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.

Phryxis wrote:

What is this, karate class?

Indeed.

Firewarriors suck, suits kill things better, and basically do everything better. They either need +1 BS (which isn't right according to fluff) or drop points wise( This is good, 8 points per model is good.)

For the record, just because firewarriors are bad, it doesn't make tau bad. If anything, Tau are even better with the new nids hitting shelves. They are already very well equipped to handle nids, however most other armies will need to change up a bit to handle them.

Firewarriors aren't terrible, they are just inflexible, which is a bad thing in the current environment.

Phryxis wrote:The point here was to show how their shooting stacks up. Toe to toe with SMs with Bolters, they lose out. The claim was that they're sending stuff "off the board screaming" and "blowing away squads" and such. They're not. In fact, they're losing a battle of attrition in shooting with SMs.

If they can't outshoot SMs point for point, and they CERTAINLY can't out CC SMs point for point, how can they not suck?

Add in the fact that SMs have cheaper transports, can get special/heavy weapons, have all sorts of tricks with morale and splitting squads to adapt to mission...

It's clear why FWs "suck" in comparison. They're a shooty unit that can't outshoot a basic Bolter Marine, point for point.

Honestly, that alone should be enough to finish this discussion. If you're a shooty unit that can't outshoot, then you suck. Period.

You've missed the point entirely, Fire Warriors will NEVER function for a Tau army the way tac marines function for a space marine they have an entirely different role so comparing them is like comparing Devastaors and landraiders, they both tote lascannons but have two very separate jobs.

The power of Firewarriors is how they grow exponentially more powerful as you add layers of support (markerlights, kroot screens, devilfish) something that space marines just don't have to the same extent. If you are expecting Fire Warriors to just run out there solo and win the game for you then you have it all wrong, they have to be coddled the whole way.

Phryxis wrote:

I can use my FCW's to soften you up for the easy kill next turn.

You're not really thinking clearly here. You're just insisting that you can shoot stuff down (in cinematic, not at all emperical terms), and in order to rationalize it, you've always somehow got half your army to shoot at every 115 point model that's coming at you. That's not how it works. You've got the same number of points as your opponent. You have to kill points faster than he does. The numbers show that you can't.

Actually There i was referring to how I can shoot into your deployment zone from mine to throw some odd wounds on a fex so that when it gets into a threatening position the crisis suits or sniper drones can polish it off easily

Phryxis wrote:
You can point to "flexibility" and "tactics" all you want. Is your opponent not allowed to use those things too? Again, this isn't karate class, he doesn't have to run at you with his knife hand up in the air, so you can do your kata on him. Instead, he's got 3x 115 point Fexes coming at you, along with 40 odd Gaunts, 20 odd Genestealers, a couple more Gunfexes, and a Tyrant.

*scratches head* yeah isn't that what this game is about my tactics against yours? Unless you think that the player with the most "uber" models win games with no thought at all whatsoever required by the army owner. Otherwise then we can be in agreement that a unit that is tactically flexible is an asset as it can fill multiple roles as determined by the sitiations you face.

Phryxis wrote:Think about it... That 115 point Fex cost LESS than your FCWs. They can put one wound on it per turn. He can kill 3-4 FWs per turn. He'll win that battle of attrition every time. It takes them 4 turns. It takes him 3. And that's not even the worst of it, because as the FWs lose models, they lose shooting. The Fex loses nothing until he drops dead.

So what does that make a 115 point Fex? It makes it YET ANOTHER unit that can both outshoot and outfight Tau FWs.

Noticing a pattern here?

OK here you're comparing an elites slot choice to a basic troop choice then saying that the troops suck because they don't stack up to an elite? Pick a tyranid basic troop choice to go up against firewarriors then tell me they suck because if you want to play that game I'll just point out how a 62 point crisis suit will eat your elite fex alive because the fex will never get into shooting range. Fexes don't suck because a model costing half it's points will kill it, the same way Firewarriors don't suck because a single squad can't down a carnifex unsupported.

Furthermore if you want to use past experience as a valid argument I'll point out that I have been playing this game for 4 years now (still new compared to many) and have NEVER lost to tyranids, in fact the last time I played nidzilla (1850 game) he conceded by the bottom of turn 3 because I damn near had him tabled.

The Tau codex has been out for a while, so I'd be very surprised to see some kind of incredible new effective tactics with them. That said, looking at the most effective Tau tourney lists, I'm not seeing a heavy reliance on firewarriors. The firewarriors that ARE taken only serve to make devilfish scoring units and meet the 1+ army requirement. Every firewarrior-heavy list I've seen has just been a blessing to the opposition, taking points away from units that can actually threaten the opponent.

Aftersong wrote:
You've missed the point entirely, Fire Warriors will NEVER function for a Tau army the way tac marines function for a space marine they have an entirely different role so comparing them is like comparing Devastaors and landraiders, they both tote lascannons but have two very separate jobs.

The power of Firewarriors is how they grow exponentially more powerful as you add layers of support (markerlights, kroot screens, devilfish) something that space marines just don't have to the same extent. If you are expecting Fire Warriors to just run out there solo and win the game for you then you have it all wrong, they have to be coddled the whole way.

So, if you build your whole army around supporting firewarriors, they work, as long as you coddle them the whole game? That sounds like a recipe for success for any "suck" unit. Unlike, say, marines, that don't have some option that makes them exponentially more powerful, like twin-linking all melta and flame weapons, for example. Tactical squads aren't great, either, but they are much better at killing things than firewarriors, much better at holding objectives, and not significantly more expensive.

Aftersong wrote:

Phryxis wrote:The point here was to show how their shooting stacks up. Toe to toe with SMs with Bolters, they lose out. The claim was that they're sending stuff "off the board screaming" and "blowing away squads" and such. They're not. In fact, they're losing a battle of attrition in shooting with SMs.

If they can't outshoot SMs point for point, and they CERTAINLY can't out CC SMs point for point, how can they not suck?

Add in the fact that SMs have cheaper transports, can get special/heavy weapons, have all sorts of tricks with morale and splitting squads to adapt to mission...

It's clear why FWs "suck" in comparison. They're a shooty unit that can't outshoot a basic Bolter Marine, point for point.

Honestly, that alone should be enough to finish this discussion. If you're a shooty unit that can't outshoot, then you suck. Period.

You've missed the point entirely, Fire Warriors will NEVER function for a Tau army the way tac marines function for a space marine they have an entirely different role so comparing them is like comparing Devastaors and landraiders, they both tote lascannons but have two very separate jobs.

The power of Firewarriors is how they grow exponentially more powerful as you add layers of support (markerlights, kroot screens, devilfish) something that space marines just don't have to the same extent. If you are expecting Fire Warriors to just run out there solo and win the game for you then you have it all wrong, they have to be coddled the whole way.

No, he is dead on. Tac squads are the shooty scoring unit for space marines, firewarriors are the shooty troop choice for tau.

Firewarriors are better with markerlight support, blahblah
Tac squads are better with their dedicated support.
Comparing tac squads to fire warriors is very appropriate - they are both shooty troop choices that need support to succeed. The tacs are just better.

I disagree, firewarriors are ranged support while tac squads are shock troops, yes they both have guns but that is about where similarity in role ends.

Saying firewarriors and tac squads are the "same" is again like saying devastators w/lascannons and landraiders are the same, they're both anti-tank aren't they?

I think he's right actually. The boltgun is primarily a 'close range' weapon. If not, it's max range is 24", that's only 'mid range' at best, and this is also outside the max effective range of their special weapon. Firewarriors do only have 6" over the tactical squad if they stand still, but that 6" is enough to put them firmly into the 'mid range' category.

This meshes with the rest of the Tau army, primarily a "mid range" to "long range" army. Space marines are PRIMARILY a "close range" to "mid range" army.

starbomber109 wrote:I think he's right actually. The boltgun is primarily a 'close range' weapon. If not, it's max range is 24", that's only 'mid range' at best, and this is also outside the max effective range of their special weapon. Firewarriors do only have 6" over the tactical squad if they stand still, but that 6" is enough to put them firmly into the 'mid range' category.

This meshes with the rest of the Tau army, primarily a "mid range" to "long range" army. Space marines are PRIMARILY a "close range" to "mid range" army.

Exactly.

The tau support for their troops is mid to long while the marine support is short to mid - it is the difference in the armies, but they are still serving the same role in the armies.
Comparing shooty troops to shooty troops is not apples to oranges. Tac squads without support are not very good. The tau is more dependant on unit synnergy, but they both serve the same role in the respective armies. Bottom line: fire warriors are just not very good in 5th. Cover saves kill them, and even with markerlight support, they are worse than shooty marines. It is the same with 1ksons in csm - they were good, now they are not. To make a post claiming they are good doesn't actually make them good...

You've missed the point entirely, Fire Warriors will NEVER function for a Tau army the way tac marines function for a space marine

This is obfuscation. You're like an underpants gnome.

Step 1: Fire Warriors
Step 2: Tactics
Step 3: Profit!

You can't just say "tactics" and reality changes to suit your next step. The fact is, Tac Marines and Tau are extremely comparable. They're the base Troop choice for their respective armies.

Now, you don't buy that. You want to say that because they interact differently with the battlefield, they're not the same. Fine. But when it comes down to it, models interact with the battlefield in one of four ways:

1) They move over it.
2) They shoot something else on it.
3) They fight something else on it.
4) They decline to let something else on it kill them.

In all but one of these, Marines are superior, point for point. In one they're equal.

You get what's going on here? Fire Warriors aren't good at anything. They're average at shooting, beyond terrible in CC, and below average in absorbing shooting. They're not GOOD at anything. That equals suck.

Why do FWs interact differently than Marines? Because they suck, and if they tried to do more, they'd just get killed. They don't have different strengths. They have no strengths. They just have shooting, which they do less terribly than other things.

So, again, say "tactics" all you want. It doesn't make Fire Warriors good. "Tactics" is how you cope with the fact that Fire Warriors suck. You support them with suits and Markerlights, etc. etc.

Your argument basically boils down to this: "Fire Warriors are good, because I have other models that can help them!"

Ok, I could help my 3 year old write a .net web application. Does that mean he doesn't suck at writing software? No, it doesn't. He's 3, he can't really even read yet.

And all these other guys agree with me. But hey, maybe you've revolutionized Tau for the rest of us. Why not post your list?

warpcrafter wrote:That sounds like a worthy force multiplier. I've played against fire warrior-based Tau armies with my Plague Marines, and without any support, they usually accomplish little against T5+FNP. With some markerlight hits, they could see off my pricey followers of Nurgle with authority. I'll have to be on the lookout for this tactic.

When you say "with authority" do you mean .66 wounds per Fire Warrior Squad per round of shooting? O_o That is so far away from authority that I wouldn't know what to call it lol.

pulse rifles may be s5 and are 30'' but they still only have ap 5 so its really not a good gun so only on a big board will
static work and if you use the devil fish you have no shooting spots so you have to really gun it to saftey

Aftersong wrote:My strategy for Tau has always been formed around interlocking support, every unit supporting every unit. No rockstars no standouts everyone does their job as such firewarriors have always formed the nucleus around which the rest of my army orbits.

Fire warriors take up the role of volume firepower, wherever infantry are pulse rifles are pointed at them, and wherever pulse rifles are pointed markerlights are pointed. Yes thats right I use precious markerlights on firewarriors and not Crisis Suits here is why.

Interlocking support is what make tau great.
Interlocking support is the Achilles heel of a tau army.
Fire warriors are easy to cripple, just kill the pathfinders leaving the tau player with BS3 fire warriors and an empty devil fish they never wanted to buy in the 1st place.
The only way I have seen pathfinders stay alive is to hide in a devil fish.
Pathfinders can't markerlight on the turn they leave the devilfish because markerlights are a heavy.
As soon as they get out of the devilfish pathfinders tend to die.
Any opponent who knows tau will beat the pathfinders like they owe him money.

schadenfreude wrote:As soon as they get out of the devilfish pathfinders tend to die.
Any opponent who knows tau will beat the pathfinders like they owe him money.

Which is why I advocate Stealth Teams for your Markerlights. The point is to actually use Firewarriors so you don't have to spend other points on dedicated anti-infantry, making them efficient simply because you have to take atleast one anyway.

um ACTUALLY A NEW FEX COSTS 160 WITH SCYTHING TALONS ONLY!!!

I am very new to tau but in the half dozen games i have played double fish of fury supported by marker lights can take out alot of marines.

But in a fight i would bet 20 firewarriors against 3 fireknives

But i hate whirlwinds they are the perfect fire warrior killer and hiding them makes them very hard to kill with rail guns.

Also Crisis suits and firewarriors working together are Killy.

For every body that says that FWs suck (even though I kind of agree with you) stop complaining. Guardians are worse off than FWs, lets look FWs have 30" range Guardians have 12" range FW guns have str 5 Guardian guns have str 4 FWs have 4+ armor Guardians have 5+ armor. So stop saying that FWs are the worst troop in the game, it simply isn't true. Sorry if I sound whinny but if I can use my guardians to good effect and win games, the same thing can be done with FWs.

Addicted to Bleach wrote:For every body that says that FWs suck (even though I kind of agree with you) stop complaining. Guardians are worse off than FWs, lets look FWs have 30" range Guardians have 12" range FW guns have str 5 Guardian guns have str 4 FWs have 4+ armor Guardians have 5+ armor. So stop saying that FWs are the worst troop in the game, it simply isn't true. Sorry if I sound whinny but if I can use my guardians to good effect and win games, the same thing can be done with FWs.

Yeah,nevermind the heavy weapons platforms you can stick in the blob. I'd love to have a scatterlaser stuck in the middle of my firewarrior squad.

Addicted to Bleach wrote: Guardians are worse off than FWs.

Probably, but guardians are cheep (sort-of), also they are not required choices in order to field your eldar army. FWs are mandatory, which is why lots of people find fault with them, would you put down guardians so much if they were mandatory?

I think it has more to do with the fact that Mech is king in the 5th edition metagame, Firewarriors will never outshoot/overkill anything at 12", so they will get charged, where they will die, so they can't really mech-up too well (or if they do mech up, they will only ever shoot things that are being ganged up on by other units) If they stand on objectives the whole game they will spend the whole game either dying or being ignored and will not really add anything offensively.

Your whole army doesn't have to go kill the enemy though does it?