How many points should a Fire Warrior cost?

[A.T.]

The only downside is that the FW has a S5 weapon with longer range and a better armour, but none of the options and a lowsy statline.

The difference in statline is not especially meaningful - both suck in combat and the firewarrior has superior shooting despite inferior BS.

I agree that it's the options that make all the difference, though the gap has shrunk in 6th. Give the firewarriors the option of a few well armed drones and that goes away though.

Carapace armor is almost universally overcosted, especially on T3 units. One will notice how often, or rather, not often, Carapace vets and Stormtroopers are taken for instance.

Overcosted - probably, but consistently.
Would you consider 7pt firewarriors with 5+ armour saves, since you dismiss the 4+ so readily?

[Vaktathi]

I'm not saying the 4+ doesn't have value, just that it's not worth anything near the 3ppm it's typically costed at, maybe half that, and there's a reason you never see many 4+sv units on the table as a result, especially given how many highly capable AP4 weapons are out there that can kill 4+sv's en-masse just as easily as they can 5+sv models. 4+sv's are the victim of a lot of weapons being hamfisted into AP4 because AP3 is seen as a magical "only AT guns and very rare anti-infantry weapons" category even when there's no need to leading to weapons needing wonky rules to get them to otherwise function right (e.g. Assault Cannons and Rending, Manticores, etc).

Would I consider 7pt Fire Warriors at 5+? Possibly, I'd take them over 8pt 4+sv ones.

[A.T.]

4+sv's are the victim of a lot of weapons being hamfisted into AP4 because AP3 is seen as a magical "only AT guns and very rare anti-infantry weapons" category

Really? How many AP4 basic weapons are there? How many AP5?

Carapace armour is 50% immunity to small arms, close combat, and general environmental hazards - in 5th it was largely pointless because standing behind a fence would get you 4+ and there was no such thing as an AP5 close combat weapon or saves against terrain effects.

And AP3 is rightly in a category above, if there were not notable gaps in performance between the armours you'd have a mordheim situation - where nobody takes armour because what the hell is the point.



Honestly at 7pts and 5+ saves the firewarriors are going to be a steal, 2pts over a guardsman for better than marine firepower per model. I'd think you'd miss the 4+ though, and I think it'd save them more than then one in 8 times you suggest it's valued at.

[Xerkics]

Fire warriors were always really good its just previously there was more focus on armouring up your troops in transports but in 6th edition Tau can hardly complain as odds are that the enemy wont get out of deployment zone with the amount of long range firepower they have that can now consistently destroy transports due to glances no longer being bad and all the railguns being +2 on dmg table. If you think fire warriors are bad you just arent taking enough of them.

[TheMav80]

The only time Firewarriors are shooting that S5 weapon is if they are outside their vehicle. Which means they are very vulnerable to everyone else shooting back at them, and most shooty units are their equal if not their betters.

Also, I hope to God that FWs do not get Defensive Grenades for free. I do not want them, they are a liability for Tau. If your FWs get charged, the enemy losing the charge bonus is not going to save them. They are still WS2 I2 T3 4+ models. At best Defensive Grenades means they survive that first round of combat, which means I cannot shoot whatever has just assaulted them. Then the Assault Unit kills off the FW in my assault phase, and is free to charge something else on their turn.

[roirin]

The biggest problem with fire warriors is that they are horrible scorers. A unit needs at one of three things to be a good scorer, resilience, maneuverability or being a cheap horde unit. A fire warrior is none of these things. No other army in the game has to put down 40 ld 8 guardsmen on foot and expect them to be alive at the end of the game. Imperial guard are cheap and hide in chimera's and vendetta's. Marines are really resilient and essentially fearless. Dark eldar have access to cheap movement 30'' tanks and wracks. Eldar have power armour movement 48'' bikes.

Until we get a new codex and we get access to 50pt devilfish's, flyers and hopefully scoring crisis suits fire warriors will just be plain bad. Positional relay is the most reliable way to have a Tau scoring unit alive at the end of the game. period.

[unknown_lifeform]

The biggest problem with fire warriors is that they are horrible scorers.

Here is finally a point I can agree with. Sorry, but for all those calling for 8pt or cheaper fire warriors I really hope you never get your wish as I think that would be pretty insane. But yes, fire warriors (and the tau army as a whole) are very bad at capturing forward objectives - you basically have to wipe the enemy out to do so. I always see one objective each scenarios as an almost auto-draw when playing as tau. Kroot are only a partial solution - they are a good light infantry troop type but not the dedicated assault unit some people try to use them as. Along with fixing the fire warriors support I really hope the rumours of demiurg are true. They don't need to be highly mobile combat monsters (that would detract from the way the tau play), but a slow and resilient unit with moderate combat potential would really find a niche for objective grabbing and counter charging enemies that reach the tau lines but have been softened up - a kind of tau version of lichguard, without universal power weaponry but cheaper and more numerous.

[Lord-Gen Bale Chambers]

4+ is a big step up from 5+. You now have a viable save against small arms, flamers and most small blasts. Guard vets should probably be +10pts to their base cost and the carapace upgrade only +2pts a model (same overall cost with upgrade). I use them often and 4+ is much better when your vehicle explodes vs a 5+.

I don't think anyone here can put a good value on the fire warriors because we don't know a few things about the new codex. The biggest question is how will the marker light system work. It its viable and can consistently provide benefits to a squad, they may be worth 10pts a model. If it is not, I still think 9 or 10 is reasonable, but I could see them at 8pts per model.

We are probably looking at something like what I have below for the unit. With that, it is probably going to be 60pts for the squad and 9 or 10 pts for each additional fire warrior.
1 Squad Leader (ld 8): pulse rifle, photon gernades, marker light
5 Fire Warriors: pulse rifles, photon gernades

squad upgrades include:
* drone controller and 1-2 drones (I expect some more variation, possible hvy weapons)
* bonding knife
* Pulse Carbines (I expect these to change with the way rapid fire changed... no reason to use them now)
* emp gernades.
* Devilfish (I would expect to be much cheaper)

If the marker light automatically hits granting a choice of +1BS, -1 cover or calls in a seeker missle... I think we have a balanced squad.

[owen matthew]

10 with grenades, or 10 with BS increase. 7 as is now.

[owen matthew]

I don't think anyone here can put a good value on the fire warriors because we don't know a few things about the new codex. The biggest question is how will the marker light system work. It its viable and can consistently provide benefits to a squad, they may be worth 10pts a model. If it is not, I still think 9 or 10 is reasonable, but I could see them at 8pts per model.

You pay for the markerlite, its cost should not be spread into other models who don't carry it, but might benefit from it... if it works as it does now. I sincerely hope they just remove it altogether.

[owen matthew]

The only time Firewarriors are shooting that S5 weapon is if they are outside their vehicle. Which means they are very vulnerable to everyone else shooting back at them, and most shooty units are their equal if not their betters.

Also, I hope to God that FWs do not get Defensive Grenades for free. I do not want them, they are a liability for Tau. If your FWs get charged, the enemy losing the charge bonus is not going to save them. They are still WS2 I2 T3 4+ models. At best Defensive Grenades means they survive that first round of combat, which means I cannot shoot whatever has just assaulted them. Then the Assault Unit kills off the FW in my assault phase, and is free to charge something else on their turn.

The words of a wise man!

[unknown_lifeform]

I sincerely hope they just remove it [markerlights] altogether.

In general 40k doesn't do much synergy. I'd like there to be at least one synergy faction, just for the variation and different style of gameplay. The markerlight has the potential to be the tau's unique selling point (and was probably intended to be, it was just badly implemented) so I'd really like to see this done and done well. I will however concede that GW hardly have a gold plated record at game balance, even without having to deal with complex synergistic interactions.

[Vaktathi]

Really? How many AP4 basic weapons are there? How many AP5?

I didn't say basic weapons, I said anti-infantry weapons. Most infantry aren't killed by basic anti-infantry weapons, they're killed by the heavier weapons or CC.

Carapace armour is 50% immunity to small arms, close combat, and general environmental hazards - in 5th it was largely pointless because standing behind a fence would get you 4+ and there was no such thing as an AP5 close combat weapon or saves against terrain effects.

Yes it is, the problem is that at T3 with a 4+sv, it still means that anything that isn't a basic infantry weapon still punches it, stuff like Heavy Flamers, Autocannons, etc, and against small arms fire, with T3 4+sv units, while you may have more survivors, any decent salvo is still likely to kill enough that that unit's combat effectiveness is crippled. A round of bolter fire is still killing off half of a ten man unit.

And AP3 is rightly in a category above, if there were not notable gaps in performance between the armours you'd have a mordheim situation - where nobody takes armour because what the hell is the point.

The issue is that there's a noticeable gap there between 4+sv's and 3+sv's that's far larger than between anything else. AP3 in particular is rather rare, it either allows a 3+sv or ignores all armor saves (granted this changed somewhat with the Power Weapon nerf, but is still very true of shooting weapons). One will notice that most things a 3+sv model gets a save against a 2+sv model does as well, relatively little is AP3 specific. Same issue with 5+ and 6+sv's basically being interchangable for most intents and purposes.

Honestly at 7pts and 5+ saves the firewarriors are going to be a steal, 2pts over a guardsman for better than marine firepower per model.

BS3 means they are, at best, equalling marines in terms of firepower against most targets, and don't have any ability to take specialist weapons that ignore armor saves or engage tanks. They're equal against T4 and slightly worse against T3 models with BS3 S5, their strength comes from their extra range really. It's really not *that* impressive. If they were BS4 and AP4 that'd be one thing, but they're not.

I'd think you'd miss the 4+ though, and I think it'd save them more than then one in 8 times you suggest it's valued at.

I play several 4+sv armies. I've got an Eldar army where everything is 4+sv's, I've got an IG army where everything is in Carapace armor just for theme, and a Tau army. I've played most of these since 4th edition and had games in with two of them so far in 6th, and I've never found the 4+sv to be as impressive as one would hope. Maybe I'm just so used to seeing 4+sv's grossly overcosted that I may be undervaluing it, but my initial instinct would be to take the 7pt 5+sv models first, I'm really buying the gun more than anything else, and if they take any real amount of fire they're done either way.

[owen matthew]

In general 40k doesn't do much synergy. I'd like there to be at least one synergy faction, just for the variation and different style of gameplay. The markerlight has the potential to be the tau's unique selling point (and was probably intended to be, it was just badly implemented) so I'd really like to see this done and done well. I will however concede that GW hardly have a gold plated record at game balance, even without having to deal with complex synergistic interactions.

They have not done it well twice, and I do not have faith they will get it right this time.

I think the selling point was more along the lines of strong shooting and tricky moving, rather than just markerlight.

Good/dedicated markerlights are too expensive and easy to take out. You are better just taking more fighting models than messing with a few M. hits. Its nice when it works, though. I feel more models shooting is better than less models sometimes shooting better.

[orlando davion]

There is an inherit problem with working out the cost of an individual unit entry model out of one dex t oanother. As alot of dex's points costs are internally balanced against options within their army dex. There was an old white dwarf which did go though this. So while comparing the cost of a standard model to another may on the serface look like a good idea. It is inheritly flawed. There is also the factor of pricing models not only on there effectivness but also there avalibility within the army. That is why on the face of it kroot warriors are over costed because it represents a lack of combat effectivness of the army but it still able to field combat troops. Sorry a little hard to explain.

I hear what you are saying; this is GW stock answer and I think GW is talking rubbish. This codex has strong CC options so to balance things a basic troop will cost X (even though a similar troop in the previous codex was Y (cheaper)???

Come on; it's not as if army building is based on percentages; options you are not using at all should not affect points values. Heck it's not as if GW care about balance; game design pushes sales.

Some examples

IG codex; new Vendetta/valkyrie modess; armour front side went up and massive under costing.Buy the new kits!

Tyranid codex; the models eveyone has (Carnifex; too cheap under 4th to sell the new plastic kit) get a crappy stat line and a stupidly high points cost; why; to encourage tyranid players to buy the new tyrgon kits.

5th edition rules = the mech set. So 6th edition nerfed vehicles except for flyers (new kits) for a brief period of relative dominace until other codexs get thier flyers or AA units (or buy fortification kits with AA guns; how luckly; GW increased prices by nearly 50% just before the release of 6th).

So what do I expect; well most Tau players have fire warriors; so either

1. New codex and they area bit meh (go buy the new shiny just released kits) or

2. They will be cheap & good with special rules which unlock for large squads or mult squad builds; which will require you to buy a lot of kits of FW.

Play balance will have nothing to do with it.

[owen matthew]

+1

Very well said!!!

[Chem-Dog]

1. New codex and they area bit meh (go buy the new shiny just released kits) or

2. They will be cheap & good with special rules which unlock for large squads or mult squad builds; which will require you to buy a lot of kits of FW.

3. A redesign and/or new weapon/wargear option in the new kit necessitates almost complete overhauls to any existing collection of Firewarriors. (ref: Stealth Suits)

4. Firewarriors and Tau generally will kick-ass and every bandwagoneer and tournament army-jumper will scoop them up in abundance. (ref:Anything that's flavour of the month in the tournament scene).

I'm not this cynical but it can sometimes seem this way.

[Aluinn]

Voted 9+. 9-10 is probably fine, 8 or less would be a bit of a good deal I think, at 576 points to literally fill a FoC allowance with the maximum number of FW, and considering: The amount of firepower that puts out; that now it puts it out on the move; that they can rapid fire at 15" (> average infantry move+charge, whereas 12" is less); the vastly increased value of glancing making them not useless against a lot of vehicles; the fact that vehicles are likely to become less common and massed infantry more common plays to the strengths of their shooting; the increased value of 4+ saves in a world of mainly 5+ cover and more basic infantry (i.e. AP5-, Rapid Fire) weapons; and general nerfs to assaulting including not being able to do it after Outflank, introduction of Overwatch, etc.

In 5th I certainly would have voted differently, but they are one of the units that benefited most from 6th. You could argue the precise value of any of the above things, but that they are all buffs and together add up to something of pretty high significance is difficult to argue IMO.

[megatrons2nd]

I played my third game in 6th with my Tau today(i have played more than 3 games total I have 3 armies). The Tau were out shot by a Shooty orc army. The game was over on turn 3. The amount of shots that the orcs were capable of decimated the 24 fire warriors I had. I think I killed all of 10 models in his entire army. I rolled average, and he rolled about 15 hits per loota squad(15 models each, and 2 squads). My squads evaporated before they could even hit something. When an all shooty army can be out shot by one that is by design more close combat oriented there is a problem. my Hammer head did most of the damage killing 6 models, followed by my broadsides that managed to only kill 2 things. The Kroot ox even manged to get a kill. Not a thing for the fire warriors. I really think that I am going to retire my Tau until they get an update. The new rapid fire rules did very little to actually help them. It was more beneficial to my Kroot than the Fire Warriors. Every thing in the Tau codex needs a price drop of between 10-20% .

[Aluinn]

I played my third game in 6th with my Tau today(i have played more than 3 games total I have 3 armies). The Tau were out shot by a Shooty orc army. The game was over on turn 3. The amount of shots that the orcs were capable of decimated the 24 fire warriors I had. I think I killed all of 10 models in his entire army. I rolled average, and he rolled about 15 hits per loota squad(15 models each, and 2 squads). My squads evaporated before they could even hit something. When an all shooty army can be out shot by one that is by design more close combat oriented there is a problem. my Hammer head did most of the damage killing 6 models, followed by my broadsides that managed to only kill 2 things. The Kroot ox even manged to get a kill. Not a thing for the fire warriors. I really think that I am going to retire my Tau until they get an update. The new rapid fire rules did very little to actually help them. It was more beneficial to my Kroot than the Fire Warriors. Every thing in the Tau codex needs a price drop of between 10-20% .

24 Fire Warriors cost about half as many points as 30 Lootas (depending on upgrades); 15 hits is more than average for Lootas by 50% (average being 10 for 15 models); Lootas aren't Troops; and they have the perfect AP value, even if their Strength is excessive, to make them not completely inefficient at killing FW (especially considering that FW don't have ideal Strength and have slightly excessive AP against Orks). I'm really not sure how you're concluding anything about Fire Warriors from this, except that they get outshot by twice as many points of enemy models who are also dedicated to shooting, are Elites, and are rolling exceptionally well (plus any shooting you didn't mention that was directed at them).