Fire Warriors are good again!

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#19 » Nov 28 2017 04:25

Yojimbob wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Draaen wrote:The big thing though is their cost to me. 3 fire warrior squads and 2 fireblades is a steal for 3 command points and all can do quite well on their own while being relatively sturdy. Plus we like commanders anyways so it's not like we are hurting to fill out HQ slots for the most part meaning the only "tax" is the fire warriors. If sniper drones become reduced in cost or better brigades will be quite accessible to Tau.


I, on the other hand, think that strike teams are quite expensive at 8pts per fire warrior. If the cadre fireblade was a better force multiplier and/or we had a markerlight table that did anything serious to help the strike teams*, but as they are now they are a bit overcosted.

*as it stands now the makerlights help the strike teams on the 1st markerlight, situationally on the 4th and then on the 5th.


I know BS 4+ isn't good but getting those shots at 30" with the potential of 2 shots at 15" unbuffed with str5 weapons on a chassis that has a 4+ seems pretty good to me for 8 points. If anyone has the points of other basic troops I'd like to see them for comparison but I feel like our basic troops is definitely not overcosted. Lots of cheap battalions with hidden lights everywhere.


And they lack any versatility, they are made with a stationary gunline in mind in an edition that really doesn't favor such tactics.
Strike teams cost the same as guardian defenders while having worse BS, much worse WS, better save, a bit better leadership, comperable weapons (ours might be a bit better but i don't think so), situational better overwatch, no versatility and worse force multiplier. Also both have access to only one expensive transport (theirs is better but let's not dwell on that).
When compared to termagants (with devourers for comperable cost) we come out on top because we have better force multiplier (for the shooting phase), both units have no versatility and we have better save. Congratulations, our mainstay troops are more effective at shooting than nid troops.
Let's not even go to AM troops, the comparison makes me sad.
Last edited by leo1925 on Nov 28 2017 06:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 866

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#20 » Nov 28 2017 06:47

Yojimbob wrote:I know BS 4+ isn't good but getting those shots at 30" with the potential of 2 shots at 15" unbuffed with str5 weapons on a chassis that has a 4+ seems pretty good to me for 8 points. If anyone has the points of other basic troops I'd like to see them for comparison but I feel like our basic troops is definitely not overcosted. Lots of cheap battalions with hidden lights everywhere.


Got you fam. Keep in mind that it isn't worth realllllly comparing codexes but I'll throw this in for discussion.

TAC Space Marine - 13pts - Boltgun Rapid Fire 1 S4 24'' Rng. They get frag and krak grenades though but you have to be within 6'' to use those. (BS3) Their high BS allows them to hit their target, but the middle of the road strength means that they'll be wounding on 4s (on other MEQ) and 5s (anything T5-7 like Crisis Suits) more often than not.

Guardsman - 4pts Lasgun Rapid Fire 1 S3 24'' Rng. They have a basic armor save of 5+. (BS4) Gruadsman hit on 4s, but you'd be surprised to find out that guard do not have many ways to access re-rolling 1s. They do have stratagems and commands that make them shoot more shots. Keep in mind though that their low BS skill will make half of them miss, and then the strength of the weapon is 3. That means that against pretty much anything close enough to shoot, you'll be wounding on at least 5s or in the case of bigger things, 6s.

Grey Knight Strike Marine - 21pts - Storm Bolter Rapid Fire 2 S4 24'' Rng. For the curious, these guys are almost double the cost because they are psykers, can deepstrike (on their own), can learn one ability off of the Santic List, equipped with a Force Sword, frag, krak, and psyk-out grenades. (BS3) Their high BS allows them to hit their target, but the middle of the road strength means that they'll be wounding on 4s and 5s more often than not. The difference here is that these guys are likely going to be operating in the double tap range. That amount of firepower usually puts out wounds that enemies fail to save.

Dire Avenger - 12pts - Avenger Shuriken Catapult Assault 2 S4 18'' Rng. Wound rolls of 6+ make the weapon AP-3 instead of 0. (BS3) Their high BS allows them to hit their target, but the middle of the road strength means that they'll be wounding on 4s and 5s more often than not. They get a lucky boost on damage if they roll 6s to wound, but they have to get relatively close to do that work. They're still elves and only T3 so return fire will be hard to weather. Not saying that -3 AP is bad, but you still have to get that wound up.

Firewarrior (Strike) - 8pts - Pulse Rifle - Rapid Fire 1 S5 30'' Rng. They also get defensive grenades which are not that bad honestly. They stack with each other and you can pile them on to charging units making them completely ineffective if you are lucky. (BS4) The BS is low, but it can be improved via markerlights and other buffs (ethereal, Commander, etc). The important thing to note here is that all buffs considered, you can hit just as well as the above units, but with a stronger weapon at longer range. This means that your troops can stay out of the thick of it for longer which means you'll get more shooting in. Strength 5 means that you'll be wounding on 4s and 3s more often than not.

Firewarrior (Breacher) - 8pts - Pulse Blaster - Assault 2 // 15-10'' S4 // 10-5'' S5 -1AP // 5'' S6 -2AP - Breachers are sort of an answer to troop choices that get special weapons (Guard, TAC squads, etc.). They are harder to use than their contemporaries so their effectiveness is middling. Even still, that's a crazy amount of firepower for the points.

TL;DR - Their lack of shooting skill can be often made up in other ways and their S5 weapon makes them one of the strongest infantry units in the game. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a Sept that gives some kind of bonus to Pulse type weapons to encourage gunline armies.

leo1925 wrote:Strike teams cost the same as guardian defenders while having worse BS, much worse WS, better save, a bit better leadership, comperable weapons (ours might be a bit better but i don't think so), situational better overwatch, no versatility and worse force multiplier. Also both have access to only one expensive transport (theirs is better but let's not dwell on that).


Guardian squads have BS3, WS is irrelevant, Guardians have 5+ save, bit better LD but Firewarriors often will have an ethereal and we get to ignore morale on a 6+. Guardian weapons are Assault 2 S4 with the normal 6+ wound is AP -3 but the range is 12''. The only thing that makes them shine are their weapons platforms which have to be manned by Guardians. They also do not have many units that can buff them like Firewarriors can be buffed.

Guardians are primarily used to hold objectives and use the weapons platform as a means to get powerful shooting downrange. I wouldn't say they are better for the points. Even if you do decide to take a weapons platform your unit is 85pts before the weapon is even selected.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 105

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#21 » Nov 28 2017 07:10

I, on the other hand, think that strike teams are quite expensive at 8pts per fire warrior. If the cadre fireblade was a better force multiplier and/or we had a markerlight table that did anything serious to help the strike teams*, but as they are now they are a bit overcosted.

*as it stands now the makerlights help the strike teams on the 1st markerlight, situationally on the 4th and then on the 5th.


Well we can disagree on the fireblade. A 50% increase in shot output is a really good damage multiplier. Further the marker light table should be less of an issue with the stratagem as well which is a main takeaway I got from Arkas main post. I agree getting to 5 is prohibitive now but thanks to the stratagem it should be much more attainable.

And they lack any versatility, they are made with a stationary gunline in mind in an edition that really doesn't favor such tactics.


Fire warriors can get marker lights so they do have some versatility. I don't understand the stationary comment. Fire warriors have the standard move rate and a 15" rapid fire range. Turn 1-2 they should be rapid firing people if they move. Turn 1 and 2 your opponents anti infantry is probably going against drones and crisis suits. Fire warriors have a good standing still game but what's wrong with that? Further what's wrong with a specialized troop choice? Quad fusion commanders are a great unit but won't be taking out hordes of guardsman. If our fire warriors can take out guardsman and tactical marines and are good at it what is the issue?

Strike teams cost the same as guardian defenders while having worse BS, much worse WS, better save, a bit better leadership, comperable weapons (ours might be a bit better but i don't think so), situational better overwatch, no versatility and worse force multiplier. Also both have access to only one expensive transport (theirs is better but let's not dwell on that).


Our fire warriors have almost triple the range and a minimum squad size of 5 instead of 10 (unless the codex changed it). That minimum squad size is a big deal to me. I can get a min sized squad for 40 points or 43 with a markerlight. They are at 80 plus specialty weapons. For them to get troops for a battalion that is 240+ points. For me max 129. Then a cheap fireblade which buffs my cheap troop slots and has the best durable markerlight available helps fill out the battalion. Plus I am MSU so I am more resistant to morale, get in cover easier and if I spend the same amount of points can cover a lot more of the board for deep strike denial.

When compared to termagants (with devourers for comperable cost) we come out on top because we have better force multiplier (for the shooting phase), both units have no versatility and we have better save. Congratulations, are mainstay troops are more effective at shooting than nid troops.
Let's not even go to AM troops, the comparison makes me sad.


I'm running some numbers on more comparisons and I'll want to double check it before I post them but I don't think the gap is as large as you fear when you get to re-roll ones and fire 3 shots vs their 2 which is a very realistic scenario.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 372
Contact:

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#22 » Nov 28 2017 07:20

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Got you fam. Keep in mind that it isn't worth realllllly comparing codexes but I'll throw this in for discussion.

I actually ran the math on it, though these comparisons are without any buffs or support.

All fired at close range
DEQ is Dreadnought equivalent (T6 3+ Sv)

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 6 needed per kill (24pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 19 needed per kill (76pts/wound)

Space marine
Vs GEQ 2 needed per kill (26pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (65pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (91pts/wound)

Grey Knights
Vs GEQ 1 needed per kill (21pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 2.5 needed per kill (52.5pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 4 needed per kill (84pts/wound)

Fire Warriors (Pulse rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.5 needed per kill (20pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (40pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per kill (72pts/wound)

I couldn't get the math for the eldar and too many variables for breachers.

As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Obviously this doesn't account for unit survivability just sheer damage output.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 372
Contact:

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#23 » Nov 28 2017 07:32

Oh and for fun worked it out with Militarum tempestus again assuming no support they are hands down the best troop

Vs GEQ 1.5 needed per kill (15pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 3.5 needed per kill (35pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (70pts/wound)

With markerlight support and a fireblade our firewarriors do get an increase of approximately 58% to 72% depending on how many markerlights

Though AM with proper support can get more than 100% increase in efficiency, especially MT vs DEQ can potentially get down to 30pts per successful would on T6+ 3+Sv!! Which btw is 200% better than standard space Marines.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#24 » Nov 28 2017 07:48

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
leo1925 wrote:Strike teams cost the same as guardian defenders while having worse BS, much worse WS, better save, a bit better leadership, comperable weapons (ours might be a bit better but i don't think so), situational better overwatch, no versatility and worse force multiplier. Also both have access to only one expensive transport (theirs is better but let's not dwell on that).


Guardian squads have BS3, WS is irrelevant, Guardians have 5+ save, bit better LD but Firewarriors often will have an ethereal and we get to ignore morale on a 6+. Guardian weapons are Assault 2 S4 with the normal 6+ wound is AP -3 but the range is 12''. The only thing that makes them shine are their weapons platforms which have to be manned by Guardians. They also do not have many units that can buff them like Firewarriors can be buffed.

Guardians are primarily used to hold objectives and use the weapons platform as a means to get powerful shooting downrange. I wouldn't say they are better for the points. Even if you do decide to take a weapons platform your unit is 85pts before the weapon is even selected.


No, WS isn't irrelevant, it's just not particularly relevant but it might make a difference.
No, guardians don't have better LD, they have 7 just like our strike team shashui, but our fire warriors get to negate loses on a 6, it's we who have better LD.
So what if their range is 12? They have 7+d6" movement, that means that they will be able to shoot on most occasions, the only situation that they won't be able to hit is if they are playing first (and even then it depends on the deployment, and whether the enemy has inflitrators and/or scout moves), and that's before thinking about their deep striking stratagem.
Yes, yes, of course they don't have many units to buff them, only their autarchs and they fricking psyckers* (and i am not even thinking about their buffing stratagems) while we have our meager markerlights (that only 1, 4 and 5 can affect the strike team), our cadre fireblades and the ethereals both of which require multiple strike teams to be very close with one another. I believe that the guardians have it better in terms of buffing (for the time being, when our codex arrives i will re-evaluate).
The weapon platforms (as you said) are quite good if a bit expensive but they add versatility (not to mention 2W) on the unit if you wish it. And it's better not to compare it to the strike team's equivalent, the support turret, ours is a joke.

*keep in mind that only the farseers are on the level of the marine librarian (actually they are a bit more expensive and more powerful) so that you only see 1 or 2 against you, the warlocks are 35 points each and spiritseers 45 each, which means it's easy to have 3+ on the field

PS. I get the impression that you like to play with firebases, if i am correct then how do you manage to not get boxed in and then denied the whole field? Almost every time i played with firebases i got boxed in pretty soon which means i lost the game because of VP (in both eternal war and maelstorm missions) since, outside of massed gun drones, i don't have the strenght to break free in time. I observed that even when playing against Tau using firebases, one time i was using mechanized AM and i won and in the other case i was using blood angels and i barely lost (i made a couple of serious mistakes).

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#25 » Nov 28 2017 08:37

Guys i see you mentioning the fireblade a lot, the fireblade is a 42 points unit that gives 3 shots at 15" to 20 tightly packed strike team members (at most since he affects models and not units) while the company commaner is a 30 points unit that gives 2 shots at 24" and 4 shots at 12" to 2+ units at 15"+ away. (again not counting the 2 specific regiments that shoot at 30"/15" and 24"/18")


Then you mention our marker lights.

Do you know how hard is for AM to get re-roll 1s? Either an order (which i agree it won't happen often since you will want the double shots but there is a relic which can help) or as 6" aura buff by an expensive HQ or by a 50 points regiment specific elite or as a 6" aura buff by a 30 points elite for their artillery or with an order for their leman russes (although this affects can half their leman russes because of the limited number of orders). (again i am not mentioning stratagems)

Do you know how hard it is for them to get ignore cover? It's a 15 points (30 after CA) psycker (without using his single psychic power for the round of course) for a 6" buff aura, granted it can't affect enemies as far as ours (roughly half the range) but it's much more reliable.

Do you know how hard they get +1 to hit? It's a 20 point model (40 after CA) that gives +1 to hit to a single friendly infantry anywere on the field, without needing to roll, just needing LoS at 48" away. For their vehicles it's somewhat expensive since it requires a 100 points vehicle to give another vehicle at 6" a +1 to hit. (again i am not counting stratagems and army wide tactics).

I am not saying that our buffs are crap, i am saying that they are limited, expensive, unreliable to get and after all that we use them to buff our already expensive units.


Nymphomanius wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Got you fam. Keep in mind that it isn't worth realllllly comparing codexes but I'll throw this in for discussion.

I actually ran the math on it, though these comparisons are without any buffs or support.

All fired at close range
DEQ is Dreadnought equivalent (T6 3+ Sv)

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 6 needed per kill (24pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 19 needed per kill (76pts/wound)

Space marine
Vs GEQ 2 needed per kill (26pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (65pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (91pts/wound)

Grey Knights
Vs GEQ 1 needed per kill (21pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 2.5 needed per kill (52.5pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 4 needed per kill (84pts/wound)

Fire Warriors (Pulse rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.5 needed per kill (20pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (40pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per kill (72pts/wound)

I couldn't get the math for the eldar and too many variables for breachers.

As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Obviously this doesn't account for unit survivability just sheer damage output.


Before i double check your math, do you calculate everyone at rapid fire range?

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#26 » Nov 28 2017 08:54

leo1925 wrote:Guys i see you mentioning the fireblade a lot, the fireblade is a 42 points unit that gives 3 shots at 15" to 20 tightly packed strike team members (at most since he affects models and not units)

Ah, we've been over this a bunch on ATT, the Fireblade buffs units with at least one model within his buff aura. Whole units, not models. He's quite good as the lynchpin for a broad gunline.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 372
Contact:

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#27 » Nov 28 2017 08:55

leo1925 wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:I actually ran the math on it, though these comparisons are without any buffs or support.

All fired at close range


Before i double check your math, do you calculate everyone at rapid fire range?


Yes

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#28 » Nov 28 2017 09:00

Arka0415 wrote:
leo1925 wrote:Guys i see you mentioning the fireblade a lot, the fireblade is a 42 points unit that gives 3 shots at 15" to 20 tightly packed strike team members (at most since he affects models and not units)

Ah, we've been over this a bunch on ATT, the Fireblade buffs units with at least one model within his buff aura. Whole units, not models. He's quite good as the lynchpin for a broad gunline.


Was there a FAQ or designer comment i missed? If no then can you please give me links to those discussions because for the life of me i can't in good consciousness argue that interpretation, except using the arugement that someone in GW messed up (big time) the wording.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#29 » Nov 28 2017 10:04

Nymphomanius wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:I actually ran the math on it, though these comparisons are without any buffs or support.

All fired at close range


Before i double check your math, do you calculate everyone at rapid fire range?


Yes


Ok then, everybody shoots at his rapid fire range (15" for strike team, 9" for tempestus and 12" for everyone else).
First the definitions:
GEQ is T3 5+ sv
MEQ is T4 3+ sv
DEQ is T7 3+ sv (it doesn't change anything with T6 3+ sv)
TEQ is T4 2+ sv

Guardsmen with lasguns (at BS 4) needed:
Vs GEQ 3 needed per kill (12pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 19 needed per kill (76pts/wound)
Vs TEQ 19 needed per kill (76pts/wound)

Space marines with bolters (at BS 3):
Vs GEQ 1,8 needed per kill (23,4pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 4,5 needed per kill (58,5pts/wound) AKA emperor's paintball
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (91pts/wound)
Vs TEQ 9,2 needed per kill (119,6pts/wound)

Grey Knights (strike squad) with storm bolters (at BS 3):
Vs GEQ 0,9 needed per kill (18,9pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 2,3 needed per kill (48,3pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 3,5 needed per kill (73,5pts/wound)
Vs TEQ 4,5 needed per kill (94,5pts/wound)

Fire Warriors with Pulse rifles (at BS 4):
Vs GEQ 2.3 needed per kill (18,4pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 4.5 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per kill (72pts/wound)
Vs TEQ 9 needed per kill (72pts/wound)

Militarum tempestus with hot-shot lasguns (at BS 3):
Vs GEQ 1.5 needed per kill (15pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 3.5 needed per kill (35pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (70pts/wound)
Vs TEQ 4,5 needed per kill (45pts/wound)

Your numbers were pretty much correct (i just tried to be more precise), the big mistake you made was with guardsmen vs GEQ.

Seeing the numbers now, the fire warriors aren't as bad as i thought, i was wrong about them. Without support they are worse than guardsmen against GEQ, the same against MEQ and better against TEQ and DEQ (although i fear that the fractions against GEQ and MEQ might lead to either undershooting or overshooting but that's goint to far into the math).

I still think that the AM has better support, versatility (through weapon selection) and buffs but things aren't looking as bleak, with better characters, better markerlights and good stratagems we might be able to surpass them.

Militarum tempestus are even greater than i thought, ok now i understand why GW doesn't allow them to deep strike into their rapid fire range.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#30 » Nov 28 2017 10:31

leo1925 wrote:Was there a FAQ or designer comment i missed? If no then can you please give me links to those discussions because for the life of me i can't in good consciousness argue that interpretation, except using the arugement that someone in GW messed up (big time) the wording.

Sadly there wasn't a designer commentary about it, but the question has been discussed here a few times! I'm at work currently so let me give you the short version.

The Fireblade's rules say that "Models in <Sept> units may fire an extra shot..."

Now, from an English-language standpoint, we can easily determine the intent of this rule. If the rule simply stated "Models may fire an extra shot..." then it'd be clear- only models, not units, can fire.

However the word "units" is there, and it's not a redundant word. The rule could not have read "Units may fire an extra shot...". That would have been the simplest wording, however, it would have meant that the unit gets one extra shot, not that each model gets one extra shot.

So the word "models" indicates that it's the models shooting; i.e. one extra shot per model (per weapon). The word "units" indicates that the unit itself is being buffed.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#31 » Nov 28 2017 11:05

Arka0415 wrote:
leo1925 wrote:Was there a FAQ or designer comment i missed? If no then can you please give me links to those discussions because for the life of me i can't in good consciousness argue that interpretation, except using the arugement that someone in GW messed up (big time) the wording.

Sadly there wasn't a designer commentary about it, but the question has been discussed here a few times! I'm at work currently so let me give you the short version.

The Fireblade's rules say that "Models in <Sept> units may fire an extra shot..."

Now, from an English-language standpoint, we can easily determine the intent of this rule. If the rule simply stated "Models may fire an extra shot..." then it'd be clear- only models, not units, can fire.

However the word "units" is there, and it's not a redundant word. The rule could not have read "Units may fire an extra shot...". That would have been the simplest wording, however, it would have meant that the unit gets one extra shot, not that each model gets one extra shot.

So the word "models" indicates that it's the models shooting; i.e. one extra shot per model (per weapon). The word "units" indicates that the unit itself is being buffed.


Hmmm, interesting, they could have written "Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range" which would not be as confusing.
Anyway, i see your point, it's a valid one. I would prefer a FAQ clearing it up (or even better changing it to pistol 2, rapid fire 2 and assault 3 but that's another discussion).

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#32 » Nov 28 2017 11:47

leo1925 wrote:Hmmm, interesting, they could have written "Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range" which would not be as confusing.
Anyway, i see your point, it's a valid one. I would prefer a FAQ clearing it up (or even better changing it to pistol 2, rapid fire 2 and assault 3 but that's another discussion).

If it was written like that, the unit would get x bonus shots where x is equal to the number of models in the unit... but which models would get those shots? How would you draw line-of-sight? I feel like it's going to be confusing either way. You get the idea though. I would love a designers commentary about it though.

Making Pulse Rifles Rapid Fire 2 would definitely be clearer, but... it would also make Fire Warrior units blisteringly powerful, with 2 shots at 30" and 4 shots at 15"! :eek:

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 866

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#33 » Nov 29 2017 01:04

Nymphomanius wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Got you fam. Keep in mind that it isn't worth realllllly comparing codexes but I'll throw this in for discussion.

I actually ran the math on it, though these comparisons are without any buffs or support.

All fired at close range
DEQ is Dreadnought equivalent (T6 3+ Sv)

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 6 needed per kill (24pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 19 needed per kill (76pts/wound)

Space marine
Vs GEQ 2 needed per kill (26pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (65pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 7 needed per kill (91pts/wound)

Grey Knights
Vs GEQ 1 needed per kill (21pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 2.5 needed per kill (52.5pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 4 needed per kill (84pts/wound)

Fire Warriors (Pulse rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.5 needed per kill (20pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 5 needed per kill (40pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per kill (72pts/wound)

I couldn't get the math for the eldar and too many variables for breachers.

As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Obviously this doesn't account for unit survivability just sheer damage output.
+1.

Sweet math and that's without buffs or support too. I wonder how different the numbers would be when you throw in rerolls to 1s since that is an extremely common buff T'au can get.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2200

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#34 » Nov 29 2017 02:55

Nymphomanius wrote:As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Fire Warriors are exactly twice as good as Guardsmen at killing T4 targets. Both Fire Warriors and Guardsmen have a 50.0% hit chance, but the wound chance for Guardsmen is 33.3% and the wound chance for Fire Warriors if 66.6%. As all other factors are equal, Fire Warriors should be twice as good at killing MEQs.

These are the numbers I'm getting, at close range:

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 3 needed per kill (12pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 18 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

Fire Warrior (Pulse Rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.25 needed per kill (18pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 4.5 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

It seems pretty clear that Guardsmen and Fire Warriors are decently well balanced. In terms of firepower Guardsmen offer half the firepower at half the price. The big factor is that Guardsmen bring double the wounds, but remember that Fire Warriors have a better armor save, better leadership, defensive grenades, and supporting fire. I guess I could see Fire Warriors priced at 7 or 8 points but you get the idea.

Anyway, the last word is... amusingly, there's actually no scenario in which Fire Warriors are superior to Guardsmen. Guardsmen deal more damage against T1, T2, and T3, they're equal at T4 and up. Oh well :fear:

User avatar
JancoBCN
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#35 » Nov 29 2017 06:50

Arka0415 wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Fire Warriors are exactly twice as good as Guardsmen at killing T4 targets. Both Fire Warriors and Guardsmen have a 50.0% hit chance, but the wound chance for Guardsmen is 33.3% and the wound chance for Fire Warriors if 66.6%. As all other factors are equal, Fire Warriors should be twice as good at killing MEQs.

These are the numbers I'm getting, at close range:

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 3 needed per kill (12pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 18 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

Fire Warrior (Pulse Rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.25 needed per kill (18pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 4.5 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

It seems pretty clear that Guardsmen and Fire Warriors are decently well balanced. In terms of firepower Guardsmen offer half the firepower at half the price. The big factor is that Guardsmen bring double the wounds, but remember that Fire Warriors have a better armor save, better leadership, defensive grenades, and supporting fire. I guess I could see Fire Warriors priced at 7 or 8 points but you get the idea.

Anyway, the last word is... amusingly, there's actually no scenario in which Fire Warriors are superior to Guardsmen. Guardsmen deal more damage against T1, T2, and T3, they're equal at T4 and up. Oh well :fear:


Those are great numbers, but I have seen (in my 30 games vs AM) that in the real world, the Fire warriors are not even remotly close to how versatile and points-efficient the AM troops are.
I have found myself many times (until I decided to drop all my FW to add 3x10KrootCarnivores in my lists) exchanging pulse rifle shots vs lasguns, and let me tell you: you have nothing to do. The only case where you end up winnig is if you are shooting from +24" range, but they move, and they move faster than any other troop listed here. Their officers can issue the best order for each scenario, being the "1st Rank, 2nd Rank Fire" (or something like that) to make all lasguns Rapid fire 2, which is stupid. Butt they can also move again and advance in the shooting phase, shoot even if they fell back or Advanced, among other things...

When we compare FW vs AM, if the AM player is good enough, they will always shoot you with rapid fire 2 weapons, which, even taking into account the officer, make them way superior than our FW. You just cannot compete with twice the shots for half the price. And again, this is just talking about the shooting, not the many other things they can also do.

User avatar
leo1925
Shas
Posts: 83

Re: Fire Warriors are good again!

Post#36 » Nov 29 2017 09:21

Arka0415 wrote:
leo1925 wrote:Hmmm, interesting, they could have written "Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range" which would not be as confusing.
Anyway, i see your point, it's a valid one. I would prefer a FAQ clearing it up (or even better changing it to pistol 2, rapid fire 2 and assault 3 but that's another discussion).

If it was written like that, the unit would get x bonus shots where x is equal to the number of models in the unit... but which models would get those shots? How would you draw line-of-sight? I feel like it's going to be confusing either way. You get the idea though. I would love a designers commentary about it though.

Making Pulse Rifles Rapid Fire 2 would definitely be clearer, but... it would also make Fire Warrior units blisteringly powerful, with 2 shots at 30" and 4 shots at 15"! :eek:


Ok, then write it like that:
Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit; with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles; shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range.
Or maybe:
Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit, with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles, shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range.
I am not sure if the above are absolutely correct in order to avoid the issue you brought up, sometimes i mix up english and greek syntax, if i am wrong they can write with an, admittedly, less appealing way:
Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit (with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles) shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range.
Or go with the larger:
Sept units within 6" of a friendly sept cadre fireblade may fire an extra shot for each model in the unit (with pulse pistols, pulse carbines and pulse rifles) shooting at a target within half the weapon’s range against said target.

Anyway you are correct, the wording is difficult and it stands to reason that GW wrote it weirdly (we are talking about the people who thought that moving 0" and stationary is the same thing).

No it wouldn't make fire warriors blisteringly powerful, with rapid fire 2, assualt 3 and pistol 2, it would bring the cadre fireblade on par with a commander using FRFSRF. And while we are at that bring up his cost to 50-55 points (so that AM players don't complain), make him affect only infantry (so that we start solving our gun drones vs fire warriors problem), have him do something about pulse blasters (off the top of my head, add 5" to each line in the table of the weapon) so that he can actually help all of our troops. (I want to say let him buff kroot rifles too but i think that would go against the lore).

Arka0415 wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:As you can see firewarriors are best point for point on damage output only slightly losing vs guardsmen against MEQ.

Fire Warriors are exactly twice as good as Guardsmen at killing T4 targets. Both Fire Warriors and Guardsmen have a 50.0% hit chance, but the wound chance for Guardsmen is 33.3% and the wound chance for Fire Warriors if 66.6%. As all other factors are equal, Fire Warriors should be twice as good at killing MEQs.

These are the numbers I'm getting, at close range:

Guardsman
Vs GEQ 3 needed per kill (12pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 9 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 18 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

Fire Warrior (Pulse Rifle)
Vs GEQ 2.25 needed per kill (18pts/wound)
Vs MEQ 4.5 needed per kill (36pts/wound)
Vs DEQ 9 needed per wound (72pts/wound)

It seems pretty clear that Guardsmen and Fire Warriors are decently well balanced. In terms of firepower Guardsmen offer half the firepower at half the price. The big factor is that Guardsmen bring double the wounds, but remember that Fire Warriors have a better armor save, better leadership, defensive grenades, and supporting fire. I guess I could see Fire Warriors priced at 7 or 8 points but you get the idea.

Anyway, the last word is... amusingly, there's actually no scenario in which Fire Warriors are superior to Guardsmen. Guardsmen deal more damage against T1, T2, and T3, they're equal at T4 and up. Oh well :fear:


In my calculations fire warriors get a bit better against DEQ and TEQ (72pts/wound vs 76pts/wound).
Well, even in white room calculations like this guards men have double the wounds (2W for each 1W) which also means more models on the field, worse save (5+ vs 4+), they have a bit worse leadership (because we get to ignore morale loses on a 6), they have 10 squad size where fire warriors have 5-12 (which help us with leadership a bit more), guardsmen have WS 4 vs our WS 5 (a very minor advantage), guardsmen have frag grenades, special weapons and heavy weapons while the fire warriors have photon grenades and supporting fire and finally guardsmen have 6"/3" less range.

In my opinion strike teams lose even in a white room comparison like this one but not by as much a i thought before entering this thread. Of course when you leave the white room and enter the real battlefield the guardsmen become even better (just like JancoBCN said) with orders+psychic powers+astropath+holy searchlight vs our fireblade+ethereal+markerlights, when you count in their various transports vs our devilfish things start looking a bit depressing.

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests