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.

I've been thinking about this for a while. The two main armies I play are DE and Tau, and I keep hearing that FW are overpriced while DE warriors are decent, if not great. But as far as I can see, there isn't that much difference between them. Against T4, they're equally good at shooting, one needing 3s and 4s, the other needing 4s and 3s. Against T3 they're better, and although they're worse against higher T there's loads of other stuff in the tau army designed for this, and the FW make up for it with their ability to glance light tanks and transports to death. DE are better in assault by a long way, but while this means they can take out guard with ease while tau can't, against MEqs DE will still only average one kill per 20 attacks, unlikely to make too much of a difference. And the tau have an armour save of 4+, meaning that against bolters and their equivalents they have a 50% higher chance of survival, which is barely a small difference, and this is even bigger when we include the fact that most cover nowadays is 5+.

Now, one of the great things about DE warriors is their transports. They can quickly move anywhere on the board, and if it's a squad of 5, they also get 12 poisoned shots travelling with them. However, with a 30" range, surely FW can simply sit on an objective and shoot stuff? Most anti-infantry fire will be AP5, they can sit in cover for anything with a lower AP and while they're far from the most destructive unit out there, they're barely prohibitively expensive, and the opponent won't simply take them out whenever he feels like it if the rest of the army is doing its job and being distracting and destructive. And they can always hop on one of the pathfinders' devilfish at the end and get to any of the other objectives, assuming there is a devilfish and it hasn't been blown up.

I'm not saying FW are an amazing unit. But I simply don't see why they're considered utter failures when they're simply being compared to marines rather than dark eldar. I think that considered in this way, there is no reason not to consider them if not good then at least acceptable, and at least not a reason that tau shouldn't be taken as they have been seen in the past.


Feel free to offer your opinions concerning this. Flames will be used for cooking marshmallows.

The problem with Tau FW is not that they are overpriced, but too min-maxed.
The gun is abnormally good for the cost, but the guy who uses it is less then a guardsmen.

The fact is, in the end of the day, having a good gun helps nothing if you cant fire it properly and can't take a hit. its like having a guardsmen with a thunderhammer-won't help as it will never live long enough to use it.

Under old rapid fire it was much, much worse though, now that they can shoot while moving away from danger they are viable. (because just standing there and shooting does NOT work in the long run.)

De have higher leadership and can take special/heavy weapons. Also their transport allows for obscene charge distances.
The devilfish seems to see more use as mobile terrain than as a transport.

the firewarriors guns rock and that range is scary to go up against but they are priced pretty reasonably. I do feel that DE warriors are better though. (biased because I play DE and close friend plays Tau) but the sheer range my raiders and venoms can get into and still shoot from open top and ravage the enemy is pretty OP. Especiallly the special weapon options available are amazing. (splinter cannon is beond amazing)

Firewarriors are just the right price. They have a good gun, decent armor, meh BS, crap leadership, crap melee power, no upgrade options for the squad.

 spears wrote:
De have higher leadership and can take special/heavy weapons. Also their transport allows for obscene charge distances.
The devilfish seems to see more use as mobile terrain than as a transport.

14-24" is insane?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DE warriors aren't "great"


they are very good against high toughness MC
they wont win much in close combat being slightly better than IG for nearly twice the cost.

thier access to special and heavy weapons is a carry over from 3rd edition when they could have 2 of each in a ten man squad for basically no point cost. Now they get 1 of each in a 10 man are all of them are expensive.

I find them a bit over priced when compared to IG or Termigaunts, by about 3 points I would say. Not gmae breaking but enough that you notice it.

I think they're a point or so too much.

That's really my only issue with them.

On the topic of firewarriors what are opinions on EMP(haywire) grenades, and photon grenades, which apart from being defensive, grant stealth within 8"

I think they're just fine as they are.

Good armor, great gun

I feel like Cabalists are a little over priced. I've felt like that more this edition than others but I think it's because of how expensive the equipment feels to me.


Haven't played against enough tau recently to have a real feeling about the fire warriors but they have always had a very nice guy. I think the LD issues are still a problem and the necessity of suits feels kinda lame but the bubble wrap issues are much less of a deal now with allies. I can't say. It's a pretty neat unit, and hard to judge.

Fire Warriors are 1-2 points overpriced at most. Much of the complaining about them comes from 5th edition, when they were one of the worst Troops units in the game AND Kroot were much better, but now that Kroot are more or less obsolete and Fire Warriors have been greatly improved by the new Rapid Fire rules, they aren't so bad a buy after all.

The grenade options are of course overpriced and silly, but that's the same with all old books.

Tau are slightly overpriced and there are a few things working against them. While a S5 gun seems alright, when you remember that it also AP5 you quickly notice that it isn't much of an upgrade in terms of wounds output by the squad. Additionally, unlike other squads, you have to remember that a fair amount of the 'value' from a squad comes from its specialist and heavy weapons. Unlike Infantry Platoons, Kabalite Warriors, or Tactical Squads, Fire Warrior squads don't bring ANYTHING to the table except for S5 shooting and the ability to hold objectives, and while they are good at their S5 shooting, their inability to even have a chance to do anything severely hurts them. What upgrades they have are also overpriced, and will either be made cheaper or rolled into the base cost entirely in the next codex.

They seem pretty close in 6E. 1 point too high IMO. If they were BS4 (which is also more in fluff) then they would be good. Although something would need to be done for kroot, since I wouldn't see them being used anymore.

The problem with Tau Fire Warriors is that everyone assumes you're dealing with them in a vacuum, when you aren't. Factor in Markerlights and they become very useful.

5th Ed I would have said they were easily about 2 points overpriced. 6th Ed they are doing far better, but ultimately it is a pretty weak model holding that gun. I think 9 points would be about the right number, that or include the Team Leader or Photon Grenades free for the squad.

I hate the argument that marker lights make them useful. What other troop requires another overpriced and squishy unit to justify their cost?

Firewarriors would be ok for their cost if they had access to special weapons and got a leadership buff and maybe a slight stat change. With as low as some of their stats are, it's absurd that they cost as much as they do. You're really only purchasing a gun with FW.

Well, start with a guardsman in cost. Yes, I know, tau are worse in close combat, but lets get real, here, neither guardsmen nor firewarriors are going to crush face in assault.

So, we start with 5 points for a unit with a lot of 3's in the statline. Then we add 3 points apiece for carapace armor (how much it costs guardsmen - at the cheapest - to get this upgrade), and then we throw on the fact that they have a storm bolter as their small arm for another 2 points. Then we take into account that the small arm is much better than a storm bolter, having a THIRTY SIX inch threat range, and having high enough strength to swat down AV10 vehicles (and the numbers to cause a serious pain to AV10 fliers). I'd give that an extra point, at least. Also, do they still get defensive grenades? If they do, I'd add a point for that. New rules for assault grenades make them worthless for guardsmen.

Anyways, at least comparing them to guardsmen, I'd guess that a firewarrior should cost somewhere between 11 and 13 points apiece. Of course, you could ding them down by a point for not having access to better weapons, and ding them another for not having as good of infantry support options (no orders, standard, etc.), so I'd say that something between 9 and 11 points apiece would be fair.

Out of curiosity, how much DO firewarriors cost?

i can believe this is up for discussion, Fire Warriors over priced? Not a chance cowboy...

As a Tau player what I find most difficult about the Fire Warriors is the inability to efficiently improve leadership (no I don't believe ethereals or shadowsun is efficient) and the lack of options for any sort of special or heavy weapons.

With imperial guard the addition of a commissar makes a HUGE difference in their ability to remain on the table, and there is huge variety in special weapons and the addition of heavy weapon squads...

Marcus Scipio wrote:With imperial guard the addition of a commissar makes a HUGE difference in their ability to remain on the table

... well, it just makes a huge difference for them not running away. It does nothing at all to keep them on the table with regard to taking damage.

In 6th ed, I dropped my commissars, in part because my guardsmen were getting straight-up wiped off the board before they had a chance to even take a morale check. Even if they were to fail, a single squad was likely butchered down to a few rather useless survivors.

Instead, I started taking carapace armored vets. Carapace will keep them on the table a lot better than better leadership will, as carapace makes a difference often, while the leadership thing kicks in only occasionally. The 4+ armor is better than the Ld9.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, start with a guardsman in cost. Yes, I know, tau are worse in close combat, but lets get real, here, neither guardsmen nor firewarriors are going to crush face in assault.

So, we start with 5 points for a unit with a lot of 3's in the statline. Then we add 3 points apiece for carapace armor (how much it costs guardsmen - at the cheapest - to get this upgrade), and then we throw on the fact that they have a storm bolter as their small arm for another 2 points. Then we take into account that the small arm is much better than a storm bolter, having a THIRTY SIX inch threat range, and having high enough strength to swat down AV10 vehicles (and the numbers to cause a serious pain to AV10 fliers). I'd give that an extra point, at least. Also, do they still get defensive grenades? If they do, I'd add a point for that. New rules for assault grenades make them worthless for guardsmen.

Anyways, at least comparing them to guardsmen, I'd guess that a firewarrior should cost somewhere between 11 and 13 points apiece. Of course, you could ding them down by a point for not having access to better weapons, and ding them another for not having as good of infantry support options (no orders, standard, etc.), so I'd say that something between 9 and 11 points apiece would be fair.

Out of curiosity, how much DO firewarriors cost?

Have to buy grenades for FW. Cost is 2 Guardsmen. Don't forget to ding the point off for lower WS, and lower base squad LD.

k, seems fairly priced to me.

But you disagree with your previous statement. 9-11 points -1 (no grenades) -1 (worse leadership and no buffs) -1 (lower I and WS) gives you 6-9 points and you say 10 is fine.

I'm not counting the I or WS. Neither guardsmen nor firewarriors are winning close combat. Plus, firewarriors don't even lose in close combat to regular guardsmen.

Also, I already counted the lack of Ld buffs.

Guardsmen have bigger numbers, higher initiative and weapon skill, plus the option to take power weapons. How can they not beat FW? Plus as mentioned they have bad leadership. It just takes winning combat by 1 and then winning initiative.

You can't just ignore CC because IG isn't the greatest at it. They'd at least have the option to bring a power weapon and have a better chance to actually wound back.

I think 10 is too much for what they have, but 6 is definitely way too low. When I look at a Fire Warrior's price comparative to others, I think that the thing that makes them overpriced is that they need to pay a lot of extra points for things that other units get by default (like grenades).

If it were up to me I'd price a base squad of Fire Warriors at 60 points. 10 Points per fire warrior at a minimum of 5 per squad, plus 10 for a default Shas'ui. I'd include Photon Grenades in their cost and make some changes to the squad's rules:

Bonded: So long as the Shas'ui leader lives, the squad may reroll all failed leadership tests (I'd remove Bonding knife from the armory and build it into Tau units instead).

Warp? What's That?: When rolling to Deny the Witch, the squad will pass on a 5+ instead of a 6.

Markerlight: In the shooting phase, the Shas'ui leader my choose to fire his rifle's built in Markerlight instead of his pulse rifle. Resolve the Markerlight's to hit before any other shooting for the squad. If the Markerlight hits it may be used as described in the Markerlight rules when the rest of the Shas'ui's unit fires their pulse rifles (immediately after the Markerlight is resolved!)

Possibly write them in as having Blacksun Filters by default?

Savageconvoy wrote:Guardsmen have bigger numbers, higher initiative and weapon skill, plus the option to take power weapons. How can they not beat FW? Plus as mentioned they have bad leadership. It just takes winning combat by 1 and then winning initiative.

You can't just ignore CC because IG isn't the greatest at it. They'd at least have the option to bring a power weapon and have a better chance to actually wound back.

I deliberately ignored Close Combat even with DE because against most opponents (aka. MEqs) the most you're ever likely to kill is one anyway, unless for some reason you send masses of them into assault at once.
According to Ailaros, FW should be 9-11pts each, which they are, whether you do or don't include the +1 point for grenades.

LordofHats wrote:I think 10 is too much for what they have, but 6 is definitely way too low. When I look at a Fire Warrior's price comparative to others, I think that the thing that makes them overpriced is that they need to pay a lot of extra points for things that other units get by default (like grenades).

If it were up to me I'd price a base squad of Fire Warriors at 60 points. 10 Points per fire warrior at a minimum of 5 per squad, plus 10 for a default Shas'ui. I'd include Photon Grenades in their cost and make some changes to the squad's rules:

Bonded: So long as the Shas'ui leader lives, the squad may reroll all failed leadership tests (I'd remove Bonding knife from the armory and build it into Tau units instead).

Warp? What's That?: When rolling to Deny the Witch, the squad will pass on a 5+ instead of a 6.

Markerlight: In the shooting phase, the Shas'ui leader my choose to fire his rifle's built in Markerlight instead of his pulse rifle. Resolve the Markerlight's to hit before any other shooting for the squad. If the Markerlight hits it may be used as described in the Markerlight rules when the rest of the Shas'ui's unit fires their pulse rifles (immediately after the Markerlight is resolved!)

Possibly write them in as having Blacksun Filters by default?

Well, if we're going to rewrite their rules, I'm up for a go at that.
I'd say 10pts each, but with +1 LD (they're fighting for the greater good and can't even comprehend not doing so, why would they run away?), Blacksun filters and photon grenades as normal, and the option of +1 BS for a certain points cost (though I'm not sure how much). The Bonded and "Warp? What's That?" rules sound half decent as well.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with Tau Fire Warriors is that everyone assumes you're dealing with them in a vacuum, when you aren't. Factor in Markerlights and they become very useful.

This is a good point as markerlights can be pretty nasty but shouldnt have to rely on another unit. I hate when my buddy starts shooting markerlights though

Exalbaru wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with Tau Fire Warriors is that everyone assumes you're dealing with them in a vacuum, when you aren't. Factor in Markerlights and they become very useful.

This is a good point as markerlights can be pretty nasty but shouldnt have to rely on another unit. I hate when my buddy starts shooting markerlights though

Not every army plays like space marines where every unit is a stand alone, most of the Xenos armies have synergy and overlapping buffs, thats the very nature of their style.

Tau and Markerlights, Guardians and Warlocks/Farseers, Guard and orders, Gaunts and Tervigons/Zoans... By not factoring in these important aspects of the army your point costs will be all over the place and woefully innaccurate. A full pathfinder squad should on average score enough hits to make a Fire Warrior squad BS5 and ignore 5+ cover with their Pulse Rifles, suddenly they seem worth *way* more than their cost. Armies must be considered as a whole not unit by unit.