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.

Given that firewarriors can't take enemy fire very well, and in the fluff they have one huge shoulder pad on one side so that they can get extra protection while braced, I think that FW should get to re-roll failed saves of 1 When they don't move or assault.

tbh, I think you'd get away with reroll any save of1 vs shooting that isnt ap1 or cause instant death (sort of a poor mans fnp)

DakkaDakka wrote:

Ok, changing op now

Here's an idea: Make it so that if a Fire Warrior Squad does not move for an entire turn(normal movement, deep strike, disembarking, falling back, and assaulting) it gets this ability, explanation being that the warriors have the time to brace, turning their thickest armor towards the enemy.

yamgrenade wrote:Given that firewarriors can't take enemy fire very well, and in the fluff they have one huge shoulder pad on one side so that they can get extra protection while braced, I think that FW should get to re-roll failed saves of 1, for anything except AP 1/2 or ID weapos when they don't move in the previous movement phase.

How about, let's let them have a 4+ armor save instead of a 5+ armor save and call it a day.

Why would you put in a stupid, barely functional, complicated rule for something that is already fluff wise covered?

I suppose next you are going to want space marines to be able to climb metal walls if you are playing a space mission because they have mag boots?

I agree wit ph34r - the shoulder pad is likely why the Tau are a 4+ save instead of a 5+ save.

Incidentally, since when is a 4+ save particularly bad at taking fire? I know Marine Players cry when they give up a 3+ to play their Scouts (oh wait, they don't play their Scouts at all anyway) But virtually every IG and Xeno player would love to have a 4+ on their basic troop choice.

ph34r wrote:

yamgrenade wrote:Given that firewarriors can't take enemy fire very well, and in the fluff they have one huge shoulder pad on one side so that they can get extra protection while braced, I think that FW should get to re-roll failed saves of 1, for anything except AP 1/2 or ID weapos when they don't move in the previous movement phase.

How about, let's let them have a 4+ armor save instead of a 5+ armor save and call it a day.

Why would you put in a stupid, barely functional, complicated rule for something that is already fluff wise covered?

I suppose next you are going to want space marines to be able to climb metal walls if you are playing a space mission because they have mag boots?

That's actually a pretty good rule for low grav, assuming other races get eqivalent(Guard, Tau, and CSM would also have mag boots, Orkz would have "grapplin hooks" and Eldar would have some fancy tech based version.)

ph34r wrote:

yamgrenade wrote:Given that firewarriors can't take enemy fire very well, and in the fluff they have one huge shoulder pad on one side so that they can get extra protection while braced, I think that FW should get to re-roll failed saves of 1, for anything except AP 1/2 or ID weapos when they don't move in the previous movement phase.

How about, let's let them have a 4+ armor save instead of a 5+ armor save and call it a day.

Why would you put in a stupid, barely functional, complicated rule for something that is already fluff wise covered?

I suppose next you are going to want space marines to be able to climb metal walls if you are playing a space mission because they have mag boots?

Stupid, barely functional, complicated?

It makes FW less crappy than they are now. So, not stupid- it has a purpose
Barely functional? You would whine more if it was anything better.
And honestly, how complicated is it? It's VERY simple.

Actually Sounds good, unless it becomes a 6+ cover? (just spitballing). But seriously waiting for the Tau equivalent of "First Rank fire..Second rank fire"

Wait, What? since when don't FW take fire well? They take it better than guardsmen, and much better than scouts - they can kite bolters and all they need to worry about are autocannons and heavy bolters.

Regardless, This idea sounds okay:

Lets do this. FW is 12 pts each [yes?]

8 FW (96 points) V 5 marines

12" range

7 hits, 5 wounds - 2.5 saves, and one re-roll, 50-50 chance of a save.

So, you're still likely to take about 2-3 wounds.

I think you could incorporate this rule without any extra points.

yamgrenade wrote:Stupid, barely functional, complicated?

It makes FW less crappy than they are now. So, not stupid- it has a purpose
Barely functional? You would whine more if it was anything better.
And honestly, how complicated is it? It's VERY simple.

It's stupid and complicated for SO MANY REASONS.

1. It's almost exactly the same as a 3+ armor save.
2. Except not vs AP 1 and 2 for no reason? Obviously? You can't re-roll a save that you can't take so this part of the rule is 100% non-functional.
3. Except it only works when you don't move? More arbitrary restrictions.

Why do FW need a better armor save to make them better? Why should they have almost as good armor as marines, but only while they are stationary for some reason? That is NOT "VERY simple".

How about just drop the firewarrior points cost by 1 or 2 and make their guns heavy 2 and assault 2 respectively? lol.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:1. It's not exactly the same as a 3+ armor save. It's exactly halfway between a 4+ and 3+

Yup, which is why I said almost. We don't need 3.5+ saves.

ph34r wrote:2. Except not vs AP 1 and 2 for no reason? Obviously? You can't re-roll a save that you can't take so this part of the rule is 100% non-functional.

Cover Saves. It stops the re-roll when the fire-warriors are in cover.

And I would make it the following meself:
Tau Firewarriors Shoulderpads allow them to re-roll any to wound roll of a 1 against shooting attacks that are not AP1/2, cause instant death, or use a template.

Currently, them needing to not move is pretty meh to be honest, it also implies they get the re-roll in CC which doesnt make sense.

With the above, they get poormans fnp against general shooting except the nastier stuff and in cover. Also not against templates, because it doesn't make huge amounts of sense a shoulderpad will do diddly against ordnance and flamers.

If tau firewarriors don't move in preceeding movement , shooting or assault phase they may re-rolled failed saves of a '1' on the d6.

Simple and removing the redundant parts.

Pointless but can be made simpler.

As a gamer, I'm all for fluff, thats why I agree with YourFriendDrRobert First Post. It would make Sense that if they took their movement phase and decided to brace themselves, then they would probably have had the time to get ready for incoming fire.

Changed the OP so that it removes the confusing part and accounts for assaulting.

Wow, this is probably rather unnecessarily complicated.

I disagree that a rule like this should exist (and I play Tau) but how about we cleanit up.

Tau Firewarriors may re-roll failed armour saves if they did not move or assault in the preceding turn.

Simple, easier, no worries about that AP 1/2 nonsense (if it's potent enough to bypass 4+ save it will still do so) and very clear about what does and doesn't happen.

You know what, That sounds like a great Idea... This makes me feel like a for not thinking of this earlier... It makes perfect sense.