# In Defense of the Tau Fire Warrior



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

I've been a member of DakkaDakka for about 9 months now, and have just joined Heresy. I have become somewhat perplexed by my fellow Tau players disdain for our basic Troop, the Fire Warrior. 

I noticed in several army lists/recommendations, etc. that many (I know this doesn't quanitfy anything) Tau players push a minimalist attitude toward the Fire Warrior, specifically, a 6 man squad or two, with the exception of the Fish of Fury Tactic. 

It seems, in my estimation, to depive your army of all but a handful of these rather amazing guys is unwise. 

Let's look at what makes this unit so valuable, or in some cases, undervalued, which is my arguement. 

For only 10 pts/model youg get: a S5 AP5 30" Rapid Fire gun (the best in the game as far as basic troops go), BS3 (not as good as BS4, but not bad either), and a 4+Sv (ditto). Sure they are horrible in close combat, and they have T3, and I2 (in fact, my 2yr old could probably take 'em); but that's not what they're used for anyways (unless your a sadist, in which case you have my pity, please, seek help). Don't overlook the Pulse Carbine either, it adds some flexibility to you Fire Warrior Squads, while still mainting its punch, which I will address a little later, but first the Pulse Rifle 

Lets take a twelve man Fire Warrior Team for Instance (all with Pulse Rifles, no Shas'Ui) 

That's 120pts, for 12 S5 shots out to 30" with a statistical probablity of hitting 6 times, which is about 4 wounds on T4 models, and on T3 models it'll be 5 wounds. That means one dead Space Marine, two if your lucky, or 5 Gaunts (not accounting for cover saves). This my fellow Tau is your Anti-horde weapon, and its especially good against Orcs due to their poor Sv, and it's not to bad against Space Marines either, as far as forcing armor saves on them. 

Now, let's upgrade one to a Shas'ui at +10 points, and give him a Hard-wired Drone Controller with two Marker Drones at +40 points. 

The new unit is now 170 points. 

With the Marker Marker Drones you have a good chance of at least getting +1 BS and ~1/4 chance of getting +2BS. 

With an effective BS4 (assuming one Marker Drone hit), you will get about 8 hits out to 30", which works out to about 6 wounds (slightly less, but pretty close) on T4 models (Space Marines), which equals 2 Dead Space Marines, and T3 models (Gaunts) will likely yield 6 dead gaunts and possibly 7, with a little luck. 

Now, with two Marker Drone hits they become BS5, you will then get 10 hits out to 30", with good odds of 7 wounds and ~ 3 dead Space Marines, or ~9 dead Gaunts. 

Note: For just over half the price of a Devilfish, you can cause as many wounds, statistically speaking, as you can with a Fish of Fury, only your doing so from 30" away instead of within 12" of the intended target, which is not usually a place you want your Fire Warriors to be. Don't get me wrong, I have used Fish of Fury to great effect myself, and I am by no means getting down on that tactic. 

When you think of Fire Warriors, don't think of them as squishy troops in close combat, but rather as a squad of Pulse Rifles. In my reading of various forums both here and on other websites, this seems to be a major mental handicap that many Tau players suffer from. Treat them as guns, not troops. 

Additionally, while we Tau players have access to the mighty Railgun, other than that, most of our "cool guns" are much shorter range, such as the Plasma Rifle, 1/3 the range, and the Missle Pod, 1/2 the range. The Pulse Rifle is where we get the bulk of our mid-ranged firepower. 

Do not mistake that I am advocating Fire Warriors over Suits, nothing could be further from the truth. I love my Suits. The problem with suits is that you can only have so many of them. At max, that would be 15 suits (counting 2 commanders with 2 Bodyguards each; and not counting a Farsight Army), but that's easily over 1,000 points depending on their equipment, which is very small model to point ratio, especially when you consider that they only have a 3+ Save and there is, in my opinion, and over abundance of AP3 or better weaponry out there (I'm looking at you Imperial Guard), not to mention a Krak Missle, the bane of any Crisis Suit. I am advocating a balance of Fire Warriors and Suits, for instance, I recently played my brother in a 750 point game. Here is my list: 

HQ: 
Shas'el with Plasma Rifle, Missle Pod, Targeting Array, and Hard-wired Multi-tracker 

Elites: 

Crisis Team: 
Team Leader with Twin-linked Plasma Rifle, Missle Pod, Hard-wired Multi-Tracker 

Crisis Team: 
Team Leader with Twin-linked Missle Pod, Plasma Rifle, Hard-wired Multi-tracker 

Crisis Team: 
Team Leader with Twin-linked Fusion Blaster, Plasma Rifle, Hard-wired Multi-tracker 

Troops: 

Fire Warrior Squad: 
8 Fire Warriors with Pulse Carbines 

Fire Warrior Squad: 
8 Fire Warriors with Pulse Carbines 

Kroot Carnivore Squad: 
12 Kroot 

Heavy Support: 

Broadside Team: 
Team Leader with Advanced Stabilisation System, Hard-wired Multi-tracker, Blacksun Filter 

Braodside Team: 
Team Leader with Advanced Stabilisation System, Hard-wired Multi-tracker, Blacksun Filter 

He had Vanilla Space Marines. 

Captain with Lighting Claw, and Combi-melta 

5 man Tactical Squad in a Razorback armed with a Heavy Bolter 

5 Scouts with Sniper Rifles 

Dreadnought with Mulit-melta in a Drop Pod (I hate these things) 

5 man Terminator Squad with an Assault Cannon 

While his list was probably a bit under-powered, it wasn't that bad. His main weakness was not enough troops. That being said, I tabled him on turn 5. This was due in no small part to my Pulse Carbine equipped Fire Warriors (and one of my Broadsides popping his Razorback on the first turn). The Fire Warriors actually inflicted decent casualties to both his Troops units, and aided in killing his Captain. The Firewarriors, in combination with my suits presented him with too many problems to deal with at one time, and, as any good general will tell you, you win a battle by giving your opponent to many things to deal with at the same time. 

If you like, you can read the full battle report here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/351773.page 

It starts off with a 500 point game with similar army choices, and he tabled me, but when you read it you'll see it was due more to miserable dice rolls and some bad initial placement on my part than anything else. 

To sum up, the Fire Warrior is the best shooting troop in the whole game (remeber, he's a Pulse Rifle/Carbine, not a "troop"), and should be treated as such. By minimizing the number of Pulse Rifles you take, you minimize the effectiveness of your army. While I wouldn't neccessarily advocate taking more points worth of Fire Warriors than Suits, I have toyed with the idea of taking 6 12 man Firewarrior Squads with 2 Marker Drones each, in a 2,000pt game. 72 Fire Warriors would give your opponent quite alot to deal with in my opinion. 

I hope I have acquitted the Fire Warrior well with this post. Let me know what you think.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

First off, welcome to Heresy! 

Great post, you deserve some rep. 

Fire Warriors, as you said, are a great shooting unit, and if I played Tau, I would have at least 4 squads. They might be one of the best basic shooting troops in the game, but they do often lose a fire fight against a rapid firing Tactical Squad, and they will also loose a shooting fight against more elite choices, such as Stenguard veterans, but those are Elites, so thats nothing special. They are great against hordes, while in my opinion they struggle a bit against stronger units, such as the already mentioned Tactical squad. 

While they are a good unit (the Fire Warriors), they are also very easy to counter. A perfect firing line of them is nothing I would want to charge head on, but two drop pods down there, and they are in a deep mess.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Yeah, I hate drop pods. They pose a rather difficult tactical dilemma for the Tau. The best I've come up with so far is to have a screen of kroot in front of/around my gunline. Mixed results with it so far, though.

Glad you liked the post, thanks for the rep!


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Well said mate, and you`re absolutely right. 

Back when I played Tau, it was the troops that carried the day. :good:


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Shas'O...Crap said:


> Yeah, I hate drop pods. They pose a rather difficult tactical dilemma for the Tau. The best I've come up with so far is to have a screen of kroot in front of/around my gunline. Mixed results with it so far, though.


Another good tactic is to have transports close by, so you can always sacrifice a squad and have them charge the occupants of the pods to hold them away, while the others embark and get the fuck away from there. Will have mixed results, but you wont end up with a Dreadnought in close combat.


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

I don't hate them, but I don't think they're really worth the points. If markerlights were cheaper, they would be vastly improved.

I am a bit envious now that standard guardsmen seem shootier for the points.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Good argument mate. Like you I've got a fair amount of respect for the Firewarrior, not least for having such a great name. However they suffer against Space Marines. As Doelago said they'll lose against rapid-firing tac squads and Sternguard which isn't good if you're playing a shooty army like the Tau.

As for hordes, yes they'd be great against gaunts and boyz, but to fire they'll have to be in an exposed position. This leaves them vulnerable to counter-attacks with Mawlocs, Lootas and the like. I once played against a Tau player who had a unit of Firewarriors providing cover fire. Half the squad died when my Lootas attacked them and the rest were picked off by a marauding Deff Dredd. Generally I think that Firewarriors are at their best when mounted in a devilfish, only getting out to fire when they have the advantage, so I can see why a lot of people would disparage them.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Fire Warriors act in a capacity similar to modern infantry. The emphasis should be on making their job a sure victory, but they are the primary unit nonetheless. 

People try to protect their suits and stuff, when in fact it should be the other way around.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Shas' ohai dude! Glad to see another Tau player. For the greater good!

I have 2 units of 12 firewarriors as well as my 12 man Kroot squad for Troops in my army. Gotta say, they've done me proud, even without markerlights. They really help soften up some of the more annoying squads (like those bloody 'gaunts), softening up units for my Hammerhead to finish off, etc.

I don't know why people hate the firewarriors, I love em.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Well said! :victory: I will admit I've never actually given them the Markerlight drones before, but now that I think on it I'm fairly surprised I haven't tried that yet.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

if i played Tau i probbaly would have atleast 1-2 units of them for fire support and maybe the every so often markerlight. However i prefure Kroot as the infultrate can screw over your oppoent while your big guns deal with the rest.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Ascendant said:


> I don't hate them, but I don't think they're really worth the points. If markerlights were cheaper, they would be vastly improved.
> 
> I am a bit envious now that standard guardsmen seem shootier for the points.


caare to elaborate?

I fail to see how 10 points for a model with a 4+ save, decent BS, s5 weapon, 30 inch range is too much. Without some facts to support the idea that they are too expensive, I personally see it as the usual " my troops are too expensive" argument.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

The Sullen One said:


> Good argument mate. Like you I've got a fair amount of respect for the Firewarrior, not least for having such a great name. However they suffer against Space Marines. As Doelago said they'll lose against rapid-firing tac squads and Sternguard which isn't good if you're playing a shooty army like the Tau.
> 
> As for hordes, yes they'd be great against gaunts and boyz, but to fire they'll have to be in an exposed position. This leaves them vulnerable to counter-attacks with Mawlocs, Lootas and the like. I once played against a Tau player who had a unit of Firewarriors providing cover fire. Half the squad died when my Lootas attacked them and the rest were picked off by a marauding Deff Dredd. Generally I think that Firewarriors are at their best when mounted in a devilfish, only getting out to fire when they have the advantage, so I can see why a lot of people would disparage them.


 
With proper placement their only semi-exposed, i.e. in cover. If you choose to attack them, that is fine with me, my Crisis Suits, Broadsides, and Hammerheads will make you pay for ignoring the big guns. That is my tactical preference, you have to pick your poison, and if you're engaging my Fire Warriors, not engaging the really dangerous stuff, which frees them up to counter-attack on the Fire Warriors behalf.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Son of mortarion said:


> caare to elaborate?
> 
> I fail to see how 10 points for a model with a 4+ save, decent BS, s5 weapon, 30 inch range is too much. Without some facts to support the idea that they are too expensive, I personally see it as the usual " my troops are too expensive" argument.


I couldn't have said it better myself, Mortarion. I'd give you some rep, but as I am new, I'm not sure how/even if I can.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

jaws900 said:


> if i played Tau i probbaly would have atleast 1-2 units of them for fire support and maybe the every so often markerlight. However i prefure Kroot as the infultrate can screw over your oppoent while your big guns deal with the rest.


Don't get me wrong, I take Kroot as well. They are great for Counter charging or preemptive charging even.

I believe that Kroot are very integral to the overall success of a Tau army, just as Fire Warriors are.

A 'fluffy' army can still be an effective army, that's where tactics come into play.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> Well said! :victory: I will admit I've never actually given them the Markerlight drones before, but now that I think on it I'm fairly surprised I haven't tried that yet.


They can be quite effective, if a lttle expensive. I don't take them all time, especially in smaller points games, but in large points games, their cost is offset a little. 60pts in a 500pt game is inefficient, but in a 1250pt game, I think it is an acceptable upgrade.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/07/tau-codex-review-fire-warriors.html

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-firewarriors-are-such-utter-fail.html

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/12/comparison-tau-fire-warriors-and-kroot.html

Those links explain it better than I can, so have at 'em.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/07/tau-codex-review-fire-warriors.html
> 
> http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-firewarriors-are-such-utter-fail.html
> 
> ...


While I appreciate the opposite point of view, I couldn't disagree more with those posts. Not to mention the somewhat disrespectful tone that the second one had. Anyone who resorts to name calling and/or putting others ideas down deserves neither our attention nor our acceptance. There are better ways of showing your disagreement than referring to other peoples opinions as "stupid", or trying to marginalize them by refering to them as 'trolls'.

What many 40K players fail to realize is that its not about making so-called 'optimized lists', but rather using tactics to defeat your opponent. Fire Warrior Squads on foot, backed up by Crisis Suits, Broadsides etc. is a potent combination. Play tactics, not lists. 

I am not disagreeing that the Fire Warrior could use an update, for he certainly could, as could the whole Tau army as a whole. However, the idea that there is only one way to play Tau, and specifically Fire Warriors, is quite frankly wrong. Have you considered the possibility that those players who advocate such a minimalist use are just not as good with coming new ways to use the Fire Warrior? 

Take any unit in the entire game, while virtually all of them having an obvious role, there is more than one way for them to succesfully execute their mission. I am simply offering an alternative idea, for which I have had great success with, and I believe other Tau players would gain some knowledge and expand their existing tactics.

For instance, an Assault Cannon equipped Dreadnought is obviously good at chewing through enemy infantry, he is also good against vehicles. In fact, statistically speaking, you are more likely to damage a Land Raider with an Assault Cannon than you are with a single Lascannon.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss a differnet way to use the Fire Warrior, othan than Fish of Fury or Objective Camping, while still being effective. Using the Fire Warrior the way I have suggested is no less effective, it just requires some more tactical thinking on th Tau Player's part, and less emphasis on a cookie-cutter method. Every player is different, as they may prefer to use their units in different ways from what you tell them they should do. By telling Tau players, in particular, new players that those are the only way use Fire Warriors is doing them a disservice. We, as a wargaming community should encourage them to formulate their own style of play, using their own tactics and strategies.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

^ 
What he said.
A lot of people complain (I've done it in the past myself) about using 'optomized lists' for X race, capitalizing on Y unit.

The thing with Warhammer is, when you build a list that's, say, good in close combat, like an army of boyz (not the shoota variety), with mega nobz with CCWs and other close-combat item spamming will be owned at range, or an army that remains mostly stationary to shoot heavy weapons that will get totalled in CQC.

(I just realized that it's probably not a good idea to be posting this in a Tau topic, but w/e)


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

There's nothing wrong with Fire Warriors. Do they suffer a little in close combat? Sure. That's not a reason not to take them. They have a 4+ armor save, so they're not at as big a disadvantage in combat as people make them out to be anyway. More importantly, though, Fire Warriors are the staple of the army. They're the main Troops choice. Not bringing them in a Tau army is like not bringing Tactical Squads in a Space Marine army.

The trick to making Fire Warriors work is knowing when one squad needs to bite it for the Greater Good. Fire Warriors deploy; they shoot, and then one squad gets to be the sacrificial lamb for the enemy assault unit while the others get in their devilfish and spend a turn redeploying. Rinse, and repeat until there aren't any more enemies. You can supplement that strategy with other units that are rapidly able to redeploy, like Crisis Suits, which can lay down some serious supporting fire and deal with the stuff Fire Warriors can't; you can use Piranhas and Hammerheads to chase down anything that's trying to stay out of range of the Fire Warriors; and you can use Pathfinders to slow the enemy advance so you don't have to redeploy as often. 

I've found the most successful "formation" for Tau players has been putting two squads of Fire Warriors with one squad of Pathfinders. One squad of Fire Warriors doesn't need to be mounted; the other does. The other squad basically just hijacks the Pathfinders' 'fish. In the case of the Fire Warrior squads, you should probably have a mix of Pulse Rifles and Pulse Carbines. Anyway, you deploy the squad that doesn't have a dedicated transport wherever you need it, and have the mounted squad deployed outside its vehicle somewhere in the proximity so they can shoot at the same target. Then, you have the squad of pathfinders hang out nearby.

Step 1. Pick an infantry target. If you need to open a transport up to do that, then that's not a big deal-- that's why you have Hammerheads, Piranhas, Broadsides, etc. 

Step 2. Markerlight the fuck out of them with the Pathfinders.

Step 3. Have one unit of Fire Warriors shoot at them and use markerlight hits to lower their leadership as necessary. Pin them in place with the pulse carbines.

Step 4. Didn't kill enough, or fail to pin them? Squad two shoots. If the first squad pinned its target, then squad two can shoot another target of opportunity, or they can just continue to chew on the first target. 

Step 5. When the enemy closes with you, squad one hops back in its transport, and squad two steps forward to meet them in close combat. Squad two rapid-fires one last time before getting charged; squad one scoots off in its devilfish. 

And that's all there really is to it... you just have to make sure you're protecting your Pathfinders and providing enough anti-tank support to give your Fire Warriors targets.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Shas'O...Crap said:


> While I appreciate the opposite point of view, I couldn't disagree more with those posts. Not to mention the somewhat disrespectful tone that the second one had. Anyone who resorts to name calling and/or putting others ideas down deserves neither our attention nor our acceptance. There are better ways of showing your disagreement than referring to other peoples opinions as "stupid", or trying to marginalize them by refering to them as 'trolls'.


Yeah, the second one... I'm not a big fan of the writer, but I included the link for the sake of completeness. I didn't feel that it'd be an honest representation of the site's opinion if I decided to omit one of the articles addressing the topic at hand.



> What many 40K players fail to realize is that its not about making so-called 'optimized lists', but rather using tactics to defeat your opponent. Fire Warrior Squads on foot, backed up by Crisis Suits, Broadsides etc. is a potent combination. Play tactics, not lists.


Tactics are hugely important, it's true. In fact, it's basically impossible to be any good at the game with no tactical ability. Despite this, it's silly to say that list building isn't important in 40K. Having an optimized list alongside solid tactical abilities makes for a sickeningly hard to defeat army/player.

Fire Warriors on foot backed up by Crisis Suits and Broadsides isn't a potent combination. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

Fire Warriors die the first time someone shoots at them with competent anti-infantry weaponry. Even in cover Fire Warriors are far from survivable with a low Toughness and relatively small unit size even at maximum. They also suffer from terribad Leadership.

On that topic, check this out: http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/03/two-skills-of-40k.html



> I am not disagreeing that the Fire Warrior could use an update, for he certainly could, as could the whole Tau army as a whole. However, the idea that there is only one way to play Tau, and specifically Fire Warriors, is quite frankly wrong. Have you considered the possibility that those players who advocate such a minimalist use are just not as good with coming new ways to use the Fire Warrior?


I used to be an advocate of the "Fire Warriors aren't nearly as bad as people say" thing too, then I played people better than me and learned the errors of my ways. The Tau do suffer from monobuild syndrome, at least when playing competitively. In friendlies at the LGS Tau function just as well as any other army with almost any combination of units.

The people that advocate minimalist use of Fire Warriors are typically the people that compete in the most competitive environments. Big tournaments like the NOVA Open, Adepticon (I think?) and so on.



> Take any unit in the entire game, while virtually all of them having an obvious role, there is more than one way for them to succesfully execute their mission. I am simply offering an alternative idea, for which I have had great success with, and I believe other Tau players would gain some knowledge and expand their existing tactics.



This is absolutely true, except that Fire Warriors are frankly bad at what they're designed to do because they're too pricey for what they bring to the table.



> For instance, an Assault Cannon equipped Dreadnought is obviously good at chewing through enemy infantry, he is also good against vehicles. In fact, statistically speaking, you are more likely to damage a Land Raider with an Assault Cannon than you are with a single Lascannon.


He's good against vehicles if the rest of the list has more assault cannons to contribute, yes.



> The purpose of this thread was to discuss a differnet way to use the Fire Warrior, othan than Fish of Fury or Objective Camping, while still being effective. Using the Fire Warrior the way I have suggested is no less effective, it just requires some more tactical thinking on th Tau Player's part, and less emphasis on a cookie-cutter method. Every player is different, as they may prefer to use their units in different ways from what you tell them they should do. By telling Tau players, in particular, new players that those are the only way use Fire Warriors is doing them a disservice. We, as a wargaming community should encourage them to formulate their own style of play, using their own tactics and strategies.


I respectfully disagree. What does a new player a disservice is leading them to believe that a bad way of using a unit (or in some cases, using said unit at all) is a fine idea. Players then spend their money purchasing these units and then get completely annihilated for their trouble, become frustrated and either quit or spend even more time/money attempting to rectify the problem. As a wargaming community it's my feeling that as veterans we should take special care to advise new players to follow paths that will benefit them in the long run. There's still plenty of room for creativity when taking optimized lists except in a small number of cases where diverging from a specific path leads to disaster.


----------



## HatingYou (Oct 10, 2010)

Well done katie on writing a lot just saying firewarriors are bad :/

S5 
range 30
ap 5

Is it just me who thinks that is a good weapon?
so what they arn't hyper comp like the silly marine books or the IG but Firewarriors have a good bit of punch.

I think the only thing that makes them kinda crap is te lack of special weapon 
would be nice to have access to one but hey what can you do?


work with what ya got

wait...10 points is pricey?
back in the day fire warriors were the shit and 10 points is great!
what do you people want 5 points troops?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

HatingYou said:


> Well done katie on writing a lot just saying firewarriors are bad :/


I am saying Fire Warriors are bad, but I'm also giving reasons for it. I'm not the type to just turn on caps lock and insult people that disagree with me.



> S5
> range 30
> ap 5
> 
> Is it just me who thinks that is a good weapon?


Nobody said it isn't.



> so what they arn't hyper comp like the silly marine books or the IG but Firewarriors have a good bit of punch.


Against infantry that are outside of cover and outside of transports, sure.



> I think the only thing that makes them kinda crap is te lack of special weapon
> would be nice to have access to one but hey what can you do?


Focus on choices that give you more bang for your buck.  It's not like there's no alternative.



> wait...10 points is pricey?
> back in the day fire warriors were the shit and 10 points is great!
> what do you people want 5 points troops?


For what they do, yeah it's a little pricey. Just a little though, I don't think they're a huge ripoff or anything. Remember that Fire Warriors have an extremely limited role tactically - they're equipped to deal with light infantry and can't do too much else. If they could have a drone with a missile pod or plasma rifle or something, then we'd be talking.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> Yeah, the second one... I'm not a big fan of the writer, but I included the link for the sake of completeness. I didn't feel that it'd be an honest representation of the site's opinion if I decided to omit one of the articles addressing the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough regarding the second article.

Regarding the Firewarriors backed up by Crisis Suits and Broadsides, I respectfully disagree with you. At face value many players would say the same as you, however, it is the tactics you employ upon the battlefield the will reveal its potency (or impotentcy if used poorly).

While their Leadership isn't great, I object to your use of an absolute with regarding how easy they die, especially when they are in cover. 40K is nothing if not a game lacking Abolutes (the rules notwithstanding, of course), there is simply too many variables.

"On that topic, check this out: http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/20...ls-of-40k.html"

This guy's article was great! I am decidely more of a general than a list-builder, but I like think I build pretty goods lists. Lists are meaningless unless you know how to make all of the various abilities of your units work in Tactical Synchronicty, which is what I strive for.

Tau can be competitve without having to resort to a cookie-cutter method. It all comes down to how you employ your units.

I have never actually attended one of these tournaments, but from what I have read about them they don't seem to be as fun as a casual game or smaller tournament, but that is just my opinion, nothing more.

"Too pricey" falls into the 'my army is too expensive' fallacy. 10pts for an awesome gun is a bargain, in my opinion

Perhaps you misunderstood me. What I was getting at was that while we should show them (the rookies) what the cookie-cutter method is capable of, we should still encourage them to try different things, with proxies if necessary, until they find something that works for them. We shouldn't be saying "this is how you use Fire Warriors, never deviate from this, lest the Chaos Gods eat your soul!" Everything has multiple ways of being effective.

All that being said, many thanks for your input Katie Drake. While I disagree with you, I certainly have gained respect for you. You write well, you are articulate, and you brought something to the table.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

While you are making good points katie, I think you are saying that there are no alternatives to your viewpoint, even if unintentionally.

I wonder if your example of play in the most competitive environments reverses causality. That is to say, are they taking minimal troops because they are not competitive, or because they are more interested in using other units?

I have noticed that a lot of the more competitive players tend to think one-dimensionally, focusing on only one way to approach problems and no other and can't help but think that they might not do as well outside of that environment. I say this because I have seen builds that are nowhere near optimised in the hands of new players do well in my group.


----------



## HatingYou (Oct 10, 2010)

When I first started tau I didn't fully understand rapid fire
I thought it was half your range
SO!
picture me rolling round the board rapid firing things from 15 away
I thought I was the shit......until some bastard pointed it out to me LOL

but back on topic

Firewarriors in cover can be very useful 
Im used to toughness 3 so I have no problems there
their armour is 4+ to me that's good
obviously they are best in a devilfish but a couple of squads at long range could out shoot a tactical squad or two.

but no Fire warriors are not bad
is you think they're bad stop playing wolves/emo angels
old codex
good weapon
good armour
leadership isnt as bad as people think
can have a good sized squad

now that's not bad at all...not great but still.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Shas'O...Crap said:


> While their Leadership isn't great, I object to your use of an absolute with regarding how easy they die, especially when they are in cover. 40K is nothing if not a game lacking Abolutes (the rules notwithstanding, of course), there is simply too many variables.


You're correct, speaking in absolutes really isn't appropriate in this context. I should say that against the vast majority of good lists played by good players, squads of Fire Warriors will often be killed in a single shooting phase. This is simply a product of being infantry with neither an especially high Toughness value, good armor save, multiple wounds or special rule (like Feel No Pain). I'm struggling to think of any good list that wouldn't have an easy time of killing 12 Fire Warriors in a single go without putting an inordinate amount of effort into doing so and am coming up blank. Space Marines, Blood Angels and Space Wolves can all do it by virtue of having lots of AP4 shots from Predators, Razorbacks and Dreadnoughts. Grey Knights can do it in their sleep with storm bolters, Ork Lootas can easily pump out enough shots and so on.



> This guy's article was great! I am decidely more of a general than a list-builder, but I like think I build pretty goods lists. Lists are meaningless unless you know how to make all of the various abilities of your units work in Tactical Synchronicty, which is what I strive for.


Absolutely. As I said, it's basically impossible to be good if you don't have any ability to actually play the game with a degree of skill. No list can make up for that.



> Tau can be competitve without having to resort to a cookie-cutter method. It all comes down to how you employ your units.


Depends on the environment. Are we talking about a little tournament at the FLGS? If so, yeah, sure, I can get on board with the idea that a Tau army built as you describe can do well. Outside of that... not so much.




> "Too pricey" falls into the 'my army is too expensive' fallacy. 10pts for an awesome gun is a bargain, in my opinion


It isn't the gun that's the problem. It's the trooper carrying it.



> Perhaps you misunderstood me. What I was getting at was that while we should show them (the rookies) what the cookie-cutter method is capable of, we should still encourage them to try different things, with proxies if necessary, until they find something that works for them. We shouldn't be saying "this is how you use Fire Warriors, never deviate from this, lest the Chaos Gods eat your soul!" Everything has multiple ways of being effective.


Again, depending upon the environment, you could very well be correct. In casual games or small tournaments at the local game store going a different route from the "cookie-cutter" one is entirely acceptable and new players can indeed find that these alternate builds can 'work for them'. It's just that these things tend to cease working very well in increasingly more cut throat environments.



> All that being said, many thanks for your input Katie Drake. While I disagree with you, I certainly have gained respect for you. You write well, you are articulate, and you brought something to the table.


Thanks.  Nice discussing things with you.



Son of mortarion said:


> While you are making good points katie, I think you are saying that there are no alternatives to your viewpoint, even if unintentionally.


I'm of the opinion that in the environment that I'm talking about Tau work one way and only one way. I'm not flexible on that. Outside of the NOVA or something it's a different story.



> I wonder if your example of play in the most competitive environments reverses causality. That is to say, are they taking minimal troops because they are not competitive, or because they are more interested in using other units?


No, competitive players take what they do because they want to compete as best they can. It would shock most people to see just how many games your average competitive gamer plays with various lists, trying all sorts of different unit combinations. Only in extreme cases are units written off out of hand without being tested, like in the case of the Pyrovore and even then some people will give it the good ol' college try.

Competitive players avoid Fire Warriors because they're bad. Believe me, if we could find a way to take less than six Fire Warriors, we would.  Other units (like Crisis and Broadside teams) are simply far and away better.



> I have noticed that a lot of the more competitive players tend to think one-dimensionally, focusing on only one way to approach problems and no other


Probably, but I imagine it's possible to say the same for casual players. Each player type plays (almost) exclusively within their own preferred environments. I really doubt you see casual players ever stopping to consider what would operate best in a truly competitive environment, so for most competitive gamers it's probably the same but in reverse.



> and can't help but think that they might not do as well outside of that environment. I say this because I have seen builds that are nowhere near optimised in the hands of new players do well in my group.


It's certainly possible, but I doubt it. In my experience and in the experience of all my peers, it's very possible to take an optimized list into a more casual environment and completely wreck face with it. In fact there are a bunch of less than flattering titles reserved exactly for someone that does just that - noobslayer, power gamer, WAAC jerk and so on. As for people using non-optimal lists and doing well, that makes perfect sense when facing off against other non-optimal lists. That's like a Bronze League player in Starcraft II using a Build Order to defeat another Bronze League player - of course it's going to seem effective in that environment, but it'd be a rare occurrence indeed for that same player to be able to beat a Master's League player with the same tactic (barring some sort of hideous imbalance which would be roughly analogous to luck in 40K).


----------



## SonsOfVulkan (Jan 29, 2011)

5th edition = mech edition for many codexes.... Foot slogging fire warriors are probably not going to stop marines in rhinos and razorbacks. Ofc you got broadsides to deal with transports... but after spending so many points on large fw squads, are you going to have enough anti-av to deal with opponent's heavy tanks? Those points could of gone towards critical upgrades and more suits, fishes and hammerheads for all your troops. 

For weak CC races like IG, eldar, tau and etc its all about survivalbility, mobility and powerful shooting. You need transports for your main SCORING UNITS.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

SonsOfVulkan said:


> *5th edition = mech edition for many codexes....*


This is why the Firewarriors are at something of a disadvantage. You have to spend so many shooting phases blowing up transports with your hammerheads that the Land Raiders/Preadators can get close enough to drop their termies.

Also, don't forget cover spamming. 4+ is just waaaay too good a save IMO (especially when it's a bloody crater that would only be a 3-9" indent in the ground) for your standard piece of terrain. It makes us Shas'os headdesk when facing Orks, which should be a more interesting game then this:

'Attacking your 6+ save orks with my S5 AP5 weapon'
'4+ cover saves from a bush'
'FUUU-'


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Alsojames said:


> This is why the Firewarriors are at something of a disadvantage. You have to spend so many shooting phases blowing up transports with your hammerheads that the Land Raiders/Preadators can get close enough to drop their termies.
> 
> Also, don't forget cover spamming. 4+ is just waaaay too good a save IMO (especially when it's a bloody crater that would only be a 3-9" indent in the ground) for your standard piece of terrain. It makes us Shas'os headdesk when facing Orks, which should be a more interesting game then this:
> 
> ...


Personally, I find Broadsides better suited (pardon the pun) for dealing with enemy armor than a Hammerhead. In fact, the only real advantage a hammerhead has is the sub-munition, which is nice for hordes, but I contend massed Pulse Rifle Fire with some Twin-linked flamer (which, incidently, remove those ubiquitous 4+ Cover Saves) suits are better than one or two hammerheads slinging realatively weak (S6 AP4, compared to the Battle Cannon at S8 AP3) pieplates around. I have been considering the Hammerhead, and I think it might actually be better suited for dealing with MEQs (when equipped with an Ion Cannon), but I don't have any play-testing to back this up at the moment, but I think I might try it.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Broadsides over a Hammerhead? Madness.

The Hammerhead is probably best in it's field. Beaten only in volume of Fire by the DE Ravager. 

It's a scary fucking tank, and it amazes me that Tau players don't run 3 period.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Orochi said:


> Broadsides over a Hammerhead? Madness.
> 
> The Hammerhead is probably best in it's field. Beaten only in volume of Fire by the DE Ravager.
> 
> It's a scary fucking tank, and it amazes me that Tau players don't run 3 period.


Broadsides are better at cracking tanks than Hammerheads are. 3 twin-linked railgun shots is better than one railgun shot, even without markerlight support. When you increase the BS of the Broadsides and/or remove cover saves from their target, Broadsides are the last word in tank hunting.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Granted yes. But they lack the overall firepower and speed/survivabilty of the hammer head.
Not to mention that a pimped out Railhead comes to 165 points (off the top of my head). Down the narrow valley yes, Broadsides win out. But in actual play, Railheads are gods.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Orochi said:


> Broadsides over a Hammerhead? Madness.
> 
> The Hammerhead is probably best in it's field. Beaten only in volume of Fire by the DE Ravager.
> 
> It's a scary fucking tank, and it amazes me that Tau players don't run 3 period.


Madness you say?!

Consider this:

One Broadside equipped with a Targeting Array and its standard Twin-linked Railgun is TWICE as likely to hit, and therefore damage any enemy vehicle/montrous creature, for about half the points, and they have a 2+ armor save, placed in cover, this gives them a 4+ cover save, which is, for all intents and purposes, an invulnerable save.

Hammerheads have only one shot (not counting secondary weapon systems, which are decidely anti-infantry in nature), how is that 'volume of fire'?

As was pointed out an an earlier post, 5th Ed sees more Mech, therefore, give me the Twin-linked Railguns.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> Broadsides are better at cracking tanks than Hammerheads are. 3 twin-linked railgun shots is better than one railgun shot, even without markerlight support. When you increase the BS of the Broadsides and/or remove cover saves from their target, Broadsides are the last word in tank hunting.


 
You beat me to it, Katie!


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Oh trust, I don't take anything away from broadsides. But they simply have no place in a mech army.
Now I know not everyone runs the Tau flying Circus. Tau Gunlines are viable and plentiful.

But in the higher ranking games, Broadsides are as much a liability as they are a bonus.

In a gunline, the enemy (even guard) will try and get into combat with you. Meaning yu need to make those shots count as you simply cannot redeploy. Also, 3x6 = 18. I very much doubt your Broadsides will get 6 turns of shooting out of them. And I really doubt that the enemy will LET you have 6 turns of shooting anyway. Seeing as now shubbery seems to be nuclear fallout proof, the mighty static broadside will be needing fire lanes asap.

Compared to the mobile and adaptable Railhead. I feel the weaknesses outshine the potential Pros.

But overall, I know that Broadsides are dangerous. And if they work for you, then that's all that matters.


----------



## SonsOfVulkan (Jan 29, 2011)

Alot of the competitive lists I see runs 2 hammerheads and a 3x Broadside squad. The thing about running all broadsides is that they are not very mobile and if they get caught into CC by opponent deepstrikers and etc, your boned on much of your anti-av capabilities. 

But back to topic, your 3 units of heavy support is NOT going to be enough to deal with the amount of mech many 5th ed armies are running. You need to spend enough points on your crisis suits to deal with enemy transports and let your railguns deal with higher av units. Your FWs are mainly used to hold objectives and they need fishes with DR to make them more survivable. Large number of FWs on foot are going to get slaughter by deepstriking termies and etc, or get blown apart by AP4+ large blast weapons(prisms, LRBT). Run 2-3 six men squads of FWs in transports, put the rest of your points into heavy support, elites, and HQ. 

Alot of the advices and logics against running many large FW squads are very sound and has been proven through play tests countless times. We don't want to influence new players with bad advices and resulting in them wasting their money and get crushed badly and end up losing interest and quitting the hobby.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I love Fire Warriors, but I will let them collect some dust while I wait for their points cost to get lowered to 8. Carbine FW's should even be 7.



Shas'O...Crap said:


> Madness you say?!
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> ...


Broadsides are:
-in need of firing lanes to be effective. This is easily denied by most clever players unless you have 9/9 Broadsides covering the field, in which case you have wasted almost a thousand points on Anti-tank. Derp.
-Slow and cumbersome. When they run out of targets and have to move, you are most likely looking at them doing diddly for 3 turns.
-Best used in a static Tau army, the least viable tactic to play Tau. Get mobile.
-Easily countered. Get into CQC and it's GG. Also very weak against the most common Heavy weapon in tournament play: the Demolisher.
-Lacking options. 1 hard point and no hard-wired spells: F.A.I.L.

Hammerheads are:
-Impossible to hide from
-With a disruption pod arguably harder to take down - or at least requires a greater reroute of specialized firepower.
-Can't be countered by CQC
-More versatile. Ran out of tanks? Mass slaughter their troops with the galaxy's largest shotgun.
-Always going to be doing something useful, every turn.

I'll stick to the Hammerhead, thanks.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I`m on side with two hammerheads over fielding broadsides. 

I`ve always found Broadsides far too easy to get rid of.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I love Fire Warriors, but I will let them collect some dust while I wait for their points cost to get lowered to 8. Carbine FW's should even be 7.


You're dreaming on that one. Firewarriors may only be T3, BS3 but they've got a 4+ armour save and carry a gun that has both higher strength and a greater range than most guns in the game so 10 points is a fair cost



Serpion5 said:


> I`m on side with two hammerheads over fielding broadsides.
> 
> I`ve always found Broadsides far too easy to get rid of.


Same here. Hammerheads are well protected by their disruption pods and their sub-munitions shots are great against infantry.

Broadsides on the other hand can be picked off one by one and tend to stand out as 'kill me now' units anyhow.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

The Sullen One said:


> You're dreaming on that one. Firewarriors may only be T3, BS3 but they've got a 4+ armour save and carry a gun that has both higher strength and a greater range than most guns in the game so 10 points is a fair cost


No, not after the newest edition came out. Every piece of meat in the galaxy went down or got stronger in points cost, and the Fire Warrior will too.

GW has been ignoring their 2 WS and 2 I when balancing their points out as well.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

You have to remember that a FW points are based off their effectiveness in the army as a whole. On his own, yes you could argue that his points are unjust. 

But look at his potential! What happens when you combine that squad`s potential with markerlights or pulse carbines? 

Points take into account all the possible applications, not just the guy with the gun.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

If firewarriors depend on another unit to dotheir thing well, either them or that unit should be cheaper. And i find it lame that you often use the same lame BS3 to fire the markerlight as you do with regular shots, meaning half of them will be wasted. And they are Heavy! It's a currently existing technology, for Khorne's sake. 

Fire warriors suffer with a bad statline except for Armor save (just enough to keep them locked in CC and make the engaged unit immune to your pulse rifles next turn, yay!), utter lack of weapon options and requiring the rest of the army to pop transports before they can do anything in most games. The average Sister of Battle has better BS, better armor and more fun special weapon choices for almost the same price, and they are an even more outdated codex!

They should be able to have a designated 'special' shooter able to take a Rail Rifle or maybe a portable Missile Pod. Or a drone carrying Seeker missiles! Really, there's a lot to do to make them efficient in a balanced way.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

It seems that many of you think that I don't use Hammerheads, let me clarify.

I do use Hammerheads, though if I were forced to choose between two Broadsides or one Hammerhead (approximately the same points cost), I would take the Braodsides, twin-linked is always better than a single shot at +1BS, and, as any Tau player will tell you, if you fail to pop your opponents transports on the first turn, it's all but over for you. Personally, I like having a mix of Broadsides and Hammerheads.

@Metalhandkerchief (like the name by the way!)

On your average gaming table, there are plenty of firing lanes (excepting a heavy cityscape board, but those also have nice high places to deploy your Broadsides on, so it's really not that bad)

If your a Tau player and you run out of targets, that usually means your winning!

"Easily countered in CQC", well....yeah...they're Tau. That's why you take Kroot, Fire Warriors and a good mix of suits. You don't put a lone Broadside in the middle of the open in a corner and hope for the best, you use Tactics. Name a unit that isn't vulnerable to the Demolisher Cannon!

I'll give you that Hammerheads _may_ be more survivable than a Broadside, but not by much. A 2+ armor save, and 4+ Cover Save vs the Hammerhead's front armor are pretty comparable.

While the Hammerhead Railgun is the Galaxy's largest shotgun, it's still a shotgun. A Battle Cannon is far superior in this. Don't get me wrong, I like the sub-munition shot with it, but given the plethora of MEQ armies out there, it's not as effective as the aforementioned Battle Cannon, which sadly, the Tau have nothing comarable too.

With proper deployment, your Broadsides will always be doing someting useful. Have you ever seen what a three man Broadside team does to a Terminator Squad after the Broadsides have destroyed or maimed all of your opponents vehicles?

With regards that you can't hide from nor do anything to a Hammerhead in close combat, consider this; there are no absolutes in 40K (excepting the rules of course), not the least of which is dice. Hammerheads can be hidden from, especially if your opponent knows how to use terrain, and Thunderhammers, Chainfists etc. would say otherwise regarding your statement about Close Combat. Is it likely to be engaged in close combat, no, but the odds are not nearly as small as seem to suggest.


----------



## Malferion (Mar 9, 2011)

I tend not to use fire warriors, but I managed to kill a couple of death company models with a fire warrior squad. I was so proud  It took me awhile to get used to the BS3 after playing with all BS4 units. Now i just go with as many suits as possible.

It's also fun to watch fire warriors get masscred by berzerkers in cc, but that's just from a chaos perspective. Tau blood is still gladly accepted by the Blood God!


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Let me recount a previous game.

Blood Angel squad of 10 blows my devilfish apart with a melta. 7 Firewarriors pour out. A nearby group of pathfinders sees this and does not approve. Multiple red dots appear on the Blood Angel squad. 

All 14 of those rapid fire pulse rifle shots hit him. Only 3 Marines are left standing, and they run like hell. 

Fire Warriors are very fragile, yes. But I'd like to see someone say they're not good after they get in rapid fire range with support from your friendly neighborhood markerlights. 

I feel they fill in the point weight just fine so long as you know how to use them.


----------



## Shas'O...Crap (Mar 19, 2011)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> Fire Warriors are very fragile, yes. But I'd like to see someone say they're not good after they get in rapid fire range with support from your friendly neighborhood markerlights.
> 
> I feel they fill in the point weight just fine so long as you know how to use them.


Exactly my point! It's why I started this thread! +REP!


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I love my fire warriors for the models as much as the guns. I field up to 50 in fun games However I would never field them in a game I wanted to _win_ as opposed to _play_.

I have exactly the army being discussed at some point above. Broadsides and Crisis suits backed up by a horde of Firewarriors. Some with rifles some with carbines.

Now I have played this army against all the armies in 40K since shortly after the codex came out. I say this purely so you know i'm not relying on mathhammer to back up my argument that they are just not very good.

In thier defense Firewarriors have a cracking gun and the armour is OK. Anything firing at AP4 is usually highish strength and i'd rather it fired at the humble FW than at my suits. I also try to put a markerlight in each of five or six squads if I have the points. So that is around a third of a 1500pt army.

The issue with them is thier crap leadership. I know it was mentioned above and covered in one of the links but I can't stress it enough. Much has been made of the ability of many armies to wipe out a squad in a turn of firing. For a part of the time that is a waste of firepower for your enemy. I run squads of eight or ten. That means that your opponent only needs to knock over 2 or 3 to cause a leadership test. Around a third of the time they will fail that test and run away. The effect is exacerbated by you really having to put them near the baseline to keep them away from the enemy and therefore you often only normally have one chance to rally.

This poor leadership really hamstrings the usefullness of a firewarrior squad. In the beginning I would run an ethereal with a large bodygaurd squad to at least give them a re-roll. However your opponent really has to be as thick as an elephant sandwich not to eventually concentrate on smashing his blue face in and watching chunks of his your army run away. In the game right now you really have to wipe out most squads down to the last man/xenos to stop them. The vast majority of codices now have a way to get your leadership buffed or re-rolled, or are just downright fearless. In the current meta game something with that low leadership and no opportunity to buff it really suffers.

But as I said I still use them and enjoy the odd cinematic moment where they are usefull. But that is very rare  They often just give the enemy anti-infantry units someone to play with while his harder stuff hunts down your suits.


----------



## SuperNovice (Mar 20, 2009)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> Blood Angel squad of 10 blows my devilfish apart with a melta. 7 Firewarriors pour out. A nearby group of pathfinders sees this and does not approve. Multiple red dots appear on the Blood Angel squad.
> 
> All 14 of those rapid fire pulse rifle shots hit him. Only 3 Marines are left standing, and they run like hell.
> 
> Fire Warriors are very fragile, yes. But I'd like to see someone say they're not good after they get in rapid fire range with support from your friendly neighborhood markerlights.


This is really a statistical anomaly. We've all had games where one unit or model performs FAR beyond reasonable expectations. It's not an example that the unit is good; it's an example that luck was on your side.

I'd also argue that Fire warriors in rapid fire range are exactly where they don't want to be against pretty much any infantry. Fire warriors are best at or near max range where they aren't subject to return fire and/or an imminent assault which they are almost guaranteed to lose. 

I don't that I can add much beyond what Katie has already said. I love fire warriors and field 60-72 in most of my 'fun' Tau lists as I believe that best fits the spirit of their fluff. However, if I'm playing in a tourney, I field the absolute minimum as they just aren't effective against the types of units I'm likely to see in a highly competitive environment.


----------



## ThatTauGuyJoe (Oct 5, 2010)

Nicely played bro. You sound like a very skilled player, or at least one with a good amount of understandment about the game. Personally, I agree completely. About 6 months ago, I played in a tourney (1850pts) with my tau. Didn't do so well, being that it was my first actual tournament, but my fire warriors prevented me from coming in last. I ended up placed 16th out of 24, with only 2 squads of 12 fire warriors, i'm planning on getting at least 2 more squads of 12 when I get back to the states (I'm out of the country on a business trip right now), that should give me the firepower to overcome. The fire warrior is argumentably the best troop in my eyes, i mean, like you said, they aren't strong in CC, but they're range is far superior. One thing that wasn't mentioned though was the EMP nades. A lot of people think they're a waste of points, but I think they're pretty devastating when up against vehicles (the store I play at "The Hobby Chest" in Jacksonville, NC has a lot of players that have alot of vehicles, so i bring my EMP nades, "just in case". Let me know what you think about EMP nades, man, and keep playing tau because it's for the greater good.

ThatTauGuyJoe


----------



## eadipus (Nov 22, 2010)

SuperNovice said:


> This is really a statistical anomaly. We've all had games where one unit or model performs FAR beyond reasonable expectations. It's not an example that the unit is good; it's an example that luck was on your side.
> 
> I'd also argue that Fire warriors in rapid fire range are exactly where they don't want to be against pretty much any infantry. Fire warriors are best at or near max range where they aren't subject to return fire and/or an imminent assault which they are almost guaranteed to lose.
> 
> I don't that I can add much beyond what Katie has already said. I love fire warriors and field 60-72 in most of my 'fun' Tau lists as I believe that best fits the spirit of their fluff. However, if I'm playing in a tourney, I field the absolute minimum as they just aren't effective against the types of units I'm likely to see in a highly competitive environment.


Just to show how bad FW are at shooting marines, here's some numbers run through the combat calculator:

linky

depending on range/ML support you can expect to kill between 1 and 3 marines. If you kill 3 you're within 12 inches and getting assaulted next turn

Glancing transports/land speeders is about all they're good for against marines unless you get really lucky and someone fails a lot of saves


----------

