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.

Like you said, we're unlikely to win combat against any kind of combat oriented troops. Against most armies, a great result would be causing a single casualty in combat. Everything strikes before us, hits us first, hits us harder.
We're in a better position than we were last codex because of supporting fire, but we're worse off against whatever makes it to combat.
Against nearly any unit in the game, we'd be lucky to score a single casualty in combat. That's not a good start to *win* combats.

As far as markerlights go, I think the best delivery system for them is a commander suit with a drone controller. Attach him to a full squadron of marker drones and they all get BS5. This should ensure that you're dropping cover saves and bumping BS for a number of different units on a particularly problematic target so thre should be something left for the FWs. Target lock also allows the commander to fire at other things.

IMO, no, but only in small numbers.

As your mandatory troops Fire Warriors are decent. They won't hold any objectives (that's why you have allies), but a couple squads of them provide some decent anti-infantry shooting for their points. You have to take troops anyway, and they're certainly less of a waste of points than Kroot (which continue to be utterly useless). You might even consider taking full-size squads to make the mandatory troops a bit more effective for a reasonable cost.

As more than mandatory troops Fire Warriors are mediocre at best. We have so many better options for pure shooting and allied troops cover the objective holding role, leaving no real place for Fire Warriors.

From what I've seen in the new Tau codex firewarriors are pretty damn good. So what if you need to bring support to make them truely effective, welcome to the Eldar's world. I usually focus on CC and getting there is going to be a pain, pretty much every gun in the Tau army can take out transports and when I do get there, I'll probably have 72 overwatch's at me, and probably the nearby broadsides as well. Sure you could shoot them apart, but its Tau, good luck. As to the Devilfish, Av12 is a lot better than av11, it turns it into something that actually needs concentrating on, a rhino you can just ping a missile at it and its sorted.

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:
So what if you need to bring support to make them truely effective, welcome to the Eldar's world.

The point is that other units don't need support to be effective, you just point them at something and remove it from the table. Therefore Fire Warriors will fill the FOC minimums, and allies will provide the rest of our troops.

As to the Devilfish, Av12 is a lot better than av11, it turns it into something that actually needs concentrating on, a rhino you can just ping a missile at it and its sorted.

One missile at a Rhino is not even close to a guaranteed kill. Devilfish are decent (but pretty expensive) for your mandatory units, but not so amazing that you want more than two of them.

Fire Warriors weren't overpriced at 10 ppm and they certainly aren't overpriced at 9 ppm with better wargear options, free defensive grenades, and Supporting Fire. You have to know how to make up for their weakness (low Leadership), but once that is sorted Fire Warriors are a very strong unit. My only criticism of the unit is that the bonding ritual, a key part of Tau fluff, will rarely if ever be seen. I think it should have provided +1 Leadership in addition to Heroic Morale.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Tangent: This is why I think Chaos Cultists should be WS and BS 2 with Ld 6.

would be fine if they were 3 points per model and didnt have to take a chump 10 point champion mandatory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Sorry, instead of faster I should say "more maneuverable." The 0 firepoint deal is mostly a non issue in an edition where leaving your dudes in the vehicle for extended periods of time is generally a bad idea, as crew shaken/stunned gets shared by the unit. And again, they have a superior cover save as well. So more manuevarable, better weapons, more resilient. You have to pay for those things.

but you are forgetting, the Chimera is amphibious!

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
And of those, CSM, DE, and Orks don't even have to use named characters to expand their selections. Tau are weak in the troops department, but I think there is enough strength in the book to back it up. Obviously that'll really come to light in the coming months, but I think it's ok to admit that that is a flaw the book has, and instead of arguing over whether their troops are weak (they are) focus more on how to compensate for it.

Does more troop choices == better troops? I don't think so.
Look at Chaos daemons. They have bloodletters, daemonettes, plague bearers, horrors, and nurglings. Five choices to pick from, and yet the 6 point ork boy is still a better troop.

I'm not saying firewarriors are good or bad -- I'm just saying having only a few choices for troops does not mean they are bad.
If firewarriors are still lacking special/heavy weapons then they suffer from a disadvantage to other troops -- flexability. A squad of marines can shoot bolters at infantry, have a MG for vehicle threats, and have a ML for long range threats.

When you look at FW by themselves they are not impressive. Its the sum of the whole army that can make them much more effective. Yes, they do not have special weapons, thats what crisis suits are for! What other army has an incredibly nimble platform for special weapons that can actively relocate to reinforce an entrenched position? So lets say your FW have a termie squad barreling toward them? you redirect a squad of Crisis suits with TL plasma, you blow them away, FW fall back to a more defensible position, crisis suits are free to get back to what they were doing during assault moves. I like to think of Tau in terms of a modern warfighter in todays military. Rarely do they carry a variety of heavy weapons outside of a SAW, so they will call in support of bombers, artillery, and helicopter gunships when they need support. Obviously you cannot expect them to easily take out enemy armor, thats what close air support is for. For the Tau, crisis suits, hammerheads, and broadsides are their close air support and should be played in that manner to make them more successful.

I also dont care much for comparing Chimeras to Devilfish, since Chimeras a pretty undercosted for what they do (the fireports are just a tad overdone, considering the original intention was that they could only use the little lasguns on the tank itself). Additionally, Rhinos/Razorbacks are cheap, but they can also be easily killed by the basic gun of the Tau's basic troop at a range greater than any other army, that says alot in itself. Now im not saying devilfish are great, they have their own problems, not being able to fire fast being one of them, but its a still a solid choice none the less. And before you complain about the size of the devilfish, that in itself is an advantage. Many times ive wedged a Devilsih into a tight squeeze between a building or other obstacle, and its forced my opponent to either go around or waste their firepower trying to kill it. Since i moved it slightly, it gets a cover save, making it just that much harder to kill and more likely to become a wreck and a hindrance to my opponents mobility while i get to hover around with sensor spines and go where I please.

I play Eldar so I know a thing or two about lackluster troops . While Fire Warriors are, for the most part, good enough, what kills them for me is the Ld7. These are units that, in most cases, you want in your backfield away from the main action, and they are too susceptible to running off the board. This makes the Shas'ui upgrade pretty much mandatory, unless you want to spend an HQ slot on an Ethereal, which to me are still pretty underwhelming.

I don't own the Tau book, so I can't comment on particulars. But if the Chimera is the standard for transports, then that's what the Devilfish must be compared to. The same argument is what people try with the Vendetta and Stormraven. But the Vendetta and Chimera both exist, and so they are legitimate standards of comparison.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I play Eldar so I know a thing or two about lackluster troops . While Fire Warriors are, for the most part, good enough, what kills them for me is the Ld7. These are units that, in most cases, you want in your backfield away from the main action, and they are too susceptible to running off the board. This makes the Shas'ui upgrade pretty much mandatory, unless you want to spend an HQ slot on an Ethereal, which to me are still pretty underwhelming.

How anyone can think the new Ethereal is underwhelming. One of them, just one, solves all the resiliency, firepower, and leadership issues of your entire gunline. As 50 point unit that covers all of your troops weaknesses while at the same time maximizing on their strengths is "underwhelming?" Weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And before you complain about the size of the devilfish, that in itself is an advantage.

Exactly. Another thing that the vapid comparisons to Chimeras are completely ignoring is what the Fish does for its army. An easily re-deploy able LOS/Cover Wall in an army full of Jump/Shoot/Jump units? I can't for the life of me imagine how that might be useful...

ShadarLogoth wrote:

How anyone can think the new Ethereal is underwhelming. One of them, just one, solves all the resiliency, firepower, and leadership issues of your entire gunline. As 50 point unit that covers all of your troops weaknesses while at the same time maximizing on their strengths is "underwhelming?" Weird.

This. Get used to taking a mandatory Ethereal.

And for all those hating on Supporting Fire, invest in a large unit of kroot. I call it the Kroot Defense Line (KDL see what I did there?). Take a big unit of kroot (you can get up to 33 models jeez) and stretch that out in front of your advancing gun line. And voila every unit in your army is going to be 6" from that line if someone charges it, and 12-15" in front of your line is going to be a kill zone. I shamelessly stole this one from Yakface's battle report.

Unfortunately, taking an ethereal means you lose 3 battlesuits.

As others have said, Fire warriors need the support of the rest of the army to take on things they can't.

Heavy armoured troops? Crisis Suits/Riptides.

Tanks? Broadsides/Hammerheads/Crisis Suits

No unit in most armies is an island. They all need the rest of the army supporting them to get the most out of them.

Plus being on the receiving end of 3-4 (even 6) units of rapid firing fire warriors would not be pretty for the opponent, even without markerlight buffs.

Also, while you are complaining about your 9pt, WS 2 BS3, 4+ armour, range 30" s5 weapon toting fire warriors who get free grenades, how about we trade for my 8pt WS3 BS3, 5+ armour, range 12" S4 weapon toting guardians who don't have any options for grenades at all?

Sure, we get the a heavy weapon platform but it is still BS3 and doesn't make up for the woefully short range of the shuriken catapults which means we have to be on the enemy doorstep before we can fire them.

Did I mention guardians suck in combat only slightly worse than fire warriors?

Guardians and Fire Warriors are primarily objective holding and gunline units imo. At least the Fire Warriors can shoot all their weapons while doing it!

rohansoldier wrote:
As others have said, Fire warriors need the support of the rest of the army to take on things they can't.

Heavy armoured troops? Crisis Suits/Riptides.

Tanks? Broadsides/Hammerheads/Crisis Suits

No unit in most armies is an island. They all need the rest of the army supporting them to get the most out of them.

Plus being on the receiving end of 3-4 (even 6) units of rapid firing fire warriors would not be pretty for the opponent, even without markerlight buffs.

Also, while you are complaining about your 9pt, WS 2 BS3, 4+ armour, range 30" s5 weapon toting fire warriors who get free grenades, how about we trade for my 8pt WS3 BS3, 5+ armour, range 12" S4 weapon toting guardians who don't have any options for grenades at all?

Sure, we get the a heavy weapon platform but it is still BS3 and doesn't make up for the woefully short range of the shuriken catapults which means we have to be on the enemy doorstep before we can fire them.

Did I mention guardians suck in combat only slightly worse than fire warriors?

Guardians and Fire Warriors are primarily objective holding and gunline units imo. At least the Fire Warriors can shoot all their weapons while doing it!

This. Tau is the army of support. Almost all of it's units are lackluster on their own, but when supporting each other they become amazing. That's the basis of the FW, the FW is a terrible troop choice on it's own but when you put it in context with the rest of the army you start to see where the use comes in. This is only enforced with the new Supporting Fire special rule, encouraging gunlines and things

EDIT: Also, he is right on the count of Guardians. You think you guys have it bad for troops, the Eldar don't have any reasonable options to be honest. At least Tau troops have the possible utility

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I play Eldar so I know a thing or two about lackluster troops . While Fire Warriors are, for the most part, good enough, what kills them for me is the Ld7. These are units that, in most cases, you want in your backfield away from the main action, and they are too susceptible to running off the board. This makes the Shas'ui upgrade pretty much mandatory, unless you want to spend an HQ slot on an Ethereal, which to me are still pretty underwhelming.

How anyone can think the new Ethereal is underwhelming. One of them, just one, solves all the resiliency, firepower, and leadership issues of your entire gunline. As 50 point unit that covers all of your troops weaknesses while at the same time maximizing on their strengths is "underwhelming?" Weird.

Ok, I guess underwhelming is the wrong word, maybe disappointing. It's basically a tax for having effective troops, and while 50 points isn't so bad a cost for that, an HQ slot is. That's one less slot you have for a drone Commander, or for Farsight or Shadowsun. It makes an ethereal almost a mandatory choice, and that doesn't sit well with me, especially not when they're T3, 2W and have no save. Also, I'd still argue that aside from the extra shot one, none of the elemental powers are very good.

 washout77 wrote:


This. Tau is the army of support. Almost all of it's units are lackluster on their own, but when supporting each other they become amazing. That's the basis of the FW, the FW is a terrible troop choice on it's own but when you put it in context with the rest of the army you start to see where the use comes in. This is only enforced with the new Supporting Fire special rule, encouraging gunlines and things

EDIT: Also, he is right on the count of Guardians. You think you guys have it bad for troops, the Eldar don't have any reasonable options to be honest. At least Tau troops have the possible utility

I secondly agree with this statement. I think they really embodied the ideal of the Tau in the codex units themselves. All the fluff speaks about relinquishing your identity so that the whole may prosper, and it really comes out with troops that appear to lacking on thier own, who really end up shining when used to support and be supported by other units in the codex. For those who argue that the codex feels rushed, there appears to be alot more internal balance within the army itself that we have yet to fully discover.

rohansoldier wrote:
As others have said, Fire warriors need the support of the rest of the army to take on things they can't.

Heavy armoured troops? Crisis Suits/Riptides.

Tanks? Broadsides/Hammerheads/Crisis Suits

No unit in most armies is an island. They all need the rest of the army supporting them to get the most out of them.

Plus being on the receiving end of 3-4 (even 6) units of rapid firing fire warriors would not be pretty for the opponent, even without markerlight buffs.

Also, while you are complaining about your 9pt, WS 2 BS3, 4+ armour, range 30" s5 weapon toting fire warriors who get free grenades, how about we trade for my 8pt WS3 BS3, 5+ armour, range 12" S4 weapon toting guardians who don't have any options for grenades at all?

Sure, we get the a heavy weapon platform but it is still BS3 and doesn't make up for the woefully short range of the shuriken catapults which means we have to be on the enemy doorstep before we can fire them.

Did I mention guardians suck in combat only slightly worse than fire warriors?

Guardians and Fire Warriors are primarily objective holding and gunline units imo. At least the Fire Warriors can shoot all their weapons while doing it!

That's a silly argument. Other armies get tough troops, fast troops, versatile troops, or combinations there of. Even most horde troops come poorly equipped but are tougher due to having more wounds for cheaper prices and generally higher leadership or buffs. Tau troops on the other hand have a useless transport for their troop type, while marines that can take special weapons get fire points. IG get special weapons and get fire points. Necrons with solid unit shooting get a transport they can fire from.

And the next part I don't understand. How can you compare firewarriors to Eldar troops? It's a 4th edition codex! Let me just compare 6th edition Tau to a second edition codex while we are at it.

So overall the most of what I see saying that firewarriors are decent troops is that you weigh them against the army as a whole. I do that, and they are terrible. As strong as the rest of the army is, I can't use firewarriors to claim objectives. Firewarriors can barely be kept on their own objectives without using an HQ slot just to stop troops from running, while any other HQ would be more synergistic with the rest of the army. Firewarriors are just expensive and require additional support to make them comparible to another troop choice when you aren't factoring in special and heavy weapons.
Other troop choices quickly gain ground when you throw in special weapons, a more useful and cost effective transport, and higher survivability.

At this point I know a lot of people are probably just going to reply with "Well they can't all be marines" even though 50% of armies out there are marines and the ones that aren't don't seem to have the problems that Firewarriors have. Except Eldar, but there is no point in trying to say that a 4th edition codex is anywhere near the standard. I'm not going to say what troops we should have gotten or wish list or something like that. I'm just saying that in an objective game we are still at a disadvantage since other armies can bring more durable and cost effective troops and offer them protection via transports at better cost effeciency. Other armies can bring versatile and customized troops to handle a variety of tasks and can deliver them easier wether via transports, bikes, or drop pods. But the only option Firewarrior gets is a leadership buff and raising BS score? An HQ and spamming Pathfinders to make Firewarriors good? How is a crutch/reliance/handicap considered synergy? How is this viewed as strength?

I think they're good ...for their points.

Sorry dude, everybody can't be Grey Hunters or Belial and Terminators or whatever...

This is what makes Fire Warriors good;

1. Their longer range, higher strength guns.
2. Slightly higher squad sizes for a few more shots.
3. A 50pt Ethereal to buff easily 2 squads.
4. There's some other HQ that also gives extra shots to the squad he's in.
5. There's a potential to have 48 S5 shots -per squad- at 15"
6. 12 Fire Warriors and the Ethereal come in at a total of less than 160 pts. or so. That's pretty damn good.
7. 72 Fire Warriors will set you back about 600 points, in a 2000pt. match that leaves plenty of room for a Commander w/ Iridium Armor, Drone Controller, both bodyguards, 3 Hammerheads (1 w/ Longstrike) a Riptide and some other stuff that isn't Vespids or their Flyers.

NOTE: I'm not counting Shasui's as they can quickly become to expensive and the -only- reason to take them is for the slightly less crappy Leadership.

I can't think of other troops that can stack that many shots at that range for that price.

I'd have to look at the codex, but it sounds like Fire Warriors may be more efficient than BA ASM at this point.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
The Devilfish is still absurdly priced, costing now 95 points to bring with a disruption pod and no significant change to weapons.

Lol, wut? Burst cannons went up 1, as did pulse carbines, meaning what used to have 5 shots now has 8.

Don't buy it a disruption pod, but get it a sensor spine so it can drive into cover (or wherever it wants).

I'm not saying it's fantastic, but it's not awful, either. I call it "appropriately costed".

I had to laugh when someone complained about devil fish being over cost because you want them to be a pill box... Seriously? If you want a pill box buy a cheap little thing called a bastion or better yet pile all those turkeys into a fortress of redemption and watch your opponent cry as you have suits JSJ from behind oh and btw notice yet that that foolish riptide can see clear over the ramparts? Even if you'd prefer a transport with fire points get real, it would only have a couple like a rhino, even 5 like a chimera means your wasting extra Pulse rifles.

I hate why people continue to post a 95 pt cost on DF..... its not 95 friken points, its 80. If you stupidly decide to inflate its cost with a 15 pt upgrade that's your fault. Its like if I complained that chaos rhinos where 50 points for demonic possession lol. Its my own fault for wasting points on that upgrade.

The more reasonaly comarison is a razor back, actually two. Two bolter backs are 90 points and hold the same number of bodies total, while never getting a jink save and having less armor. DF gets more shots half of which cause pinning though lacking TL but costing 10 less points.

Firewarrior with 30" or 15" rapid fire 5s 5ap
Devilfish with a 4 shot 5s 5ap and the option to take SMS ( ignore cover 4 shots 30" range ) and the ability to pick +1 cover save ( netting a devilfish to a total of 105 points, disruption pods for 15 and the SMS for 10, and the ability to pick 2 seekers for 8 each )

And the ethereal having a 12" range whereas he gives his leadership to anything in range, and the ability to give stuborn, feel no pain, extra shot and fire after running. for the mere price of 50 points.

Also, you can pick the Pulse carbine, 18" Assault 2 5S 5AP with Pinning, and haywire grenades.

You have quite a few options to support a firewarrior, maybe the single model of itself its not as impressive, The few troops choices in the Tau army i believe is there to force a Tau to play like a Tau instead of a Space marine: "With the combination of your units you will gain success for the greater good"

Ethereals are high-risk high-reward. When they work, they're great. When they get killed in one shot by a Griffon or a Colossus or a Vindicare Assassin, give up a bonus point, and cause you to lose the game, they aren't. One important consideration when weighing Ethereals against Cadre Fireblades is that the Fireblades front-load their damage buff (improving your alpha strike), while the Ethereals work up close, typically improving later turns of the game.

Can the Ethereals use their abilities and leadership while inside a Devilfish?

 Red Corsair wrote:
I had to laugh when someone complained about devil fish being over cost because you want them to be a pill box... Seriously? If you want a pill box buy a cheap little thing called a bastion or better yet pile all those turkeys into a fortress of redemption and watch your opponent cry as you have suits JSJ from behind oh and btw notice yet that that foolish riptide can see clear over the ramparts? Even if you'd prefer a transport with fire points get real, it would only have a couple like a rhino, even 5 like a chimera means your wasting extra Pulse rifles.

I hate why people continue to post a 95 pt cost on DF..... its not 95 friken points, its 80. If you stupidly decide to inflate its cost with a 15 pt upgrade that's your fault. Its like if I complained that chaos rhinos where 50 points for demonic possession lol. Its my own fault for wasting points on that upgrade.

The more reasonaly comarison is a razor back, actually two. Two bolter backs are 90 points and hold the same number of bodies total, while never getting a jink save and having less armor. DF gets more shots half of which cause pinning though lacking TL but costing 10 less points.

Who said they wanted an 80 point pillbox? I've only heard complaints that the transport is too expensive to rapidly deploy units past the deployment area and that it's load out is very unsuited for firewarriors. But you bring up a good point with why even bother with transports when all you're going to do is gunline firewarriors? Which is what the core issue has been all about. For their price you're getting a unit suited for one role and one role only. You can try and argue that you could give them emp grenades and they can assault tanks, but that's silly. Most tanks that you'd need to glance to death are going to be far more suited to killing Firewarriors from a distance.

And you misunderstand the comment about firepoints. Firepoints are given to units that benefit from firepoints, like marine and ig which can take special weapons. Meanwhile Necrons get transports they can shoot from, because they have no special weapons and instead have good squad level shooting. Tau get neither, and instead get put into a transport that is expensive for what it does, with only standard level of shooting for the army.

The only reason why people would mention the Devilfish is 95 points is because it's 95 points to get it back to the 4th ed level of protection, while the proliferation of heavy weapons have spread and their costs have gone down. So now the devilfish has gone up in price in an enviornment where it's easier than ever to take it down. That's not justified in the slightest.

Your comparison to the Heavy Bolter razorbacks is a bit silly though. It only works as a comparison if you ignore that Razorbacks can take a variety of weapons including anti-tank options while the devilfish is stuck with only S5 AP5 at a variety of 2 ranges and one can ignore LOS. I think this is the part that most people try hard to ignore.

Most problems that people will complain about Tau is the lack of variety and being forced to take a basic army build in order to bring a TAC army with deviation from the standard will only make the army flimsy in doing so. While other armies get options to bring bike troops, terminator troops, marine troops, or cult marine troops the Tau are forced to choose only two troop units, both of which are fairly weak when the fire gets focused on them. In comparison the Necrons get only two troops, but they are very durable, have good transports, and have weapons that fill a multiple roles inlcuding anti-tank and anti-horde while maintaining a decent statline.

So I guess I can put it this way. The Tau Codex is fine as they are. The problem is the objective games are unfair because other troops are tougher. Fire warriors are well equipped and it's just the armies that can take a variety of weapons are unfair and over powered. The Devilfish is fine and sets the standard for transports. It's the silly cheap tanks and flying transports that are way too good for how cheap they are in comparison and can take a variety of weapon load outs. The Tau Synergy is fine because you need to dedicate an entire FA slot to bringing your army past the point of BS3, which is fine for a shooting army. Other armies are way too overpowered because they get BS4 for free, access to a variety of weapons across the FOC, and get to fill the FA slots with things that aren't dedicated to synergy.

In comparison a few real advantagse Tau have now is an AP3 template tank, which has to trade out the army's one real option for anti-tank weaponry, and the Riptide's AP2 template. Both units can benefit heavily from markerlights and the ability to remove cover, which gives Tau weaponry a distinct advantage since they've always had significantly less low AP weapons that can actually benefit from the markerlight usage. Crisis suits also got a points reduction and tweaking to make the Plasma/Fusion build actually worth taking now. There are a lot of good things in the Tau codex, and I understand that. That's not my issue. My issue is just that Firewarriors, or the tougher and more durable of the two units simply because the 19 point Shas'ui is a better deal than the 21 point shaper, are not really worth the points for a game based around advancing and claiming objectives. You can try to make the claim that Firewarriors are good at this task because Pathfinders can buff Riptides, which can then clear out entrenched enemy units while Broadsides take out flyers and enemy tanks. I've heard this argument before and it's basically just the argument that Tau don't need objective holders when they can just table the enemy. I think I'm done with arguing this however. In a few months I know that Firewarriors will be viewed as a tax again once people try the useless little HQ gimmicks. I know that we will be relying entirely on Heavy Support and Elites to do the real damage and win the game, while FA will be for the sole purpose of aiding those two. The only real change I actually see is the Kroot are probably going to be dealing out more damage and will probably overtake FW because they are cheap infiltrators with sniper weapons.

Firewarriors went from a terrible choice to merely a poor one. Sure, you can buy HQs to make them more effective, but ultimately they suck because they don't fill any useful role well enough to take.

You need something to hold your objectives? Kroot (or allies) can provide cheaper troops that can hide in cover and meet that goal more effectively.

You want fire support? You'll note few other armies bother spamming Str 5 shooting, even if it's an option (say, marine razorbacks or IG Heavy Bolter fire teams). Why? Because it's not very useful. You pay a lot for the versatility or strength 5, but it's not that great. Again, a bunch of kroot firing str 4 shots to kill troops and a crisis team shooting missiles for AT is better than 2 firewarrior squads trying to do both.

Devilfish suck because firewarriors suck. IG has tons of troops, so throwing some away in a suicidal chimera rush, especially when they have special weapons that give them a useful role, makes chimeras useful. That, or it allows a cheap IG squad to move around and hide to take objectives, and you lose very little from the fight when a 50 point IG squad and 55 point chimera do nothing but try to take an objective.

A squad of firewarriors and a devilfish is a bigger point investment, so it hurts more to dedicate them to just moving and seizing an objective. They need to get close to rapid fire and do decent damage (and gain objectives), but they die to most units in assault, and aren't too tough against shooting, either. They're too expensive to spam or throw away, but you need SOMETHING to move up and grab objectives...so you're screwed.

I think of Tau like water, flowing around the field, searching for enemy weaknesses and retreating from advances, firing the whole time. The new codex took away a lot of that effective mobile firepower, helped the good Kroot squads but didn't help firewarriors enough.

The problem is the objective games are unfair because other troops are tougher.

Stop saying this. It is dead ass wrong. Learn how to calculate RPP. FW, and especially Kroot, are in the same neighborhood of resiliency per point as every single other troop in the game. Like another poster said, if you are saying this because you only bring MSU squads, then its your inability to properly craft a list that is hurting your objective claiming capabilities, not the FWs/Kroot.

A squad of firewarriors and a devilfish is a bigger point investment, so it hurts more to dedicate them to just moving and seizing an objective.

Wait, why do they have to be spending the whole game in the Fish? You realize they can stay on the gun line and pewpew and only jump in the Fish late game to cap objectives right? You realize that the Fish is more resilient, and maneuverable, and therefore better at the role of getting a unit into position to take an objective late game then the Chimera is right? You realize that the Fire Warriors are just as, if not more resilient to shooting the the IG you are comparing them to right?

Or did you not realize any of those things? Which is cool. It's true though. So embrace it, I guess?

Another thing people seem to completely ignore about the Fish is it is relatively resilient mobile LOS/Cover. Anybody think an army filled with JSJ units and things like Aun'va might be able to take advantage of putting an AV12 3+ Cover Wall in front of them? Anybody? Am I really having to point this out to people? I spend 20 points more on a GA that is almost exactly as resilient as the Fish just to use it for that purpose and repairing Warriors.

I think I'm done with arguing this however. In a few months I know that Firewarriors will be viewed as a tax again once people try the useless little HQ gimmicks.

I completely disagree. In a few months good players will realize that the sum of the Tau parts put their Troops equal to or above other troops, and will build their armies accordingly. Meanwhile, people stuck in the mindsets of 5th edition will continue to field crappy lists with 2x6 Fire Warriors, and rage quit because "their new codex sucks."

Also, please define "gimmick" for me. Is a Librarian a "gimmick"? Is a Haemonculus a "gimmick"? How about a Blood Priest? Because...the mechanics of the Ethereal are just as ..."gimmicky" as any of those other HQs (or elites for the BP), which just so happen to all be considered must takes for their respective army. I always love it when people try to use the word gimmick to somehow arbitrarily draw an imaginary line between legitimate game mechanics and what they perceive as inferior options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You want fire support? You'll note few other armies bother spamming Str 5 shooting, even if it's an option (say, marine razorbacks or IG Heavy Bolter fire teams). Why? Because it's not very useful. You pay a lot for the versatility or strength 5, but it's not that great.

Immortals don't spam S5? The only other reason that other armies don't spam S5 is because they can't bring entire troop selections with it (or have to pay a hefty price for it, GK). 9 Points for a 30" Rapid fire S5 is "expensive"? ...I, just...I don't even know how to respond to that. Marines must absolutely suck ass then, having to pay 13 to 15 points for a gakky ass Bolter.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Stop saying this. It is dead ass wrong. Learn how to calculate RPP. FW, and especially Kroot, are in the same neighborhood of resiliency per point as every single other troop in the game. Like another poster said, if you are saying this because you only bring MSU squads, then its your inability to properly craft a list that is hurting your objective claiming capabilities, not the FWs/Kroot.

Which would actually mean something if this "RPP" number was anything other than an arbitrary value.

Also, please define "gimmick" for me. Is a Librarian a "gimmick"? Is a Haemonculus a "gimmick"? How about a Blood Priest? Because...the mechanics of the Ethereal are just as ..."gimmicky" as any of those other HQs (or elites for the BP), which just so happen to all be considered must takes for their respective army. I always love it when people try to use the word gimmick to somehow arbitrarily draw an imaginary line between legitimate game mechanics and what they perceive as inferior options.

A gimmick ability is something that sounds good when it works, but isn't practical in reality. For example:

BA priests are not a gimmick because FNP is consistently effective and a significant upgrade to the squad.

Precise shots from sniper rifles is a gimmick because it's so inconsistent and trying to use it as a strategy is less effective than just bringing consistent (if boring) shooting.

The Etheral falls somewhere in between the two: a situational upgrade to a mediocre unit isn't the most efficient thing you can do with your points and FOC slots, but it does provide a meaningful upgrade and is much more consistent than a lot of other 'gimmick' options. Whether or not it will be considered worth it remains to be seen.