If you want a unit that can mark units and still take out tanks then get some Stealth Suits with Fusion and Markerlights. Marker Drones are so expensive that they should NEVER be put inside a unit that is both 1) important and 2) fragile. Are Stealths the most effective unit? No, but they are pretty damn flexible and that's why I like them.

@OP: If you wanted your units to be little "heroes" then the Gun Drones are a much better option. Gun Drones are vastly superior to Fire Warriors for multiple reasons. Among the more notable reasons are the fact that they're more mobile, they have a slightly higher accuracy percentage, they're more effective in close combat (how many of us have stories of a drone becoming the hero and saving the day?), and most importantly, they're Fast Attack. This means they they are not Heavy, Elite or Scoring, which means that less firepower will be thrown in their direction. The only bad things about them are their weapon range, smaller unit size and leadership (which I'm not sure if that's actually a bad thing). All of this for just 2 points over the standard Firewarrior? Yes please! Add a little Markerlight support in there and you've got a recipe for awesomeness.

In short, do yourself a favor and play around with running the 6 man squads in Devilfish, you might even like it. I wouldn't know considering that we haven't seen your list. That's what I personally am doing with my cadre.

In my experience the marker drones are always worth the extra investment in a fire warrior squad if you plan on having them take a more proactive role. They bring networked markerlights to the field, so the fire warriors have the option of using it for themselves, or supporting something else with it.

Personally though, i like to maximize the markerlights the squad can bring if it brings it at all. leader with markerlight and HWTL, plus 2 marker drones. Its generally a good idea to make sure whatever the firewarriors missed has a good chance of dying, so that extra markerlight can help a crisis suit squad wrap up the stragglers.

Actually, this is more about flexibility, specialization, and opportunity cost.

Flexibility being defined as the ability of a unit to handle multiple situations. A certain amount of flexibility or specialization is gained from the units natural abilities (i.e. the abilities you gain from purchasing the unit minus any upgrades).

Specialization/Redundancy being defined as determining that a specific situation in which the unit excels is desirable enough that the player is willing to risk the unit being largely useless in a certain set of defined circumstances (i.e. multi-melta attack bikes when fighting an ork horde)

Opportunity cost can be thought of as "what am I giving up to take this unit?" This could either be lack of points, limiting options (such as taking daemonhosts in the DH codex or Farsight in our codex), or lack of slots in the FOC.

The OP has chosen three units of the following configuration

11 shas'la - pulse rifles, photon grenades
1 Shas'ui - pulse rifle, photon grenades, hw- target lock, markerlight
162 pts.

First thing we should address is the unit's ability to score. This is an organic ability native to all troop's choices and is extremely difficult to quantify. In 2 out of every 3 games it is absolutely essential where as in 1 out of 3 games is totally worthless (assuming using standard 40k missions). Thus the great debate about how many scoring units a given army needs.

Next we can look at the unit's organic abilities. A shas'la squad of FCWs organically has some long range, light infantry and light vehicle shooting by virtue of it's str. 5 gun. It also has the aforementioned ability to score.

Now we can look at options. If we wish to make a flexible unit (i.e. something that does more than shoot and score) we are limited to the markerlight options and EMP grenades. markerlights can be used to boost other squad's shooting (or it's own squad should it purchase marker drones) or it can be used to take out vehicles in close combat via the EMP grenade. These are two fairly specific circumstances as with option A) the unit must remain stationary and option B) the unit must be in assault with a unit that has an armor value. Markerlights are often employed against targets that are outside the set of targets that firewarriors can effectively engage, while 'nades will either have a hard time hitting and necessitate your warriors getting close - which is a contradiction to their organic purpose.

A very flexible unit of firewarriors would be 12 FCW - 6 carbines, 6 rifles, emp. shas'ui with markerlight, hw target lock, bk.

The unit can move a shoot (some), can shoot out to the full 30' (some), has some utility against vehicles that are within charge range, and can support other units by marking targets. However, you have now spent 186 points for that flexibility which is a high opportunity cost (as we'll discuss later).

Should we choose to specialize by increasing the units light infantry firepower, we can take maximum advantage of the unit's organic purpose. adding more pulse rifles makes the unit better at shooting, but comes with the associated opportunity cost that you are giving up more scoring units by taking larger units. I have yet to see someone prove to me that 1 unit of 12 fire warriors is in any way better than 2 units of 6.

Opportunity cost is where the FCW really begins to fail. By spending 162 points on a single scoring unit with a fair degree of specialization (again, anti-light infantry) and a moderate degree of flexibility (markerlights, assault defense) you've given up approximately 102 points that could be used to either add redundancy to your list (multiple units) or specilization, or even flexibility. You haven't really given up FOC slots as Tau usually don't fill their troops allotment, and you haven't limited yourself in any other way as far as what you can take.

If you have determined that you need more anti-infantry in your force (which is the FCW niche) then I ask for a compelling reason why 12 FCW is demonstrably better than 2x6 FCW? If you are worried about the flexibility of adding markerlights, may I ask why paying 30 points for the Shas'ui is better than paying 24 points for 2 pathfinders or paying 30 points for a relentless marker drone?

On the other hand - there may be better options for anti-light infantry that include a set of organic abilities that outstrip the FCW. I submit the railgun equipped hammerhead. for 3 points more than your firewarrior squad, you have a unit that has inherent flexibility by being able to engage infantry and vehicles, can move and shoot, is immune to most fire below str. 6 at the cost of not being scoring and being vulnerable to the "magic bullet" of a single shot killing it. At the end of the day, you'll have to make up your own mind, but I believe that the hammerhead is a better choice.

I know this has been a little... rambling to say the least. Sorry if it confuses.

The only problem is that Tau really have to rely on killing everything in your opponent's army to have a chance at winning. Firewarriors and kroot are quite frankly horrible at both taking and holding objectives from 5th edition armies so usually I find that I bring 6 firewarriors in a devilfish to fulfill the 1+ requirement on them, and 10 kroot to fulfill the second troop choice. The kroot either screen for the army if I am forced to use them that way, or outflank, while the devilfish stays in reserve until everything that can hurt them is dead. Otherwise you are dumping too many points into squads that their only purpose is to hold objectives (Which they are pretty bad at).

Because the Shas'ui gives you Ld 8 and looks really cool on the tabletop.

Marker drones aren't relentless. They inherit the same unit type as the Shas'la they are attatched to, and therefore cannot fire heavy weapons while moving. They are only relentless if they are attached to a Jetpack unit.

I understand both of those facts. I should have been more specific in that many people who field marker drones utilize them on relentless models.

While Shas'ui definitely look cool, this is a thread about efficiency. If I only fielded my favorite looking models, I would have tons of stealth suits which isn't very efficient.

Thanks I forgot about the Stealth Marker-light option, mainly cause I never play it. Though you could save a few points and increase your to hit ration by dropping 2 fire warriors and including 2 gun drones instead.

Don't worry, it was enlightening and definitely put things to perspective in a new way for me.

In response to this however, all the Tau elements require a higher degree of harmony with the next, probably moreso than most other armies out there. A truly effective Tau army cannot run a list (almost) completely comprised of one thing like the marines, orks, etc. who can solve the issues of redundancy and flexibility in one fell swoop. Sure you could run a crisis list, but statistically speaking, you wouldnt have the shots to take on a hoard army, and your shots would be constantly delayed and hampered by a heavilly mechanized list.

in addition, our slots are all pretty limited in the amount of points we can cram into each one. With standard unit compositions, we usually average each slot at around 200 points (give or take a few).

Keeping those limits in mind, there's no way we can take a perfectly balanced list of 12 hammerheads, a devilfish, and a crisis HQ into a normal game. The other FOC slots demand their points worth and they'll be damned if they don't get any.

Going to the fire warriors themselves, the thing going for them is weight of numbers, with S 5 guns. the Crisis suits are definitely our heavy hitters against infantry in general, and the hammerhead can drop S6 templates all game if it needs to, but fire warriors get the maximum number of shots out, from the opposite side of the opponents table edge, at the second-cheapest cost available to us. The basic fireknife crisis suit is 62 points and puts out 3-4 shots a turn, 1-2 of those shots wound almost any infantry unit outright if they hit, and the other 2 are potent against just about everything except land raiders. The fireknife is next to worthless for clearing out tyrannid swarms and IG Blob squads. A basic railhead with smart missiles (for the sake of this argument) comes in at roughly 160-ish points, upgrades pending. Hammerheads do a fine job of dropping templates, but templates are easilly countered by the inherent ability of previously mentioned units in that they can move away from each other, plus you can only take a max of 3. Looking at pure shot counts, and the points per shot, rifle fire warriors are getting 5 or 10 points a shot, the crisis fireknife is paying roughly 15 or 20 points, and the railhead (with burst cannons) is paying 50 points for that template (which, against a competent opponent, probably wont get more than 4 hits a turn, and will usually have a cover save applied to it at the least), and to fire the smart missiles, roughly 28 points per shot and a hit to its mobility.

Looking at pure points cost, a single crisis suit is paying double to triple the cost of a fire warrior for each one of its shots. Yes its a stronger shot and has a higher chance to successfully wound. but hey, those shots are excellent at dealing with 2 extremes that the crisis suits cant deal with. the hoards (IG Blob squad, tyrannid swarm, ork mob, etc.), and the hammers (I.E. the thunder hammer Storm shield terminators, thunderwolf cavalry, etc.). plus, they work just fine against marines. If we go further and assume there is enough markerlight support for each of our examples to fire at bs5, the fire warriors are literally cleaning cleaning the house of any hoard in it. The thing about pure weight of numbers in Warhammer 40k is that, if anything can be affected by it, it WILL eventually get through. a lot of things can be affected by a volley of s5 guns. When that volley is coming from 30" away, that board all of a sudden seems a lot longer than it really is. When that volley hits in the 12 inch range thanks to a vehicle wall or kroot meat shield or advantageous terrain feature, well, typically SOMETHING has to die, and it doesn't matter what breed of marine you are (yes even the FNP ones eventually go down) to say nothing of everything else. Long story short, weight of numbers can account for the flexibility part just fine.

Does that mean I would max out fire warriors? No.
Will fire warriors make the pain go away? depends on your childhood
Will the s5 volley work against everything my opponents and their mothers throw at me? probably not, that's why we're a hybrid race. We mix and match everything to cover the weaknesses of the next piece.



When you throw the need for Scoring units into the mix, the fire warrior becomes far more potent. Far be it for me to go and lecture anyone on list building, but I believe taking 2 minimum size troops in a game where 2/3 of the scenarios are reliant on capturing points is the worst mistake any player could make. Troops should be buffed up, kitted out, and reinforced. In a 5th edition world where everyone is going mech, every army has more than a few magic bullets to kill a transport, so getting rid of a lone devilfish carrying a meager 6 fire warriors is not only doable, it is fairly easy, and i don't even need to mention the fact that a mobility hit is more than enough to solve the problem of keeping the fire warriors off the point. Even assuming you keep it in reserves, chances are, the opponent will have about 2-3 turns to crack it open and kill the occupants before they can finish their mad dash to the objective. If you're going to be spending 165 points on a minimum size armored troop carrier for the purpose of capturing points, I cannot see why it wouldn't be a bad idea to simply add in another 60-100 points to make it actually support the rest of your army killing things and earning its points back, instead of it being a dead weight that the rest of the army has to keep alive. Reinforce it with more troops and the magic bullets suddenly wont be able to clear all your troops off the board. Sit them down in cover, provide suppression fire, and once the time for capturing is at hand, load em back up and do what you usually do.

ps. Regarding the gundrone mixing, fire warriors can equip pulse rifles. Gundrones cant. the hit ratio might be slightly higher with a drone, but the fire warrior makes up for it with the additional shot and range. Plus, you have to buy the leader upgrade to take the drones.

Unless you are going for a decent size carbine squad and kitting out the fire warriors with upgrades, Its usually not worth mixing the two.

Thanks for your economic line of reasoning (it's fun for me to see people actually use the term Opportunity Cost correctly since I've a BA in Economics myself) Allow me to address this point specifically for you.

There are five major reasons why one larger unit is superior to two smaller units. Whether or not these reasons apply to you depends on your own particular Cadre organization and your goals for the unit.

1. A larger unit requires more total wounds to be inflicted for panic tests (mitigated by a bonding knife, which will be discussed in reason 2), or to be eliminated as a Scoring Unit. I.e., to wipe out a unit of 12 by shooting takes twice as many wounds inflicted as a unit of six. Ergo, with the same number of wounds inflicted (12) if you have one large unit you've only given up 1 Kill Point, but if you had two units of 6 you've given up 2 Kill Points.

2. A larger unit is more efficient in terms of cost of upgrades. If we look at the cost of upgrade per trooper (or X / N where X is the cost of the upgrade and N is the number of troopers in the squad) we see that the cost of a Shas'Ui upgrade for the additional Leadership is X / 12 for a single large squad, or X / 6 for a smaller squad. You are paying proportionally less per model for the upgrade if you only have to buy it once for a large squad. This is the same for a bonding knife, although X in this case is a smaller value. You also avoid having to pay for each upgrade twice to cover the same number of troopers. I.e., instead of having to buy two bonding knives and two Shas'Ui to cover 12 troopers, I can instead make it so I only have to buy each one once to cover the same number of models.

We can make a further evolution of this idea and comparison using a bit of math. Lets use the following variables and/or assumptions:

Let B = cost of a bonding knife
Let 2B = cost of a Shas'Ui upgrade
Assumption: we wish all of our Fire Warrior teams to have both a bonding knife (to better maintain scoring status) and Shas'Ui (to better not run away)

instance 1: Two squads of 6 Fire Warriors. They have to pay 6B total for their upgrades (two bonding knives, two Shas'Ui) which means each upgrade is costing you B/2 points (6B/12) or .5B per trooper.

instance 2: One squad of 12 Fire Warriors. They have to pay 3B total for their upgrades which means each upgrade is costing you B/4 points (3B/12) or .25B per trooper.

Not only are you paying less in total for the upgrades, you are also having cheaper models by paying less per model for the same abilities. This is more efficient in terms of points as well as making you loose less points invested should a unit be wiped out. The math doesn't lie.

3. Larger units allow for more efficient markerlight usage by allowing each markerlight token to affect more models in a single use. It only takes 1 markerlight token to raise the BS of a unit of 12, where it takes 2 markerlight tokens to raise the BS of 2 units of 6 by the same amount. This increases army efficiency and synergy.

4. It takes less transports to move the same number of models from point A to point B via mechanization, which means less points invested in vehicles. You literally have to buy half as many Devilfish to move the same number of models, which is very useful in a points crunch.

5. It occupies less Force Org slots to be buying units of 12 as opposed to 2 units of 6. While not always a problem, this can come into play depending on your playstyle, mission choices, and other factors. As an example, you get twice as many bodies on the table in a Dawn of War style deployment where you are allowed to start with only so many Troop choices Two Troop choices with units of 12 are 24 bodies on the table, twice as much as 2 units of 6 (natural consequences of math).

A counter-point can be raised that you get more Devilfish hulls for the same total points invested if you go with multiple smaller units of Fire Warriors, which is something to consider. In addition, you can cover more objectives by having more Troops choices. It's a choice between number of objectives you're trying to hold versus the durability of the units on each objective.

Hopefully I've shown several instances though where a single larger unit is superior in some qualities than multiple smaller units.

As said elsewhere, that is only viable if you are taking Carbine teams, or if you want a smidge of close combat defense. Otherwise, I was referring to taking the drones as a unit of their own. As a unit the GD Teams are vastly under estimated.

Well, I would offer a counter-rebuttal. Even should we accept that a 12 man FCW squad is superior to a hammerhead in the realm of anti-horde (I remain unconvinced), we have not even looked at other factors.

Consider Kroot. They are scoring so that negates the big advantage of FCW over other units. They shoot out to 24" inches with roughly 30% more shots. They have some counter-assault potential, and they have useful upgrades such as infiltrate, hounds, outflank, and the funky woods rule. Lets look at a scenario

Vs. Marines
10 Kroot (70 points) shooting @ 24-12". 10 * 1/2 * 1/2 *1/3 = 10/12 = 5/6 dead marines
7 FCW (70 points) shooitng @ 30-12". 7 * 1/2 * 2/3 *1/3 = 14/18 = 7/9 dead marines

At BS 4 for the FCW = minimum 24 points investment in two pathfinders
7 FCW with BS4 = 7 * 2/3 *2/3 * 1/3 = 28/29 dead marines
13 Kroot @ BS3 = 13 * 1/2 *1/2 *1/3 = 13/12 dead marines

So we see that kroot are actually better at shooting marines on a point for point basis than FCW are. The ratio remains the same at closer range. FCW have the extra 6" of range, can benefit from markerlights and LD boosts, and superior armor. Kroot have better special rules and benefit from some types of terrain more readily. They can also present a credible anti-horde assault threat - especially with hounds. Since both units can ride in devilfishes (the kroot have to steal a 'finder's ride) so that's a wash.

Vs. Orks
10 Kroot (70 points) shooting @ 24-12". 10 * 1/2 * 1/2 *5/6 = 50/24 = 2 1/25 dead orks
7 FCW (70 points) shooitng @ 30-12". 7 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 14/6 = 2 2/6 dead orks.

here we see that FCW squads nudge out kroot in the anti-ork department as a result of the AP ability of the pulse rifles.

Vs. Dire Avengers
10 Kroot (70 points) shooting @ 24-12". 10 * 1/2 * 2/3 *1/2 = 20/12 = 1 2/3 dead DA.
7 FCW (70 points) shooitng @ 30-12". 7 * 1/2 * 5/6 * 1/2 = 35/24 = 1 11/24 dead DA.

So again, the Kroot win out over the FCW squads. So I think we can therefore say that Kroot are marginally better at shooting targets that will get an armor save against a pulse rifle than FCW are. When we take into account the varieties of cover available, (KFF, area terrain, intervening models, Force Dome, Shield of Sanguinius etc), I think that the points you spend for a 4+ armor save and the AP of a pulse rifle pushes FCWs into the losing category when it comes to pure firepower versus their kroot counterparts.

Now, it doesn't mean that FCW are totally useless. I simply think that in most situations, Kroot have a better skill set for the Tau commanders out there than the FCWs do.



You last paragraph in the quote is what I would like to address. Yes, a 12 man unit harder to force a break test than a 6 man unit. However, if you look at both units of 6, you must inflict 4 casualties to inflict a break test on both units as opposed to only 3 for the 12 man units. This may not be a big deal for some players, but as I do not use my FCW as damage dealers but instead as objective holders, they are rarely in a position to take mass casualties at any one time.

As far as transport goes, I prefer to have at least two transports for screening, contesting, and scoring purposes. 2x60 + 2x 85 = 290 points which is 85 points more than your 12 man single transport option. I can block two units, score on two far flung objectives, hide two units of crisis suits behind them, and so on and so forth.

MSU armies like Tau suffer from having tons of kill points. I mitigate this by keeping firewarriors in reserve if at all possible. Tau usually "out KP" our opponents in any given game and is a downfall of the Tau codex.

6 man units are, IMHO, the better choice. Remember, I do not take 6 man units - I take 9 man units because I happen to have multiples of 9 firewarriors painted.

Back to the issue of hordes, I humbly suggest that barring a full on tau gunline (tons of FCW/Kroot etc), no tau army has the firepower to kill a horde before it does irreperable damage in HTH by pure shootiing alone. They must be outmanuevered, tank shocked, flamed, and funneled into charge range of kroot/hound combinations.

@Democharge.

well I didn't say the fire warriors were the absolute OMG-BEST-THING-EVAR unit... I was simply making the point that they can serve as an excellent support squad. Hammerheads are great, but since they are generally taken in teams of 2, and usually have to allocate their railgun to anti-vehicle duties, the fire warriors serve as a cheap and effective means of killing. I wouldn't fill my list to the brim with all fire warriors, but I wouldn't minimize their numbers either.

To the point on Kroots, I take them as well. They further boost the weight of numbers and yes, they give the fire warriors a hell of a run for their money. I can't even begin to count the number of games they've single handedly turned a bad game good in one turn.

Kroots are better in cover, better at pure shot output, and better at assault. A consistent S4 in both range and melee is highly dependable in all situations and their numbers (in a hearty sized squad) make any opponent learn to fear them. What the firewarriors do that the kroot cant though, is take on light vehicles and monstrous creatures at a distance. Kroots cant reliably take out a rhino except by swarming it and crushing it through sheer weight of melee attacks, and hey, when it works, the guys inside cant emergency disembark and you get a free second KP, but its a gamble. They can't take out a land speeder to save their life unless they jump on it from the board edge or the opponent literally parks it right in front of them, and the kroot cannot benefit from markerlights. The single numeric difference between the S5 and S4 gives the fire warriors the edge of increased flexibility regarding what they can possibly, and effectively, engage, and the markerlights increase the kill potential.

To be honest though, their advantages balance out equally IMO, and its all up to how the playstyle is for which option you take. I do tend to stock up more on kroot than fire warriors anyways. Everyone knows how awesome the kroot can be. Firewarriors just needed some love.

Having a preference towards the use of infantry I fully support the idea of more fire warriors than most people play , I would personally say that you should run 2 squads of 11 Fire warriors and two squads of 6, the 6 man squads as Markerlighted up as possible (though pathfinders play this part better, but they also take up too many elite slots for each squad), to provide targeting support for your other squads. However I'm no veteran so don't put all your hopes in my advice .

A quick point on Marker Light support for Fire Warrior squads.

If I have a squad with 12 Warriors, they get an average of 6 hits. If I have another squad with a Marker Light, it will miss half the time, and the other half it will increase the Warriors' BS to 4, giving them an average of 8 hits.

So the Marker Light upgrade - You are buying a gun that gets two hits half the time, and zero hits the other half, for a combined average of 1 hit per turn. Compare this to his standard Pulse Rifle, which gets 1/2 hit per turn, and you'll see that buying a Marker Light amounts to buying one additional Pulse Rifle.

But, it also comes with logistical difficulties. Have to have multiple squads for it to keep working, and no matter what you do, one squad will still fire unsupported. Daisy-chaining them (i.e., Squad A lights for Squad B which lights for Squad C) decreases the efficiency somewhat (only supporting 11 guns). And as the units start taking casualties, the Marker Light stops being as powerful as having a single extra Fire Warrior would be.

It can sorta be a more efficient use of points than a standard Warrior, if you're using it at a distance to support another full squad in Rapid Fire range (In this case it's like buying 3 extra rifles), but I feel like that is yet another logistical difficulty. I think the effort you have to go into to make the Marker Light worth its points is enough to pretty easily counteract its benefit, especially since it means running your whole army differently to get the most leverage out of what will probably not be more than 20 points in your army.

EDIT: Whoa. I did not look at the dates on this thread. My bad.

i depends on witch army your fighting, if its a horde army them take fire warriors but if not than i agree that you should only spen 60 points per squad, and use those points for some XV8's.

When you aren't facing a horde army, you want to use kroot as movement screens to buy time for your other assets (crisis and broadside teams) to do their work. When you are facing horde armies you want kroot (instead of fire warriors) because they get more shots per point and when facing 180+ models, you need as many shots as you can get

The last post before Hogg's was more than a year ago. Unless someone has a really good reason to bring this back, don't post. It will be promptly locked. Please let it rest in peace! -D&G

Seconded. ~ E.