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.

 Jewelfox wrote:
So, Tau are my favourite (and only) faction right now, but they're also the most hated -- or least fun to play against -- according to this thread.

Leaving aside issues of bias and prejudice, which we're not going to be able to do much about in the span of one game, you still have the issue of Tau being really shooty and making a lot of the game non-interactive. Obviously, if you close with them they fold like a wet paper bag, but until then -- or if you get some bad charge / reserve rolls -- you're just target practice.

So, speaking as a Tau player, how do I make the game more fun for the people I play against ... and increase the odds of people wanting to get into a pickup game with me? Besides using lots of LoS-blocking terrain (which I personally enjoy) and refraining from using Riptides unless my opponent has something equivalent.

(One thing I thought of already: I bought an extra deck, and can offer to let my opponent use the new Tactical Supremacy objectives, which get rid of a lot of unwinnable ones and give out higher rewards for smashing stuff in assault. I also refuse to redraw my own unwinnable objectives, and instead try to plan around those being in the deck.)

Well, just to throw this out there...

Find a copy of the older Tau codices and use their rules for Smart Missile Systems instead of the current garbage ones.

 master of ordinance wrote:
As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win

You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.

I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha

Tough armies that shoot well make people feel bad. Same reason people dislike Eldar or Necrons.

Learn to live there it.

IKs aren't really the paragons of fortitude. 6 glances does it. Compare to WK or Riptide.

 Gamgee wrote:

Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it.

Did you not have internet access for the month prior to and the months after Craftworld: Eldar dropped?

To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.

So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it.

Did you not have internet access for the month prior to and the months after Craftworld: Eldar dropped?

Oh he absolutely does.

To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.

So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.

Pretty much all the best words here.

Unkillable fire platforms.

 Jewelfox wrote:

Traditio wrote:

1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?

People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.

ITT: Impractical weapons of terror ought to beat out weapons of war

You do understand that the reason Boltguns aren't widespread among the Imperium is a dogmatic issue, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jewelfox wrote:

Traditio wrote:

1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?

People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.

ITT: Impractical weapons of terror ought to beat out weapons of war

You do understand that the reason Boltguns aren't widespread among the Imperium is a dogmatic issue, right?

Most of the fluff I have read says something about the sheer weight and how its almost impossible for a non-augmented human to lift and use a boltgun. Course the game goes screwy when you then see them issued to special characters and such.

Boltguns have been available as wargear options for things like humble IG sergeants in every edition, bolters come in an array of sizes and capabilities that are close enough that the tabletop game amalgamates them into a single statline because a D6 system isn't granular enough to differentiate them.

That said, they're monstrously impractical weapons from a realistic standpoint, based far more in "cool factor" than any sort of practical reality. There have been rocket propelled projectile guns made, they don't really work well as a small arm weapon, and the way many GW boltguns are actually designed they weapons wouldn't function at all (particularly the bolters that have magazines that feed practically right at the muzzle).

 redleger wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win

You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.

I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha

Yeah but the main difference you have two comparable shooty armies. Guard have pretty much nothing that the tau can't do better. Sure you may see the IG winning against Tau every so often, but it will often be the result of sheer dumb luck.

Guardman<Firewarriors
Russes><Suits
Wyverns><Markerlights
FRFSRF><Ethereal Bonus Shot
Hydras><Tau AA ability

It's more Guards fault seeing we really need a decent update, we haven't really had a true update since 3rd/4th. Also tanks are horrific in 7th, seeing the high toughness of Suits they're incredibly hard to one shot in comparison to tanks. People often fear the number of tanks at the start of a battle, but once the dust clears most find that fear unfounded in reality.>

After playing a good bundle of games with R&H and messing around a lot with artillery, tanks really do stink to high heaven. They look cool, so they are still fun to bring along, and some of them just define cool (plasmacutioner and whatnot) but lets look at artillery, and its tank equal.

First, an earthshaker vs a basilisk.
Pro
Basilisk - can move
Earthskaker - 360 line of sight, 4 T7 wounds, 8 crew, Cheap
Con
Basilisk - Can be one shot with a melta gun, 45 degree line of sight, can be immobilized/shaken, any downside of vehicles.
Earthskaher - can fail moral test, dies to tank shock, dies to strength test. FW rules, FW model (though easy to convert/proxy)

Same goes for medusa, though with medusa, the movement is an actual con, as it has smaller range. Where the Earthshaker range is 10 feet. Movement is nothing special. I can plop artillery out of line of sight and shoot 3 tables away! Both tanks and artillery are pretty much instant dead when something gets into CC with them, provided it has a grenade.

Tanks are more diverse with weaponry, but the bottom line is you just need to kill tanks and infantry. I've got an artillery piece for the role of every tank! They work so much better too, its crushing to only bring my tanks out when I want to weaken my list/dust them off. Tanks really are weaker than toughness. (Though wyverns still are better than quad mortars thanks to twin linked/ignore cover, only tanks I still bring regularly)

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it.

Did you not have internet access for the month prior to and the months after Craftworld: Eldar dropped?

To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.

So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.

Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.

I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.

pm713 wrote:
I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.

Seems similar to the Tau. I've seen way more people just decide to never play them or ban them outright for YEARS now. Welcome to the club.

Tau basically fine except for the Riptide and Stormsurge. You shoot them, some die, they shoot back, a few more die. If you get to assault, you can mash them badly. The Riptide and Stormsurge just change the math too badly in their favor.

Man, this thread was fun >_>

Tau are on par with the current top codexes, so if your playing someone not using these armies, then no matter what you do, you will get some complaint.. it is what it is.

To help your opponent feel better about it, if playing a lower power codec, maybe help him tactically throughout the game.. such as when your playing someone new.. "hey man, i know you think shooting my riptide is a good idea here.. but he is gonna tank it all.. wipe out this squad of suits instead" ... for a quick example


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ionusx wrote:
run cc tau

Don't joke.. I actually do and it does better then most people give it credit..

Tau Smash Bros:
Farsight
Bravestorm*
Brightsword*

* denotes this is essentially what they are.. but not actually kitted exactly as they are listed in "the eight"

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win

You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.

I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha

Yeah but the main difference you have two comparable shooty armies. Guard have pretty much nothing that the tau can't do better. Sure you may see the IG winning against Tau every so often, but it will often be the result of sheer dumb luck.

Guardman<Firewarriors
Russes><Suits
Wyverns><Markerlights
FRFSRF><Ethereal Bonus Shot
Hydras><Tau AA ability

It's more Guards fault seeing we really need a decent update, we haven't really had a true update since 3rd/4th. Also tanks are horrific in 7th, seeing the high toughness of Suits they're incredibly hard to one shot in comparison to tanks. People often fear the number of tanks at the start of a battle, but once the dust clears most find that fear unfounded in reality.>

To sum it up, the Guard are a gunline army that has been nerfed into immobility and has its units stats and points stuck in 3rd edition where a single tank was a major threat and a single section of infantry could hold the line.

9ppm Firewarrior:
2 3 3 3 1 2 1 7
defensive grenades, s5 gun

14ppm Space Marine demigod
4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
assault/krak/frag grenades, TSKNF, s4 pistol/bolter, CHAPTER TACTICS ... did i forget anything else?

Seems pretty balanced to me (being serious, balanced as base troops for their cost)

 Gamgee wrote:
Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.

Eldar and Necrons get a lot of flak from players so Tau are not alone in being complained about. As a Tau player I have played games where I ended up turn 2 tabling the opponent and it just sucks to see that happen because the other person didn't have fun and what fun I was having quickly ended as more and more models where removed from the table. I have also played games against Tau where my army (Orks in particular) gets obliterated and it ends up being a game of set up and pack up. Similar things have happened against Eldar where you spend less time playing and more time removing your stuff from the table. Tau can be a very frustrating army to play against and it doesn't help that they are the combination of being extremely good at shooting, extremely bad at melee, and one of the top armies in the game. Tau typically doesn't get in close, they prefer to use range to keep them safe, have easy access to ignores cover plus accuracy boosts, and can pump out a lot of shots with good strength. Against Tau basically everything becomes an assault unit as getting into close combat with majority of Tau units is to the other players advantage so Tau players almost never have a reason to get into charge range or contest objectives as their units are much better off shooting instead of moving in or trying to tie up units in close combat. Its frustrating to play against that which really saps the enjoyment of other players. Especially for armies that tend to struggle getting into close combat and don't have the means to out shoot or shut down the Tau shooting (few armies do). Tau can be incredibly frustrating to play against, its easy to see when playing as Tau, its easy to feel that way playing against them.

I love my Tau so much and they are always going to be my #2 army but I hate how GW ignores how frustrating Tau can be to play against and instead release gak like the Stormsurge and the Riptide Wing which are so incredibly powerful its hard for the "have not" armies to do anything against that. I hate that I have to worry about my list ending up being too much of a squig kicker list because my opponent isn't playing a hypercompetitive list. My #1 goal when playing 40k is that both players are having fun and when playing Tau I have to be really careful to not ruin my opponents day (almost never a concern for my Orks, sometimes an issue for the GK). It's annoying to have to worry about coming across as TFG or WAAC because I'm playing as Tau because of the ability for Tau to just wreck people's faces if they don't have the tools to handle that amount of firepower. Same can be said for Eldar or Necrons in that they need to be careful to not completely outclass their opponent's army because their codex is so strong. With Tau (and Eldar) its very apparent from turn 1 just how powerful they are and generally they don't slow down until you start killing prime targets.

As to how to make it fun?
Lots of LoS blocking terrain - Force the Tau to not shoot across the map and actually get in closer.
Progressive objectives/Maelstrom - Makes the Tau need to move for map control instead of turtle if they want to win.
Make sure the relative power levels of each list are compatible - Both players should have a fair shot of winning and the game shouldn't be decided before the models are even placed.
Don't be a jerk/be friendly - Being friendly and take the focus off the results of the dice help keep things less tense and more enjoyable.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
9ppm Firewarrior:
2 3 3 3 1 2 1 7
defensive grenades, s5 gun

14ppm Space Marine demigod
4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
assault/krak/frag grenades, TSKNF, s4 pistol/bolter, CHAPTER TACTICS ... did i forget anything else?

Seems pretty balanced to me (being serious, balanced as base troops for their cost)

I'm just saying. Nerf fire warriors to a S4, AP 5, 24 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or heck, even make it S4, AP 6, 30 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or even S 5, AP 6, 24 inch range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gamgee wrote:Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.

Eldar are probably far more OP than Tau.

That said, there's a clear difference between Eldar and Tau. The problem with Eldar is that they are OP. Eldar as such, however, are perfectly fine. They are an army of highly mobile specialists. In a game with Eldar, stuff happens. Eldar are fun to play and fun to play against (so long as the Eldar player isn't spamming the most OP stuff in the book).

Tau at the very core are just annoying to play against.

Have you played Dark Souls?

Tau are like the two archers at Anor Lando.

Have you played Dark Souls II?

Eldar are like the drakekeepers with the giant maces.

The drakekeepers with maces need a giant nerf. They need to be made more like the giants in Anor Lando.

Those 2 archers in Anor Lando should simply never have been thought up in the first place.

Have you not played Dark Souls I?

Fine.

Tau are like the Shrine of Amana.

The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.

The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.

The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).

What riptides do you run? Mine always wiff in droves

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.

The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).

I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.

Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?

Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?

Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?

In serious though, Riptides tank, thats what they are in a Tau list to be.

Riptide wing is GOOD, don't get me wrong, and it mitigates the need for some markerlight support with the cascading fire.. however, it requires markerlights for every target for both shooting attacks.. so to ignore cover of all the targets that shooting phase, you would need at 3-6 sources landing 12 markerlights (assuming just 3 riptides) That is alot of extra cost in our lists to make these units consistent in their offense. Ap2 pie plates hurt.. but a lot is invested into that to really be effective.

Opponents have many options to bypass Tau shootyness.. get in close, take out support troops. Someone mentioned IG .. I hate IG, because I know they will have Wyverns (i think thats the artillery one ?!) and my pathfinders will all die turn 1.

It takes 1 wound in CC for a on average fail leadership and get overrun with our initiative 2. Nothing is fearless save an Ethereal giving stubburn, or warlord traits or a relic choosing stubburn

If you can't shoot a riptide to death you can definitely psychic shriek it to death, or charge it and just tie it up for an entire game.

There are many tactical decisions you can make to mitigate Tau effectiveness, and I am not saying it is easy, just takes practice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.

The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).

I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.

Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?

Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?

Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?

I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.. in order to bring our BS up we need an 11 ppm pathfinder, or 14ppm marker drone... so we actually start paying more to bring out ballistic to match and exceed that of a space marine if you start looking at averages and what we need to bring to get there. .. example.. pathfinder BS3 so we need '2' to effectively get 1 markerlight consistently (22points)

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 ionusx wrote:
run cc tau

Don't joke.. I actually do and it does better then most people give it credit..

Even the regular suits manage quite well against enemies that aren't that good in CC. My Tau mate charges me with suits if he thinks they can't get away from shooting. They're strong and tough and have a good save and LD, good chances against a non-CC squad that isn't marines.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 ionusx wrote:
run cc tau

Don't joke.. I actually do and it does better then most people give it credit..

Even the regular suits manage quite well against enemies that aren't that good in CC. My Tau mate charges me with suits if he thinks they can't get away from shooting. They're strong and tough and have a good save and LD, good chances against a non-CC squad that isn't marines.

Absoutely, just hitting the assault phase and saying "i am charging you", totally throws your opponent into a scramble.. they never expect it. I rather have my unit stuck in CC with your guys the rest of the game, if it means not having them blown away your next shooting phase.

I rarely win combat long term, but sometimes i can survive long enough to be annoying or reduce stack buffs (like furious charge, +1 attacks etc) that otherwise would put me at a disadvantage.

Traditio wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.

The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).

I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.

Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?

they dont inherently, they have worse accuracy, just a better gun, which is fine, Bolters are powerful weapons next to a Lasgun, but just arent the most fearsome in the 40k universe. And in general, the only advantage Fire Warriors have is range. BS3 S5 puts out equivalent wounds to BS4 S4 in most instances.

Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?

Because SM's are a generalist unit that are good at everything but not necessarily the best at everything. Likewise, the Imperial Fists becoming some sort of "bolter snipers" is relatively recent, it used to just be an ability that Sergeant Lysander granted to his squad back in 3E from some sort of great bridge defense battle, then Lysander became a huge beatstick CC character (and ironically lacks any bolter now), and its only in the last few years that they made this a big army wide thing for them, they used to just be the Loyalist Iron Warriors.

Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?

They dont unless theyve got Markerlights. Sternguard are, again, also a generalist unit (theyve all got 2 attacks base, etc) that can pack weapons that Fire Warriors cannot.

Tau also predate the existence of Sternguard as a unit by two editions.

I just wanted to say I dig that army concept. I feel like breachers, pathfinders, and stealth suits (especially ones modified to look like XV-15s!) would fit the theme quite well, along with a general focus on mobility.

Grizzyzz wrote:I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.

Bull pucky.

They have 1 less BS on the model but 1 more S on their gun. Apart from combat doctrines and chapter tactics, fire warriors and space marines have statistically IDENTICAL shooting. Not to mention that with the 1 higher S, fire warriors can touch things that space marines can't. Fire warriors wound wraithknights on 6s and glance 11 AV on 6s.

That's not fair. At all.