running around with swords...

If you're using Ninja Tau, no wonder you're having problems with Tau...

A cost reduction/building grenades into the Firewarrior cost would be the simplest way to go. Optionally, making Pathfinders an upgrade to Firewarriors.

I usually don't play Ninja Tau. I have won local tournies with Tau. What I am saying is given the closing speed of 5e Armies, when you're facing potentially having one single round of shooting if you deploy conventionally, then you will be forced to deploy unconventionality, I.E. Ninja Tau.

Ok I am made some changes to my original idea.

C&C anyone?

Kroot Loops wrote:I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, compared to Genestealer's in assault who have more attacks and a better chance of hitting, plus enemies would still get cover saves from the rends as opposed to the CC Rends which allow nothing except invulnerables. Further lets stay away from the current Tau Psuedo rending and go with the real thing.

There is a difference between thr Tyranids and the Tau. They are different armies with different basic designs. The tyranids have only a few units that synergize well and no force multiplier other than Tervigons which are a very basic and somewhat unreliable form pf boosting army strength. The Tau have markerlights and the entire army(except kroot)benefit from them. I am one of the people who believes that the Fire warriors are only a minor update in conjuction with an army wide update away from being just right.
It is my hope that when the next codex comes out that FW's are still in the 10-12 point range but that the price will include grenades and new rules to help the fire warriors have a type of mobility that can be seen as a starting point for the battlesuit JSJ tactics.

Kroot Loops wrote:Fire Warriors are focused on because of the importance of troops in 5e. The Fire Warriors need to be able to survive while still contributing to the army. For the most part all they offer is close range volume of fire. A BS 3 Str 5 rapid fire shooter is statistically average with a BS 4 Str 4 rapid fire shooter versus Toughness 4 and then becomes worse versus toughness 3. I'm in favor of boosting the Tau Army to BS 4 Army wide, except for alien auxiliaries (there are many WS 4 or higher armies), but I know there are many opponents to this idea so I will not press for it here.

I understand why prople do it, I also understand that people can be short-sighted and envious. My point was that you can not improve a unit by looking at it in a vacuum. Nor can you look at another army and say just because they have it we should. You have to find what fits the army's basic design philosophy.
I used to be like you and thought BS 4 across the entire Fire Caste was the way to go until I started writing a Fan-dex and then it became readily appearant that doing such destroyed the basic concept of Tau inter-unit support.

Shield drones giving a 3" bubble of +4 or +5 inv saves against shooting only.

Kroot Loops wrote:They would most likely make it a cover save. Even if they do make it an invulnerable save, it will most likely not be a key feature due to the prevalence of cover saves.

I beg to differ, I keep my fire warriors alive against most shooting but save for Heavy flamers. I like having 9-10 FW's in a unit, outside of a transport provising VoF. With cover saves the FW's survive as well as other armies infantry but against Heavy Flamers they suddenly become over-price candle wax. An inv save would greatly increase the squads survivability.

Then give the FW a verssion of combat tactics that is tailored to work for the Tau by letting them voluntarily fall back in any direction after shooting if they didn't move in the movement phase.

Kroot Loops wrote:This is an interesting idea. I see a few problems with it, such as having to rely on rallying on Ld 7, you might get escorted off the board, and FW are just about as tough as Paper if they're out of their transports.

No troop unit should have a defense for everything. If the enemy has to commit a unit to chase them off the board that is a unit not moving towards other units or objectives.

My fan-dex is nearing completion, will be happy for additional playtesters. You game?

Kroot Loops wrote:I'm almost willing to give up markerlights. It's the excuse nearly every Imperial player tosses out for why Tau should be BS3, because we have markerlights to boost ballistic skill. To me, marker lights are for stripping that 4+ cover save off of the LR that just popped smoke, not for making my marginal troops somewhat functional.

Don't knock the idea of streamlined markers. Look in the proposed rules forum and you will find my fan-dex work thread within the first 2-3 pages. So far the marker rules are being accepted pretty well.

Kroot Loops wrote:The problems facing Tau are almost mind boggling to me. Assuming that they are not going to change the fundamental nature of the army, when you have power armor troops deepstriking in your face with melta weapons out the arse, and coming in off your back edge, deep striking a Land Raider full of FNP Assault termies on your door step, or a drop pod with a rune priest that pops out and takes out an entire broadside team with JotWW that we have no defense against, it will pretty much force the situation of playing Ninja Tau and trying to hold out long enough for a 5th turn grab. I still love my little blue dudes, I think the Army is very unique looking with it's sleek Tau and Feral Kroot (I even like well painted Vespids, but they do kind of suck), and Tau seem to be closest to what you would think an army in the 41st millennium would be, not dudes running around with swords...

I understand, I've been writing a fan-dex that everytime I think something is OP, a new codex id released with JotWW or the DoM. I believe that the Tau are able to be upgraded while maintaining their unique flavor. I do have doubts about the quality of the rules wording.

BTW, My Vespids are now squads of 3-6 w/ T4-5 W 3 I 5 Sv 4+ and their weapons are now Templates.

I've looked at your fandex before, it has some good stuff in there, but we have an underlying difference of opinion.

I don't think Synergy Works.

Now I may be swayed on this point if I can see it work, but in my experience it doesn't work because the enemy only has to break one piece of your army to render the whole thing ineffective. In the current iteration that piece is obviously the markerlights.

I find it interesting that Tau and Necrons have some simularities. Both have troops that have one basic weapon with no upgrades and little to no capability in assault. Both are also by most of the consensus I have seen the worst two armies in 5e

Im sorry but I hate the assault idea. The whole Idea of Tau is that they hate CC with a passion, a real passion. That is what kroot are for.

But I do agree the lack some options but they are still good with their stats, 30" range, rapid fire at 12" or pinning at 18" (perfect for the drive by method).

I use them to distract my enemy. Unload them from my DF shot and the player always goes for them giving me a round to put more distance between us and further my strategy.

Kroot Loops wrote:I've looked at your fandex before, it has some good stuff in there, but we have an underlying difference of opinion.

I don't think Synergy Works.

Now I may be swayed on this point if I can see it work, but in my experience it doesn't work because the enemy only has to break one piece of your army to render the whole thing ineffective. In the current iteration that piece is obviously the markerlights.

I find it interesting that Tau and Necrons have some simularities. Both have troops that have one basic weapon with no upgrades and little to no capability in assault. Both are also by most of the consensus I have seen the worst two armies in 5e

1)Thank you for the compliment on my work

2)We will have to disagree here because all of the successful armies have synergies. The Tau's problem is that these synergies require too many units.

3)I agree that the Tau are overly reliant on synergy in some aspects. I just believe a very mild upgrade to the army across the board will bring the army in line as long as the markers ar stream-lined and VoF is improved.

4)I disagree about the Tau being one of the worst, current meta-game has the Tau middle of second teir due to their anti-mech and anti-meq capabilities. I understand the limitations of a non-assault army in 5th ed but it is still no excuse to give them HtH capability or shooting into HtH. I believe in improving ways of keeping the units out of assault balanced with making it worse if the FW are caught.

I would suggest that the pulse rifle gets a AP of 4 instead of 5 but a point increase to the FW model. either 3 or 4 points.

syanticraven wrote:I would suggest that the pulse rifle gets a AP of 4 instead of 5 but a point increase to the FW model. either 3 or 4 points.

Eh, I couldn't see that happening. For 1 point less than a Space Marine, you get:

-2 WS, -1 BS, -1 S, -1 T, -2 I, , -1 LD, -1 Sv, no special weapons, no heavy weapons, no options at all besides grenades.... All for the ability to ignore armor on other Fire Warriors, and a handful of other troops, in the cover save edition? No thanks.

Oh, I was sure spacemarines units where 20points a model (hence my point evaluation. I dont own a SM codex I just took a guess by seeing one unit was 25 points)

Ah, never mind then. Yeah, basic SM are 15 points. So FWs *should* be about 2/3 as effective as Marines, model for model, based on that.

I think a drop in the points cost of firewarriors and their devilfish is a necessary first step. Then I'd probably increase the power of markerlights, making it a seperate step in the shooting phase, much like orders are for IG. Markerlights would be outside of the normal targeting restrictions, you'd pick a markerlight and target, roll to hit, and if successful you'd choose any units that can target that unit, all of which would then fire on the target, each benefiting from that markerlight (which would give either a +1 to hit or ability to ignore cover). After that you'd pick another marker light and pick a target, roll to hit and if successful any units that hadn't yet fired that can shoot that target could select it, and then so on. After all the markerlights were done you'd fire the rest of your troops as per normal.

Kroot Loops wrote:I don't think Synergy Works.

You can't just dismiss a principle element of strategy like that. You could argue that the current efforts to encourage synergy in 40k, notably the Tau and Tyranid codices, provide a synergy that provides too little benefit while being too vulnerable, but you can't just dismiss it across the board. I would agree that in most cases the benefits of synergy in 40K tend to be overpriced and too vulnerable for what they deliver, but that's an argument for better design of synergy, not a rejection of the concept.

As another poster said, I don't want Fire Warriors to become 'Xenos Guard.' They're supposed to be well trained warriors, not cannon fodder. Tau philosophy abhors the use of expendable troops. I don't want Fire Warriors to get less expensive, I want them to be more usable at a similar points cost. One first step in a solution would be to include defensive grenades free, and lower the cost of a Devilfish by 70 points.

sebster wrote:I think a drop in the points cost of firewarriors and their devilfish is a necessary first step. Then I'd probably increase the power of markerlights, making it a seperate step in the shooting phase, much like orders are for IG. Markerlights would be outside of the normal targeting restrictions, you'd pick a markerlight and target, roll to hit, and if successful you'd choose any units that can target that unit, all of which would then fire on the target, each benefiting from that markerlight (which would give either a +1 to hit or ability to ignore cover). After that you'd pick another marker light and pick a target, roll to hit and if successful any units that hadn't yet fired that can shoot that target could select it, and then so on. After all the markerlights were done you'd fire the rest of your troops as per normal.

This, I do not agree with because it makes Tau into Xenos Guard. Only without the ordinance. If I wanted to play guard I would have bought and played them. I wanted Tau because of the inter unit synergies and the challenge of making them work.

I also want the Tau to stay close to the same 80-100 model count army as opposed to the 150+ model armies. The Tau are a smal high-tech empire and want them to reflect such.

sebster wrote:You can't just dismiss a principle element of strategy like that. You could argue that the current efforts to encourage synergy in 40k, notably the Tau and Tyranid codices, provide a synergy that provides too little benefit while being too vulnerable, but you can't just dismiss it across the board. I would agree that in most cases the benefits of synergy in 40K tend to be overpriced and too vulnerable for what they deliver, but that's an argument for better design of synergy, not a rejection of the concept.

This, I agree with.

Yes, let me clarify, I do not think the idea of an army that is pretty much designed only to function with a large amount of synergy works. A KFF mech in an Ork speed freaks list is nice synergy, but if the KFF gets taken out or seperated from the main force, you don't feel like the army crumbles.

Now you're playing Nids and a RP drops down and takes out a Tervigon with JotWW, and the SW's fire 15 Krak missiles and three lascannons at the other, killing it. It's like you just got kicked in the sack because your entire army revolved around those two units. Now you have no Catalyst, no extra troop spawns, a hole in your synapse web.. basically your army has been broken.

Also to clarify, I do not want Tau to gain assault capability. In fact I want them to lose some. Why do all the HQ bonuses granted pertain to CC? A FW's stat line in CC does not become fearsome even if you give them Stubborn and Preferred enemy. How about granting relentless, move through cover, skilled jumper, or some form of USR that will actually benefit the army.

I also do not want Xenos guard, I want an elite shooting army. An elite shooting army should have reliable shooting without needing a static T3 pathfinder squad too boost their shooting, also at a mediocre BS, so I need 2x as many pathfinders as I want average hits. Now these static fast attack guys in fluff are extremely skilled scouts, yet they have no special scout type rules to help them survive, like the Stealth USR. I know this is one of the proposals in your fandex.

And because Tau outside of suits are entirely a volume of fire unit, every casualty you take directly impacts the power of that unit.

focusedfire wrote:This, I do not agree with because it makes Tau into Xenos Guard. Only without the ordinance. If I wanted to play guard I would have bought and played them. I wanted Tau because of the inter unit synergies and the challenge of making them work.

I also want the Tau to stay close to the same 80-100 model count army as opposed to the 150+ model armies. The Tau are a smal high-tech empire and want them to reflect such.

That's a reasonable approach, I agree that Tau should have considerably less troops on the board than IG and other horde armies. But you'll note that while I think firewarriors should be dropped to around 8 points, that doesn't mean I want 25% more firewarriors on the board. Instead the spare points can be spent on toys and upgrades for other units that can work with and play off the firewarriors.

The people at my local gaming store just spam Firewarriors (granted we accept firewarriors at 12 points apice) but when you have that many FireWarriors they absolutly own, why you ask?

The voloume of fire from 30 warriors can wipe a 10 man terminator squad off the table. In this way you nearly make your points back in one turn.

I apply Ork philosiphy to all army`s, Firewarriors enmasse work, Kroot enmasse work... See where i am going?...

Just my two cents.

EagleArk.

What about giving Firewarriors Hit-and-Run? Allow them not to be locked in comat in other words. Still flimsy as heck, still not benifiting from charging in, but nimble enough to cut the losses and get outa dodge.

EagleArk wrote:The people at my local gaming store just spam Firewarriors (granted we accept firewarriors at 12 points apice) but when you have that many FireWarriors they absolutly own, why you ask?

The voloume of fire from 30 warriors can wipe a 10 man terminator squad off the table. In this way you nearly make your points back in one turn.

How do you work that out?

Seen it happen many many times, (granted i am a fail at rolling saves but still)

the_ferrett wrote:What about giving Firewarriors Hit-and-Run? Allow them not to be locked in comat in other words. Still flimsy as heck, still not benifiting from charging in, but nimble enough to cut the losses and get outa dodge.

So we are going to give the army that is most easily countered in close combat the option of leaving close combat?

I think the only bad point in 5th Ed is that FW are too hard pressed to stand up in HTH. They should die but I have seen ludicrous things like 2 assault marines manage one kill and the FW are ineffectual and fail there already iffy morale and then get run down due to their low initiative.

My simple would be to make a bonding knife upgrade grant them stubborn. No mods on a morale test would help them stand (and die) rather than have someone throw a rock, a warrior faints and his buddies run away in terror.

I personaly belive that there needs to be some kind of FW veteran units that have better BS and Ld. I also imagine the Tau to be pretty much space communists sooooooo.... could there be a Tau Commisar like unit?

I love the fire warriors i think you made some good ideas but we need fire warriors with 3+ save thats would be nice