Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Fire Warriors
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5644		 Page 1 of 10
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sun May 28, 2006 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
OK. This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. It appears that many players are simply taking these guys to get at the upgrades and contingents that they allow access to. To me, this just doesnt seem correct.

In addition, I must admit that I am not entirely convinced that the stats accurately represent the squads in the game.

So, I would like to canvas opinions on three issues:

How do Tau Fire Warriors operate in the 40K background? What kind of role do they play in the force, what are their strengths and weaknesses, etc.

How do Fire Warriors work in 40K? Does 40K accurately portray these guys. Where does it get it right, where is it wrong, and what is the typical armament and operation of them in the game?

What stats would most accurately portray Fire Warriors in Epic? Does the weapon load-out match the usual 40K armament, or the background?

So far, we have two alternatives for the FW - although I welcome more suggestions.

The first is what they currently are - although I am not convinced by the Markerlights or the Rail Rifles!

The second is what I have termed the 'Dark Reaper Warriors', with 2x 30cm AP5+ - which seems to me a better fit but actually makes the stand less attractive.

So, any comments? Thanks.
Author:  Xisor [ Sun May 28, 2006 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors

How do Tau Fire Warriors operate in the 40K background? What kind of role do they play in the force, what are their strengths and weaknesses, etc.


Fire Warriors are the basic troopers. They do alot of work, but it is the Crisis Suits and battlesuits in almost all of the fluff[excluding FW itself] that do the bulk of the 'moving and shaking' in Tau Armies. By bulk I mean a *great* bulk of the work.

How do Fire Warriors work in 40K? Does 40K accurately portray these guys. Where does it get it right, where is it wrong, and what is the typical armament and operation of them in the game?

In 40k they work in a few ways:
- They can be used as massed 'horde' line troops. They allow for a very formidable firing infantry line of AP/ALV fire. This is accurately represented for now, but given the fluff I feel the possibilities should be 'trimmed' or capped at an Epic Scale.
- They are also the Mechanised infantry. Rather simple here, they are mechanised, they deploy and let rip. Usually in support of other things. They're a thorny prospect, which I feel is well represented in the Epic Stats themselves.
- They also make handy 'objective grabbers' from a devilfish in small amounts.

What stats would most accurately portray Fire Warriors in Epic? Does the weapon load-out match the usual 40K armament, or the background?

It matches the older edition rather well, with the disrupt at short range. However, even modelling for all pulse rifles, the firepower still doubles at very short ranges[15cm in epic]. I personally feel the stats themselves are okay enough in Epic, but the feel of the formations should be very much changed. Well, all except for the Markerlights. Whilst they can have 1-3 Markerlights in 40k Scale, I'm not especially comfortable having *all* Firewarrior stands with the ability. I feel a proliferation of pathfinders works best.


The first is what they currently are - although I am not convinced by the Markerlights or the Rail Rifles!

Me neither. Markerlights should be out, and rail rifles aren't part of FW Squads anyhow!

The second is what I have termed the 'Dark Reaper Warriors', with 2x 30cm AP5+ - which seems to me a better fit but actually makes the stand less attractive.

I think the basic stand minus the markelight ability works best for them.

Now, if I may wax lyrical for a moment:

Firewarrior Formations at the moment can go up in excess of 20 stands. I believe almost all background points to the Fire Warriors being very much a strike team, not a 'line' infantry. Mainly because Tau-Shas tactics don't involve them deploying lines of Shas. If a battle line is to be formed, it'll be auxilliaries[Kroot/Humans/Vespids/Demiurg/Galg] doing this, not Shas'la. Their fighting style is too different.

In this, it should be capped at relative maximums for the Shas'la themselves IMO.

That'd be, a Firewarrior cadre is limited due to it's size:

Basic Formation:
4 Firewarriors
2 Devilfish
Upgrades:
Everything[SC only if crisis is taken and networked drones only if HHs are taken]


Now I make the sweeping proposal!

You are only allowed certain contingents dependent upon which main Cadre you take!

Now, I'll detail my outlook on this...

Cadre:
Fire Warriors
Contingents Allowed:
Pathfinder
Stealth
Broadside
Hammerhead
Tetras
Piranhas
Gun Drone Wing
Markerlight Sentries
[See, so FW Cadre lets you have interesting things, but nothing majorly interesting]

Cadre:
Crisis
Contingents allowed:
Stealth
Broadside
Hammerhead
Gun Drone

Cadre:
Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre
Contingents allowed:
Hammerhead
Scorpionfish
Stingray
Piranhas

With a bit of tweaking on the upgrades, it sort of 'trims' the entire list a bit by making it less open. I know, I know, the Tau are all about flexibility, but I think the flexibility to 'do whatever the hell you want with everything' really shouldn't be open to them. So if you want a good bit of Markerlighting for your Super-Hammerhead Formation, your two Scorpionfish and your Stingray Formation you *need* a Crisis Formation or a Firewarrior Formation to let you have proper access to a decent Pathfinder or Stealth formation.

Also by constricting the choice of contingents you can access, it allows some of the formations to be jiggled where they otherwise couldn't be as they'd *just* be for accessing others. And because of this, it means you can make FWs reasonably cheap *but* also have them be requried for certain combinations.

Basically so that you don't end with an army following the theme:
FW
Stingrays
Scorpions
FW
Stingrays
Scorpions
FW
Stingrays
Scorpions

etc.

You need to follow some sort of 'core' for it to be accessible. I feel this is required as the Tau list feels a bit too 'open' IMO. But still, others *will* widely disagree. Very widely.

Xisor
Author:  Chroma [ Sun May 28, 2006 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Quote (Xisor @ 28 May 2006 (16:05))
Now I make the sweeping proposal!

You are only allowed certain contingents dependent upon which main Cadre you take!

Radical... but I like it, I really really like it!
Author:  Ilushia [ Sun May 28, 2006 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
How do Tau Fire Warriors operate in the 40K background? What kind of role do they play in the force, what are their strengths and weaknesses, etc.


In the 40K background Tau don't hold terrain basically at all. But Fire Warriors make up the VAST majority of their forces. Mounted almost exclusively in Devilfish they stage hit-and-run attacks. Bait and switch with Crisis suits. For instance, a Fire Warrior Cadre pulls forwards and opens fire on an enemy formation, drawing attention. Then retreats across a hill. The enemy persues only to find the hill to be covered by Crisis suits which moved in as they worked over it. Cut off from the main line and surrounded they're rapidly destroyed. The Tau then retreat and repeat the process elsewhere. They don't stand and shoot the way other armies do, they don't engage in siege or fortified warfare. It goes against their 'style' of combat. They're all about mobility and being able to work their way across the battlefield to the best positions.

How do Fire Warriors work in 40K? Does 40K accurately portray these guys. Where does it get it right, where is it wrong, and what is the typical armament and operation of them in the game?

For the most part 40K gets it about right, I think. In the fluff material the Fire Warriors virtually always have Devilfish, which isn't required in 40K (points concerns I think), but that's not a huge issue. As far as their operation in the game it's more or less the same style as it is in the fluff. They present a firing line and a 'threat' to the enemy. A target which the enemy either has to take out or get pummeled by. When the enemy comes to kill them the Crisis Suits work to cut the enemy off and destroy them. Armament wise they're almost always taken with full pulse-rifles, plus 2 Gun Drones for the leader. Under the current (new) codex, I'd expect to see a bit more often the leader taking Marker Drones and 2-3 Fire Warriors with Pulse Carbines. Operations can go many ways. The 'classic' way to use them in terms of tournament lists tends to be roughly the same as how they're used in Epic: Fill out your required slots to get to the 'good stuff'. Over-all I'd say 40K does a good job portraying them as they're supposed to be. The solid backbone of the Tau.

What stats would most accurately portray Fire Warriors in Epic? Does the weapon load-out match the usual 40K armament, or the background?

I like the stats of them in Epic right now, over all. I do, however, think they should move to FF 4+. They're at least as good as Space Marines when it comes to short-range fire-power. I'd most likely remove the Pulse Carbines from their data sheets though. While in 40K scale they CAN carry these, it's very rare to see more then 1 per 5-man unit. The only way I could see legitimate reasoning for these is if you're counting each squad as having 2 gun drones with it, which doesn't feel quite right for me. Since that'd mean that virtually everyone should have such weapons. So... I'd say remove the Pulse Carbines, give them FF 4+ and maybe make their Pulse Rifles be AP 4+. Might make them too good, but I think it'd better represent their abilities over all.

The first is what they currently are - although I am not convinced by the Markerlights or the Rail Rifles!

Certainly no Rail Rifles (Though they don't have any right now, did you mean Pulse Carbines?). As far as Markerlights go... Well, if you're going by the current codex then they can take 1 for the squad leader and up to 2 more from the marker drones... I might suggest adding a Leader upgrade for the unit who gains Markerlights. So only one squad in the unit would have them. Dunno if that'd be useful though.

The second is what I have termed the 'Dark Reaper Warriors', with 2x 30cm AP5+ - which seems to me a better fit but actually makes the stand less attractive.

Neat in theory, probably not all that good. While it'd be nice at long range, it'd still suffer from the biggest issue I see with fire warriors, their uselessness in Fire Fights. They don't have Tau Jump Packs so they can't run away. And even at 2x AP 5+ they lack the firepower to put out much damage in the ranges you need to be in to shoot. Since virtually any time the Tau can shoot at an enemy the enemy can assault them. And with a FF of 5+ they can get spanked by almost anyone. Even Termagants, who are significantly worse then they are in 40K, can beat them fairly easily! That doesn't sit right with me at all.



Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon May 29, 2006 12:09 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
So if you want a good bit of Markerlighting for your Super-Hammerhead Formation, your two Scorpionfish and your Stingray Formation you *need* a Crisis Formation or a Firewarrior Formation to let you have proper access to a decent Pathfinder or Stealth formation

So what you propose is forcing people to take X to get Y? Not keen on this idea. Other armies aren't hamstrung by this theory. Do they not get to take the units they want to take at will? This also stops people taking a themed army if they so wish. You couldn't take an all-armour force if you wanted that's for sure. You'd be stuck with units you didn't need or want for that matter....

In this, it should be capped at relative maximums for the Shas'la themselves IMO
Fair enough, then why not just reduce the formations size and points? Reducing them from 8 to 4 plus transports? Of course weakening them in the process you should really afford them some compensation - maybe include a free Ethereal with them? This makes them somewhat more "survivable" and interesting as a 6 unit formation. Having to put other units types (Crisis etc) with them for this survivability doesn't work so well when you consider different movement speeds for example.

Still, this is all just my view on your idea Xisor. I'm not saying it isn't interesting, just that it's not what I would prefer to have done just to tweak the Fire Warriors.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon May 29, 2006 12:15 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Quote (Ilushia @ 28 May 2006 (21:30))
Since virtually any time the Tau can shoot at an enemy the enemy can assault them. And with a FF of 5+ they can get spanked by almost anyone. Even Termagants, who are significantly worse then they are in 40K, can beat them fairly easily! That doesn't sit right with me at all.

It's funny, I've always thought that something that puts out that much accurate and deadly firepower at close range should not be relegated to 5+ FF just for fluff's sake. How about we up their FF to 4+ reduce them to 4 units plus transport and put in an Ethereal? It may go some way to making them more interesting to take.... Just an idea though.

What do you think CS?



Author:  Xisor [ Mon May 29, 2006 12:45 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
FF4+? I'm not so sure anymore...it *does* promote engagements...

I wouldn't make the Ethereal compulsary either, but FF4 is believable...

To be honest, the *big* bits of the proposal are essentially:

- Limit contingents by which cadres are taken[ie FW Cadre allows 0-2 from the list I made earlier]
- Drop the majority of Markerlights from the Fire Warrior stands.
- Drop the number of Firewarriors in the formation from 'uge to smal-but-upgradable.[FWs without a transport should be rigorously discouraged too, feel free to simply drop the devilfish, but the cost is{or rather: should be} there for them at an Epic Scale IMO]

As an addition, as you mentioned, perhaps make the core of a FW Cadre as follows:

3 Firewarrior Stands[no Markerlights]
1 Firewarrior Shas'ui [Has Markerlights...perhaps leader?]
2 Devilfish
150-175pts

Upgrades as before. Okay, but very cheap and very little use 'overall' without upgrades.

Sorry, typing one handed, trying to playtest Dark Eldar...
Author:  Ilushia [ Mon May 29, 2006 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Quote (Dobbsy @ 29 May 2006 (00:09))
So if you want a good bit of Markerlighting for your Super-Hammerhead Formation, your two Scorpionfish and your Stingray Formation you *need* a Crisis Formation or a Firewarrior Formation to let you have proper access to a decent Pathfinder or Stealth formation

So what you propose is forcing people to take X to get Y? Not keen on this idea. Other armies aren't hamstrung by this theory. Do they not get to take the units they want to take at will? This also stops people taking a themed army if they so wish. You couldn't take an all-armour force if you wanted that's for sure. You'd be stuck with units you didn't need or want for that matter....

In this, it should be capped at relative maximums for the Shas'la themselves IMO

Fair enough, then why not just reduce the formations size and points? Reducing them from 8 to 4 plus transports? Of course weakening them in the process you should really afford them some compensation - maybe include a free Ethereal with them? This makes them somewhat more "survivable" and interesting as a 6 unit formation. Having to put other units types (Crisis etc) with them for this survivability doesn't work so well when you consider different movement speeds for example.

Still, this is all just my view on your idea Xisor. I'm not saying it isn't interesting, just that it's not what I would prefer to have done just to tweak the Fire Warriors.
The first part of this one I'm really with you on. People should NOT be forced to take specific units to get specific secondary units. Upgrades, sure. But not formations. It just doesn't fit right, and it CERTAINLY doesn't make much sense with the Tau.

I'd agree that they probably have too many numbers... But I don't think that reducing their base size is the right answer. What about just leaving them at 8 bases and 4 devilfish, but remove the 'Add fire warriors' option for the unit? Cut the 'Fire Warriors' upgrade out of the list, basically. That'd prevent you from having a 12 fire-warrior and 6 Devilfish formation, and make Fire Warriors a bit less of a damage-sink without seriously costing them their combat effectiveness. Encourage people to take Pathfinders, Gun Drones, Heavy Gun Drones and similar things instead. That'd fit with the tau's idea of combind arms. You don't have a huge formation of 60 Fire Warriors and 6 Devilfish to cart them around. instead you have say 40 Fire Warriors, 5 Devilfish, 6 Crisis Suits and 10 Pathfinders all trucking around together. Which feels right to me, since that fairly well represents a single general purpose armed force for the Tau.
Author:  Ilushia [ Mon May 29, 2006 1:43 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Quote (Dobbsy @ 29 May 2006 (00:15))
Quote (Ilushia @ 28 May 2006 (21:30))
Since virtually any time the Tau can shoot at an enemy the enemy can assault them. And with a FF of 5+ they can get spanked by almost anyone. Even Termagants, who are significantly worse then they are in 40K, can beat them fairly easily! That doesn't sit right with me at all.

It's funny, I've always thought that something that puts out that much accurate and deadly firepower at close range should not be relegated to 5+ FF just for fluff's sake. How about we up their FF to 4+ reduce them to 4 units plus transport and put in an Ethereal? It may go some way to making them more interesting to take.... Just an idea though.

What do you think CS?

Tau fire isn't actually all that accurate unless guided by Marker Lights. But it IS very powerful. They have weak eye-sight on their own, so their Fire Warriors are usually fairly innaccurate despite their high training level (They train like Space Marines, all day every day basically, but they're only as accurate as IG due to their weaker eyes). But their weapons are fantastically powerful compared to lasrifles or even bolters. So it feels right to me for them to be at least as good as Space Marines when it comes to shooting. It does encourage them being a bit more fire-fight oriented instead of stand and shoot oriented. But is that not acceptable? That's really what the Fire Warriors DO after all. The Crisis Suits run the lines, backing them up while the Broadsides gun down enemies at extreme range. The Fire Warriors specialize in moving up, springing traps and baiting the enemy into persuing them when they retreat. Short-range fire fighting is where they're at their best, with high powered weapons and rapid fire rates.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon May 29, 2006 2:27 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
[quote="Xisor,29 May 2006 (00:45)"][/quote]
FF4+? I'm not so sure anymore...it *does* promote engagements...

With only 4 units and transports it's hardly a solid attack force - more a "strike" force...


I wouldn't make the Ethereal compulsary either, but FF4 is believable...
Fair enough. I only put it out there for an idea to throw into the pot for FW change.

Limit contingents by which cadres are taken[ie FW Cadre allows 0-2 from the list I made earlier]
Isn't it done this way already? Other than the FW upgrade?

Drop the majority of Markerlights from the Fire Warrior stands
I can live with this, but doesn't this just make them even less attractive a formation? Do the 40K version have 1-3 MLs per squad? If so each unit in E:A could have them - thus leave them as is.

FWs without a transport should be rigorously discouraged too
Why not just make the transports part of the formation as a whole then?

3 Firewarrior Stands[no Markerlights]
1 Firewarrior Shas'ui [Has Markerlights...perhaps leader?]
2 Devilfish
150-175pts

Wow! this really waters them down. What is the point of this idea? Smaller is better? I can't see it personally. Is the problem with them that Pathfinders get chosen over them? If so, this change won't help them get selected any more than they are now.

I thought we were trying to make them more attractive to use.


Cut the 'Fire Warriors' upgrade out of the list
I would much prefer this idea to shrink them down.



Author:  colonel_sponsz [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
(Not trying to get at anyone here, merely intended for those that haven't been closely following this list's development for that long.)

As FF4+ seems to come up every six months or so, here's a quick reminder about why it is the way it is:  

Tau Fire Fight values are lower than both the background and 40k stats suggest.  This is a deliberate abstraction and is offset by Pulse Rifles 30cm range - note that they are not 'small arms' like most races' main infantry weapons (boters, lasguns &c.).

The design goal behind this was to discourage Tau players from getting thier Fire Warriors into fire-fights but instead to use the superior range of their pulse rifles to out-shoot opponents from a distance without engaging, as per the fluff.  By contrast, the low Fire Fight values encourage other races to close with the Tau and engage on their own terms which is where the Tau are less comfortable and weaker, again in line with the fluff.

I'm not saying this should be set in stone but FF5+ is 'wrong' for a reason, whilst changing it to 4+ might make them mre attractive to a Tau player, at the same time and for the same reason, it may be too powerful in the eyes of an opponent.  "What do you mean?  A 15cm AND a 30cm AP5 attack AND FF4 for only 25 points!  These guys are way too powerful."

Orde
Author:  Xisor [ Mon May 29, 2006 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
[quote="Dobbsy,29 May 2006 (02:27)"][/quote]

FF4+? I'm not so sure anymore...it *does* promote engagements...

With only 4 units and transports it's hardly a solid attack force - more a "strike" force...

Quite right. Fire warriors are not supposed to, on their own, be a 'solid attack force', at least not to my knowledge. Capable, yes, but that's not their primary function.

Limit contingents by which cadres are taken[ie FW Cadre allows 0-2 from the list I made earlier]
Isn't it done this way already? Other than the FW upgrade?

Not in the way I propose. The way I put it, you'd have:

Cadre:
Fire Warriors
Contingents Allowed:
Pathfinder
Stealth
Broadside
Hammerhead
Tetras
Piranhas
Gun Drone Wing
Markerlight Sentries
[See, so FW Cadre lets you have interesting things, but nothing majorly interesting]

Cadre:
Crisis
Contingents allowed:
Stealth
Broadside
Hammerhead
Gun Drone

Cadre:
Armoured Mobile Hunter Cadre
Contingents allowed:
Hammerhead
Scorpionfish
Stingray
Piranhas

This also allows the army to be a bit more solidly renamed. Each '1+ 0-2' is a 'Cadre', but up to three formations.

Drop the majority of Markerlights from the Fire Warrior stands
I can live with this, but doesn't this just make them even less attractive a formation? Do the 40K version have 1-3 MLs per squad? If so each unit in E:A could have them - thus leave them as is.

It is only likely that one stand in two is going to have *any* markerlights. It is highly unlikely that 1/4 fire warriors is going to be accompanied by 2 marker drones and one having a shas'ui with markerlight. I think, given the abstraction of epic, it's fair enough to have only one unit with the Markerlight ability.

FWs without a transport should be rigorously discouraged too
Why not just make the transports part of the formation as a whole then? That was part of my proposal.

3 Firewarrior Stands[no Markerlights]
1 Firewarrior Shas'ui [Has Markerlights...perhaps leader?]
2 Devilfish
150-175pts

Wow! this really waters them down. What is the point of this idea? Smaller is better? I can't see it personally. Is the problem with them that Pathfinders get chosen over them? If so, this change won't help them get selected any more than they are now.

I can also see this:
6 Fire Warriors [1 with Markerlights]
3 Devilfish
That makes a plausible force, decent firepower and capable with upgrades. Following that, I wouldn't strike the 'FW Upgrade' from the list of upgrades, instead I'd reduce it to +2 FW +1 Devilfish. Keep it small.

I thought we were trying to make them more attractive to use.

See above. They'd be cheaper, and more refined. Perhaps combined with a boost on the Firefight value[to FF4+] it'd make them more viable.


Cut the 'Fire Warriors' upgrade out of the list
I would much prefer this idea to shrink them down.

Right, revised proposal[aside from restricting contingents]:

Fire Warrior Cadre
6 Fire Warriors [1 with Markerlight]
3 Devilfish

Change Firewarrior upgrade to:
2 Fire Warriors
1 Devilfish

Change to Firewarriors:
1 stand has 'Markerlights' per formation
Otherwise none have markerlights
FF4+

Sound more reasonable?



Author:  CyberShadow [ Mon May 29, 2006 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Thanks for the responses so far. While I agree that the idea of restricted upgrades depending on the core Cadre taken is a good one, it adds an additional level of complication which does not exist in any other force list. I would be against this in principle in an official list.

Sorry, yes, I meant Pulse carbines!  :p

I would personally like to see the Markerlights removed from the FW squads for two reasons. Firstly, I am yet to be convinced that these are packed at anything like standard equipment in 40K, and secondly as it focusses the attention on the Pathfinders to get up front and light up the enemy. If the Fire Warriors cant do it, it becomes the Pathfinders main role... which is the way that it should be.

The Pulse Carbines are a different matter. I like them in the squads, but I am not sure what they are there to actually achieve. I would like to leave them in, personally (the issue of the actual stats of the Rail Rifle is something that I would really like to leave until a different thread).

The issue of the firefight of the Fire Warriors is not something that I would like to change. There is a very delecate balance going on there, and I think that it works OK now. Sure, the Fire Warriors get slaughtered in a ff, but it is the job of the Tau player to keep them out of harms way, or supported. I think that this works fine right now.

I am not planning anything major in the structure of the list at this point, rather trying to get to the bottom of why people dont take Fire Warriors.

My current proposal is to drop the Markerlights from the Fire Warriors. I think that this will go a long way to defining the roles of both the FWs and the PFs. However, it doesnt answer or deal with the initial issue of why these guys are not seen as 'useful' on the Epic battlefield.
Author:  Ilushia [ Mon May 29, 2006 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Fire Warriors
Well my basic reasoning behind 'why give the FF4+' is an attraction issue. Right now they have to get all the way up to 30cm away to shoot the enemy. That means that almost anyone is going to be able to close to FF range on their next activation unless the Tau immidiately bug-out. That's fairly harsh for the Fire Warriors and makes them a much less attractive choice then, say, Heavy Gun Drones, to me. The Heavy Gun Drones are fast, they have Tau Jetpacks so if the enemy counter-charges them then they can run away, and they carry Markerlights. Plus they're cheaper! Likewise most of the other choices in the army to fill the role that Fire Warriors do are similarly better choices, IMHO. I'd much rather take a Battlesuit Cadre and then take a Tetra Contengent for my secondary forces. Why? Because the tetras are fast, have good fire power, and if the enemy charges them they can probably survive it. Plus they can never be dragged into melee (Yay skimmer!) while Fire Warriors can.

To me, the fact that they have to close to 30cm and have no way of running away or fighting effectively in firefights is a HUGE downside. Especially when playing against Space Marines, Eldar or Orks. Marines and Eldar will just flat out get up close to you and beat you senseless. Orks will usually just crush you with weight of numbers when it comes to Firewarriors. If not making them FF4+ then give them some viable options to avoid getting dragged into FF situations. I think that'd go a long way towards making them more attractive.
Page 1 of 10 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/