Tau Fire Warriors overpriced?

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.

**BoomWolf**

Again-you cant round out mathammer.
Not even "final" results.

The kill rate is not 2 FW and 2 marines, its 2.22222 FW and 1.66666 marines! then the "effective combat drop" is very different. and then tilted better towards marines-the two units are almost getting equal kills on each other.

And don't give me the "you can't remove half a model" excuse, its a calculation, it cares not about the rules of the game because you are looking at pure averages not tabletop actions.

So, in fact, marines will, on average, tie out an equal-costing FW group even in a firefight, the only thing the FW are supposed to be good at. and if you place in moral checks it gets alot worse for the FW.
And again, special and heavy weapons tilt it even further in favor of marines.

So saying the FW are "fine" because they are a tiny bit more efficient then SM in a pure firefight, as long as you ignore the value of grenades, heavy weapons, special weapons, higher moral, better initiative WS and S and a slew of abilities.

No, they are horrible.

Its just the best troop the Tau have for now, and some other units can cover up for their mess.

**Unit1126PLL**

BoomWolf wrote:
Again-you cant round out mathammer.
Not even "final" results.

The kill rate is not 2 FW and 2 marines, its 2.22222 FW and 1.66666 marines! then the "effective combat drop" is very different. and then tilted better towards marines-the two units are almost getting equal kills on each other.

And don't give me the "you can't remove half a model" excuse, its a calculation, it cares not about the rules of the game because you are looking at pure averages not tabletop actions.

So, in fact, marines will, on average, tie out an equal-costing FW group even in a firefight, the only thing the FW are supposed to be good at. and if you place in moral checks it gets alot worse for the FW.

except his point was that, tying in kills is bad for the marines because they have fewer models.

If an army has 1,000,000,000 soldiers and the other has 10, then tying for number of kills in every combat ever is terrible for the smaller army. (Extreme example I know).

**Neorealist**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
1,000,000,000.
On-topic: I think firewarriors are fine.

I agree. In 5th edition i could see them as in need of a little bit of a boost, but i think overall the changes to rapidfire and overwatch from 6th edition have put them at exactly the right point cost for their effectiveness. That said, more appropriately costed optional wargear or some such to give them some variety couldn't hurt either.

And yes, 2 dead marines is more damaging for the marine player as a whole than 2 dead firewarriors. That said, my point was also that they were close math-wise; someone else had indicated that the marines would cut down the firewarriors like wheat before a scythe.

**BoomWolf**

Double-check my last post, I edited quite a few viable points in.

Besides, your numbers comparison is absurd considering we were already COUNTING the number of models in that calculation.

Yes, they tie out for damage-not of model count, but of point count, in ONE highly specific situation and ignoring a hell lot of variables that work each and every one in favor of the marines.

**Unit1126PLL**

BoomWolf wrote:

Yes, they tie out for damage-not of model count, but of point count, in ONE highly specific situation and ignoring a hell lot of variables that work each and every one in favor of the marines.

I can't think of any variables that work in favor of the marines, actually.

The only variable I can think of is that the Tau outrange them, so at 24-30" the fire-warriors are infinitely more damaging and between 12-15" still have quite the advantage.

EDIT: Except special weapons, but then you add points to the marines (except a flamer with an effective range of a whopping 8"

**Neorealist**

Who is ignoring anything? i posted a scenario where two gun-lines shot at each other for a round. It's a pretty common one, truth be told; but of course does not encompass all the possible things that could happen to either side for that engagement.

If you want to run the numbers and post something concrete on them in close combat and/or including those heavy weapon options you mentioned, feel free.

**Savageconvoy**

That and the unit used was a higher than allowed FW count. So a standard marine unit would beat FW every time.

Now just do 1 heavy bolter vs 12 firewarriors.

**Jayden63**

You want to see where firewarriors suck. Lets look at incoming firepower. S4 ap5 shot from BS4

15 firewarriors vs 10 marines (just to use an already established number)

It takes 4.6 shots to kill one firewarrior and it takes 9.2 shots to kill a space marine.

As such it takes 17.25 shots to force the firewarriors to take a LD7 check (for 25% casualties) to see if they run. It takes 23 shots to force the marines to take a LD9 check (for 25% casualties) to see if they run.

To completely wipe out the FW squad it only takes 69 shots. To wipe out the marines takes 92.

This just goes to show my point that the Firewarriors problem is not killing stuff, but living long enough to do its job. They just suck at performing the job that a troops choice needs to do. Stick around and hold the objective.

**Savageconvoy**

For the heavy bolter its 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.67 wounds
12 firewarriors, 6 hits, 3.33 wounds, and 2.22 saves, leaving 1.11 dead marines if I did the math right.

Heavy weapons and special weapons tilt the scale incredibly.

**Neorealist**

Sure thing.

Standard Marine Tactical Squad - 170pts
9 Space Marines
1 Space Marine Sergeant

Relevent Wargear
8 - Bolt guns
1 - Flamer
1 - Heavy Bolter
10 - Power Armor

Standard Firewarrior Squad - 130 pts
11 Fire Warriors
1 Shas'ui (squad leader)

Relevent Wargear
12 - Pulse rifles
12 - Carapace Armor

Range 15"+ to 24"
Marines
8 Bolter Shots
3 Heavy Bolter Shots
BS 4 = 5.333333333333333 - bolter hits, 2 heavy bolter hits
Against Toughness 3 = 3.555555555555556 bolter wounds, 1.6 heavy bolter wounds
Against Armor (4+) = 1.777777777777778 bolter deaths, 1.6 heavy bolter deaths for a total of 3.377777777777778 dead firewarriors or 25% of their total force.

Warriors
12 Pulse Rifle shots
BS 3 = 6 hits
vs toughness 4 = 4 wounds
vs 3+ armor = 1.333333333333333 dead space marines, or 10% of their total force.

So marines win, but it's not the total blowout someone predicted. (also the tau player in that scenario is short-changed about 40 pts)

**Savageconvoy**

Once you factor in transport costs it evens them out. Except the marines can also fire their heavy weapon out of it.

But you're also missing that the inclusion of the one heavy weapon is now enough to average a morale check. Which they will fail a majority of the time.

**Corollax**

Neorealist wrote:
I posted rounded off numbers for each step, but used the actual numbers that resulted to calculate the remaining ones if that makes any sense.

I'll post my numbers to explain what i mean:
Marines - (150pts, 15 pts each)
(assuming out of double tap rapid fire range, and no special weapons for ease of math) - (10 shots)
BS 4 = 66% success, so 7 hits. (6.6666666667)
Strength 4 = 66% success, so 4 wounds (4.444444444444444)
4+ save (50% success) = 2 (2.222222222222222) dead fire warriors or 13% of their combat effectiveness

Firewarriors - (150 pts, 10 pts each)
(assuming out of double tap rapid fire range) - (15 shots)
BS 3 = 50% success, so 8 hits. (7.5)
Strength 5 = 66% success, so 5 wounds (5)
3+ save (66% success) = 2 (1.666666666666667) dead marines or 20% of their combat effectiveness.

And the reason i went with 15 firewarriors is to make it easy to calculate. Is there a preferred amount of points people would like to see this comparison done in?

When marines are killing 33% more models per turn than fire warriors, presenting them as equal is somewhat misleading. Try not to do that in the future.

**Neorealist**

I'm also not factoring in that the heavy weapon in that scenario is firing at it's full ballistic skill instead of (likely) snap-shots due to having 'moved' into that position that turn.

like i said in an earlier post, there are a ton of potential variables i'm not taking into account intentionally to avoid complexity.

**UnadoptedPuppy**

What's over priced is their devilfish, which is almost a must considering how mobile most armies are and how much FW suck in CC.

Their price is just fine in my opinion after fighting them with both guard and space marines

**Savageconvoy**

How well were the firewarriors able to hold objectives in the game?

The problem with firewarriors is they aren't effective for their cost. They don't have the fire power or durability to hold an objective or the wound count to delay morale checks. Both of which guard and IG have.

Again with the Necron warriors. They don't have a downside. They have the durability and firepower to hold an objective and it takes effort to remove them. All for 13 ppm. FW just need to lose 2-3 models to force a morale check and then will most likely run.

That's what you need to look at. How much does it take to remove the firewarriors from an objective, the major portion of the game. It would take 2 heavy bolters to remove a max size unit of FW. How many Heavy Bolters to remove 1 unit of Necron warriors that still get RP?

**Neorealist**

I don't know about you, but i've been finding that i have to devote an entire army to move a bunch of firewarriors off an objective mainly because of the resident tau player parking a distruption pod-ed devilfish directly in front of it, blocking most available lanes of LOS. Can't shoot at the firewarriors in the back since i can't see 'em, waste of time to shoot at the fish most of the time due to the impressive cover save it always gets.

That and the fact that the player only moves it a micro-fraction of an inch back and forth in his movement and shooting phases so it can be considered to have moved 'flat out' despite having not really moved (spatially) at all.

**Savageconvoy**

Because you play a game with no access to deep striking or fast skimmer equipped melta options, right?

And 85 points for a piece of terrain effectively? You're Tau player is really hurting his list more than your tactics.

**LordofHats**

Jayden63 wrote:
As a tau player, my biggest issues with FW is not what they can kill. S5 can hurt a lot of things. BS 3 doesn't suck (as I also play orks, I know this) but its enough to at least help in the fight.

No the problem with FW has always been their ability to not do their jobs as objective holders.

T3 4+ save dies in droves to anything pointed their way. Things get worse when there are a tons of high strenght multi shot AP4 guns in the game. It is incredibly easy to knock down FW like bowling pins. Add to that their dismal LD score and they find themselves running away from an objective with just the slightest amount of firepower pointed in their direction.

All of the above a unit of pathfinders does nothing to help with. And in my games I'd rather use my markerlights to strip away cover saves being taken against my elite and Heavy support choices. You know, the units in the Tau codex that actually do do the killing.

Firewarriors are overcosted as they are, probably by 3 points as I see what other troop units bring to the table that allows them to do their job as troop choices. Its not about killing stuff, its about having the bodies to take the casualties to stick around or the stats to resist the hits. Its these things that allow you to hang around on an objective and still contribute to the battle at least a little bit.

Until FW can effectively hold to end game conditions they will continue to be a bad choice for a troops unit. They are only taken because we have to, not because anyone really wants to.

I totally love the models, I really want to field 40 of them and actually have it mean something to the outcome of the game.

This is what I wanted to say but I think you said it better. The number of firewarriors I see in a Tau list just feels right. In terms of fluff and game aesthetic, throwing in more of them just feels odd. 10 points isn't horrible for the FW, and I would prefer to see them be worth their points rather than see their points drop to what their worth now.

**Neorealist**

Savageconvoy wrote:Because you play a game with no access to deep striking or fast skimmer equipped melta options, right?

And 85 points for a piece of terrain effectively? You're Tau player is really hurting his list more than your tactics.

Actually yes, in our local metagame there is very little of either of those. The options are there, but thus far they haven't shown up much.

**Savageconvoy**

That really doesn't help your point then. You know what he does, and you have the tools to negate that.

**Neorealist**

Not really, my preferred army the necrons have exactly one (less-than-stellar) option with melta. (two, if you allow forgeworld units)

Most of my reliable 'AT vs something with a cover-save' options are CC-only. Have you ever tried to get within charge range of a vehicle which can easily move 18 inches if the other player did not want you to?

**Savageconvoy**

Technically not many armies have access to anti-tank that ignores cover. But you still have access to flyers that can move into position to hit Firewarriors or drop troops to hit Firewarriors. Or move your skimmers and CC forward to scare the devilfish off.

You seem to focus on one issue and ignore that it fixes another issue.

And what about scarab swarms?

**Neorealist**

Indeed, I'm not saying they are impossible to get rid of, just that they make a really durable way to insure you can put troops on objectives by turn 5. Doomscythe would work. Dropping troops off on the objective myself would also work. Likely any other large portion of my army would suffice, more or less.

That said, having to devote the majority of an army to dispose of a single troop choice should indicate it's rather good.

**agnosto**

When talking about the point post of firewarriors I always think about the bodyguard squad you may take with an Ethereal. For 2 more points, you get BS4 FWs. The thing that never made sense was the fluff says that the bodyguard is comprised of FWs who declined the honor of becoming battlesuit pilots...they're BS4 but battlesuits are BS3..... Yeah, GW codex writers must smoke a great deal of weed for that to make sense.

**azala**

One Important thing to factor in is the Devilfish is far harder to kill with guns than a Rhino - its got a 3+ cover save in the open with a 5 point upgrade (disruption pod) so its 85 points is now much better than it was in 5th. With the changes to rapid fire the devilfish gives a 27 inch double tap range to the 12 firewarriors inside - that's not bad really.

**Jayden63**

My d-fish never die to shooting, what kills them is HTH. 3+ cover saves do squat against S4 or better hits against AV10 rear armor.

Necron scarbs and wraiths can easily close fast enough on a D-fish to kill it. Things get worse for the embarked firewarriors if it explodes. The stock D-fish only having a single 18" gun (drones may or may not still be attached) is not going to do enough damage to scarabs or wraiths to stop them coming in.

Other things that easily close on D-fish because why not. Bikes, jump packers, drop podded anything, beasts, cavalry. Most of which will easily glance or pen hitting on 3s and only having to get past AV10.

And if the D-fish is blocking LOS to the firewarriors behind it, then the firewarriors have blocked LOS to anything you want to shoot at. Bit of a double edged sword using it as a blocker and getting points out of killing stuff with your Firewarriors.

Now yes, I take D-fish. I load it up with SMS systems and try to play the range game as best I can. I leave my firewarriors inside it until absolutely necessary for them to get out and hope (really hope) they can wither the turn of shooting necessary to actually hold the objective I dumped them onto. Because if they spend too much time on the table, they are good as dead and the best you can do is now play for a tie.

**Savageconvoy**

The devilfish is twice as expensive as the rhino with no fire points and bringing it into rapid fire range puts both the Firewarriors into danger of getting charged or shot down.
Again only three wounds are ever required to cause a morale check with the odds against them.

And they would still suffer from having a troop that can't advance and claim objectives or live long enough to contest.

**reddwarf54**

Jayden63 wrote:
And if the D-fish is blocking LOS to the firewarriors behind it, then the firewarriors have blocked LOS to anything you want to shoot at. Bit of a double edged sword using it as a blocker and getting points out of killing stuff with your Firewarriors.

Not if you use the flat-out rules to your advantage. For instance, you start the turn with your firewarriors behind their devilfish. You move the devilfish out of the way of the firewarriors, then in the shooting phase, shoot with the firewarriors then flat-out the fish back infront of the firewarriors.

This can even be used if you wish to move your firewarriors around. I have borrowed the following pictures from ATT, as they illustrate the point very well.We start with the firewarriors behind the devilfish.

Then devilfish moves forward and out of the way 12".

Next, we move the firewarriors up and shoot with them.

Now we just flat-out the fish back infront of the firewarriors.

This can also be used for moving backwards, sideways, round in circles, pretty much anyway you can imagine. Another bonus is that the fish would get a juicy 2+ save from shooting from over 12" away. You do not need firepoints on vehicles when you plan on being outside them the entire game.

**BoomWolf**

And then the enemy assualt units just rush in and brake your fish in half, then the FW

Or deepstrike on the other side and wipe down the FW who are suddenly nnguarded.

Point is, the mere fact they NEED an (expensive) devilfish to do their job in an effective way means that the unit, as it is, is overpriced.
They should see either a price reduction, or (preferably) a buff. mainly to the same areas that effect shoot-outs, such as the Ld, the BS and maybe the save.

After all, if the unit is far behind the curve in one phase (assualt) it SHOULD be far ahead on the other to keep it balanced, being jest a tiny bit better then the most basic unit available under conditions that favor you hysterically is absurd.

**Iur_tae_mont**

In the new land of Shooty awesomeness, Fire Warriors are a damn steal. There's a reason why 5th edition, most Tau lists had minimal Fire Warriors, whereas now most lists have at least 40.