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.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I just want to throw this out there:

A Marine with a Str 4 bolter and BS 4 will score 0.33 wounds per shot against T4 models.

A Firewarrior with a Str 5 gun and BS 3 will score 0.33 wounds per shot against T4 models.

You speak truth, but the 6pt price difference between the Tactical marine with bolter and TauFirewarrior results in the following differences:

Marine advantages: +2 WS +1 BS +1S +1T +2I +1 LD +1AS cheaper Srgt upgrade, ATSKNF, Combat Squads, Combat Tactics, a bolt pistol, krak grenades, frag grenades, special/heavy weapon options, multiple transport options, power weapons

Tau Advantages: Basic weapon has +1S and +6" range, access to Marklight bonuses, defensive grenade options, up to 12 models in unit, and drones.

Looking at those, doesn't seem that a marine only paying 6 more points for the crazy amount of advantages over a firewarrior really evens with the fact that they both wounds T4 models the same amount. Just my opinion.

Wow, this topic has come on since i last checked.

Most of those "advantages" the marine gets are only useful up close, which he needs to get against a foe that outranges him and can move and fire. The previous discussion regarding how terrible FW are seem to be missing 2 major points.

1. Troops die nearest to nearest, when comparing bolter marines and FW if the FW's premeasure and shoot at 29.9" and kills the marine in range the marines must move 6" forward to get even their front rank into range to return fire. Unless the marines are lined up 1 deep, 10 wide, the marines will not be returning fire at full strength. All these comparisons seem to be comparing 15 FW to 10 Marines and letting them both fire at full strength when in fact the FW's will get first shot on most occasions meaning a reduced number of marine return shots. They may pay 10pts for the leader but he buffs LD *and* some with precision potential on his S5 rifle...

2. When talking about durability it's always the Heavy Bolter that is mentioned, stacking the deck somewhat since it's the perfect Light/Medium inf killer, how much tougher is a marine against a Starcannon than a FW? A Missile Launcher? Maybe the ubiquitous meltagun? Marines are tougher against light fire but against heavy fire are *less* durable per point.
4+ armour gets it's save against almost all basic infantry weapons carried by enemy troopers, barring the Immortals Gauss Blasters I think. There are going to be some exceptions, Dante using Sang Guard as troops who i think might be AP4 shooters, but by and large only special and heavy weapons will penetrate them outright.

FW's don't need BS4, or Rail Sniper Rifles to make them like all those other units out there, they are the groundpounders and objective takers. Long range Anti-Infantry firepower, if they need tanks destroyed they have Twin linked railguns, arguably the finest tank busting gun in the game which can also be buffed by markerlights to have enhanced BS and ignore cover. Let the Imperial war machine try and equip it's units to be all things to all targets and waste boltguns on tanks for a couple of melta shots, i'll stick with specialists like the various xenos races.

Choosing to "not count" the Tau's synergy in points comparisons will always skew your results. Fire Warriors are fine troops who at the very extreme end of the scale need their sarg included in cost, any more than that and I'd have to assume they were getting a new kit GW wanted to push...

Thats exactly how the Tau army is supposed to work. Sadly, ask any Tau player and you will find out that it doesn't. There just is no real range advantage that Fire warrior cann exploit. Transports, outflanking, bikes, beast, cavalry, and deep striking can easily put you in gun range of the firewarrior. The extra 6" is just not a good enough barrier to play the range game. Add to it you only need to cause 3 deaths to force them to make moral check and move them off of position.

Markerlights truthfully are a joke. First you only get 1/2 of your potential buff. Second (in the case of seeker missiles) you only get 5/6 of them to work (seriously name any other weapon in 40K where you have to roll to hit twice). Reducing LD is pointless as there is no guarantee it will matter. So stripping cover and BS raises are about the only real use that you can guarentee to see results from. And again, you only get half of your potential buff.

Markerlights need rework almost as badly as Firewarriors do. But that is a different thread.

There is also a lot of high strength, high volume, AP4 weapons out there. Compare that to the number of AP3 weapons and its a joke. Assault cannons, autocannons, quad guns, heavy bolters, and heavy flamers all tear through Tau.

That and the 4+ save is only going to save 50% of the time. So to cause those three wounds to force a morale check you need 6 wounds, which is only about 8 bolter shots.

And stop bringing extra units into this. I'm sorry but you absolutely can ignore broadsides and battle suits from the issue. A few good units don't fix a bad one. Broadsides aren't going to help FW pass morale checks. Crisis suits don't let them auto-regroup. This is an objective game. If your opponent wants to win he just needs to kill the FW and bunker down on 1 objective.

Savageconvoy wrote:There is also a lot of high strength, high volume, AP4 weapons out there. Compare that to the number of AP3 weapons and its a joke. Assault cannons, autocannons, quad guns, heavy bolters, and heavy flamers all tear through Tau.

That and the 4+ save is only going to save 50% of the time. So to cause those three wounds to force a morale check you need 6 wounds, which is only about 8 bolter shots.

And stop bringing extra units into this. I'm sorry but you absolutely can ignore broadsides and battle suits from the issue. A few good units don't fix a bad one. Broadsides aren't going to help FW pass morale checks. Crisis suits don't let them auto-regroup. This is an objective game. If your opponent wants to win he just needs to kill the FW and bunker down on 1 objective.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 8 bolter shots will result in 6 wounds.

BS 4 and Str 4 will deliver 0.44 wounds per shot against a T3 model. This means that the marines would need to deliver 13.64 shots in order to cause enough wounds to force a morale check after the FW 4+ saves.

Additionally, if you're only looking at a single unit in a vacuum, then you will always wind up crying foul. To do so would imply that the Necron Warriors are also not as good as Space Marines, and by that extension the Necron Army is weaker than the Vanilla Marines. Yet, saying so is one of the fastest ways to strip away your credibility.

There maybe a ton of AP 4, but there is also a ton of 5++ cover. Fire warriors are a "break point" unit for weapon systems like the whirlwind. The ignore cover save ammo wont' penetrate the armor, and the regular ammo gives cover saves.

I think a little creative movement to abuse the 30" rapid fire weapon combined with throwaway kroots make the fire warrior decent, if a bit over priced. Also, double tapping at 15" is really nice that's outside reliable charge range for foot troops, especially once casualties are removed.

If you really want a crappy troop, look at the guardian. Barf.

I was doing backwards math. 3 unsaved wounds, so 6 wounds total, which would require 8 hits, which then would require about 12 shots. I may be off by a bit, but it really doesn't require much.

And Kroot suffer from the weakness issues even more. A CC focused unit with I3, no power weapons, no armor, and T3 make them an absolute joke.

I think the issue people see with FW being balanced is they look at the gun and the gun alone. They compare the gun to the bolter and say "wow, that's good." But they forget what carries that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we aren't looking at FW in a vacuum. We compared transports, squad size, squad equipment, ranges, objective holding, survivability, durability, firepower, unit buffs, and compared it against four different troop types. There is no vacuum to this. We've made plenty of good comparisons and analysis.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I was doing backwards math. 3 unsaved wounds, so 6 wounds total, which would require 8 hits, which then would require about 12 shots. I may be off by a bit, but it really doesn't require much.

And Kroot suffer from the weakness issues even more. A CC focused unit with I3, no power weapons, no armor, and T3 make them an absolute joke.

I think the issue people see with FW being balanced is they look at the gun and the gun alone. They compare the gun to the bolter and say "wow, that's good." But they forget what carries that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we aren't looking at FW in a vacuum. We compared transports, squad size, squad equipment, ranges, objective holding, survivability, durability, firepower, unit buffs, and compared it against four different troop types. There is no vacuum to this. We've made plenty of good comparisons and analysis.

Don't forget kroot are a CC unit with a rapidfire weapon.

Out of curriosity; If leadership is such a massive issue for tau, why is the Ethereal considered so bad? 50 points seems like a steal for effectively giving the army Ld10 (Ld8 reroll) or Preffered enemy when he dies.

Or rather, why is it that every single tactic I see revolves around getting him killed and not about keeping him alive

Because Tau have bad leadership. If he dies then they are forced to take morale checks with out his leadership buff. So odds are about 45% of your forces will run away.

The idea behind the suicide ethereal is to have every FW squad inside a Devilfish so they can auto pass the morale check. It's more of a funny thing to do than an actual game winning strategy.

If he didn't cause the panic check I think a lot more would take them due to the leadership buff. But with the Price of Failure rule it really makes it a huge liability.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Because Tau have bad leadership. If he dies then they are forced to take morale checks with out his leadership buff. So odds are about 45% of your forces will run away.

The idea behind the suicide ethereal is to have every FW squad inside a Devilfish so they can auto pass the morale check. It's more of a funny thing to do than an actual game winning strategy.

If he didn't cause the panic check I think a lot more would take them due to the leadership buff. But with the Price of Failure rule it really makes it a huge liability.

Except it does not work if they are in a transport. He is bad because if he dies your entire army can run off the board, and he has no armor save. If you an get him killed while the 'Ui are still alive for that 8LD it can work.

Tactic -Mech up with every firewarrior and his impaired brother in either reserve or in Transports --- Place A Etheral ( need 2 HQ's ) in the front lines let him die turn 1 =--- Disembark , enjoy your prefered enemy re-rolls

In 5th they didn't test, but the changing of the wording in 6ths indicates that units in Transports are Fearless now, instead of not taking the test.

But to be honest, it's only a big issue if you are on the back edge of the board. There's nothing in the rule that says you dont' get to try to rally and I've never had a Tau unit who had room to try to rally at least once actually make it off the table.

 Kasrkin229 wrote:
Tactic -Mech up with every firewarrior and his impaired brother in either reserve or in Transports --- Place A Etheral ( need 2 HQ's ) in the front lines let him die turn 1 =--- Disembark , enjoy your prefered enemy re-rolls

You don't roll, you dont get Preffered enemy. You need shadowsun to make this work, and that list gets tight :(

Well that does make sense, I guess you really don't want to be afraid of your own board edge with a ranged heavy army.

I think people under-value how good rapid fire actually is. 15'' is a pretty impressive range and a good positional player will set their gunline in a way that SOMETHING if not multiple things are going to get to rapid fire if the enemy wants to charge.

As for the actual question at hand?

Firewarriors serve their purpose, I love that they are so min-maxed and clean of useless abilities.

Also something to take into account is that the Tau codex is over 5 years old?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I was doing backwards math. 3 unsaved wounds, so 6 wounds total, which would require 8 hits, which then would require about 12 shots. I may be off by a bit, but it really doesn't require much.

Off by a bit? the difference between your 8 shots and Azazel's 13.64 is "a bit" ? I'd hate to see you measure charge distances

 Savageconvoy wrote:

And we aren't looking at FW in a vacuum. We compared transports, squad size, squad equipment, ranges, objective holding, survivability, durability, firepower, unit buffs, and compared it against four different troop types. There is no vacuum to this. We've made plenty of good comparisons and analysis.

This is still a vacuum, this is still just FW's without an army behind them, they don't need AT in squad because Tau AT is superb from other sources. At Ld8 for 130pts they are a solid line unit that can put out hits at high range and focus on killing infantry.

I may get hate from the marine detachment but i'm gonna say it straight, Xenos races are just plain harder to play well. Your army has to be working together as a whole with different elements coming together. Looking at them in a vacuum is pointless, you may as well petition for a buff for Fire Dragons because they are outshot point for point at 24" by most units in the game. The Tau army is designed around markerlight usage, giving ground and firing and units with a specific target focus. Unlike marines they do not fare well as generalists, they are far more Eldar in their specialisation and synergistic approach to war.

That 6" range boost is huge, it means you are getting the first shot on most opposing line troops and can keep your enemy at arms length easily while moving away from them. You are also better equipped to use cover thanks to it as you can strike more targets from cover than any shorter range line unit, its funny how the forums always assume cover is everywhere until it's not convenient, everyone has Aegis defence lines but not Tau gunlines?
That range present in the Tau army gives you battlefield control, you can use it to dictate how and where battles are fought.

12 Fire Warriors will double tap 8 Orks to death at up to 15" after moving. 10 Bolter Marines will do 6.66 at 12"
Add 2 markerlight hits and they do 13.33, add 2 more and they'll ignore that KFF too.

The right tools applied at the right time, markerlights aren't always for Crisis Suits. You have range and mobility, if you're shooting 100pts of Tau at 100pts of enemy you're doing it wrong.

I think the point is that if you have to spend points on a another unit to make the first unit good. Shouldn't the cost on the first unit be on par with other troops from other books for what you get? Not overpriced and then need over priced support to make the unit really good?

I love the fact that my Tau army synergizes well due to the marklight rules. But you can't take enough markerlights to make enough units synergize, where as the few other armies that have similiar synergy in their own books have it better.

For example: IG orders, some units can issue orders to themselves, some can issue orders to 2 units and even a SC can do it to 4. This is all in addition to shooting with their own weapons.

Tau can use a unit to shoot at one target per unit and the unit that shoots the markerlight gives up it's own ability to shoot. (Sometimes wasting the shoots of the other models in the unit as well due to range or target)

If marker lights we done in a different phase then shooting, I would think pathfinders were a worthwhile unit to take. Or maybe if they could splitfire. But as long as we have to use suppar units(Yes pathfinders, marker drones and Shas'ui with markers and all poor units) to provide support to our army to make it syngeristic (And work well) we will continue to have problems.

Again I see mention of another Eldar unit as worse choice than FW. I'm not familiar with Eldar at all, but it looks like troops don't age well past 2 editions.

And yes, the gun is great. Yay 6" advantage over bolter. Yay 3" rapid fire over bolter. And yay S5 over bolter, unless you're GK.

I get it. The gun is good. But the problem is that attention only gets focused on the gun. The troop carrying it is crap. T3, LD7 base, I2, small squad size, and no upgrades. That is crap. That's what makes it crappy.

Lets put it this way. Would IG or Space marine players give up all options for special and heavy weapons for just the pulse rifle? No more squad versatility. All you get is the reduction to anti-infantry.

That's ok though, right. I mean you still got devastator squads and LR and manticores and such.

The synergy is a BS argument. Those other units don't fix the key issues with FW. They can up the BS on a unit that's solely against light infantry. That's your synergy right there. No help for small squad size. No help outside two terrible HQs for the bad LD, and no help in CC. That's not synergy. That's a crutch that Tau are forced to rely on a single weak FA unit to to bring their base BS up to standard and then rely on its only other gimmick to remove cover saves.

Yes FW can hide in cover and enjoy range. Unless there happens to be a heavy weapon in the other squad which out ranges the pulse rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, there is no synergy to help FW get downfield and claim objectives. It reduces them to trying to shoot someone off the objective and hide on theirs. Which puts Tau at a huge disadvantage because of our weak troop choices.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I get it. The gun is good. But the problem is that attention only gets focused on the gun. The troop carrying it is crap. T3, LD7 base, I2, small squad size, and no upgrades. That is crap. That's what makes it crappy.

Yeah, like Guardians, Kabalites, Guard, Avengers, Gaunts etc. There are loads of T3 troops out there, it you want space marine stats then play space marines. I2 is slow, but there are very few units you'd beat in CC even with higher I, Tau are bad in CC it's their schtick, they get great range and firepower instead. 4 is not the standard, 3 is.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Lets put it this way. Would IG or Space marine players give up all options for special and heavy weapons for just the pulse rifle? No more squad versatility. All you get is the reduction to anti-infantry.
That's ok though, right. I mean you still got devastator squads and LR and manticores and such.

I already do, I play Eldar and Nids primarily, my units fight their specific targets and let the specialists do their thing while the Farseer/Tyrant/Zoans buff/debuff wherever they are required at that moment (Like some kind of psychic markerlight...). It's like i'm a Xenos player or something...

 Savageconvoy wrote:


The synergy is a BS argument. Those other units don't fix the key issues with FW. They can up the BS on a unit that's solely against light infantry. That's your synergy right there. No help for small squad size. No help outside two terrible HQs for the bad LD, and no help in CC. That's not synergy. That's a crutch that Tau are forced to rely on a single weak FA unit to to bring their base BS up to standard and then rely on its only other gimmick to remove cover saves.

Or ignore cover saves, never fought a Green Tide? Pathfinders behind an Aegis Line? There are some very nice cover boosting tricks that you are conveniently ignoring. You have versitility, calling valid units choices a crutch is like Chaos players who complain they can't mono god well because they ignored 75% of their dex.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Yes FW can hide in cover and enjoy range. Unless there happens to be a heavy weapon in the other squad which out ranges the pulse rifle.

Yeah I wish Tau had something else in their army aside from Fire Warriors that could shoot further than 30"...

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Oh, there is no synergy to help FW get downfield and claim objectives. It reduces them to trying to shoot someone off the objective and hide on theirs. Which puts Tau at a huge disadvantage because of our weak troop choices.

Thats why the army has Devilfish and outflanking Kroot.

Seriously, I think you should just play Space Marines, they have units that can be everything to everyone which is what you want Fire Warriors to be. Fire Warriors fill a role, that role is mobile scoring AI, they will not fill every role like a marine. They are not super awesome death machines, but they are decent and regularly show up as allies in my Eldar lists.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Yeah, like Guardians, Kabalites, Guard, Avengers, Gaunts etc. There are loads of T3 troops out there, it you want space marine stats then play space marines. I2 is slow, but there are very few units you'd beat in CC even with higher I, Tau are bad in CC it's their schtick, they get great range and firepower instead. 4 is not the standard, 3 is.

I'm not saying they should have higher stats, just pointing out that they pay an absurd amount of points for their stat line. I2 is a huge negative against them because there are pretty much no units they can beat. Making them a unit that can be assualted by even non CC units is a negative. That and I'm pretty sure the standard is 4 since 7 out of 15 armies Marine with straight 4 stat lines. And to tip the balance for I we have Eldar and Dark Eldar and Toughness and Strength being tipped by Ork and Necron.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
I already do, I play Eldar and Nids primarily, my units fight their specific targets and let the specialists do their thing while the Farseer/Tyrant/Zoans buff/debuff wherever they are required at that moment (Like some kind of psychic markerlight...). It's like i'm a Xenos player or something...

Again, the issue is cost and survivability. I can't speak for Nids or Eldar, but Tau pay a lot of points for an objective holder that has a hard time holding objective and is only designed for taking down light infantry. They don't have the numbers or options to change their role at all and they are not even durable enough to dedicate to hold an objective.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Or ignore cover saves, never fought a Green Tide? Pathfinders behind an Aegis Line? There are some very nice cover boosting tricks that you are conveniently ignoring. You have versitility, calling valid units choices a crutch is like Chaos players who complain they can't mono god well because they ignored 75% of their dex.

Oh. Throw them behind a fortification that every army has access to? Why don't I just factor in bringing allies when I'm looking to explain the weakness in a Tau codex. FW are just fine since I can bring Space marines to hold objective. No point in discussing it further. FW are totally worth the 10 ppm now. Pathfinders are still T3 models in even smaller squads. 1-2 wounds will cause a morale check and they suffer from the same leadership issues. The bonus to ignore cover is nice or raise BS, but why do I need an entire FA choice dedicated to that? Especially when it's one unit that can't split fire? With heavy weapons? What about the other FA choices? Why do I have to choose between bringing a BS3 shooting army if I don't pick all Pathfinders?

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Yeah I wish Tau had something else in their army aside from Fire Warriors that could shoot further than 30"...

And I wish there was something in the Tau codex that could hold objectives. Until then I'm looking at FW and how many weapons are AP4 with further range.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Thats why the army has Devilfish and outflanking Kroot.

So an 85 point transport that has no effective weapons, requires the FW no longer be able to shoot, and loses it's durability once I move it closer to the enemy? Or I could take Kroot with Ld7 and is CC oriented with rapidfire weapons. I could take the 20 point upgrade to give them LD8. Oh and to top it off they have no armor. Good job outflanking a unit that's table time will be measured in minutes.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Seriously, I think you should just play Space Marines, they have units that can be everything to everyone which is what you want Fire Warriors to be. Fire Warriors fill a role, that role is mobile scoring AI, they will not fill every role like a marine. They are not super awesome death machines, but they are decent and regularly show up as allies in my Eldar lists.

Firewarriors don't fill a role of Mobile scoring. Have you not paid attention to the last 7 pages? They have no durability or numbers. They take wounds easy and run easy. I'm not asking for SM level performance. I'm just saying that they can either give the squad better firepower to at least balance them out as fragile, make them more durable or give them access to better transport options, give them the numbers where they can shrug off the wounds, or give them the leadership where they aren't forced to stay on my end of the board.

They don't have to be marines. I'm not asking them to be that. I'm just saying they shouldn't pay the elite troop price tag if they aren't elite troops. I'm just saying that an objective holder should be able to survive long enough to hold an objective other than hiding out of LOS until the game is over. I'm saying that FW should get weapon options since their small numbers don't equal out to the lose of special weapons.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm just saying that they can either give the squad better firepower to at least balance them out as fragile,

Str 5 not enough? You want line infantry to have better guns than Strength 5 across the board? WAT

 Savageconvoy wrote:

make them more durable

How? Want Powered Armor? Toughness 4? Stealth? None of these things are the Fire Warrior's job - Want powered armor and T4? Play SM. Want stealth, play stealth suits. There are other units in the Tau army that are quite durable.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

or give them access to better transport options,

So the devilfish, which is the most durable transport in the game with a 3+ cover save simply for moving, is not a good transport option? WAT

 Savageconvoy wrote:

give them the numbers where they can shrug off the wounds,

Ah, so you want a Horde army with Str 5 guns across the board and carapace armor. I can't think of any other army that can field more than 12 men / unit with carapace armor, not to mention str 5 guns in the troops slot.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

or give them the leadership where they aren't forced to stay on my end of the board.

So you want them to be LD9 like Space Marines, because they're also psycho-indoctrinated killing machines with religious devotion to a cause and genetic manipulation to ensure obedience... mk. Not really Fire Warriors, except perhaps for the religious devotion to a cause and that is covered easily in the Ethereal rules.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

They don't have to be marines. I'm not asking them to be that.

It's hard to be more durable or to have a higher leadership without being marines...

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm just saying they shouldn't pay the elite troop price tag if they aren't elite troops.

10 PPM is not an elite troops price tag. 15-20 is, arguably. Not 10.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm just saying that an objective holder should be able to survive long enough to hold an objective other than hiding out of LOS until the game is over.

If you place your objectives right, an objective holder CAN survive long enough to hold an objective because they are hiding out of LOS until the game is over.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm saying that FW should get weapon options since their small numbers don't equal out to the lose of special weapons.

They have str 5 guns as a basic rifle. I would gladly trade the ability to get a heavy bolter / meltagun / whatever on my Space Marines for str 5 main weapons. So long as I could take sufficient AT elsewhere - which the Tau can, and indeed it is fething AWESOME AT.

1.) S5 is not enough when you're limited to only that. By that logic marines shouldn't get special weapons either because S4 weapons are much better than Lasguns with S3. The math has already been shown that Special weapons and heavy weapons alone can be as effective as an entire squad of FW.

2.)Stealth suits aren't scoring. And if I'm wrong that FW are weak and low unit count, then show the numbers to prove me wrong. This has been shown for the last 7 pages and people keep ignoring how fragile a unit of FW are. And most of the time I'm refering to LD when I say durable. And again, why not make them more durable? They're an expensive small count troop. Why whouldn't they be worth the points?

3.) The devilfish is a terrible transport. No fire points and no weapons of it's own that don't put it in harms way. It's expensive and you can't carry a full squad of FW with drones. It's durable, as long as you keep it in the back. Compare that to a cheap transport that lets you fire special and heavy weapons out and it's terrible. It serves no purpose other than keeping FW alive and for that cost is probably better spent on more FW.

4.) I'm talking about how to make them better. If they aren't getting special weapons or better leadership they need numbers to shrug off wounds. So what I'm really saying is give them special weapons and better leadership. Again, the numbers have been shown.

5.) The Ethereal that also has terrible rules? Yes that should be changed too. Too bad we're talking about FW. And what about the other races? Why do they get good LD and leadership buffs? Or are you in the pool that fluff justifies bad table top performance? How about you show numbers to prove that LD7 base isn't bad or suggest how to fix FW instead of being a Nihilist and just down playing everything I'm saying?

6.) I agree. Not much direction to go to make FW more durable. What do you suggest? Oh and LD isn't going to make them marines. It's going to make them equal with everything else.

7.) 10 ppm is still too much for what you're getting. Especially when CSM and Necron warriors are only 3 points more for a butt-load more.

8.)Right. If I place my objectives right. Because only I place objectives. It's not like there is another person on the other side of the table that can place his half of the objectives defensively and then just camp them with more durable troops.

9.) Again, you're focusing on the gun alone. The gun on the troop. The S5 gun on the BS3 T3 troop! The troop is the focus of the entire thread. Run all your troop choices as FW then tell me how great those guns are. And again, we already have shown the math that special weapons more than make up for an entire squad of FW at BS3.

I see it so much where IG and Marine players want what few buffs the Tau have that they ignore everything else. Of course you'd like a better bolter. Of course you'd like a better lascannon. That's nice. Show numbers on why your marines are bad and maybe you can argue they should.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I'm saying that FW should get weapon options since their small numbers don't equal out to the lose of special weapons.

They have str 5 guns as a basic rifle. I would gladly trade the ability to get a heavy bolter / meltagun / whatever on my Space Marines for str 5 main weapons. So long as I could take sufficient AT elsewhere - which the Tau can, and indeed it is fething AWESOME AT.

But would you trade ALL the advantages of the space marine for the for the S5 gun? That is what the Tau do.

And I forgot to mention. We keep saying they are 10 ppm but closer to 12 ppm with grenades and Sarge. upgrade. So 1 point less than CSM or Necron warrior and the same price as SOB. Good deal.

So much has already been said the seven pages that at this point people are either trolling, or genuinely unwilling to accept what the numbers show.

If your winning with Tau good for you. Especially if your build is not suit heavy or Forgeworld influenced. Playing straight out of the codex. But I think most all Tau players are finding our troop choices exceedingly lacking and believe that when we win it is dispite the performance of the Firewarrior rather than because of it.

In regard to Firewarriors, while I do agree that they are overpriced, the problem isn't so much with the Firewarriors themselves as the Tau troops choices in general. Both our troop options are specialized for roughly the same purpose, and neither can hold objectives properly, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

Tau are a 4th edition army and their troops reflect that fact. In 4th edition, their was no troops only scoring rule. You incorporated a couple of Firewarriors into your list as anti-infantry specialist, and built the rest of your army as you desired. Fragility didn't matter because the rest of your army scored, overspecialization didn't matter because you only had to take two troops and could freely take other needed specialist from your remaining force org slot.

In 5th and 6th, troops only scoring requires that Firewarriors and Kroot form the backbone of the Tau army, a job neither is qualified for. Because 4 to 6 units are needed to hold objectives, especially for Tau because of their troops fragility, overspecialization becomes crippling. As a previous poster mentioned, their is nothing wrong with a specialized unit such as the Eldar Firedragons. There would, however, be something wrong if the Eldar were forced to field 4-6 Firedragons as their only scoring units. This is essentially what the Tau have been required to do under 5th and 6th edition rules.

Tau troops need a major overhaul. Gone are the days when you can separate specializations into different Force Org slots. Tau troops choices must be able to tackle all the common threats on the tabletop, including infantry, vehicles and MC, and most importantly, hold objectives. Firewarriors can still remain specialized, but other troops choices need to be available to tackle armor or hold hotly contested objectives, as required by 6th edition objective based gameplay.

Most things in the tau codex are overpriced by 20-25% compared to current codices (ie crisis suits points are fine the weapons are not), with no acess to special weapons the basic fire warrior is really lack luster. in short yes the fire warrior is overpriced as are most things in the tau codex.

The thing with firewarriors is that that almost seem a bargain when you are using Tau as allies. I have no problem taking two small units of six. I could even take just one unit and be happy. Now this can almost apply in reverse. You could take two very tough units in your allies force to balance out the firewarriors.

A codex's troop choices should not be made solid with allied troops.... they should be solid on their own.