I have a couple of major questions about the tau in terms of every body saying theyre crap, cause i have had enough of a coupla my mates insisting that theyre armies are crud thn turnin around and nearly kickin my butt.
So: #1: is it not fantastic that theyre BASIC guns are strength 5??? i mean they have no S4 or lower weaponry xcept 4 flamers... thats like saying they wound everyone on 2's and 3's, how is this crap???
Deep strike, fast transports, 27" charge range Orks all give Tau one turn to shoot before they're in close combat. In close combat, Tau lose.
Additionally, other armies to alpha-strike better. Mech IG, DE, and Space Wolves can all outshoot Tau on turn one, and often have superior close combat to back it up.
Granted, Tau can still compete. Disruption Pods on Devilfish, Kroot bubblewraping, and plenty of Rail Guns all keep Tau alive and kicking, just with less punch compared to new armies.
sure there are, but they really are terrible. There's about 2 ways to play them and 1 is bad imo, the suit heavy list and the Gunline, D-pods, bubblewrap lists
Tyranic Marta wrote:I have a couple of major questions about the tau in terms of every body saying theyre crap, cause i have had enough of a coupla my mates insisting that theyre armies are crud thn turnin around and nearly kickin my butt.
So: #1: is it not fantastic that theyre BASIC guns are strength 5??? i mean they have no S4 or lower weaponry xcept 4 flamers... thats like saying they wound everyone on 2's and 3's, how is this crap???
no. it is not fantastic. its a 16% improvement on the to-wound roll vs. a boltgun. its nice but it isnt anything more than marginal. take as many crisis suits and marker lights as possible. those are your codex's strengths.
no. it is not fantastic. its a 16% improvement on the to-wound roll vs. a boltgun. its nice but it isnt anything more than marginal. take as many crisis suits and marker lights as possible. those are your codex's strengths.
+1 Not too mention the Firewarriors have no special weapons. Which are really what does the heavy lifting in 40k.
Stelek says he uses Tau competitively, and that Tau is actually the top army.
And he beat DashofPepper, who claims to be the top few player (according to some sort of ranking).
So let's say Tau is playable.
The problem with Tau is that there is really only 1 competitive build available. Maxed out Missile Pod Crisis Suits, Broadsides, Piranhas for melta and movement blocking, Kroot to bubble wrap and 1-2 units of Fire Warriors hiding in Devilfish to give you some scoring options. This kind of army is very capable of outshooting Guard or other shooting based armies, they may have less shots but they are nearly as mobile as Eldar so it balances out.
It's not necessarily a problem on the table top. Its just limiting. And its indicative of things to come. the harder the requirements of competitive play press on your codex, the fewer options there are. eventually it will just get pushed off the field all together. More competitive builds means the codex is having an easier time handling the challenges its up against and has, if you will, a longer life span ahead of it.
But my question was "Why is having 1 competitive build a problem? If it can win, it can win."
How is your answer relevant? I wasnt refering to or asking if winning in the future is a problem. And I thought quite obviously, the OP's question was targetted at CURRENT metagame? Doesnt matter if metagame shifts in the future (we don't know how it will shift anyway), the question of one of current competitiveness.
shealyr wrote:I really dislike Stelek's Tau lists, but that generally stems from me disliking everything he puts up.
shealyr wrote:Now I may not have a Tau army myself, but zero markerlights, no railheads, zip on plasma, and only 3 flamers per unit once they get close?
I might not agree that his is the best list. But a couple of things :-
1) At 2k +++ points, Hammerheads are not efficient anymore. You need to pack enough RailGuns. I m not sure if you would be comfortable with 4-5 RailGuns.
2) Essentially, markerlights are personal preference. If you used the points to buying more Crisis Suits, you ll realize you will not be much worse off. In addition, pathfinders compete slots with Piranhas, and I find that I almost always need 3 squads of Piranhas for movement blocking and anti tank.
3) I think you quoted the wrong list. The list you quoted above was something he suggested as a change. His main list consist of fireknife suits (missile/plasma), kroots, less devilfish+FWs.
I think the general problem with the tau is the codex tries to completely control 1 phase of the game (Shooting) by completely giving up on another (assault). What results tends to be a poorly balanced army that is either overpowered or underpowered.
In the case of Tau they are underpowered. It's a crap codex, and if a player can win tournaments with them it's a combination of top tier player skill and being matched up against the right armies.
why do you think everyone owes you an explanation, strider? pretend for a moment that you're just some guy on a computer and no one cares what you think one way or another. just imagine.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:why do you think everyone owes you an explanation, strider? pretend for a moment that you're just some guy on a computer and no one cares what you think one way or another. just imagine.
I didnt say he OWES me an explanation. But I definitely think general comments like that arent very useful for a discussion like this.
But I m sure if you are not interested to participate in the discussion, you can jolly well stay away (not that we are desperate for your inputs - you are indeed that nobody on a computer), instead of trying to stir some flames. I didnt find that very useful either, and stop acting like a kid.
Of course you can choose to remain like a kid and post irrelevant stuff. It's either people are intellectual enough to filter trash from you, or you ll trigger some laughter amongst us.
Also, not sure what you constitute as broken English. But I m guessing your English competency is stucked at Primary school level.
I think Tau plays best as a gunline, however it doesnt have enough shots to handle an opposing force of any prece dence. I've never seen it do well at a tourney and last I saw Stelek he was pickin on people with space pups.
Tau do okay... especially at the 1500-1750 range. They can bring the pain the while most armies are only starting to ramp up to full effectiveness. Basically, once your elite and heavy support can be filled, you've reached the effectiveness cap.
I do alright at tournaments with them. they aren't forgiving, they have bad matchups (DoA Angels, Certain Ork builds) and once you get above 1850 you are basically forced to play one way, but they are alright.
Psychic powers are what kills them as much as anything really. fortune, shields of sanguinius, JoTWW are killer.
As for the railgun issue, 5 is minimum at 2000 points. I would take at least 4 once you got to 1500 then at least 5 once you get to 2000. If you don't have 7-9 by 2500 you are going to lose.
Even looking at this though... it's a list I've beaten with both my Battlewagon Orks and my Marines. Once you crack the Railheads and Devilfish, everything else is just clean-up.
Edit:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As for the railgun issue, 5 is minimum at 2000 points. I would take at least 4 once you got to 1500 then at least 5 once you get to 2000. If you don't have 7-9 by 2500 you are going to lose.
In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.
You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.
shealyr wrote:In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.
You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.
Actually you can fire at 6 targets because of target lock. I would almost always take that target lock if I am taking 9 broadsides at 2k or 2500.
Between the large blast and reliable transport popping (so as to break opponent's mobility), I ll choose the latter. As with all/most armies, you can't have everything. Besides, breaking mobility gives Tau more turns of shooting, and the SMS on the broadsides isn't crap either.
yeah, 9 b-sides generate 36 S5 AP5 shots at 24" that don't require LOS and only give cover saves if you are actually in cover (area terrain) not for intervening terrain or models.
Lack of Blast/Templates is a weakness of the Tau army though
shealyr wrote:In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.
You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.
Actually you can fire at 6 targets because of target lock. I would almost always take that target lock if I am taking 9 broadsides at 2k or 2500.
Between the large blast and reliable transport popping (so as to break opponent's mobility), I ll choose the latter. As with all/most armies, you can't have everything. Besides, breaking mobility gives Tau more turns of shooting, and the SMS on the broadsides isn't crap either.
A single T/L BS3 Railgun is far from 'reliable' transport popping, which is what you're getting if you give up the extra BS. Against AV11, you have a 35% chance of getting an immobilize, wreck, or explode. result, halved if they get cover. I don't know how you choose to interpret Mathammer, but personally, if it's hovering around 1/3 without cover, I'd say it's not reliable... especially when you're paying the points premium that they cost.
Somehow people seem to think that if they're playing Tau, once transports are popped, everything is just going to magically die. The reality is, you need to bring more than just pulse rifles and the burst cannons on your Fish to clear out infantry.
shealyr wrote:
A single T/L BS3 Railgun is far from 'reliable' transport popping, which is what you're getting if you give up the extra BS. Against AV11, you have a 35% chance of getting an immobilize, wreck, or explode. result, halved if they get cover. I don't know how you choose to interpret Mathammer, but personally, if it's hovering around 1/3 without cover, I'd say it's not reliable... especially when you're paying the points premium that they cost.
Somehow people seem to think that if they're playing Tau, once transports are popped, everything is just going to magically die. The reality is, you need to bring more than just pulse rifles and the burst cannons on your Fish to clear out infantry.
1) I always give Broadsides TA. They shouldnt even be moving much.
2) If 9 TL railguns doesnt sound reliable to you (also, 18 more Missile shots from the FireKnives to help a little) , then why are you only bringing 2 railguns + 2 or 3 TL railguns?
3) How is the RailGuns on broadsides considered "premium costing" - when used to pop transport, as compare to those on HH? The central of discussion here is to pop transport or reduce mobility.
4) The rest of the firepower doesnt come from pulse rifles and burst cannons. They come from FireKnifes. More anti tank from the Piranhas.
which is why I bring fireknife squads. It's not that you have one t/l railgun firing at a transport - it's that you have as many as needed.
A scenario is in order
You've got three squads of broadsides lined up in a 2000+ game. You mark your targets and declare firing. First unit shoots 2 shots at a rhino with about a 70% of getting a good result (more if you markerlight it), the Target locked leader fires at another rhino - if he kills it, Great! If not though, you now have the opportunity to shoot either two more railguns at it, or you can shoot another single shot at it etc etc. It's basically about not wasting your shots. Instead of having a bunch of railguns being shot at one target, you can either have a bunch of railguns being shot at one target, or a couple railguns being shot at a target, or even one railgun being shot at a target. It gives you an option, which for 5 points, isn't bad. I find that usually, you get 4 "good" shots off and another "meh" shot by taking 9 b-sides with a target lock in each team.
Since it's on the team leader, you don't even have to give up the extra BS since a target lock can be hard-wired. Of course, I usually go for advanced stabilization systems over target arrays.
The hitting problems are solved by pathfinders. I dont use parannas. They seem to do very well at generating tokens for me. Remove a few and bam! the tank is gone! Also, the last time i moved my broadsides was my last. best just to let them sit iom. Fireknifes are good and always will be.
I play Tau, and here's why I see it as being an underperforming codex:
1. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. A good example of this is plasma weaponry; the Tau pay 20 points for a plasma gun (that cannot be taken by any Troop choices at all), and although it doesn't have Gets Hot, it's only S6. They're also in much smaller squads in the Tau army, making it harder to use ablative wounds to protect the plasma gun.
2. Leadership is a terrible problem. The only ways to boost leadership above 8 are with HQ choices. The Ethereal provides a re-roll (if it can be seen), but if it dies the consequences are terrible.
3. Claiming objectives is difficult for the Tau to do against many other armies because they do not have any good close combat troops, or really any "tough" troops. The best they can do is 6 Firewarriors in a Devilfish, and with the mandatory Disruption Pod on the DFish they still cost more than a min Space Marine Tac squad in a Rhino, which can fight and survive much better than the Tau.
4. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
5. Most new codexes have units with a "Wow!" factor; it's how the game is changing these days. The only "Wow!" factor units that the Tau have go the other way; "You're paying 205 points for Aun'Va?! Seriously?!"
That's the basic problems with the Tau codex. It's not unplayable, but it hasn't aged all that well. There are other crummy codexes out there too, so the Tau aren't alone. A good player CAN do well with them, so they're not hopeless, but there's a good reason you don't see them in the top three of tournament results.
schadenfreude wrote:That was a summary of a point that you snipped out of that quote, andyou didn't even bother to rebuke the point I was summarizing.
You said :-
schadenfreude wrote:I think the general problem with the tau is the codex tries to completely control 1 phase of the game (Shooting) by completely giving up on another (assault). What results tends to be a poorly balanced army that is either overpowered or underpowered.
In the case of Tau they are underpowered. It's a crap codex, and if a player can win tournaments with them it's a combination of top tier player skill and being matched up against the right armies.
And didnt go on to explain what is crap about it. I don't think anyone can rebute, without you first giving your inputs.
For a guide, check what Lorek has done. Right or wrong, it is at least comprehensive and gives food for thought.
Going to say what I had to say again, I'll try to be more detailed and less offensive to the thin skinned.
The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.
4th ed bugs were a poorly balanced army that lacked ranged firepower especially in the critically needed light vehicle anti tank/transport cracker. The addition of hive guard added a unit that covered a critical weakness of Tyanids.
Tau have always been less balanced than Tyanids as bug shooting>Tau CC. 4th ed bugs were bad at shooting, but the codex didn't completely give up on it. Tau pretty much completely gave up on CC (kroot is the best they have) forfeiting a complete aspect of the game, also have Tau have no psychic defense thus technically they are forfeiting 2 aspects of the game.
A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.
I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
There is also the issue that they were built for 4th ed missions. Fire warriors & kroot were never intended to go into the middle of a Tyanid deployment zone and hold an objective. The low durability of troops just wasn't an issue in 4th ed, back then it was ok if a Tau player took 2 units of troops and they both died. Every 5th ed book has solid choices for troops: MEQ for the 3 SM codex, Nids have a huge selection of troops all rock solid +scoring MC if they want, and IG has both melta vets & platoons both have a lot of durability through numbers. Tau are living in the past. Weak troops=weak foundation for the army. Some very good players can beat people in tournament games with Tau, but they do so with a weak foundation for their army, and because of the weak foundation the entire army is ready collapse like a house of cards.
schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.
A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.
I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.
Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.
I play Tau, and here's why I see it as being an underperforming codex:
1. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. A good example of this is plasma weaponry; the Tau pay 20 points for a plasma gun (that cannot be taken by any Troop choices at all), and although it doesn't have Gets Hot, it's only S6. They're also in much smaller squads in the Tau army, making it harder to use ablative wounds to protect the plasma gun.
2. Leadership is a terrible problem. The only ways to boost leadership above 8 are with HQ choices. The Ethereal provides a re-roll (if it can be seen), but if it dies the consequences are terrible.
3. Claiming objectives is difficult for the Tau to do against many other armies because they do not have any good close combat troops, or really any "tough" troops. The best they can do is 6 Firewarriors in a Devilfish, and with the mandatory Disruption Pod on the DFish they still cost more than a min Space Marine Tac squad in a Rhino, which can fight and survive much better than the Tau.
4. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. I've said it before, but it bears repeating.
5. Most new codexes have units with a "Wow!" factor; it's how the game is changing these days. The only "Wow!" factor units that the Tau have go the other way; "You're paying 205 points for Aun'Va?! Seriously?!"
That's the basic problems with the Tau codex. It's not unplayable, but it hasn't aged all that well. There are other crummy codexes out there too, so the Tau aren't alone. A good player CAN do well with them, so they're not hopeless, but there's a good reason you don't see them in the top three of tournament results.
This is an excellent summary of the Tau's problems. I couldn't have said it better myself.
To add on to why I feel they suffer in the context of the game; Warhammer 40k is very troop oriented and assault oriented. 2/3 of the games are objective games in which you need durable troop choices to win. 100% of the time you MUST take two troop choices. The assault phase is where most of the real killing gets done. Sure, there are shooting armies who can do well, but the abundance of cover, the fact that shooting happens once per game turn but assault happens twice, and the ability to sweep opponents in assault leads to a better output in assault. If the Tau were guaranteed 2-3 turns of shooting they could do well. As it stands they are not. Speed and tricky units leads to 1-2 turn assaults. Tau have absolutely NOTHING that can stand up to CC. Don't try to tell me Kroot are worth anything there either.
Sure, Tau can cling to a semi-competitive mono build, but in a game of variety an customization, isn't having only one good build an inherent failure in itself?
In response to striderx:
IG handle shooty a LOT better than Tau do. Tau can shoot and scoot, but when it comes to raw volume of firepower, the Imperial Guard stomp Tau flat. This comes from my point of Tau paying more for the same capabilities as other armies, as well as the Imperial Guard having a better selection of weapons to use.
IG also benefit from having much cheaper bodies to throw into the fray, and actual options for their troops to enhance their role (and in fact, their options are cheap enough that you can kit out a blob squad for shooting and assault and still not adversely impact the rest of your army). You can also afford to throw away a speed bump unit with IG; Tau have a more difficult time of this (there are Kroot, but Kroot don't shoot nearly as well as an IG Infantry squad).
schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.
A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.
I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.
Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.
It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF
Oh, one other thing that affects the Tau is table size. Broke my heart to see the standard table size get set to 4x6 instead of 4x8. I do miss the maneuverability that the extra space afforded.
The Tau need a new codex, it's as simple as that. Until a new codex comes out Tau will never be hailed as a truly good army IMHO. Although I usually say that all armies are equal at the same points with equally well made lists, similar player experience and ability but I think Tau are an exception to this rule. Tau can win, I'm not completely casting them out, but I think the army list and player would have to be a lot better than the opposition.
Tau have a bad codex. It has no answer against certian lists, and common lists, not exotic theoretical lists.
Most of the 'Competitive' lists I've seen have relied heavily on piranha walls for blocking enemy movement. Someone took Tau high into the rounds of 'ard boyz in the last go round, and it sparked a lot of conversation. But when you went back and looked at the batreps, they had extremely good match ups and/or their opponent made silly mistakes. Now a lot of this is what 40k is about, especially tournaments, I'm sure the Tau player is very good, but they were beating Chaos Daemons and funky Ork lists, not Mech IG and Space Wolves. I said then that the Tau have no answer for an all jump BA list, and as fate would have it that Tau player was eliminated by an all jump BA list in the next round.
Now enter the Dark Eldar, and I really think the final nail has hit the coffin for 4e Tau. You can't piranha block their skimmers, they can out volume of fire the Tau easily (and while doing it inside of their Vehicles), their skimmers have a 5++, and that's huge. I know you may not think it's huge, but it really is, and their assault troops can assault you from beyond plasma rifle or SMS range, and their pain token system gives them better than 4+ saves.
Armies are too fast for Tau to deal with in 5e. Multiple armies have been given options to effectively 'shrink' the board, Tau are going to have to be given drastic measures to 'stretch' the board back out, or a complete reworking of their army.
striderx wrote:Stelek says he uses Tau competitively, and that Tau is actually the top army.
And he beat DashofPepper, who claims to be the top few player (according to some sort of ranking).
So let's say Tau is playable.
He beat Dash with Space Wolves, which he now brings to the most recent GT's.
This is very discouraging. I am fairly new to the hobby, and I currently play vanilla marines. I was interested in starting tau as a second army, though at least several months down the road. I am very attracted to their look, and the "shootyness" of the army. I was never a big fan of close combat. I am not interested at all in tournament play, I'm just in it for fun. But an army that only wins at the hands of a general on par with Napoleon, or by an odd match up, doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a "win at all costs" player, but I would want an army that can win every once in awhile. Is there any point of starting tau, given what I have said, or should I wait until they get an update? I have heard that we are more likely to have another ice age before we get an update .
schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.
A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.
I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.
Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.
Being purely shooting army matters a whole lot when expensive units get sucked into CC with no chance of escape.
IG have several defenses against CC.
Power Blobs are actually a mean CC unit in non mechanized armies, but they are in the minority. Most iG armies are mechanized which have the advantage of being expendible.
Extendibility: Most squads are 70-100 points & mechanized so their loss isn't a great loss as opposed to a unit of broadsides or crisis suits. A good example is a squad of tac/plague/grey hunters/assault marines with a power fist being reduced to 2 members through shooting. Even with the squad being 80% dead if they charge IG infantry, crisis suits, or broadsides they will probably win. The difference between Tau and IG is the Tau's loss is going to be about 250% of the IG's loss in points before CC ends.
Tau don't so much need to win CC as they need a way to get expensive units out of CC that get stuck there.
IG also has very competitive troops selections that achieve durability through extendibility. IG is a well balanced 5th ed codex, while Tau remain an out of balance 4th ed codex.
PraetorDave wrote:This is very discouraging. I am fairly new to the hobby, and I currently play vanilla marines. I was interested in starting tau as a second army, though at least several months down the road. I am very attracted to their look, and the "shootyness" of the army. I was never a big fan of close combat. I am not interested at all in tournament play, I'm just in it for fun. But an army that only wins at the hands of a general on par with Napoleon, or by an odd match up, doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a "win at all costs" player, but I would want an army that can win every once in awhile. Is there any point of starting tau, given what I have said, or should I wait until they get an update? I have heard that we are more likely to have another ice age before we get an update .
well no one wants to lose... or play at a disadvantage. its not necessarily about being a waac player. I think that you should play the army you like the best for fluff and model reasons, because a 40k army is a long term investment and you dont know what their next rule set will look like. tau will get an update sooner rather than later, and they're playable right now if you just want to throw down at your flgs. But there will come a point when you say "I'm not losing because I'm getting out-played. I'm losing because I don't have the tools I need." since you already have space marines, which are quite competitive, why not go for another army?
schadenfreude wrote:IG have several defenses against CC.
Power Blobs are actually a mean CC unit in non mechanized armies, but they are in the minority.
Which therefore brings my point. Most competitive IG are built PURELY shooty, something which you said you don't believe in. But they do well.
So I m asking this question in general (not army specific), because you said "I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.". Most IG list don't include that...
schadenfreude wrote:Most iG armies are mechanized which have the advantage of being expendible.
So now do you mean being purely shooty is not good, or not being able to mechanize is no good? There are stark differences, you know that???
schadenfreude wrote:A good example is a squad of tac/plague/grey hunters/assault marines with a power fist being reduced to 2 members through shooting. Even with the squad being 80% dead if they charge IG infantry, crisis suits, or broadsides they will probably win. The difference between Tau and IG is the Tau's loss is going to be about 250% of the IG's loss in points before CC ends.
Not a good example, because SW is not a shooty army, although they do well being shooty. But that's because they are (IMHO) a codex that's on the top of the league.
schadenfreude wrote:Tau don't so much need to win CC as they need a way to get expensive units out of CC that get stuck there.
Which comes again to your point - why do you need to be both shooty and assaulty then? Being assaulty doesnt necessarily solve the above problem, nor is it the only way to solve the problem.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF
But you haven't explained why being PURELY SHOOTY hinders capturing of objective. Most IG are built purely shooty, most list don't have power blobs...
Powerguy wrote:The problem with Tau is that there is really only 1 competitive build available.
This is the problem here. It's not that Tau are weak, it's just that there is only one way to play them well.
If you haven't figured out how to do that then they're rubbish. Also, if you have figured it out, then you won't be surprising anybody since there's only that one good build.
Ig are better than tau in cc in that squads 25% of their point cost caant reliable steamroll or tarpit their units.
45 points of meq tarpitting or killing 240 points of tau units is far worse than 100 points of marines killing 100 points of guardsmen.
Broadsides/crisis suits being tarpitted/killed by meq 25% their point size if far worse than what it takes to handle ig. The same ratio would be a single tac marine attempting to charge 10 guardsmen.
I have a friend who started tau, and is very frustrated especially playing my mech guard. Even though broadsides have a 75% chance of hitting, and a 82.5% of penning av12, he just can't take out enough tanks. He targets my heavies first turn, and even if he kills them I've gotten into his troops by second turn, and by third or fourth he's left with broadsides and suits. Thow in that I deepstrike marbo and stormies that can tarpit broadsides (if not out right kill) in turn 2, and he is toast.
Tau just can't handle an army that can out move them.
schadenfreude wrote:Ig are better than tau in cc in that squads 25% of their point cost caant reliable steamroll or tarpit their units.
45 points of meq tarpitting or killing 240 points of tau units is far worse than 100 points of marines killing 100 points of guardsmen.
Broadsides/crisis suits being tarpitted/killed by meq 25% their point size if far worse than what it takes to handle ig. The same ratio would be a single tac marine attempting to charge 10 guardsmen.
How has this got anything to do with the problem with being PURELY shooty? That's an issue of point efficiency.
AspireToGlory wrote:He beat Dash with Space Wolves, which he now brings to the most recent GT's.
Yeah, I know that. I said Stelek, someone who beat Dash (who claims to be one of the better player around), says Tau is awesome. Simple, and just that.
So, what's your point?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF
But you haven't explained why being PURELY SHOOTY hinders capturing of objective.
if you're shooty and they're assaulty you have to inflict 100% casualties on the enemy squad before you can capture the objective they're holding.
If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.
It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing space
Guard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.
Get it now? AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:if you're shooty and they're assaulty you have to inflict 100% casualties on the enemy squad before you can capture the objective they're holding.
(1) I don't see how it is difficult to focus fire and anniliate a squad if NEED to. (2) You need to inflict 100% casualties on a squad in order to claim an objective - this applies to ANY kind of army you play and to 40k in general. Frankly, I don't see your point.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.
Yes, and so? Shooty army play mostly by opening gaps and creating space, looking for weak spots etc.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing space
Guard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.
Many competitive IG armies arent built with any bit of CC ability at all (which SIMPLY, proved that you DON'T need to be able fight in close combat to win a game). I think this is the 3rd time I said this. Get it?
Oh, unless you are telling me those shooty IG lists consisting of squads of guardsmen with lasguns, embarked in Chimeras, are actually good fighters, then well...
striderx wrote:Oh, unless you are telling me those shooty IG lists consisting of squads of guardsmen with lasguns, embarked in Chimeras, are actually good fighters, then well...
Better than firewarriors, maybe. Better than Kroot?
Tau troops suck. Don't get me wrong the models are IMHO some of the best troops models in the game and they do have the best basic weapons of any troops but that dosen't mean that they don't suck. They aren't an army of troop choices that can do just about everything (Space Marines), they're specialised and need to work in cohesion with the rest of the force.
You can't rely on your Fire Warriors to win you games. Tau aren't Orks or Nids where you can win a game just by throwing more or and more troops at the enemy. So if you're tired of hearing crap about how Tau suck and being beaten then don't depend on your Firewarriors to do everything and work on making your entire force work better together.
An army doesn't need to ROLF stomp the other side in CC to handle being assaulted.
Dwarfs in WHFB have absolutely no magic, but do not forfeit the magic phase because they have a lot of dispelling ability. There is a huge difference between not being good at a phase and forfeiting the phase.
Tac Marines are not good in CC, but Codex Marines have combat tactics allowing units that are bad in CC to have a chance to escape from CC. Even though Tac marines are not good in CC they don't completely forfeit the assault phase.
IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.
Tau are the single worse army in CC as even mechanized guardsmen will charge fire warriors in CC and win, and to add insult to injurer they have no ability to remove units from CC nor do they have an means to control the damage. Their best and most expensive 200+ point squads of infantry with terrible CC stats. Anything that can't stomp them can tarpit them. Once they are in CC they can't get out of CC, and the damage done in CC is in no way compartmentalized.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:if you're shooty and they're assaulty you have to inflict 100% casualties on the enemy squad before you can capture the objective they're holding.
(1) I don't see how it is difficult to focus fire and anniliate a squad if NEED to. (2) You need to inflict 100% casualties on a squad in order to claim an objective - this applies to ANY kind of army you play and to 40k in general. Frankly, I don't see your point.
I know you dont. which is sad, really, because it couldnt be any more obvious. but here, let me try again.
you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases. do you know why? of course you dont. This is why: each game turn consists of two player turns. Models that shoot can shoot only in the controlling player's turn, while models that assault fight in close combat during the controlling player's and the opponent's turn. hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output. Furthermore an assaulting unit does not have to inflict 100% casualties on its opposing member because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated. Assaults are therefor a more efficient way to eliminate opposing models, assuming equal capabilities. Additionally models in cover have a 4+ cover save meaning that even if allof your shots hit and all of those shots wound odds are that only half of those shots will inflict a wound. It is simply not possible, given the current state of the tau codex to capture enough ground in 6 turns to make up for these advantages.
striderx wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.
Yes, and so?
reread that statement as many times as you need to in order to grasp the point. It cant be explained any more clearly.
striderx wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing spaceGuard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.
Many competitive IG armies arent built with any bit of CC ability at all (which SIMPLY, proved that you DON'T need to be able fight in close combat to win a game). I think this is the 3rd time I said this. Get it?
yes but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degree
AF
Yeah, but his point is that all guard are not assault capable. A mechvet army is dead on foot, because they have no assault capability. The rely on blasting targets off objectives, ussually by rolling up 2+ chimeras with meltas in them. Mechvets win not because they can assault, but because all of their troops are in av12 transports with 3x special weapons, and no assault capabilit. Add to that too many av12 and av14 vehicles for the enemy to kill before they have melta and plasma in their face, and you have victorious guard. The bane of a mechanized force is being bogged down by assault troops that can open your cans, because once your vets are out of their vehicles you can just call them dinner. The have almost no assault ability, and do not need it to capture objectives.
Your argument is flawed abbadon. Have you ever seen a total mech guard force in action?
vets have more fire power and more assault capability than tau fire warriors do. If tau had similar capabilities they could push opponents off of objectives too. the point is not that its impossible for shooting armies to capture objectives. the point is that shooting armies are at a disadvantage when attempting to capture objectives. guard have the tools to overcome these disadvantages, tau do not.
Yes, which means that its the tau which are at a disadvantage, and not shooty armies. The problems with the tau isn't that they're shooty. The problems with the tau are that they either aren't shooty enough (no special weapons for troops, and no str8-10 pie plates), or not versatile enough for other builds. If kroot were a bit better they'd have an excellent cc option.
shooty armies are at a disadvantage when it comes to capturing objectives because
1. you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases... hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output.
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.
3. shooting armies rely on maintaining distance between themselves and assaulting units in order to be effective; otherwise they will be caught in assault and annihilated. capturing objectives requires a player to take rather than to give up ground.
guard can overcome these disadvantages becasue they are absurdly shooty. tau are just marginally shooty and so cant. if the game was based on kill points rather than objectives tau would be doing alot better right now, without necessarily changing anything in their book.
The Tau have a step learning curve that usually frustrates folks for sometime. They will always struggle against a fast assault focused army since they forsake this phase of the game utterly.
It will interesting to see what a new codex will bring them.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.
I see the point you are trying to make, however you should read your rulebook better. Whenever a unit loses 25% of its men, it has to take a morale check, and possibly fall back. That means that if a squad of 10 marines take 3 casualties (not a crazy hard thing to do), it has the possibility of falling back (ignore ATSKNF in this case). So merely killing three marines could push it off an objective.
I'm aware that units that get shot at have to take a morale check. but units that lose an assault are more likely to break because
1. units that take a moral check due to shooting take it free of any negative modifier
2. units that take a moral check due to assaults often take it at a heavy modifier
3. most scoring units in the game are leadership 8 9 10, or even fearless, and many of those units get for free, or can buy at relatively little cost, upgrades that further reduce their chance of running.
4. units that fail a morale test due to shooting are more likely to be able to regroup than those that fail it due to assaults (assuming the unit lives at all after breaking due to assault) because they are less likely to be within 6" of an enemy unit when they get a chance to regroup.
There's no reason to assume that because we disagree, I dont know the rules. is there?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm aware that units that get shot at have to take a morale check. but units that lose an assault are more likely to break because
1. units that take a moral check due to shooting take it free of any negative modifier
2. units that take a moral check due to assaults often take it at a heavy modifier
3. most scoring units in the game are leadership 8 9 10, or even fearless, and many of those units get for free, or can buy at relatively little cost, upgrades that further reduce their chance of running.
4. units that fail a morale test due to shooting are more likely to be able to regroup than those that fail it due to assaults (assuming the unit lives at all after breaking due to assault) because they are less likely to be within 6" of an enemy unit when they get a chance to regroup.
There's no reason to assume that because we disagree, I dont know the rules. is there?
1. & 2. I think there are equal opportunities to receive a negative modifier (ordinance weapons?) in both shooting and assaulting.
3. I think this is a moot point, as all of those points would apply equally to shooting and assaulting, and therefore wouldn't give an advantage to shooting moral checks.
4. Your absolutely right. I concede this point to you.
schadenfreude wrote:IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.
Then here, as I have reiterated, you are talking about mechanized vs non mechanized. You are very confused, I can see. Being inexpensive and expendable don't make you good in close combat.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:es but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degreeAF
Squad of 10 guardsmen (many IG lists build their troop choice that way - read up some lists if you need to) in chimera are better than FWs in CC? Yeah, tell people WS3 > WS2 and therefore guardsmen are marginally better, and try to prove your point that way
Leprousy wrote:Yeah, but his point is that all guard are not assault capable. A mechvet army is dead on foot, because they have no assault capability. The rely on blasting targets off objectives, ussually by rolling up 2+ chimeras with meltas in them. Mechvets win not because they can assault, but because all of their troops are in av12 transports with 3x special weapons, and no assault capabilit. Add to that too many av12 and av14 vehicles for the enemy to kill before they have melta and plasma in their face, and you have victorious guard. The bane of a mechanized force is being bogged down by assault troops that can open your cans, because once your vets are out of their vehicles you can just call them dinner. The have almost no assault ability, and do not need it to capture objectives.
Your argument is flawed abbadon. Have you ever seen a total mech guard force in action?
Are you exceptionally smart, or is it just... I reiterated the flaws of their argument thrice, but only you caught it. They may have come to the same conclusion anyway, but saying a PURELY shooty army is a problem in itself is a wrong way to argue their point.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:shooty armies are at a disadvantage when it comes to capturing objectives because
1. you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases... hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output.
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.
3. shooting armies rely on maintaining distance between themselves and assaulting units in order to be effective; otherwise they will be caught in assault and annihilated. capturing objectives requires a player to take rather than to give up ground.
If that's the way you argue it, there is no end to it. SHooty armies can shoot assaulty armies from far, more so if they wreck their transports/mobility. Given that, shooty armies can either totally anniliate a squad, or reduce them to such a state where it is 2 against 10 when the assaulty army reaches the CC line.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:guard can overcome these disadvantages becasue they are absurdly shooty. tau are just marginally shooty and so cant. if the game was based on kill points rather than objectives tau would be doing alot better right now, without necessarily changing anything in their book.
And now, you said it yourself - "Guards are absurdly shooty". It is an issue of shooting capability, not an issue of building a list to be purely shooty.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF
But you haven't explained why being PURELY SHOOTY hinders capturing of objective.
if you're shooty and they're assaulty you have to inflict 100% casualties on the enemy squad before you can capture the objective they're holding.
If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.
It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing space
Guard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.
Get it now? AF
So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
striderx wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.
Then here, as I have reiterated, you are talking about mechanized vs non mechanized. You are very confused, I can see. Being inexpensive and expendable don't make you good in close combat.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:es but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degreeAF
Squad of 10 guardsmen (many IG lists build their troop choice that way - read up some lists if you need to) in chimera are better than FWs in CC? Yeah, tell people WS3 > WS2 and therefore guardsmen are marginally better, and try to prove your point that way
Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.
Guardsmen outshoot tau because:
-Guardsmen are cheaper, and therefore bring more guns into the fight.
-Orders. They can FRFSRF, and auto regroup thanks to orders. In cover, guardsmen can get 3+ Cover save by going to ground and getting right back to the fight.
-FWs are forced to close the gap against guardsmen. The devilfish cant do anything to hurt the chimera, they must get near to get side shots. Infantry squad with lascannons or autocannons can hurt the devilfish.
-Please dont tell me you're gonna markerlight guardsmen infantry.
Guardsmen are better in CC
-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.
Yuber wrote:So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.
1) Against an assault army, you shoot for 2 turns (more if you bubble wrap) at the opponent, while the opponent spend 2 turns doing nothing but just moving towards you (with the exception of DS armies or stuff like deffkoptas - there are always exceptions).
2) Shooting gives you greater flexibility in your target (especially with the LOS rule), while for assault you don't always have the luxury of doing so.
And the list goes now. The above list of items by AF is just a short sighted and narrow view of the difference between shooting and assaulting. The 2 are just different.
Throwing the ball back to you, maybe you want to take another look at how 40k is played and re evaluate certain aspects of the game.
Yuber wrote:Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.
If it's about points value, you called that point efficiency, not an issue of building an army to be purely shooty. It's about how you word/phrase your arguments. I was laughing at the silliness of claiming a pure shooty army will not work.
Yuber wrote:Guardsmen are better in CC
-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.
Probably so. In a similar fashion, kroots will trump the guardsmen in CC. Again my point is, the WS3 and I3 didnt suddenly make the Guardsmen "GOOD in CC". They are sometimes (not talking about blobs here, I reiterate) still made to be PURELY shooty, which makes the initial claim/argument by schadenfreude flawed.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
This was the assertion that this entire argument has been based upon, and I think that it has been lost... No body has argued that 100% casualties have to be inflicted by a shooty army to capture a held objective. This is largely true (failing a morale test of course), and frankly has nothing to do with the argument. The counter argument to schadenfreude's assertion is that Guard can build a shooty army that is effective, because they have the means to blast the enemy off of the table, while Tau does not. In consequence the problem with Tau isn't that they are a shooty army, but is that their codex does not allow for a shooty enough army. This does not mean that a pure shooty army is a bad build across the game. You just need the right codex to accomplish it, and tau is not that codex.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.
This was the assertion that this entire argument has been based upon, and I think that it has been lost... No body has argued that 100% casualties have to be inflicted by a shooty army to capture a held objective. This is largely true (failing a morale test of course), and frankly has nothing to do with the argument. The counter argument to schadenfreude's assertion is that Guard can build a shooty army that is effective, because they have the means to blast the enemy off of the table, while Tau does not. In consequence the problem with Tau isn't that they are a shooty army, but is that their codex does not allow for a shooty enough army. This does not mean that a pure shooty army is a bad build across the game. You just need the right codex to accomplish it, and tau is not that codex.
Lets get back on track.
A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.
Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.
The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.
schadenfreude wrote:A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.
Has this got anything to do with your concept of "a pure CC or pure shooting army". If yes, please enlighten. Because this looks to me like a psychic power.
schadenfreude wrote:Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.
The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.
So if I m not wrong, you mean all those IG lists that are somehow build to be purely shooty, are not PURELY shooty within your definition, because you view guardsmen to be good in close combat?
Yuber wrote:So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.
1) Against an assault army, you shoot for 2 turns (more if you bubble wrap) at the opponent, while the opponent spend 2 turns doing nothing but just moving towards you (with the exception of DS armies or stuff like deffkoptas - there are always exceptions).
2) Shooting gives you greater flexibility in your target (especially with the LOS rule), while for assault you don't always have the luxury of doing so.
And the list goes now. The above list of items by AF is just a short sighted and narrow view of the difference between shooting and assaulting. The 2 are just different.
Throwing the ball back to you, maybe you want to take another look at how 40k is played and re evaluate certain aspects of the game.
Yuber wrote:Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.
If it's about points value, you called that point efficiency, not an issue of building an army to be purely shooty. It's about how you word/phrase your arguments. I was laughing at the silliness of claiming a pure shooty army will not work.
Yuber wrote:Guardsmen are better in CC
-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.
Probably so. In a similar fashion, kroots will trump the guardsmen in CC. Again my point is, the WS3 and I3 didnt suddenly make the Guardsmen "GOOD in CC". They are sometimes (not talking about blobs here, I reiterate) still made to be PURELY shooty, which makes the initial claim/argument by schadenfreude flawed.
Im never claimed a shooting army never works, in fact, my SW army is purely shooty.
What AF stated is correct but not in general sense; it's only about tau. Which is correct, generally or not.
Regarding Kroot, kroot comes to do assault on guard. Not the other way around. Its pretty silly to see a Tau player moving kroot forwards to engage a 50 points infantry squad to "beat" it in assault.
yeah no one said that shooty armies dont work. what I said was that shooty armies are at a disadvantage vs. assaulty armies when it comes to capturing objectives. in a kill points game they dont have to hold space so its a non-issue. in the objective missions, because they rely on keeping the distance between themselves and the opponent, they have a hard time taking objectives away from an opponent who is already on them. guard are so fantastically shooty that they can overcome this. space wolves have the close combat capabilities to capture and hold space once theyve softened it up with shooting. tau dont have either of these, thats their problem.
Tyranic Marta wrote:I have a couple of major questions about the tau in terms of every body saying theyre crap, cause i have had enough of a coupla my mates insisting that theyre armies are crud thn turnin around and nearly kickin my butt.
So: #1: is it not fantastic that theyre BASIC guns are strength 5??? i mean they have no S4 or lower weaponry xcept 4 flamers... thats like saying they wound everyone on 2's and 3's, how is this crap???
I think that one of the issues with Tau is that they only have 2 HQ choices, and you are required to field one of them first. The Battlesuit Commander is necessary to run a Tau Army. My roommate and I run a little loosey goosey on some rules, that being one of them (when he knocks the dust off of his Tau) so he can play the Ethereal for a few hundred fewer points. also, there is the issue of Troop choices as well. You need to take at least one gruop of FCW with you, and all things considered, Kroot are just as effective at shooting, and they can actually enter into Close Combat. FCW cannot enter melee and expect to stand a chance against Grots, let alone Orks. imo, if you wanna play Tau, do it the way that the codex pretty much makes you, otherwise, you aren't competitive. just my opinion. I don't even play Tau, I just beat up on them with a speed freaks ork army sometimes. Or a Kan army... that's always fun...
schadenfreude wrote:A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.
Has this got anything to do with your concept of "a pure CC or pure shooting army". If yes, please enlighten. Because this looks to me like a psychic power.
Unleash Rage, Paroxism, Weaken Resolve, and Warptime are all psychic powers that happen to kick butt in the assault phase, and all that matters is the end result. If the end result is IG destroying enemy units in the assault phase how is that any different than Unleash Rage, Paroxism, or Warptime?
striderx wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.
The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.
So if I m not wrong, you mean all those IG lists that are somehow build to be purely shooty, are not PURELY shooty within your definition, because you view guardsmen to be good in close combat?
They are more like dwarfs in the magic phase of WHFB. They can't do anything in that phase of the game, but they can try to shut things down or minimize the damage. You don't have to assault to have some type of defense against being assaulted in the assault phase.
Case in point #1: Fast Vehicles like the Vendetta. It can't assault, but if it moves >6" then 6s are needed to hit it in CC Case in point #2: MSU of Dirt cheap guardsmen. Take 210 points of Tau crisis suits in 1 squad versus 210 points of guardsmen in 3 squads. If the Tau get assaulted 0 out of 210 points get to shoot on the next turn. If a squad of guardsmen gets assaulted 140 out of 210 points gets to shoot on the next turn.
IG are a shooting army that have some damage control in the assault phase
Tau are a shooting army that have no damage control in the assault phase.
schadenfreude wrote:Unleash Rage, Paroxism, Weaken Resolve, and Warptime are all psychic powers that happen to kick butt in the assault phase, and all that matters is the end result. If the end result is IG destroying enemy units in the assault phase how is that any different than Unleash Rage, Paroxism, or Warptime?
I shoot a unit of nob bikers with my Crisis Suits + Broadsides, reduce the squad to one biker left with a wound. I charge the nob biker with a squad of kroots, kill it. Now I prove to you Tau rock in CC.
I m not sure if anyone will accept such a ridiculous argument. Please try again.
schadenfreude wrote:Case in point #1: Fast Vehicles like the Vendetta. It can't assault, but if it moves >6" then 6s are needed to hit it in CC
That's a case of mechanized vs non mechanized, 4th time I m saying this (although I think you ll still be confused for the 5th time). FireWarriors can too embark in devilfish that can move 12". Not that it matters in our discussion here.
schadenfreude wrote:Case in point #2: MSU of Dirt cheap guardsmen. Take 210 points of Tau crisis suits in 1 squad versus 210 points of guardsmen in 3 squads. If the Tau get assaulted 0 out of 210 points get to shoot on the next turn. If a squad of guardsmen gets assaulted 140 out of 210 points gets to shoot on the next turn.
Moot point. Guardsmen are the units doing the bubble wrap. Crisis Suits are the units being bubble wrapped. No one in their right mind (maybe that's what you do, I don't know) would place Crisis Suits in the same way you place Guardsmen.
You know, there is a difference between what you want to argue for, and HOW you argue it. You can't seem to argue your points PROPERLY, though you may come to the same conclusion nevertheless.
Right now the Tau are in a rough spot, they can still compete at a FLGS for a few reasons: The first is that not many people are familiar with all the things they can do, and second not everyone is a world class player.
If orks win through target saturation (Overwhelming the opponent with lose-lose decisions) then the tau win through target priority (targeting the right unit and taking it out)
After being showed proper target priority, other armies seem less scary...
Deep strike can get countered by castling in the corner with 2 devilfishes and 3 broadsides. If done with both sides, your opponent has little choice but to split their army...
Crisis suits can either come off the board or deep strike a far distance away and start to seriously split up the opposing army... Remember vehicles and monstrous creatures need to be physically 50% non-visible to get a cover save, I can shoot through my own units all day long as long as I can physically see half of the vehicles/monstrous creatures...
Overall, I would bring them to a FLGS to win a tournament but at a GT I would imagine that people would be strong enough players to win...
Right now the Tau are in a rough spot, they can still compete at a FLGS for a few reasons: The first is that not many people are familiar with all the things they can do, and second not everyone is a world class player.
If orks win through target saturation (Overwhelming the opponent with lose-lose decisions) then the tau win through target priority (targeting the right unit and taking it out)
After being showed proper target priority, other armies seem less scary...
Deep strike can get countered by castling in the corner with 2 devilfishes and 3 broadsides. If done with both sides, your opponent has little choice but to split their army...
Crisis suits can either come off the board or deep strike a far distance away and start to seriously split up the opposing army... Remember vehicles and monstrous creatures need to be physically 50% non-visible to get a cover save, I can shoot through my own units all day long as long as I can physically see half of the vehicles/monstrous creatures...
Overall, I would bring them to a FLGS to win a tournament but at a GT I would imagine that people would be strong enough players to win...
This is essentially correct. My first 40k Army was Tau, and the hard lessons I learned about target priority with them payed off nicely when I started my second army. I do fairly well at my FLGS with Tau, I've won several of the tournaments there with them, but it's a small store that usually only fields 8-10 man tournaments.
The Break Down, however, comes when you have too many High Priority targets, especially if they are not a vehicle.
For instance, lets say you're facing a SM list with a Land Raider, 2 Rhinos, a Vindicator, AC/Las Pred and a few combat squaded tac squads on foot. Priority is easy:
1. Land Raider
2. Vindicator (due to ID on Crisis squads)
3. Rhinos
4. Pred
5. Any troops on foot, in order of how close they are to you.
Now the priority may change due to extenuating factors (like a Rhino got to close to you before it was destroyed, making the troops left a higher priority than the Pred).
But now say you're facing a BA list that has 3 Assault Marine Squads /w Jump Packs and Sang Priests, Librarian Dread /w wings of Sanguinious, Mephiston, and 2 fast Baal Preds.
I dunno, the beauty of the Tau is that we pretty much ignore any combat upgrade you give your guys... What we need to worry about is the things that would shrug off our shots...
Think about... Death company will wipe a squad just as a simple squad of assault marines...
QuietOrkmi wrote:I dunno, the beauty of the Tau is that we pretty much ignore any combat upgrade you give your guys... What we need to worry about is the things that would shrug off our shots...
Think about... Death company will wipe a squad just as a simple squad of assault marines...
I'm not sure that's a 'beauty' or a benefit really. It doesn't really address the point I was making either (there wasn't even a death company in the list :p).
When Tau can divvy up target priority based on what can get to them and assault fastest, they can do ok. When the entire opposing army is equally fast and poses the same threat, *especially* when that speed can't be eliminated by destroying vehicles, the army falls apart. BA are especially difficult, 3+ saves followed by FNP means you may as well just throw the S5 AP5 weapons your army is flooded with into the garbage.
For a little insult to injury, The new Splinter Rifles give the Pulse Rifle some very strong competition for the best basic troop weapon in the game.
On a personal note as a Tau player I haven't had the kind of trouble you're describing kroot loops against BA mostly because I have very little str 5 weaponry lol.
It's mostly str 6+ with a smattering of str 4 (yay kroot) and only gun drones (from fish and piranha) and 12 fire warriors that carry str 5 and the fire warriors hopefully never get out of their ride to begin with.
When you rely too much on torrenting I think you start to have troubles with those kinds of armies (high resiliency, fast, medium model count). Not to say that Tau don't need an update of course but that's the general consensus anyway.
The pulse rifle is a pretty sweet weapon all on it's own but when it's relegated to BS 3 models (regardless of marker light support) it simply isn't THAT good, especially on a 10 point model who's squad can't get any heavy weapons or other support.
Edit: As an additional anecdotal note for some levity, I've had my shas'el punch a captain on a bike to death several times
I have had this discussion with many of my friends who all play 40k.
I love my Tau. I have won many games with my tau, including competitive games.
Saying they suck is just trying to troll, and doing a bad job at it especially if you do not state facts to back it up.
Considering the new codex introduction however, they are a bit out dated and need a face lift much like the other armies did. But to pretend that they are gimp like the Necrons at the moment just goes to say that somebody has bias against them.
I have never been tabled with my Tau, and have tabled numerous opponents, but I have also lost games too. Really it all comes down to dice rolls.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I fight BA regularly. They are a good army, but not impossible for the Tau to beat.
poontangler wrote:I have had this discussion with many of my friends who all play 40k.
I love my Tau. I have won many games with my tau, including competitive games.
Saying they suck is just trying to troll, and doing a bad job at it especially if you do not state facts to back it up.
Considering the new codex introduction however, they are a bit out dated and need a face lift much like the other armies did. But to pretend that they are gimp like the Necrons at the moment just goes to say that somebody has bias against them.
I have never been tabled with my Tau, and have tabled numerous opponents, but I have also lost games too. Really it all comes down to dice rolls.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I fight BA regularly. They are a good army, but not impossible for the Tau to beat.
Ah good times.
Its funny because I swear that my fried makes his army just to counter my tau. I have never beaten him yet eather. (freaky daemon prince with wings)
Just to shove it out there. who thinks its funny that stealth suits dont have the stealth usr?
Have you tried using devilfishes or piranas to physically keep him away from your gunline? I once played against a Tyranid army and found that by having a semi-circle of moving devilfishes, it was tough for him to come near me... Once he did crack to devil fish, there was 6 more fire warriors waiting to stop him from moving 6, running a d6 and assaulting anything behind them.
MrDrumMachine wrote:On a personal note as a Tau player I haven't had the kind of trouble you're describing kroot loops against BA mostly because I have very little str 5 weaponry lol.
It's mostly str 6+ with a smattering of str 4 (yay kroot) and only gun drones (from fish and piranha) and 12 fire warriors that carry str 5 and the fire warriors hopefully never get out of their ride to begin with.
When you rely too much on torrenting I think you start to have troubles with those kinds of armies (high resiliency, fast, medium model count). Not to say that Tau don't need an update of course but that's the general consensus anyway.
Yeah, I don't rely on torrenting. For a Tau army, I also have relatively little Str 5 weaponry, but there is still quite a bit: SMS on devilfish and Broadsides, Burst Cannons on Hammerheads, gun drones on piranha, and so forth. However the Tau only have three weapons that will deny a 3+ save and FNP, those being the Railgun, Plasma Rifle, and Fusion blaster, the CIB will deny it on 50% of wounds. Rail Rifles, Ion Cannons, and the Vespid gun will remove the 3+ save but not FNP.
Just for example, 12 bs 3 missile pods (24 S7 shots) will kill, on average, 1.98 BA. You have two rounds on average to kill 34 + infantry models, an AV 13 walker, Mephiston, and whatever else is on the table, all of which are moving 13" to 18" every turn.
The pulse rifle is a pretty sweet weapon all on it's own but when it's relegated to BS 3 models (regardless of marker light support) it simply isn't THAT good, especially on a 10 point model who's squad can't get any heavy weapons or other support.
If you look at the history of my posts on the subject, I completely agree with you.
poontangler wrote:I have had this discussion with many of my friends who all play 40k.
I love my Tau. I have won many games with my tau, including competitive games.
Yep, me too
Saying they suck is just trying to troll, and doing a bad job at it especially if you do not state facts to back it up.
Saying they are not a strong codex is an opinion backed by both table top experience and math. A win that I had to diligently pull out in the fifth turn is a win that, in nearly every situation, I could have been wrapping up after turn 3 with Orks.
Considering the new codex introduction however, they are a bit out dated and need a face lift much like the other armies did. But to pretend that they are gimp like the Necrons at the moment just goes to say that somebody has bias against them.
Tau have many challenges on the table top that have to do with them being unable to compete in one phase of the game. Yes, they have Kroot, but what are kroot? They are essentially T3 Orks without the things that make Orks good, like Mob Rule and Power Klaws. The only reason I really give Tau the nod over Necrons is that Necrons don't have transports.
I have never been tabled with my Tau, and have tabled numerous opponents, but I have also lost games too. Really it all comes down to dice rolls.
It also comes down to players. I've lost very few games with the Tau, never been tabled, have tabled with them. My Orks have never lost a game since I started playing them. That doesn't mean anything really, aside from 'big fish, small pond' syndrome, because I know for a fact that I am not a great 40k player.
Also I fight BA regularly. They are a good army, but not impossible for the Tau to beat.
I didn't say BA were impossible to beat, I've beaten mech BA with Tau. I said a specific type of BA, that being the all, or almost all, jump with FNP list. It's a hard counter to Tau, but even that doesn't mean it's impossible to beat, the dice are still a factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
QuietOrkmi wrote:Have you tried using devilfishes or piranas to physically keep him away from your gunline? I once played against a Tyranid army and found that by having a semi-circle of moving devilfishes, it was tough for him to come near me... Once he did crack to devil fish, there was 6 more fire warriors waiting to stop him from moving 6, running a d6 and assaulting anything behind them.
Jump troops are hard to block since they can just jump over the obstructions. It's why I specified jump troops (and/or Skimmers), the typical blocking manuvers don't work as well, if at all, against them. Even if you do manage to position your DF in such a way to cut the jump short, use melta or melta pistols inside of 12" so your Dpods don't work, bust them open, assault 6" with furious charge into the troops that come out, wipe them out, then consolidate d6" towards the rest of the army, and possibly end up even closer than the jump and run would have taken me.
If anyone wants to look at the Ideas for tau codex thread go ahead.
on a legal note. Me and my friend who both play tau played agenst a team of crons and BA. we won by tabling. killing 40 warrors is not easy and his lord reaserected 5 times!
I must admit that he played the BA dreadfuly. he DS his landrader into a tiny gap between my broadsides and some area terrain. it failed and got sent to the other side of the board. It was the last model to die. If wondering, the monolith got killed on the first hit from a hammerhead.
.
Yeah, tell people WS3 > WS2 and therefore guardsmen are marginally better, and try to prove your point that way