I would make the argument it's incredibly difficult to prepare against deepstrikers with any defense that relies upon avenues of attack or lines of fire. This is why I consider the Positional Relay the neatest piece of wargear I've seen in the Tau book I'm never going to win a "but they could use deepstrikers and hose you" argument in terms of designing defenses so I'm going to bypass that one. Yes, deepstriking melee troops hose the Tau. There's little we can do to prevent it, we can only react to it.

Now outflanking you can deal with. The enemy only has a 67% chance of appearing on the side he wants (left edge or right edge). It is impossible for them to outflank you and appear from your table edge (unless you're Space Wolves or something equally non-standard). If the objective is within 18" of a table edge yes, there is a chance you will get assaulted, however it's very slim. I'm not saying the strategy is foolproof, just that I see much better chances for units to work in tandem than alone. Let the army support itself. Now if you can correctly predict likely incoming lines of attack (a skill I've picked up from playing Warhammer Fantasy) you can adequately place your troops at the beginning. If it is an enemy unit that is NOT outflanking or deepstriking, you can maneuver your lead unit of Fire Warriors such that they are the only ones who will be assaulted. I will admit that it is possible for someone who is being a ninja to get both of your units in the assault, but that makes it more likely for you to get more attacks at them and possibly turn the tide of combat with additional dice. It's a gamble on their part. Now anything that can hose two units of Fire Warriors in one turn there's not much you can do to stop.

By "sufficiently large" I am assuming you are talking a 20+ model Orc or Tyranid mob.. in which case there's not much hope you can beat it with Fire Warriors anyway... you are now stalling for time. I'm not going to try to win an argument saying Fire Warriors will kill it.. it's a question of how many turns can you keep them alive until the end the game dice roll is made.


Yes, they can. However I am obligated to point out that these units are the exception, rather than the rule. SM Vanguard with Jetpacks easily cost twice as much as a like sized Assault squad with Jetpacks. These are most likely going to be very small numbers of models, assuming they are present at all. Chaos Demons.. well.. I would certainly adjust my deployment and tactics knowing I was facing an entire army of Deepstrikers, wouldn't you?


As a Warhammer Fantasy veteran I'll take that test at Ld 6 odds. I've had worse. Especially if we consider putting an Ethereal nearby to help the stationary Fire Warriors hold the objective. Ld 6 with a reroll? Bring it on It's better than Ld 3 and dead when you're stalling for time. Remember, the objective is not to win, it's to do anything in your power to slow the enemy advance and be the one holding the objective when the buzzer goes. There's also always the chance you win the Init test. Dice are flukey.


What photon grenades help with by holding the assault until your phase is by allowing you more time to redeploy your forces while the assaulting unit is stationary. If the assault is concluded in the enemy's phase yes, you have more time to shoot.. but they have more time to move and reposition. It's a trade off. The most effective way to make an enemy not be on an objective is for them to all be dead, or reduce them so they are no longer effective, but this isn't always possible in the new age of "single models may claim objectives" by minimum scoring size being eliminated. So then the next best thing is to keep them more than 3 inches away. It's all a question of what point of the game you're in and the flow around you. It wont always be the only answer, but it's a viable alternative that should be considered.


Unless we have one or more units of Fire Warriors working with a unit of Kroot. If you receive the charge with your Fire Warriors, then hold, you can counter-charge with the Kroot into the same combat, giving the Kroot the additional attack bonus from charging. This would be your best method of counter-charging melee specialists. Let the Fire Warriors receive the charge with photons, and hold. This minimizes the damage done to your Kroot. This actually is even better than my original suggestion, since Kroot are also scoring.

But what happens if you don't have a FoF available? What if you're working on a budget and only have one Devilfish, or your Devilfish units are on the other end of the board? We can't assume that those units will always be available, or that everyone plays Mech Tau and has 4 FoF units


This is possible... if he's attacking with multiple melee units I would make the assumption that you have more resources to work with and throw at them than just two units of Fire Warriors. Multiple melee units certainly get the attention of my entire army's firepower when they're running at me no matter what army I happen to be playing That ends up in an endless "what if" circle though, and I'm not sure if that would provide anything productive to the discussion. Suffice it to say I yield the point that if multiple units of close combat specialists hit your lines at the same time you're probably hosed no matter what strategy of defense you are employing. I would just work my tail off to prevent that from ever happening.


Two points I have to make with this statement. First, the minimum troop size of an Imperial Guard platoon is 25 models. Two full sized Fire Warrior squads are 24 models, 28 with drones. So two Fire Warrior teams do add up to a platoon size unit. Many IG players don't field full 55 model platoons. The point of comparing it to an IG platoon is to make people shift their mindset from "I have a single Fire Warrior squad that acts alone" to "I have two or three units that act and work as one supporting each other." If you have multiple units advancing in concert in Lance formation (not the Bretonnian Lances, closer to BattleTech or historical warface mobile 'lances' ) they can change direction to meet any threat and support each other.

Second, we cannot rely on the fact that all Fire Warrior teams are deployed with Devilfish. There are many ways to construct Tau armies, not all of them are mechanized. If you are operating under the Kauyon principle you will usually have a static firebase which will contain one or more foot slogging squads of Fire Warriors. Also, if any of the Devilfish are shot down you now have squads without transports.


Only if they are using the Light Infantry doctrine, which means they no longer have heavy weapons and they are playing a doctrined list which means they have sacrificed elsewhere in their army list and options. I'll take Fire Warriors over guardsmen in a shooting match any day. The only guard models that can do this are a Light Infantry platoon, or elite choice Stormtroopers. These are not incredibly common, and are quite squishy to opposing firepower (like the entire Tau army). Also... who says we have Devilfish? Less points of Devilfish mean more guns to blow away the IG platoon. As a IG commander and Inquisition commander I'm certainly not going to try advancing a platoon of guardsmen into a Tau fire zone, I'll lose too many men for too little gain.

The main problem I have with photon nades is that its an rearloading tactic. It doesn't prevent the assault in the first place, which should be your top priority with firewarriors.

You can do math and talk personal experience all day, but I'd rather listen to the guy who has a neat trick for preventing assault.

On a side note, the tactic of setting your FW up in such a way as to simultaneously prevent them from being pulled off the objective and prevent the assaulter from getting within 3" is solid. Photon nades help with the results a bit, but I think spending points on more guns to thin the number of attackers in the first place would work more consistently.

You have to admit, those are pretty good odds.



Take a look at how many units have the Scout or Infiltrate rule, and moreover how many Troops choices have it. It's more common than you think, and for some armies purchasable (Tyranid Scuttlers, IG Light Infantry/Jungle Fighters etc). I would rate Outflankers as a greater threat than Deepstrikers, and 'defensive deployment' (ie keeping at least an 18" space/loading a unit of Kroot as a buffer) is essential for prevention of flank attacks.



Obviously, but this doesn't make your tactic any less fraught with risk. As I have said, if you are going to 'bait' an objective to draw enemy assault troops into firelines, it's better to use a throwaway unit ie a 6-man unit of FW's or a Kroot squad (not a tricked-out 12-man squad with gun drones and photons).



Thats certainly a worthwhile skill, but Outflank/Deepstrike largely makes your initial deployment/counter-positioning irrelevant. They'll suffer maybe a turn of fire before hitting you in close combat (CSM Lesser Daemons and SM Vanguard won't even afford you that if they land close enough to assault).



Not just possible, highly likely. If I saw you camping with FW's on objectives, I would start Outflanking and Deepstriking my assault units into them, knowing that the 'direct' approach would see them blown apart before they could close. I don't know what you mean by 'more attacks', FW's patently suck in CC and you are at best getting a turn of shooting off against these close-combat threats. As I pointed out previously, the pre-requisite statline and hitting power for a unit to rout your FW's in a single charge is very low, in some armies their shooty units can do it comfortably (Orks, Marines, CSM etc).


I think you are making the mistake someone else did before. If they are in combat, the FW's can't score the objective for you, they can only contest (with the enemy assault unit obviously contesting as well). You want them to break in a single round of combat and die, so you can shoot the enemy unit to death and dump a fresh unit of FW's/Kroot onto the objective to score it. Photons are at total odds with this strategy, as they slightly tip the odds in favour of the FW's.


Not really. Thinking of a reasonably common 'power-game' army, Tyranids can buy Scuttlers (Scout USR) on their Gaunts and Genestealers for buggerall. These units pack Fleet and either have the numbers (Outflanking Gaunt broods are quite horrifying, especially with the round of fleshborer fire you'll suffer prior to the charge) or raw hitting power (I would contend that 1 Genestealer would probably be enough to rout a unit of FW's easily, never mind a brood). I mentioned Vanguard because they are the new kids on the block, and Chaos Space Marine Lesser Daemons because they have the same exception to normal Deepstrike restrictions. Chaos Daemons themselves you will get a turn of fire against prior to the charge, but once in combat Photons are totally irrelevant, I doubt the Daemon pack will even leave any survivors to 'stall'. So, waste of points against them, and IMO generally speaking as well.



Not be rude, but we're playing 40k, the sorta Leadership hijinks that may occur in Fantasy don't happen here (rank bonus, Banner, etc etc). Also, if photons are such a fantastic tactical piece of wargear, you shouldn't need all this infrastructure to make it work (one squad here, another squad perfectly positioned here, Ethereal positioned here, Devilfish to move the FW's where needed, etc). Most Tau armies don't have Ethereals for good reason, and bringing one to achieve the counter-productive aim of extending a doomed FW combat is quite beyond me. You want them to break and die, so you can finish off their murders with other units.
I don't understand this 'stalling for time' idea, it's just prolonging the inevitable and could end up costing you two FW squads (which as I mentioned earlier you don't have a bottomless pit of), due the risk of them finishing up in your Assault phase, moving in his turn and assaulting your other unit before you can retaliate.

As for Initative and fancy dice rolling, yes, it's possible. However, if we looked at the expected value, my outlook is pessimistic. Against I4 (pretty normal), you have roll at least a 4 (to beat their roll of 1) and if they roll 4 or higher you are toast.
Also, the 'well, it's possible argument' isn't a basis for strategy, it's wishful thinking. Either it's likely or unlikely (by certain degrees I'll admit, but any tactic has to have some chance of likelihood to succeed). We can debate %'s but I wouldn't bother, FW's are explicitly designed to fold in close-combat (as a matter of balance, given their relative cheapness and insane basic firepower), taking upgrades which are only for close-combat and hoping you'll roll a 6 for the 'run away' test (as I call it) isn't sound.



Why not deploy better to begin with? Tau are a shooty army, if you don't quickly master the ability to plot firelanes and carefully plan movement you are lost. I have lost games purely based on bad deployment, and have won by the same token.
If the assault is over in the first round of combat, they don't get any 'free time' to redeploy, it's your turn and vengeance time. Hence, photons are counter-productive.



Exactly! Gun them down, tie up their own shooty assets/speedbump using Kroot and Gun Drones. I fail to see how photons help achieve either of these objectives.



Not going to be likely. for reasons I have previously outlined. 'Defenders React' can actually cause your FW unit to be draw out of the 'scoring zone', and pile-in moves ensure that the enemy will be inside it (especially with large close-combat units). A lot of this is academic IMO, as any competent assault unit is going to steamroller the FW's (photons or not) in a single round.


I disagree, I think it's actually a worse idea. You have you tactics around the wrong way; you are letting the guys with guns get run over in combat, but keeping your speedbump unit back to counter-charge. Also, given the new rules for multiple combats, the destruction of the FW's counts towards the Kroot combat resolution was well, so even if you kill a fair few you'll still lose horribly. You lose two Scoring units, and if you are really unlucky the assault unit will finish wiping the Kroot off their blades at the end of your Assault phase. This leaves them free to move+charge your remaining unit of FW's. Woot, 3 Troops gone, and they either deny it to you or have a Scoring unit on it giving him a direct victory.


I don't own a single Devilfish (I know, heresy!), but I simply illustrating a much better alternative tactic. The basic idea of 'baiting' can simply be modified to have your 'clean-up crew' being XV8's or something else fast+shooty. Like with your opponents tactic of 'rip apart his Troops and deny the objective', you can do the same (except your's is more 'gun them down to bloody shreds and then deny objective'.



Of course, but I was demonstrating how ineffectual this idea is. If your opponent wishes he can unleash multiple assault units and if you have brought photons you actually make his job easier (as he may have the oppertunity to 'hide' in close-combat for your Shooting phase, only to emerge to assault something else afresh in his turn).



Certainly, the Tau army must work as a cohesive whole, my point is we can't apply the 'ok, you killed that squad of Guardsman, now I'll move the other 5 into rapid-fire and hose you down' tactic which static gunline IG do so well now that 'consolidation' doesn't equal 'new combat'. You don't have enough squads, not individual models, is my point.



Light infantry can still buy heavy weapons, and IMO Doctrines make the list more powerful IMO, not less. The most powerful IG units are freely available (ie tanks), the Restricted Troops are for the most part terrible or redundant. My point was that you could have a mass of these chumps on the objectives Turn 1, firing lascannons into your tanks and battlesuits, and while moving in to FoF them might destroy a squad (and therefore a lascannon), the other 2-4 squads of that Platoon (remember, thats just 1 Troops choice) then target your FW's and blow them apart. Lasguns are pathetic weapons but in sufficient quantities I've seen Plague Marines swept away. If you choose to footslog I have one word for you; Hellhound.

I actually agree with both of your statements here, so I'm not sure how they ended up something we were debating


One big point to consider though is that the bait has to be worthwhile enough for the enemy to jump and take it. The original intent of my idea and modification was not to actually use a baiting tactic, but a legitimate intentional defense. I would be trying to keep the baiting going on further away from my objective as having the outer defensive perimeter further from my objective serves to keep the majority of the enemy's forces farther away. Yes it raises the possibility of the enemy deepstriking behind my lines, but that would be why the second defensive line is present.


That one turn of fire however, is also a turn of movement. This gives you a 6" move to reposition both units such that only one can be assaulted.


More attacks as in the lasgun principle applied to close combat. If you roll enough dice, things start hitting. Earlier in this thread (SpartanTau on page 2 and 3 I believe) pointed out that the photon grenades make combats nearly a draw against Genestealers attacking a single squad of Fire Warriors. The second squad's dice rolls should be enough to cause the Tau to actually win the combat. This will not always be the case, but when in a crunch every little bit helps. I admit close combat is the LAST place Tau want to be... but if you see it coming, and know it's going to happen, I'd rather brace for it than bend over and kiss my rear good bye. It's always better to be the one delivering the hit.

Ah, but I am not arguing that the Fire Warriors in close combat are the ones scoring the objective! In fact, I am arguing the opposite. If I have two squads, one can be in close combat to tie up and slow down the enemy, allowing my second unit to hold the objective, especially if the combat is happening in game turns 4 through 6. All standard missions now have a variable time length... so when you are at the end of the game, you are fighting for time as much as anything else.

I admit outflanking Gaunts never make me happy, with any army. And I've much experience with a single Genestealer into Guardsmen or Eldar Guardians. I don't expect photon grenades to turn the Tau into close combat experts. But turning certain death into a possible tie or loss by 1 or 2 is a fairly significant change for 1 point per model IMO.


Several things to point out here. First, not to be rude but Leadership hijinks in Fantasy do not exist. Rank bonus, Banner, etc affect Combat Resolution (i.e., total wounds scored per side, just like banners do for the Imperial Guard, Space Marines, etc do here), NOT the Break Test. A Leadership test at -1 or -2 in fantasy is just the same as it is in 40k, and I've taken more successful Leadership tests at -1 or -2 with Leadership 7 and 8 troops than I can possibly count. I have a very firm grasp at what a Break Test at -2 means, moreso than the vast majority of the 40K players I've ran into do. Leadership 8 is high in Fantasy, btw. I notice more "hijinks" in 40k Leadership than I Ever have in Fantasy, such as basic models being Leadership 8 to 10, models allowing entire armies to use their Leadership as opposed to something within 12", entire armies being immune to break checks (ATSKNF), models getting to chose to pass or fail any Leadership test (Inquisitor Lords), the entire Vox-Caster system for the Imperial Guard, the list goes on.

Second, Every piece of wargear included in an army requires someone to adjust their tactics around the weapons and equipment available. Simply by arming a Crisis suit with an AFP requires you to fundamentally adjust the way you use that suit. So does having a flamer/fusion suit as opposed to a Deathrain. Using a Positional Relay adjusts how you use your army deployment and reserves. Equipping a team of Fire Warrior commandos with EMP's adjusts how you use that unit. Why should photon grenades be any different just because they are on Fire Warriors? Giving them to your infantry adjusts how you play with your infantry.

Third, in the later part of the game (as explained in the Tau and 2 Phases of the Game thread) your tactics MUST adjust to take into account the game can end at any time after about Turn 4. You cannot use the same strategy at this point as you must start taking into account who has Objectives, and sacrificing potential scoring Troop units is no longer necessarily the best strategy (some would argue that Troops are no longer sacrificial in Any point of the game now) since they are the only units that can score in the new edition. When Crisis suits could score Fire Warriors could be sacrificial, they simply Cannot now. You no longer want Fire Warriors to die, you want them to live so they can score or keep enemy models away from objectives so they cannot score or contest them.

Ah, but if my unit of Fire Warriors lives in turn 5, and the dice roll to end the game says we're done at the end of that turn and by stalling for time they have caused the enemy assaulters not to reach my objective, than the fight which I was losing now has a lot more meaning than the same fight happening in turn 1. That is what stalling for time is... it's like being ahead by 9 points in an American NFL Football game, your team has the ball, and there's 3 minutes left on the game clock. You stall for time to prevent the other team from having a chance to score twice in the remaining amount of time in the game. The only difference is we don't have a game clock, we have a random dice roll that occurs in known points of the game.


It's not taking the upgrades to hope the 'run away' test is a 6, it's all about making that Break Test a draw or very minor loss instead of your unit being wiped out.


But as shown by SpartanTau's analysis on pages 2 and 3 the photons don't make the assault over in the first round, they make it a draw. A draw allows your army time to react. Sometimes no matter what preparations in fire lanes you have, something unexpected happens. What if your careful deployment goes out the window from a lucky artillery barrage and an unexpected panic test is failed? There are so many variables that perfection can never be maintained. When you have to improvise, you have to make up plans on the fly that won't have as good a chance of success as an ideal. When this happens you make the most of what you have. Sometimes that one extra turn of movement to bring more guns to bear on the next few turns makes all the difference.


But it doesn't matter if the "blocking" unit of Fire Warriors is drawn out of the scoring zone in my example, their sole purpose at that point is to keep the enemy unit from reaching the actual scoring unit of Fire Warriors. My combat is taking place at a further range away from the objective than Gorin's by using a lead blocker to protect the scoring unit.

I disagree with your disagreement, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it is more tactically sound to take the hits on the unit that actually has a 50% armor save chance and the ability to reduce the incoming attacks by the chargers. They have a better chance at having less models die than unarmored Kroot. Kroot being the attack and counter-charge specialists that Tau have, however pathetic, means we have to maximize their outgoing attacks, which means we Must allow the Kroot to be the ones to get that +1A charge bonus. Therefore I will always conclude that if I'm going to get charged anyway, I'd rather let Fire Warriors take the charge so that the Kroot can avenge their deaths for the Greater Good.


Except my tactic isn't designed to be bait, it's meant to actually hold an objective.


I could do lots of things in a game if I 'wished' but if an enemy army is made of large numbers of multiple assault units you have to play it differently. Not every tactic will be viable against every army, this is a known realization. I don't see how you pointing out that this tactic won't work against every foe is stating that the idea or tactical principle is flawed.


Yes, it's true we won't be able to beat the Guard at their own specialty and their own mastery (large number of troop units working as one), but we can certainly imitate it and make it work for us to some extent. If it works, use it as you can. We can't match Guard numbers point for point (also the specialty of Guard.. they can outnumber Tyranids if they want to), just like Space Marines can't match our numbers, but that doesn't make the tactic of platoons worthless just because the Guard is more efficient at it.


My mistake.. I always give my Light Infantry models sniper rifles as their "heavy weapon" so I move them with impunity and forget that technically I could give them a heavy weapon which wont fire save for one or two shots a game I tend not to give any of my guard infantry squads heavy weapons, actually... I leave them in officer squads and heavy weapon support teams.

That is an example though, of a very specialised army with very specialised doctrines. It's like pointing out that a mechanized mobile windrider host eldar army can be across the board by turn 2. It happens.. it's certainly not going to happen the majority of the time with the majority of opponents, or even the "average" opponent. If it happens some tactics won't work, and some will. That still doesn't make the principles behind a tactic invalid because of one extreme example.

Well, you were stating that the chances of assault were 'slim', I was pointing out the very real and probable danger of Outflanking assaults. We're also at odds on how to counter these threats. You have the idea of using a photon-equipped FW squad, I have the idea of 'staying the hell away' or 'surround objectives with Kroot meatshields'.



Well, Troops are the most important unit in the game now, so thats makes our Kroot and Fire Warriors critical. If an opponent sees us holding an objective with any Troops unit, it would be unwise for your opponent to ignore it. So, beefing up a unit to make it more 'attractive to assault' isn't neccessary, by being Troops they are already high on the enemy's 'target priority' list.
My basic strategy in 5th edition is to largely ignore the rest of the opponents army, and focus on eliminating all his Troops. Even if I lose half my army in the attempt, so long as I retain at least one Troops model (this is where attaching an Ethereal to a FW squad gets interesting) on an objective, I win. Expect your opponents to do the same.


Mmm, so what you could do is move the 'tarpit' FW unit with photons into rapid-fire, blocking the assault route to the 2nd squad, while the 2nd squad hunkers down and fires at longer range. Workable, provided he simply doesn't fly an assault unit over to the other one (Deffcoptas are I think the only jetbike unit with Scout, trying to think of Jump Infantry with Infiltrate/Scout...)


No, things start to approach the median value. As I stated in response to SpartanTau, either photons save a FW (and you would have won combat anyway) or they do very little (and you get steamrollered regardless). If you go back to the same page, I think you'll also see my breakdown of the minimum requirements to break a FW squad in close-combat.



Remember, in multiple combats, wounds caused to other friendly squads count towards the overall combat resolution. Thus, the Kroot might not take a single casualty and cause 4 unsaved wounds, but losing the FW's to the last man means you still lose by a margin of 2-3. The Kroot then die to combat resolution, despite not taking a single 'real' casualty. This is a problem which is also changing how Tyranids armies assault; no longer can they 'tarpit' until the Genestealers/Warriors arrive.
Bracing' for it or 'stalling' is either ineffectual (ie you still lose the FW squad to combat resolution) or actually helps the enemy (by letting them 'hide' in close-combat in your Shooting phase).


Ok good, don't want to repeat that argument. My point is that if things are coming down the wire, you can be rest assured that the enemy will expend at least shooting into your other FW squad (with the aim to either wipe them out or cause them to Fall Back, thus preventing them from 'scoring' the objective). If the enemy assaults your 2nd squad in tandem, it's even less of a problem, because they only need one combat to be won (pretty likely, given how terrible FW's are) for them to score (assuming they are Troops). Even if they are not Troops, they still deny the objective comprehensively and allow the enemy to win by simply holding his 'home' objective.



It's not going to do that though. I went through the details of the math-hammer before, and also listed the minimum requirements to break FW's in combat. You are not going to make much difference to the combat result, bottom line. And just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's a good idea. Maybe you won't miss the 6-12pts overall, but it becomes incumbent upon you to get the FW's into combat (which is crazy) to get any use out of the photon grenades. It's an illogical and counter-productive piece of wargear, as far as I can see. Just accept your FW's are screwed and try to get revenge on their killers.


No offense taken, my Fantasy knowledge is pretty near nonexistent . Anyway, you kinda prove my point, because there are fancy abilities in 40k which can actually prevent you taking a Morale test in the first place. Tau have access to virtually none of this, the only real Leadership buff power we have is the Ethereal, and he's easily taken care of. So, maybe other armies get use out of defensive grenades, Tau don't.

My point with Leadership was that Tau fail Morale tests pretty reliably, even without negative modifiers. Expecting them to hold in combat is a bit unrealistic, because I'm being quite conservative with a -2/-3 modifier, you can expect (even with photons) it will be much worse in-game.


I totally agree, and this is why I think the cost of photons isn't the problem, it's the way they force you to use FW's. As your own tactic demonstrates, you pretty much want the enemy to assault them, as opposed to avoiding that very situation (and conserving them to rapid-fire enemy infantry and then drop onto the objective with a big Devilfish hull in the way of assault troops).



Again, another piece of wargear I view as close to useless. Mind you, at least EMP's are an offensive option (ie they can do real damage), and there's something to be said for the sheer amusement of a 6-man unit of FW's taking out a Monolith. Waste of a Troops unit though.


I completely agree with you. Therefore, what makes you think putting FW's in harms way (by design) is a sound idea? Kroot, for sure, I do that all the time (I suspect now in 5th edition I'll need to be more conservative with their usage), but FW's are a precious Troops choice. Other armies would kill for the same basic firepower on their Troops for the same price, it's only the FW's pathetic close-combat ability and average Leadership which balances them. Properly supported, FW's can hold down entire flanks with their firepower alone, simply because of sheer pile of wounds they dump onto enemy infantry.


Well, don't forget that most of the Assault units that will be attacking are not likely to be Troops (especially the more exotic ones). They can be Troops, but they probably won't be. So, holding for another round of combat and the game finishing makes no difference, he was only going to deny the objective anyway. His 'home' objective is still safe (notwithstanding what the rest of the Tau army is doing and vice versa), so he still wins (if the contested objective he's on combat on was going to swing it for you).
As I said though, the odds are not great for your FW's to hold (even with photons), so he might assault with Troops, run down the FW's and capture it. Stalling in this case would deny it to him, I agree, but neither will it be scored for you either, so it's kinda a tactical stalemate.



Thats not likely though, as photons are not going to make a huge difference to the combat result. You'll probably still fail to pass the Morale check.


If you look over my response, I show how photon don't cause a draw, they either save a model from death (from a combat you were going to win) or they marginally reduce the total wounds dealt to your FW's (but the remainder are still enough to break them).



No, it actually lets the enemy assault troops avoid getting shot, and that combat blocks LOS pretty well (yes you can shoot between the models but I'll give you a medal for finding any LOS through a packed close-combat). Then, once you've concluded your Assault phase (which will probably see the FW's ripped apart and the enemy unit consolidating), your opponent is free to counter whatever you did in your turn in his turn. Thus, he can choose to mount a fresh assault, rescue the assault troops with a transport, bring in support units to draw fire and maybe remove the most dangerous shooty unit nearby etc etc.



Thats pretty much the story of my Tau army vs IG artillery or SM Whirlwinds, so I know exactly what you mean.



Very true, but photons don't add to any of this, and as I have argued they are actually counter-productive to reacting to unexpected enemy assaults.



You don't get any extra movement, you actually miss out on shooting up the enemy assault unit. There is pretty much no 'bonus' to letting the assault drag on, your actually endangering nearby support units (ie your 2nd FW unit, maybe those nearby Crisis providing fire support etc).


Then you should use Kroot, not Fire Warriors, because they do this job at half the price and they die very reliably to enemy charges. Also, because you get pretty near 2:1 ratio of Kroot-Fire Warriors, for the same cost as your big photon-equipped FW unit, you can get two 10-man squads of Kroot and block all possible assault vectors to the 'scoring' FW squad, not just the 1-2 the single 'blocking' FW unit does.


Not really, because the FW's have serious ranged firepower with their pulse rifles (especially when you pump up their BS with marker support); Kroot have fixed BS3 and bolter range+statline. I think it's a total waste of their potential firepower and scoring ability. Kroot arguably have pretty good guns and deployment options, so you should be reluctant to sacrifice them as well, but choosing between the two, I would always throw the Kroot into a pointless combat over FW's.
Like I said, if you want to 'bait' an assault unit and draw them onto the teeth of your guns, using Kroot is far more reliable. They'll die when you want them to (ie instantly), and you can get enough bodies to frustrate attempts to bypass their 'blocking' screen of meatshields.


Against normal attacks, yes. However, in my experience it is the lucky Rending hits, powerfists/power weapons and their like which decide combats, the regular chumps just ensure you are not too reliant on the Rending roll or powerfist Sarge. Those special wounds don't notice the change in armour save and kill the FW's just as easily.


I think you are overestimating Kroot in close-combat. They are best suited to assaulting units with small model counts and/or low Initative. Most assault units are largish (to soak up damage prior to the charge, so the powerfist arrives undamaged) and almost all pack I4 or better. The only time you should charge with Kroot is to deny enemy shooting (both to them directly, and on a larger scale), by tying up those annoying Devastators in combat for a few rounds. If you charge them into the doomed FW combat, they will suffer a pretty large negative Morale modifier from the deaths of the FW's, and therefore have to pull off a minor miracle to just draw (never mind win) combat.



Wouldn't it be better to sacrifice the Kroot, and then catch the enemy assault unit flat-footed and facing down rapid-firing FW's+the rest of your army? Tau shooting is by far and away more reliable than a Kroot counter-charge into a combat involving FW's.



Well, thats not going to happen, for the reason I outlined already. 'Baiting' works, because if your opponent is assault-focused and there are Kroot sitting on an objective, it's pretty easy to draw your opponent into assaulting them. You then scour the objective of the enemy, and dump FW's onto it when it's safe.



I'll put it another way; show me an army against which your tactic will work.


How? Unless you commit all your Troops choice onto one objective, you won't have enough squads to pull the same trick. IG don't worry about this problem, as they can field (in points terms) nearly twice as many Guardsman to your Fire Warriors, and for every Troops choice they can have between 4-6 scoring units. Tau Troops don't work the same way.



It's not that IG are more efficient, it's that Tau can't do it.

I see this view (don't take heavy weapons on Infantry squads) a lot amongst IG players, and it baffles me. I mean, they get a big bag of meatshields (which also have the vast majority of Doctrines applies to them solely) and the weapons themselves are pretty cheap and easily spammable. For example, for 300 points you can get 35 bodies and 4 missile launchers, all Troops and thats just 1 Troops choice out of a possible 6. IG have the ability to dilute their heavy weapons across multiple units (Troops as well), other armies have to field 1-2 specialist squads in Heavy Support or Elites to get the same raw quantity. It makes ordnance and template weapons a must-have, as 'shot' weapons and individual squads can't do much more than take out a few squads before raw dakka overwhelms them. Anyway, to each his own, but I think preventing the enemy removing a big chunk of your heavy weapons with a single blast/assault is too risky.


It's not one extreme example, Light Infantry is one of the more popular doctrines (along with Drop Troops), and neither impose any restriction on your access to the best and strongest IG units (ie their tanks). Under 5th edition the ability to Outflank with these units en-masse is especially powerful and with Jungle Fighters (who can buy heavy flamers) it gets even scarier.

IG Doctrines do not even have the balance mechanism of the 4th edition SM codex (with the 'Drawbacks' you were progressively forced to select, although that didn't really work either), you miss out on only four important restricted units; Stormies (buying either the Doctrine point for 'Stormtroopers' or taking the 'Grenadiers' option unlocks Stormtroopers in Elites, the latter Doctrine for Troops as well), Rough Riders (other IG players swear by them, I do not see the point of Guardsman in combat) Ratlings (cheapest snipers in the game, I like them) and Special Weapon squads (good for flamer spam and demo-charge with Drop Troops). The rest are either useless (Enginseers, Priests, Pyskers, Conscripts, , not worth it (sadly Ogryns) or reduce your access to tanks (Heavy Weapon Platoons).
Leaving 1-2 Doctrine slots open for selecting from the 4 good units isn't hard, you have 5 to spend.

What I would like to see is a concrete example of your tactic working against any of the 40k armies. I suspect it is your tactic which is extreme, and other armies that are generally unaffected by it, not the other way around.

That was actually the entire point of the strategy and plan I stated at the beginning... I'm still not sure where you were getting the idea that one unit was supposed to be bait. It's intercepting assaulters with a unit, tying them up in combat such that you restrict their movement opportunities while the game ends with them out of range to contest the objective your other unit is standing on.


No.. see, you multiply the number of attacks times the probability of a hit to determine the number of hits, or X*Y=Z
Increasing X (the number of attacks) also increases Z (the number of hits). It is true with a larger sample size results and the number of outliers tend to go towards the median, but you still have a quantifiable greater amount actual hits which is not determined by what the median value is. If I double X, I will have a larger Z value. It's a mathmatical consequence.


Yes, wounds caused to other squads count in total wounds inflicted per "team", but the Kroot will also be causing wounds. I still disagree with your conclusion that having the Kroot attacking as well will cause your entire side to lose by more when the Kroot would also be generating at least 3 attacks per model at Init 3 or 5. You take a basic 10 man Kroot squad on the charge without any other models and that's still an additional 30 attacks at weapon skill 4 and strength 4. This means they are now as effective as Striking Scorpions, and I've seen what they can dish out on numerous occasions from either side of the table.

You are missing the point that letting the enemy be locked in close-combat is the entire point. If they are stuck in close-combat they cannot move. If they cannot move they cannot close on the objective and cannot contest it. I Want them to be stuck in close-combat that lasts for multiple turns at the end portion of the game because if I pick where the combat happens I can keep them from being able to get close enough to the objective to claim it.

Which is what the Elite, Heavy Support, and Fast Attack choices of your army are for... to do similarly to the opponent's objective(s).


I've seen just as many if not more arguments in this same thread that disagreed with your number results, however. Those mathhammer results showed enough difference from the photon grenades to demonstrate that with them Fire Warriors are not universally screwed as you seem to be arguing.

Actually in my mind the fact that Tau do NOT have an ability to universally ignore Morale tests mean photon grenades are even more important than they would be in other armies. Since they will always have to take a Morale test, you need as many things to help with that test as possible to ensure you will pass it, and the difference that the photon grenades make is significant enough to adjust the odds. Every bit helps. I refuse to equate a 40 to 50% chance to 0% in my mind just because it isn't a sure thing.

I disagree, I still don't WANT the enemy to assault them... I want the enemy to be dead with numerous bullet holes in their stinky carcass However battle is not about always getting what you want, it's about adjusting what you want to the situation at hand. My first choice would be to have these two or three guardian units to be untouched and sit there the entire game. I'm likely not going to get that, so my next step is to figure out how they can hold the objective so the rest of my usually highly mobile forces can destroy everything else on the board.


And again I disagree with your conclusion. EMP grenades are at least as useful if not more so than Melta-bombs, and I dare you to tell people Melta-bombs are useless

And the Kroot you are throwing away and putting in harm's way (by design) are a precious Troops choice as well. They have higher numbers, larger squad sizes, Leadership at least as good as the Fire Warrior's, several models with better wound counts, and higher close combat ability while maintaining approximately the same shooting power (due to larger totals of incoming shots and Krootox). Properly supported Kroot also can hold down entire flanks. Considering one Troop choice as "never sacrifical" and the other type as "good for nothing except sacrifice" seems to me as the un-sound idea.

No, the game finishing makes ALL the difference, because what you are forgetting is the "tarpit" unit as you have labeled it is having this combat happen outside of the range for him to contest. That is the entire point of using two units... I can control at what point on the board the combat happens which prevents the unit from ever reaching contest range, thus helping to secure the objective for me.


Save then it's back into Victory Point Denial, which is a chief Tau strategy...


You can make a difference without it being a guarenteed success. Making a test with a goal result of 6 or 7 is MUCH better than a test with a goal result of 4, for example. That's a huge difference when examining the probability results of a 2d6 roll.

But they make a huge difference on the total of the Morale Check you are required to roll by helping with wound prevention (by preventing the sources of wounds, incoming number of attacks). You cannot deny that they reduce the number of wounds caused against your units, so they make a clear loss closer to a draw. I will continue to take the stance that that is a significant difference for 1 point per model (6 to 12 points).


That's fine, the goal isn't to remove the unit at that point, it's to prevent them from getting to the held objective. Remember, it's about stalling for time and simply keeping them away from as long as possible.

The bonus to letting the assault drag on is as long as the enemy unit is stuck in an assault, it cannot move during the movement phase. If it cannot move, it cannot close to within contesting range of your objective, thus the opponent cannot contest it.

However you forget the fact that with their better armor and photon grenades, Fire Warriors have a beter chance than kroot to prevent the total wounds caused. If the squad sizes are similar (between Fire Warriors and Kroot) you're better off taking the charge with Fire Warriors as they are more defensive and durable in terms of preventing wounds (either from photon grenades plain reducing the incoming attacks, or by successful armor saves).

Except you continue to miss the point this is Not a baiting tactic. It is creating a defensive blocker for your actual scoring unit, by realizing that we do have units that can last more than one round in combat, particularly if we utilize a wargear upgrade present in our army list. At that close range, firepower alone is not going to make the difference, since a simple Move + Charge now puts the enemy into contest range unless we can bog them down in combat and not allow them to move and have this bogging down happen Outside of contest range. It becomes even better when we take the charge with Fire Warriors and counter charge with Kroot as it continues to have the combat last longer.

But the reduced number of normal attacks will adjust the total wounds caused, which adjusts the Morale Check and who wins or loses the combat. Thus, less normal attacks mean better odds of winning. Anything that reduces the number of normal attacks causing wounds is therefore a worthwhile investment. If you have 2 lucky hits and 4 regular hits, instead of a -6 against the Kroot (with no armor) it would be a -3 against the Fire Warriors (assuming 50% odds of an armor save). That's a fairly significant difference right there.

And I think you are seriously underestimating the difference they can make and the tactical uses of Kroot by assigning them only the job to die in a minimum sized unit simply because they aren't as effective as say, Eldar Harlequins. Learn to use all your tools, great and small, because every tool has a purpose. You simply have to know when and how to use it.


No, because if the Fire Warrior's can't kill it in a single round (entirely possible) then they will be charged too and then the enemy can close to within contest range of the objective. Tau shooting (with the typical pulse rifle armed Fire Warrior) doesn't prevent the enemy from advancing. The entire point of a perimeter defense around an objective is to prevent the enemy from advancing into said objective. Your tactic of trying to wipe out the enemy by shooting a single Fire Warrior squad won't guarentee that they won't be in contest range, because they still get Move and Run actions. They cannot Move and Run if they are locked in close combat.


I continue to disagree, and you are making the assumption that you always have Fire Warrior's in a transport somewhere. That often isn't feasible and removes said scoring units from elsewhere on the table. I also strongly disagree that it's "not going to happen."


All of them depending on the units involved on the table.

Tau Can do it, that's the point! We have 6 troop choices, plus fast attack and heavy support infantry choices. The Imperial Guard ONLY have troop choices that are infantry models, as well as a few elite choices. By having our units act as one, working together, Tau CAN implement platoon tactics successfully. You are giving up without even trying.


Except you aren't really reducing the number of heavy weapons, you are concentrating them so that you can more efficiently use all of your fire. Putting an anti-tank weapon in an anti-infantry unit (since the lasgun is OBVIOUSLY anti-infantry) means that by wasting an entire units shooting phase to fire one shot against a tank is a worse choice than putting a heavy bolter or auto-cannon in that unit and having all their fire go against enemy infantry. Space Marines with combat squads reduce this problem, as do Tau with Target Locks. I am vehomently against mixing anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons in the same infantry squad, because by doing so I waste 9 models shooting opportunities every time I fire at a tank. Concentrating your heavy weapons into support squads means more efficient shooting phases, which is why a Heavy Weapon Platoon is capable of MUCH more damage output than a tank.

I disagree with the vast majority of units you have just described as useless, and I disagree that an Imperial Guard army has to have tanks to be effective. I can do more damage with judiciously used Heavy Weapon Platoons than with tanks, as well as causing every point spent on anti-tank weaponry in the enemy army to be worthless when all they have to shoot it at is individual infantry models. The Doctrine system is actually more balanced than the SM codex ever was


I will be happy to begin keeping Battle Reports and make a post once I have some field testing of it. If you'd like to contribue $70 or $100 dollars so I can have enough Fire Warriors to adequately test it I'd be much obliged My disposible income is being spent on Christmas for my children. Which is why in an earlier post I mentioned I don't have enough Tau infantry to adequately get field testing all on my own. However introducing theoretical tactics for discussion is one of the things encouraged on this board, since with more users contributing to tactical idea generation and advancement and field testing is more effective than simply one person's results. Wider sample ranges and all of that.

Confusing your tactic with mine I think . Responding to your actual idea, your not going to intercept anything. There are only two possible outcomes

1. Your Fire Warriors die from the charge, the enemy Assault unit Massacres closer or into cover nearby. You get your turn to move+shoot them to death

2. Your Fire Warrior roll Insane Heroism, and remain in combat. The enemy assault unit hides out your Shooting phase in combat, and then finishes off the Fire Warriors. He gets his whole turn to move+shoot+assault anew.

Also, 'Defenders React' ensures that if he assaults cleverly, he can pull the unit off the objective.



I know maths my point was that larger sample size (ie more attacks) doesn't change the fact that against the sample enemy assault unit (an 8-man squad of Assault Marines), you have a 1 in 20 probability (5.5%) of dropping a single Assault Marine. On average, you technically don't even have enough attacks to make it happen (11 from squad, 2 from drones, 2 from Shas'ui, 14 total falls well short), and that assuming the Assault Marines don't cause any casualties (which drops your 'attack pool' down to 6-7).
The lasgun principle (hit them with enough S3 and they'll fall) therefore doesn't work with FW's in close-combat.



Yeah, but you missed my point. Even though the Kroot technically might win 'their' combat (by killing 4 more models than they lost), the horrible Combat Res result of the Fire Warriors means it's almost impossible for them not to lose as well.
Kroot are nowhere near as effective as Striking Scorpions. On the charge, Scorpions have 4 x S4 attacks each at WS4/I5, and 3+ armour for deflecting return attacks. They also have Ld10 from their Exarch and his S6 powerklaw.


They won't be stuck in close-combat, but if we assume they do (a big if), they can still deny the objective to you by either pulling your guys out with 'Defenders React', or by contacting (generally this only works with medium-large units) so that they get a model within 3" of the objective.



As I pointed out before, photon grenades should be judged on their own merits. Yes, it's an artificial tactical vaccum, but it lets us examine the wargear more closely to see what benefit it generates. Once you start involving the rest of the army, it's actual worth becomes very hard to discern.



I'll re-produce the results here, because they got lost a few pages back. The maths speaks for itself;



And again, with a weaker assault unit, giving a rare example of the Fire Warriors winning combat;



Talking about Genestealers;



With Tactical Marines (leading on from a discussion on Combat Squadding) ;



And this is the basic benchmark for any assault unit who wants to clear out Fire Warriors;



I've stated my case, you can choose to ignore it if you wish. I just feel it's a grave mistake to equip Fire Warriors to be used in a role they are completely unsuited to, and waste their potential. I am not the slightest bit convinced photon grenades are worth it, either as a 'defensive tactic' or as a 'just in case' measure. Kroot do the exact same job (either as 'bait' or in the 'delaying' tactic you're proposing), die reliably and cost roughly half what Fire Warriors do.

I am once again going to use my mad drawing skills to illustrate different ways to go about defending the objective with FW/invading the objective held by said FW, just so we get a clearer picture, because I'm not sure we all understand what everyone is talking about, or what is possible. Because I don't.

In blue, the "objective zone". In Yellow, Fire Warriors. In black Black Templar crusaders. If there's a grey area, it's an impassable terrain.
And the green is the grass of the battle field
First example :

In the first example, the Black Templar I must move in BtB contact with Fire Warrior A, because they are the closest models. Now, BT player can move whichever model he choses to (among his assaulting unit, of course), be it BT II or another. Let's say he starts with II. He'd like to engage FW B because that would put him inside the Objective Zone, but FW A and C are less than 1" apart (that's the BT base size), so he can't fit through. Note that it also means that BT I could have engaged both FW A and C, since as long as he goes in BtB contact with the closest model he is free to do as he pleases. BT III on the other hand has more than enough room to go for FW B, since FW A and D aren't close enough, so he can easily get inside the OZ. Nota Bene : BT III doesn't have to engage FW D because he is closest. What he cannot do is :
1) not engage any model
2) engage FW E, because that would put him out of unit coherency. He doesn't have to keep unit coherency with the models left behind, but must do so with the one that have already moved.
3) engage FW A, because BT I has already done so, and he can get in BtB with another one that isn't engaged yet.

Now let's look at possible ways to invade the OZ :

BT I had to engage FW A but it had to do that with the shortest possible route. So its placement on this diagram isn't legal. It should be right in front.
As long as BT II end its move within 2" of BT I, he is allowed to go around FW C to engage hime from the inside of the OZ, even if at some point he moves more than 2" away from BT I, what is important here is where he ends up.
In this example the BT player made the mistake of moving BT I in the path of BT III, so it couldn't get in the gap to engage FW B or E. A and C being engaged he had to go in BtB contact with FW C and couldn't do so while invading the OZ, so he didn't.


Here the FW are packed too closely to slip through the cracks into the Objective Zone. And the line is long enough that the BT can't just get around it with BT II while keeping unit coherency, that's why he moved BT III first and got him tothe right of BT I so that BT II could get to the OZ by flanking the FW. The BT player still has several models to move.

So if you keep your models less than 1" apart, and spread enough so that he can't get around you into the OZ (for example if you have enough FW to completely circle the OZ), he won't be able to completely screw you. And that's when he has to get smart and use Defenders React against you. Here is an example :


Now the Tau player put its FW in a forward line to cover as much ground as possible to stop the ennemy from going around them. But here the BT just has to make sure that no model is in range to engage FW A, and only go into BtB contact with the one on the front, the FW in the back will have to advance because of Defenders React. The BT can get 1 model as close as possible per FW outside, and leave the rest behind to minimise the risk of being too far to actually assault.
So we can see here that as mentioned earlier in this thread, it is important that ALL defending FW be on the inside of the OZ, or else a clever opponent can pull them out.
But that's not the only that the sneaky Black Templar player can use on our brave Fire Warriors : pile-in moves can be used both to draw you out and to sneak inside your defense perimeter.


OK, here we have a tight formation protecting the OZ just fine, so the BT player makes sure he ends up in this position you can see on the left after the move phase : the main part of the squad more than 6" away, and one front gard man that use the 2" to the max to make sure the unit can assault. It is specific, but from the front of the BT I to the front of the BT II that's 3" of margin to get one within assault range and the other out. And even more margin since you just have to be unable to engage another model, so that's another 1" of mistake this plan can take withut deviating. That's to say, it's very easy to use. Moreover it's not about moving closer, but a little bit slower, so if he could assault you, he could do this.
Results, Defenders React moves means that the only FW model still on the OZ is the FW A. No problem right ? As long as you don't elect him to be removed as a loss, you holding. That's where the Pile-in part comes in : if the BT player let BT I bite the dust, FW A will have to pile in out of the OZ. Ouch. If he gets a single dead marine (or more likely here, a dead novice), he can pull you out of the OZ.

The second part is sneaky sneaky. He has to keep one (or several) of his models out of BtB contact like above, but now he makes sure that no FW can engage them with Defenders React. Very easy if he has more model, but even if he doesn't, by concentrating on one part of your unit and engaging several FW with each of his models (thanks to your tight formation), it's very easy to do even with a smaller unit.
After the fight, those unengaged models get to make a full 6" of pile-in move before you get a chance to react, and thanks to Defender React he was able to draw you out, plus opening in the ranks due to deaths during combat, and it's very easy to get around your warriors and inside the OZ. I'll add that when a FW dies the model in BtB with him get to pile-in too.

Holding the objective with a small non CC troop is extremely hard against a savvy opponent, because he has a lot of options to either get inside, or get you out. You can still contest and slow him down though.

Thanks Soji, you've demonstrated exactly what I was trying to explain with the Genestealers. Black Templars are interesting because they get to mix in meatshields called 'Neophytes' into their Crusader squads, to aid the process (thus leaving their tougher Initiates alive). With most other assault units, using the same tactic you just demonstrated with BT's, they have to lose a decent model (ie an Assault Marine or Genestealer).

I think that this tactic requires 2 troops squads Soji, as Myen shi pointed out. I don't think he was one of the ones proposing a 3" distance between the objective and the one firewarrior squad.

Correct.. I was proposing having one fire warrior squad maintain a 3" distance shooting from stationary position, then having a second squad move towards the incoming forces, advancing into rapid fire range, and unloading. I theorized that although the photon grenades have a marginal use for a solitary squad, used with all applicable units with multiple units acting like a "platoon" of sorts, their use became more justified. It seemed an even better idea if you have 2 fire warrior squads and a kroot squad acting together.

one fire warrior squad stays "on home plate" so to speak, one fire warrior squad advances into the threat as a lead blocker, the kroot stay back to counter charge the threat after it charges into the blocker. Both the kroot and the 2nd fire warrior squad would shoot as well as the blocker unit.

In the later phases of the game we know we are playing against time as well as the opponent. If you can keep the enemy unit locked in combat it won't be possible for it to close enough distance to the objective in order to claim it. The photon grenades in this case should help provide the blocker unit with the additional combat resolution to possibly throw the combat into a minor loss (by 1 or 2) or a tie, thus slowing the enemy down and holding them stationary, buying you time for your "platoon" as a whole to hold the objective.

I thought it was obvious enough it didn't need any sort of discussion. FW are pretty good tarpit units with their 4+ save, same as gun drones. And this is nothing more than that : jumping on the opponent before he gets to the objective, hoping to make him lose a move phase at the price of your unit.

I was awnsering to the OP :

Here a squad is holding the objective and the ennemy at bay at the same time. Doable, but extremely hard against a savvy opponent.

Isn't that what Kroot do? . Block an assault route, force the enemy to shoot/assault them out of the way first. I've done it to Assault Marines before, it's really effective at preventing FW's getting ganked while camping. (Mind you, this was back in 4th when you could consolidate into new combats, so its easier to position the FW's inside rapid-fire range comfortably and wait for the Kroot to die reliably in one round)



Pretty much. Photon grenades don't especially help this cause either, because their effect is so marginal.

Kroots aren't as good tarpits as Firewarriors. Same toughness but no armors means that against most opponents your 70pts of kroots will die as easily as 50pts of FW. They are a better speedbump/diversion unit, but that wasn't what we were talking about here (at least it didn't look that way). It was about slowing down the ennemy during the very last turn, when they're making a beeline for the OZ, so they wouldn't make a detour to kill Kroots.
Photon Grenades are not that bad. If you run just in front of the opponent, you can either assault him or wait a turn for him to assault him. In the 1st case you get the benefits of the assault, in the 2nd he gets it, but lose a full turn of assault against your squishy unit. With PG the 2nd option looks much better. It's just as if you assaulted first but he couldn't kill any of yours in the first turn of combat, an ideal result (given that you have no hope of winning and inflicting casualties is useless).

So to put it another way : you don't want to use your FW as a tarpit unit, but some times you don't have a choice, so the question is "do the PG give enough of a boost to justify their cost ?". If the way you games go you never use a tarpit unit, then no. If that does happen, then is the boost significant enough.

Sorry, I meant 'speed-bump', not tarpit. Words crossed n all that

My point with Kroot is they die on command.

Me: Oh cool, you charged the Assault Marines into them. I'll just remove them all now to save time
Opponent: Yeah, I'd say thats likely, given you already lost about half of them to flamer+bolt pistol prior to the charge
Me: Alright, my turn. 2 xDevilfish drop 2 x FW squads inside 12" of them. Yay, Shooting Phase!
Opponent: Argh!

In my experience, people generally attack the closest targets with their infantry. Vehicles and specialist generally engage in long-range duels with enemy ordnance/heavy weapons, but assault teams and Troops generally target the closest mob of your infantry/Troops they can find. So, bait with Kroot, watch them die, and then move in and annhilate the enemy. It's an especially good pay-off if he sent a Troops unit (for example, CSM's hit as hard as Raptors on the charge, but are Troops), because he loses a scoring unit and you stick two with APC support onto the objective. So, he'll probably have to assault the Devilfish first, and you can simply declare you'll 'go to ground' and gain 3+ cover saves (4+ from Devilfish hulls, +1 from 'Go to Ground').
I had this done to me recently by an enemy Tau army (I was playing my Daemonhunters), it's a very effective strategy and the instant you stop applying pressure to the FW's, they stop being pinned and start blasting you again. You don't do this kinda thing until at least Turn 3, so your opponent is running against the clock (in my game I pulled off a draw, mainly because I held onto my home objective).

Photon Grenades are situationally usefull, but can be situationally disastrous. They also cost points.

Imho, it really depends on the opposition, if the opponent is f.e. just a bunch of tactical marines with a Searge, a full FW squad with grenades will hold for quite a while (given that a Marines Fist is exactly the same as a non rapid firing Bolter), and the individual odds of each WS4 S4 attack to down an FW is not that high (4/18, so a bit less than every 4th attack), also, killing Marines with WS2 S3 is not efficient but by no means impossible (1/18). I also have the weird effect that enemy troops fael much more of their saves when in combat with "inferior" troops. Something terminators figthing Gretchin can no doubt second ;D

Mightypeon, while I can appreciate your desire to contribute to the thread, there a number of problems with your posts that contravene the ATT membership primers.

1) Thread necromancy or "threadomancy". In other words, the post previous to yours was dated December 6th, of 2008. That is about a year and a half ago! In general, if there aren't any new posts to a thread within a week, then chances are that the discussion has finished. Instead of resurrecting an old thread, next time formulate your thoughts (and the argument you are trying to make) and start a new thread (if, after using the search feature, you do not find an answer to your question). Which brings me to the second point...

2) Use the search feature. I am not saying that what you said in your post is without merit, but it has been discussed before. By using the search feature, you could have found relevant posts that describe your situation and the feedback that other members have given it.

3) Spelling and grammar. There are quite a few spelling errors in your post. ATT prides itself on the quality of our posts here and unfortunately, you post doesn't measure up in the spelling and grammar department. Next time try typing your post in a word editor program and then copying and pasting it here once it has been spell checked. Or, you could use a web browser, such as Mozilla Firefox that has a built-in spell checking feature.

Have another read through the Membership Primers if you have any questions.

*Initiating thread lock procedures.*