So, Tau are my favourite (and only) faction right now, but they're also the most hated -- or least fun to play against -- according to this thread.
Leaving aside issues of bias and prejudice, which we're not going to be able to do much about in the span of one game, you still have the issue of Tau being really shooty and making a lot of the game non-interactive. Obviously, if you close with them they fold like a wet paper bag, but until then -- or if you get some bad charge / reserve rolls -- you're just target practice.
So, speaking as a Tau player, how do I make the game more fun for the people I play against ... and increase the odds of people wanting to get into a pickup game with me? Besides using lots of LoS-blocking terrain (which I personally enjoy) and refraining from using Riptides unless my opponent has something equivalent.
(One thing I thought of already: I bought an extra deck, and can offer to let my opponent use the new Tactical Supremacy objectives, which get rid of a lot of unwinnable ones and give out higher rewards for smashing stuff in assault. I also refuse to redraw my own unwinnable objectives, and instead try to plan around those being in the deck.)
EDIT FROM TWELVE PAGES LATER: This thread has given me the impression that Tau get hate way out of proportion to any reasonable analysis of their codex, just because everything about them rubs certain people the wrong way. If we were a low-tier list they would still find reasons to hate us, because just by existing we force them to think differently about how they play, how the 40k universe works, and how to regard RL people who are different from them.
There are valid complaints to be made, about playing against Tau. But when I posted this thread I assumed everyone already knew them, and I even mentioned them above. I thought that was all the time we needed to spend dwelling on that. I was looking for ways to get around these complaints, not to enable scrubs who don't want to change up the way that they play, but so I can change up the way that I play, to make things more challenging / interesting. Because believe it or not, I don't enjoy sitting on gunlines and being unable to contest the rest of the board. Or curbstomping fellow newbies.
Tactical objectives don't make the game more fun or more interactive. They increase chances of winning.
"Oh, I get a point for standing on objective 1? Yaaaaaay."
There is no way to make Tau more enjoyable to play against. The way that Tau plays is "hide far, far away from the opponent and shoot lots of guns that ignore cover, LOS, etc."
It's roughly equivalent in fun level to playing against mass wave serpents in 6th ed and mass scatter bikes in 7th.
Even if you used nothing but fire warriors, playing would still be rage inducing for me as a space marine player. "Oh, your guys fire at S5? They're better than my boltguns? Really?"
Traditio wrote: Tactical objectives don't make the game more fun or more interactive. They increase chances of winning.
"Oh, I get a point for standing on objective 1? Yaaaaaay."
But it promotes control of board and non-static gameplay. I immensely prefer tactical objectives, given how it means that you are forced to fight according to the game's random chance, and increases generalmanship, making you adapt on the fly. Static gunline or charge up to the enemy guns just feels so dull to me.
Traditio wrote: Even if you used nothing but fire warriors, playing would still be rage inducing for me as a space marine player. "Oh, your guys fire at S5? They're better than my boltguns? Really?"
I do apologise that no army can be better than your Space Marines, but it so happens that other armies are allowed to.
Honestly, there will always be people complaining. From what you've said, you already do a good job, maybe try out some themed lists?
I'm going to be starting a small Tau army myself soon, focusing on recon, stealth, and aerial assault. Of course, this means nothing bigger than a Riptide for me, and anything larger than a Stealth Suit will be used sparingly. But due to you preference of lots of LOS blockers, I'd say that your playstyle seems fine.
I'll tell you how to make the game more enjoyable against tau:
Round up all the tau players and have them write petitions, en masse, to GW to change the tau codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But it promotes control of board and non-static gameplay.
You should be striving for those things with or without tactical objectives. "Non-static gameplay" is pretty much what a fun game is. Thus the reason Tau are horrible to play against.
The fact that I get an extra point for having my guys stand on this spot doesn't change the fact that I'm playing against an army that stands in one spot and shoots a ridiculous number of ignores cover, often ignores LOS, etc. shots every turn.
Not to mention their JSJ nonsense, their overwatch nonsense, etc.
I do apologise that no army can be better than your Space Marines, but it so happens that other armies are allowed to.
Why should a 9 ppm model base infantry, a model that represents, for all intents and purposes, an average, rank and file infantryman in a relatively new, fledgling society have a better gun than my 14 ppm ELITE, GENETICALLY ALTERED SUPER SOLDIER DEMIGOD?
Traditio wrote: I'll tell you how to make the game more enjoyable against tau:
Round up all the tau players and have them write petitions, en masse, to GW to change the tau codex.
Not sure how constructive this is, and OP is certainly able to try and change their playstyle to affect gameplay. This is not the only solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But it promotes control of board and non-static gameplay.
You should be striving for those things with or without tactical objectives. "Non-static gameplay" is pretty much what a fun game is. Thus the reason Tau are horrible to play against.
The fact that I get an extra point for having my guys stand on this spot doesn't change the fact that I'm playing against an army that stands in one spot and shoots a ridiculous number of ignores cover, often ignores LOS, etc. shots every turn.
Not to mention their JSJ nonsense, their overwatch nonsense, etc.
Okay, but that's only a single style of play. Pretty much any army can play gunline. Marines can easily pull it off with Scouts, TFC, Devastators and suchlike. And given the potential of Gladius transports to outmaneuver and reach all of those objectives, a Gladius force can easily win Maelstrom missions.
So, OP, another idea: try to play non-gunline Tau. Use Devilfish squads and other units suchlike to play a fast, mobile force which fights at the close range.
I do apologise that no army can be better than your Space Marines, but it so happens that other armies are allowed to.
Why should a 9 ppm model base infantry, a model that represents, for all intents and purposes, an average, rank and file infantryman in a relatively new, fledgling society have a better gun than my 14 ppm ELITE, GENETICALLY ALTERED SUPER SOLDIER DEMIGOD?
Oh yes. The race which has always been described as being innovative and technically exceptional should have no bearing on the stagnant, decaying archaic procedure of the Imperium. [/sarcasm]
Genetically engineered is represented by T4, as opposed to T3 of a guardsman. How that affects the strength of their gun, I will never know. But that fledging society is supported in all accounts of fluff as being very well equipped and technologically powerful.
If we wanted true-to-life marines, there would be only about five on the table in a 1000 point game.
I trash talk Tau a lot, but it just so happens that a fortuitous situation has me aquiring a Tau army. I don't plan on using Riptides, Stormsurges or Piranha Wings, instead relying on mass Crisis Suits. I've got only one source of Markerlights and one squad with a Buff Sergeant, and both of those additions are there to help deal with Lords of War when I should happen to come across them (which is often enough, blah).
By not taking a TripTide wing or spamming Markerlights, I'm basically playing as a cross between IG and Space Marines, both of which can tear my force a new one if competently piloted. A lot of the hate on Tau comes from things like the OSC, massed Riptide spam, 109's, and ignores cover for everything, and that's from personal experience. By not utilizing those powerful units and tactics, as well as having the majority of my force operating within 24" of the enemy, I'm required to then use more movement and tactics to pull off objectives.
Will I still get hate? Yes. Is it easier to win than with my IG force? Yes. Will I have an auto-win, rage-inducing button every game? No.
It isn't going to be easy, but by playing with a more varied list than what people are winning tourney games and by proving to your opponent that you're not a WAAC anime fan, you'll reap the rewards in a social context, which is really what the core of this game is.
There's a reason that "Forge the Narrative" exists; this game will never be balanced to a pure tournament level, so it's on the players to make it fun. Any time there is cutthroat competition in life people are going to end up butthurt. Save the power units for tournaments and bring out some Vespid and Tiger Sharks!
As a general rule the more infantry and tanks you take this edition vs bikes and MC/GMC will help to make the game more fun and even against many factions. That's been my experience as a marine players.
Here is what I would do to make a game against Tau more enjoyable:
1. Leave the big guys at home, like the riptide and the stormsurge. You know your local meta better than me, and if other people have plenty of options to deal with them like being eldar or have access to mass grav, take one or two with you, but not more.
2. Keep the equipment low. Tau have some nasty stuff like every guy can get interceptor for 5 points, or a buffmonder which gives everyone twinlinked and ignore cover. Put these options on some dudes but don´t overextend with it.
3. Reduce your amount of shots. Instead of putting in hordes of Broadsides with rockets, maybe equip them with the railguns or take a normal Hammerhead with you.
4. Don´t use that special formation or detachment thing where 3 or more units can combine their fire. The rule is good, maybe to good and you will most likely run into a rule discussion concerning the sharing of special rules while combining your fire.
5. Experiment. Again, I don´t know how hard your meta is, so I would just experiment with stuff. Play a fish of furry, put in some fliers, take kroot, do a massive frontline rush with devilfishes and so on. Don´t just play the normal gunline with suicide crisis.
GreenShoes wrote: I trash talk Tau a lot, but it just so happens that a fortuitous situation has me aquiring a Tau army. I don't plan on using Riptides, Stormsurges or Piranha Wings, instead relying on mass Crisis Suits. I've got only one source of Markerlights and one squad with a Buff Sergeant, and both of those additions are there to help deal with Lords of War when I should happen to come across them (which is often enough, blah).
By not taking a TripTide wing or spamming Markerlights, I'm basically playing as a cross between IG and Space Marines, both of which can tear my force a new one if competently piloted. A lot of the hate on Tau comes from things like the OSC, massed Riptide spam, 109's, and ignores cover for everything, and that's from personal experience. By not utilizing those powerful units and tactics, as well as having the majority of my force operating within 24" of the enemy, I'm required to then use more movement and tactics to pull off objectives.
Will I still get hate? Yes. Is it easier to win than with my IG force? Yes. Will I have an auto-win, rage-inducing button every game? No.
It isn't going to be easy, but by playing with a more varied list than what people are winning tourney games and by proving to your opponent that you're not a WAAC anime fan, you'll reap the rewards in a social context, which is really what the core of this game is.
There's a reason that "Forge the Narrative" exists; this game will never be balanced to a pure tournament level, so it's on the players to make it fun. Any time there is cutthroat competition in life people are going to end up butthurt. Save the power units for tournaments and bring out some Vespid and Tiger Sharks!
The fact that your playing Tau. It could be mass Vespid, Kroot, and Sniper Drones means they will bitch. They will always bitch. There is nothing you can do to not make them bitch unless its not play Tau. At some point your going to get sick of using the same units and want to try anything better and they will rage more. Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it. Tau are certified to be allowed to be bitched about or something. I don't know.
You have three options. 1. Learn to feast on their tears 2. Ignore them and play Tau 3. Don't play Tau.
I usually feast on their tears these days since nothing I tried to do made them stop whining. So may as well justify their whining.
Gamgee wrote: I usually feast on their tears these days since nothing I tried to do made them stop whining. So may as well justify their whining.
I seem to recall that's the fifth stage of playing Eldar, according to a BoLS comic. ^^;
Personally, I'd rather just not play against anyone who's going to complain no matter what. But I do want interactive and fluffy battles, and gaming partners who are as excited to play as I am.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, OP, another idea: try to play non-gunline Tau. Use Devilfish squads and other units suchlike to play a fast, mobile force which fights at the close range.
That's actually what I'm most interested in. ^^; I want to use all the tools at my disposal, from deep striking Crisis suits to infiltrating Kroot blobs, in order to contest objectives and respond to new threats. And I really like Devilfish, despite their rep for being too expensive. I just recently built a whole team of Breachers, and I'm looking forward to the high-risk, high-reward playstyle they enable.
GreenShoes wrote: I trash talk Tau a lot, but it just so happens that a fortuitous situation has me aquiring a Tau army. I don't plan on using Riptides, Stormsurges or Piranha Wings, instead relying on mass Crisis Suits.
Have you considered playing Farsight? Mass Crisis suits (and a lack of superheavies) is fluffy for them.
I personally want to try out a Stormsurge, but I'd have a hard time justifying it narratively for my cadre (they're basically park rangers), and I wouldn't want to bring out a superheavy unless my opponent also has one that they wanted to use.
Riptides I feel are more bark than bite, and have a reputation way out of proportion to their actual firepower, perhaps because of how hard it feels like it is to kill them. A Riptide Wing might be fun to put against equally big models, but a single Riptide seems (to this newb) like it's more of a "Distraction Carnifex" / bullet sponge than an artillery piece.
Fauk wrote: 2. Keep the equipment low. Tau have some nasty stuff like every guy can get interceptor for 5 points, or a buffmonder which gives everyone twinlinked and ignore cover. Put these options on some dudes but don´t overextend with it.
Well, the thing about interceptor is that it's basically mandatory in a meta where drop pods and Chaos Daemons exist. >_>; As noninteractive as the stereotypical Tau gunline is, a turn 1 opponent's-table-edge alpha strike could just as easily murder my list, especially with something like Skyhammer.
Fauk wrote: 3. Reduce your amount of shots. Instead of putting in hordes of Broadsides with rockets, maybe equip them with the railguns or take a normal Hammerhead with you.
I personally want to have squads of both rail- and missilesides, but I feel like the biggest problem here is just that players get intimidated by Tau rolling buckets of dice, which happens even at lower points levels with stuff like burst cannons and pulse fire. I'm not sure there's really a way to make that more "fun" or less threatening. Mostly I want to help provide other players with options to keep that from happening (like LoS blocking terrain), plus incentive to risk it (like the "+1 VP for assaulting" objectives), while giving myself incentive to move out of cover (like Breachers and tactical objectives).
Fauk wrote: 4. Don´t use that special formation or detachment thing where 3 or more units can combine their fire. The rule is good, maybe to good and you will most likely run into a rule discussion concerning the sharing of special rules while combining your fire.
I personally like Decurion-style formations, and I think it's pretty obvious that they're meant to share special rules (overcosted HQs that only buff a single unit have been a Tau weakness for a long time, and kept us from fully committing to either death star or MSU playstyles). I feel like I'd rather not use a Hunter Contingent unless my opponent has their own Decurion though, just to be fair.
Ill explain a great way to have more fun for yourself, and your opponent, while playing Tau.
Firstly, bring Kroot. As an Owner of nearly 12k points of Tau and having an almost full on Kroot Cavalcade of Riders and Knarlocs most times people exclaim a large amount of disdain when I tell them I play Tau until they see my army. Yes I own a few Riptides, (3 to be exact) even a R`Varna but I rarely use either of them and almost never take 2 in a list unless my opponents tells me it`s ok (Usually after a few games with them and we get chummy, in which he well knows I play to have fun, and can tell I`m holding back a great deal of the Tau Codex for good reason)
This usually happens when people want to test out of a particularly strong list against my Tau, which Im all for and give them a good fight. But aside that.
Bring Broadsides with HRRs Hammerheads with Cannons, take Vespids, hell bring Piranhas. Anything to spice up the current outlook on how Tau players are always trying to `Win by default`Bring a fun, new army match up to their expectations of Tau gameplay and you will both have fun.
As a player from both sides of the spectrum, I have had some massively disappointing games as of late against the top 3 armies considered least fun to play against and have even been trash talked by these said players when I bring semi competitive lists against their WAAC lists. No one likes those games. So just play for giggles and you`ll make great friends in the hobby quite quickly with your quirky lists and light spirit towards GWs blatant disrespect for Codex Balance (While you externally balance it yourself)
GoliothOnline wrote: Ill explain a great way to have more fun for yourself, and your opponent, while playing Tau.
I actually want to make an allied cadre of Kroot and Vespid, including Krootoxes and Shapers. ^^; Forge World doesn't sell Gnarlocs and stuff anymore though :c Idk when they'll change that.
I also have been hoping to try out an Ethereal + Sniper Drone Team combo, partly because it's unusual and partly because my park rangers need a way to tag megafauna from a safe distance.
I wonder if just bringing Ethereals in general helps. Partly because they encourage a closer-range, infantry-heavy playstyle, and partly because they grant VP when killed. I'm 2/3 of the way to having an Ethereal Council made up of the hover drone models.
I feel like it's kind of sad, though, that a lot of the advice that I'm getting here centres on "don't take stuff that makes people feel threatened." >_>; I wonder if there are also ways to help buff other lists, or psychologically prepare people. I really think the new Tactical Supremacy Objectives may be underrated, and that "+1 VP for Assault" cards might help change the meta if their use was widespread.
(Oh yeah, another interesting list to try would be melee-heavy Farsight ... )
The whole 'mobile warfare' idea feels like a very fluffy way to play Tau, too. They're supposed to be all about manoeuvre warfare, not standing still and shooting things. At least, that's the impression I get whenever I hear about them warring in the fluff,
Don't bring heavy rail rifles. They are so bad I almost guarantee a loss against all but the most brain dead opponents. They are terrible weapons even compared to Chaos codex.
I once took Broadsides with HRR and my opponent said I didn't have to after that game they were so ineffective. Yep.... they are bad. Maybe even as bad as Vespid but in a different way.
In six rounds of shooting they managed to dent one tank which he just repaired. He laughed. At my Tyranids opponent half my HRR shots were missing and the ones that hit were not inflicting enough casualties. I managed to barely win both these games through objectives but I had a game plan.
They were so sure the HRR were so OP and good I had to show them first hand how bad they were.
Ugh, Tau are fun in fluff, but on the tabletop they are awful to play against. Even gunline IG is more exciting. Tau are just so static and boring.
You can make Tau more fun by including dynamic units like Kroot, Vespid or pretty much any unit that doesn't just sit on the edge of the board shooting all day (gunline units are fine, but an entire army of them is not) and by including lots and lots of scenery to force the Tau player to actually get moving in order to find good firing lines etc. Scenery also has the benefit giving assaulty armies at least a chance to get into combat and win.
That brings us to the second reason why Tau aren't much fun. They are too strong compared to most other armies in the game. Only thing to do about this is to not take more than one of the most powerful units, maybe take some weak units (if it is fluffy) and pray every day that GW will make the other codices good again.
So to sum it up, the best advice is to build an army that is dynamic, not static and to avoid the units that are generally seen as OP. Taking units that aren't used much in (competitive) Tau lists also helps.
It is the biggest shame FW stopped selling those fun Kroot models. I was actually about to start a Kroot-centered Tau force when they went OOP.
eskimo wrote: A thought that crossed my mind is removing the assault moves from them. Not having this prevents having a crutch on movement mistakes.
This would perhaps help me to enjoy the game knowing you couldn't run off. But depends on your meta ofcourse.
I've personally found Jump-Shoot-Jump to be a little bit overrated. >_>; At the least, it's a skill that I need to develop. Because the effective melta range on my crisis suits is 9", and while they can assault move an average of 7" a bad move (or poor die roll) can kill the whole squad. Obvs I can put plasma or missiles on them as well, but they're kind of my biggest anti-tank resource right now.
There are a lot of other hard to hit targets in 40k, like fliers, Ravenwing bikes, and 2++ Space Marine death stars. Do people hate Crisis suits just because getting pop-tarted by somewhat-expensive weapon platforms is more annoying than 2+ rerollable jink?
I think that the best solution might just be to hold stuff in reserves to deal with them (like when my IG opponent shot my Crisis suits off the board on his turn with an aircraft's lascannon). Something that I could do to help might be to point out "hey I'm going to deep strike these to deal with your tanks, are you sure those are all the models you want in reserves?" Pointing out stuff like that might help players adjust, to the unusual challenge that Tau present.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Don't bring heavy rail rifles. They are so bad I almost guarantee a loss
Aw, but they look so cool! :c
I guess I needed to buy Hammerheads for that "Tank Shock" organized play event anyway >_>; assuming a store within 5 hours of me is running it.
OP, I feel your pain. I was a dick recently in a casual game and played a list with both an OSC and a Stormsurge in it, against a friend of mine who plays Khorne Daemonkin. I was ashamed by how badly I destroyed him even though he brought a Kytan and two D-thirsters. He surrendered early in the game (on turn 1 actually), because I killed his Kytan with the Stormsurge's D-missiles and dropped one of the 'thirsters in my shooting phase and was probably going to table him by turn 3 at the latest. So I've been looking for ways to make it fun for us to play. Problem is, most of the lists I come up with even without the OSC and Stormsurge seem a bit strong for casual play, yet weak for tournament play. I like some of the suggestions in this thread, and will take some of them to heart. One thing I thought of was using the Start Collecting box formation as part of the army, as it isn't that strong but is more interesting than just a CAD.
Being a guard player I hate fighting tau almost as much as I hate fighting necrons.
Why? They out-shoot us, they out-manoeuvre us, they have abilities akin to our FRFSRF... but S5 and longer range, weapons that ignore LOS, god knows how many buffs, drones that make it a pain to shoot at anything.... then add the fact they have all those high toughness suits which mean I can't insta death them.... nor make them blow up in one shot. Oh then add to the fact you have kroot who can be decent in cc.
Yeah, real fun. It may just be Guards sad state of affairs atm (we're by no means chaos) but it's always incredibly frustrating fighting tau as guard.
Baldeagle91 wrote: Being a guard player I hate fighting tau almost as much as I hate fighting necrons.
Why? They out-shoot us, they out-manoeuvre us, they have abilities akin to our FRFSRF... but S5 and longer range, weapons that ignore LOS, god knows how many buffs, drones that make it a pain to shoot at anything.... then add the fact they have all those high toughness suits which mean I can't insta death them.... nor make them blow up in one shot. Oh then add to the fact you have kroot who can be decent in cc.
Yeah, real fun. It may just be Guards sad state of affairs atm (we're by no means chaos) but it's always incredibly frustrating fighting tau as guard.
The last time I got into a game against IG, they actually did lots of damage. ^^; They had like 3 tanks in a 1,000 point list, and brought in a fighter to lascannon my suits. I ended up winning, but that's because I had better manoeuvring and he set stuff up in a gunline.
I don't know what suggestions to make to an IG player, but if it's any consolation I'd let you use the Decurion / relics / formations / warlord traits / tactical objectives from Mont'ka if you wanted. ^^; Even if you had to proxy stuff.
EDIT: One thing that could help is to give people carapace armour. Our pulse weapons blast through "t-shirts" like nothing, but they only have AP 5. My IG opponent's infantry were pretty tough, and I don't think I ever managed to get rid of the ones in the ruins.
Baldeagle91 wrote: Being a guard player I hate fighting tau almost as much as I hate fighting necrons.
Why? They out-shoot us, they out-manoeuvre us, they have abilities akin to our FRFSRF... but S5 and longer range, weapons that ignore LOS, god knows how many buffs, drones that make it a pain to shoot at anything.... then add the fact they have all those high toughness suits which mean I can't insta death them.... nor make them blow up in one shot. Oh then add to the fact you have kroot who can be decent in cc.
Yeah, real fun. It may just be Guards sad state of affairs atm (we're by no means chaos) but it's always incredibly frustrating fighting tau as guard.
The last time I got into a game against IG, they actually did lots of damage. ^^; They had like 3 tanks in a 1,000 point list, and brought in a fighter to lascannon my suits. I ended up winning, but that's because I had better manoeuvring and he set stuff up in a gunline.
I don't know what suggestions to make to an IG player, but if it's any consolation I'd let you use the Decurion / formations / warlord traits / tactical objectives from Mont'ka if you wanted. ^^; Even if you had to proxy stuff.
Tbh it's not an auto loose playing Tau, most of my games a pretty much draws when I fight them. It's more that if I fight tau I do well because either A) I'm extremely lucky or B) My opponent makes horrific mistakes.
Yes Vendetta's can be a threat to crisis teams, but they're hardly cheap and the amount of AA Tau can spam is quite scary. Our AA by comparison is either Vendetta's (good but expensive) or Hydras (Garbage). Then add the fact that vehicles (especially tanks) are pretty rubbish in 7th it's pretty obvious the result. Tbh I have a ton of tanks, it scares the hell out of my opponents when they see them, but they generally underperform. Guard arty is slightly different, but in the end you're still relying on blast weapons on a AV 12/10/10 platform which get torn to shreds by deepstriking and outflanking units.
Formations are all well and good, but guard formations are all very... 'meh'. Unless you start getting into much larger games and they start becoming a little OP. Again warlord traits are very 'meh'. The only two worthwhile guard formations is the "Emperors Fist Armored company" and the The "Emperors Wrath Artillery Company" which have major flaws, especially vs tau. Then add to the fact the harsh reality is tau can cover all those aspect.... but better.
I think, for me, all they need to do is scale back how powerful Markerlights are.
If they simply made it so markerlights gave enemy units a -1 cover penalty per markerlight burnt, rather than 2 simply remove all cover, I would be okay with that.
Because of their ability to bring loads of high-volume AP2/3 weaponry, and the fact it's super easy to ignore cover in their codex, it simply makes it so they remove all your units and there's no resistance on your part. The thrill of even super rare saves is gone.
eskimo wrote: A thought that crossed my mind is removing the assault moves from them. Not having this prevents having a crutch on movement mistakes.
This would perhaps help me to enjoy the game knowing you couldn't run off. But depends on your meta ofcourse.
I've personally found Jump-Shoot-Jump to be a little bit overrated. >_>; At the least, it's a skill that I need to develop. Because the effective melta range on my crisis suits is 9", and while they can assault move an average of 7" a bad move (or poor die roll) can kill the whole squad. Obvs I can put plasma or missiles on them as well, but they're kind of my biggest anti-tank resource right now.
There are a lot of other hard to hit targets in 40k, like fliers, Ravenwing bikes, and 2++ Space Marine death stars. Do people hate Crisis suits just because getting pop-tarted by somewhat-expensive weapon platforms is more annoying than 2+ rerollable jink?
I think that the best solution might just be to hold stuff in reserves to deal with them (like when my IG opponent shot my Crisis suits off the board on his turn with an aircraft's lascannon). Something that I could do to help might be to point out "hey I'm going to deep strike these to deal with your tanks, are you sure those are all the models you want in reserves?" Pointing out stuff like that might help players adjust, to the unusual challenge that Tau present.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Don't bring heavy rail rifles. They are so bad I almost guarantee a loss
Aw, but they look so cool! :c
I guess I needed to buy Hammerheads for that "Tank Shock" organized play event anyway >_>; assuming a store within 5 hours of me is running it.
That's the problem with out codex. The things that are good are amazing, but the things that are bad are near useless. We have no internal codex balance like Eldar or Necrons with vast swathes of choice. We have our few really outstanding things and that's it. We're lucky to have a few mid-tier units that would be great for casual play. A lot of choices are just terrible. Our fliers are useless for example. Without formations drones are mostly junk. Railguns of all types suck the big one and are unlikely to damage anything. Overcosted transports for troops (not likely to bother you). The transport is a mid-ter unit so its not that bad. THen stack on Kroot being better snipers than in melee, terrible vespid, and bad sniper drones. Without formations stealth suits die like fruit flies. Even with formations they die off like fruit flies hiding behind a cover save.
Before the new update came out I was hoping for massive internal changes. Instead our best stuff got better and our worst stuff got worse then all the new units to come out worked well and synergized well with the existing good stuff. Just over half my codex feels useless to me as a fairly competitive guy. Then when I want to make a list better and include a few good units they are way too good. So there is extremes and no middles in our codex. Kroot thankfully are one of our middle options. I like them a lot for toning down lists while not being super uselss. They are the AA star of mid tier Tau. Hahah.
The big thing with Tau is that they're very "gimmicky". Much like Eldar. They rely on tons of exceptions to the rules and ignoring lots of stuff, and that's inherently annoying. The MC suits (and accompanying absurd formations that dramatically ramp up their already incredible capabilities) really don't help.
Take the MC robots out and change Markerlights to -1 to cover save per markerlight instead of 2 markerlights ignoring cover entirely, and the the army becomes a lot more reasonable.
Traditio wrote: Tactical objectives don't make the game more fun or more interactive. They increase chances of winning.
"Oh, I get a point for standing on objective 1? Yaaaaaay."
But it promotes control of board and non-static gameplay.
I immensely prefer tactical objectives, given how it means that you are forced to fight according to the game's random chance, and increases generalmanship, making you adapt on the fly. Static gunline or charge up to the enemy guns just feels so dull to me.
Random chance doesn't require generalship, it simply stresses mobility in most cases, which varies from army to army, and really has very little to do with command ability. Responding to threats and opportunities is generalship, not "go take point #6 (doesn't matter if you hold it or not, just stand on it for a bit as long as no enemies are nearby), now kill something flying, now stab something (but it doesn't count if you shoot it), now manifest a psychic power (sucks if you have no psykers)", etc.
Vaktathi wrote: Random chance doesn't require generalship, it simply stresses mobility in most cases, which varies from army to army, and really has very little to do with command ability. Responding to threats and opportunities is generalship, not "go take point #6 (doesn't matter if you hold it or not, just stand on it for a bit as long as no enemies are nearby), now kill something flying, now stab something (but it doesn't count if you shoot it), now manifest a psychic power (sucks if you have no psykers)", etc.
Very good points, and as a narrative player I struggle to justify a lot of the objectives. Who is making my troops run across the board back and forth, and why? o_O
I personally like Cryostorm objectives partly because of this (and partly because they seem better balanced). The "objective" half of the deck largely involves fighting over drop sites for supplies with a huge storm incoming, and I can easily imagine airdrops being somewhat random when the wind's kicking up. I also like how Cities of Death says that one of your starting objectives is always 5-3, and I'm wondering if there are other ways of making it more interesting / fluffy.
Regarding Tau MCs, I kind of feel like that simulates anime mecha better than walker rules. Don't ask me to justify the Stormsurge and T'aunar's GMC status, though. >_>; They even called the Stormsurge a "ballistic suit" instead of a battlesuit.
Markerlights I agree may need rebalancing, but I'm not certain how. I kind of feel like the existence of "ignores cover" is a necessary counter, in the meta, to stuff like Ravenwing. It keeps you from going all-in on something that lists withoutIC can't handle.
People are still bitter from when they couldn't beat Tau three editions ago, and forget how much Tau got neutered in 7th. Even with the current codex update and warzone suppliments, Tau just on par with Gladius Marines, and still under Scatpack Eldar. Tau can be killed by the exact same lists people build to kill MEQ lists, which means they are on par with exactly half of the armies currently in the game. If you want game that are more fun, find people to play against that are less bitter.
jeffersonian000 wrote: People are still bitter from when they couldn't beat Tau three editions ago
I'd wager 90%+ of the playerbase has no knowledge of Tau in 4E...because they never played it. Nor really were Tau the worst thing in 4E.
and forget how much Tau got neutered in 7th.
In what way did they get neutered?
Even with the current codex update and warzone suppliments, Tau just on par with Gladius Marines, and still under Scatpack Eldar.
So...basically they aren't the #1 most absurdly broken overpowered thing, but are absolutely on par with the other, still highly absurdly overpowered things that are only just under the #1 thing
Vaktathi wrote: Random chance doesn't require generalship, it simply stresses mobility in most cases, which varies from army to army, and really has very little to do with command ability. Responding to threats and opportunities is generalship, not "go take point #6 (doesn't matter if you hold it or not, just stand on it for a bit as long as no enemies are nearby), now kill something flying, now stab something (but it doesn't count if you shoot it), now manifest a psychic power (sucks if you have no psykers)", etc.
Very good points, and as a narrative player I struggle to justify a lot of the objectives. Who is making my troops run across the board back and forth, and why? o_O
Exactly, it really guts any narrative feeling.
Regarding Tau MCs, I kind of feel like that simulates anime mecha better than walker rules. Don't ask me to justify the Stormsurge and T'aunar's GMC status, though. >_>; They even called the Stormsurge a "ballistic suit" instead of a battlesuit.
The problem there is that they just end up being way harder to kill than equivalently costed tanks, and are available in FoC slots that those heavy battle tanks aren't, but put out equivalent (or greater) firepower with far more flexibility and maneuverability.
Markerlights I agree may need rebalancing, but I'm not certain how. I kind of feel like the existence of "ignores cover" is a necessary counter, in the meta, to stuff like Ravenwing. It keeps you from going all-in on something that lists withoutIC can't handle.
The cover modifying stuff is allright, but when basically any weapon in the army can be made to ignore all cover, it really is a lot more powerful than it should be. That said, stuff like Ravenwing bikers with 2+ rerollable jink saves also shouldn't be a thing either
jeffersonian000 wrote: People are still bitter from when they couldn't beat Tau three editions ago, and forget how much Tau got neutered in 7th. Even with the current codex update and warzone suppliments, Tau just on par with Gladius Marines, and still under Scatpack Eldar. Tau can be killed by the exact same lists people build to kill MEQ lists, which means they are on par with exactly half of the armies currently in the game. If you want game that are more fun, find people to play against that are less bitter.
SJ
Oh, Tau got "neutered"? They went from "the most OP army" to "only the second-most OP army"? I am sure CSM players feel so very sorry for you... And no, I have never played anything before 6th and know no one else who did. Tau have always been OP and are still OP, alongside Eldar. Meanwhile, Orks and CSM have always been next to useless.
Tau lost Eldar as battle brothers. Great loss, huh? There were all those articles about which was more cost effective, hundreds of points of markerlights, or a single farseer.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not sure how constructive this is, and OP is certainly able to try and change their playstyle to affect gameplay. This is not the only solution.
Fair enough. I do wish to address these comments to the OP:
1. I see in your signature that you own 1750 points of Tau. It probably wouldn't be fair of me or anyone else to insist that you not run your army, whatever it may be. 40k models are expensive. Putting them together and painting them also costs time and money. Unlike other people in this thread, I won't tell you not to run certain units. I also wont tell you that you should buy units that you don't have.
2. I will tell you, however, that you should play at a points disadvantage depending on your opponent. Your opponent is playing a non-optimized, non-tournament list? Your opponent, furthermore, is not running Tau or Eldar? Lets say...20-25% point advantage for your opponent. You run your 1750 list? Your opponent runs somewhere in the ballpark of 2100-2200 points worth of models.
Oh yes. The race which has always been described as being innovative and technically exceptional should have no bearing on the stagnant, decaying archaic procedure of the Imperium. [/sarcasm]
Even so, the following must be considered:
1. As technologically advanced as the Tau are, and as much progress as the Tau are making, the Imperium and the Eldar remain the most technologically advanced factions in the 40 universe. The Imperium has probably forgotten much more technology than the Tau will learn for hundreds, if not thousands, of years (if the IoM doesn't exterminate them before they have the chance). The great military advantage of the Tau, fluffwise, is that they are extremely adaptable and aren't bogged down by traditions. They aren't beholden to a little rulebook (unlike the Space Marines are) which tells them exactly what they should do in such and such circumstances.
In a universe that's playing by WWI and WWII rules, the tau are playing by the rules of modern warfare.
2. Granted that the Imperium is one of the, if not the, most technologically advanced faction in the 40k universe, the Space Marines are the Emporer's angels of death. They are the Emporer's fury. They are his special "children." As such, they have access to the best of the best that the Imperium has in the way of wargear. They are the best of the best, the cream of the crop, of what the Imperial forces have to offer. They are elite, genetically altered super soldier demigods, and they have the equipment to match
To speak broadly in Dragon Ball Z terminology: Space Marines are the Saiyans of the Imperium.
It makes absolutely no sense that some xenos hillbilly from some backwater planet should have a better gun simply because he decided to join the Communist party and enlist as a rank and file infantryman.
People are constantly berating Space Marine tacticals, and I've been criticized for saying that tactical marines should be better. But the fact is, a base troop choice in the space marines codex really is what should be equivalent to an elites choice in other codices.
No. Tau infantry should be able to shoot as good as space marines (on a good day), and Ork infantry. should be able to assault as good as space marines (on a good day). There should be none of this "better" nonsense.
If we wanted true-to-life marines, there would be only about five on the table in a 1000 point game.
There would be 20 on the table in a 1000 points game. I once recall someone telling me that, somewhere in the fluff, a certain space marine leader (possibly Rowboat Girlyman) asserts that 1 space marine = 10 imperial guardsmen in combat utility.
Okay, guys, I know I asked for suggestions and all
But I'm not going to burn all my rulebooks or melt down my models, okay? So please chill. ^^;
I'm not making anyone play against me, so if you don't like that my line infantry can beat up your bald ubermensch, put the chainsword away and just walk. Using gardening tools as weaponry isn't a more legit power fantasy than piloting cel-shaded robots. It doesn't make you a better person, and it doesn't mean your enjoyment of the game and the hobby is more important than mine.
I'm doing my best to listen and be a good, sporting opponent. I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of the effect that Tau have on the meta. "Anime fans go home" is not one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Fair enough. I do wish to address these comments to the OP:
I'm actually okay with having a points handicap if it makes a particular opponent feel better. >_>b I just feel like it's the kind of thing that would stick, you know? I'd rather address specific weaknesses of my opponent's list, and help them have a fair chance against what I brought.
I personally respect the Astartes as the super-powered soldiers they are in the fluff. I just also like that technology, unity, and tactics allow my Fire Warriors to go up against them and win. Whether on the squad level (which has a similar appeal to the IG) or using our battlesuits (which is like the closest thing we have to Terminators).
Jewelfox wrote: Okay, guys, I know I asked for suggestions and all
But I'm not going to burn all my rulebooks or melt down my models, okay? So please chill. ^^;
With all due respect, if you're referring to me:
I didn't recommend that you burn the rulebooks or melt your models. In terms of practical advice, what I advised is that you play at a points disadvantage, depending on your opponent.
Jewelfox wrote: Okay, guys, I know I asked for suggestions and all
But I'm not going to burn all my rulebooks or melt down my models, okay? So please chill. ^^;
With all due respect, if you're referring to me:
I didn't recommend that you burn the rulebooks or melt your models. In terms of practical advice, what I advised is that you play at a points disadvantage.
I think you should suggest they play with "wound/glance on 6's" bolters. That's practical.
But in all seriousness, play a very terrain heavy game or Zone Mortalis. It's a very good balance to Tau
Tactical_Spam 684403 8535000 wrote:I think you should suggest they play with "wound/glance on 6's" bolters. That's practical.
1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?
People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.
2. The "you get hurt on a 6" rule wouldn't really help against Tau anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jewelfox wrote:Super-soldiers need super-opponents.
That's why Tyrranids and Necrons (as well as Chaos Space marines, and Chaos in general) exist.
Seriously, the Tau aren't super anything. They are much closer, fluffwise, to something like the Imperial Guard. As the soviet union was to the United States, so too are the Tau to the Imperium. Except not perceived as nearly as great of a threat.
Tactical_Spam 684403 8535000 wrote:I think you should suggest they play with "wound/glance on 6's" bolters. That's practical.
1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?
People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.
2. The "you get hurt on a 6" rule wouldn't really help against Tau anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jewelfox wrote:Super-soldiers need super-opponents.
That's why Tyrranids and Necrons exist.
Trust me, Traditio. If I could rewrite SM (of all flavours) to represent what they are in the fluff, I would.
1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?
People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.
ITT: Impractical weapons of terror ought to beat out weapons of war
Jewelfox wrote:Super-soldiers need super-opponents.
That's why Tyrranids and Necrons (as well as Chaos Space marines, and Chaos in general) exist.
Seriously, the Tau aren't super anything. They are much closer, fluffwise, to something like the Imperial Guard. As the soviet union was to the United States, so too are the Tau to the Imperium. Except not perceived as nearly as great of a threat.
Probably the best way to play against tau and hopefully have fun ( my opponent does when we do this at least ) is play on a board with a city mock up , lots of buildings designated into blocks . Oh and this setup actually makes vespid a ok choice
Oh yes. The race which has always been described as being innovative and technically exceptional should have no bearing on the stagnant, decaying archaic procedure of the Imperium. [/sarcasm]
Even so, the following must be considered:
1. As technologically advanced as the Tau are, and as much progress as the Tau are making, the Imperium and the Eldar remain the most technologically advanced factions in the 40 universe. The Imperium has probably forgotten much more technology than the Tau will learn for hundreds, if not thousands, of years (if the IoM doesn't exterminate them before they have the chance). The great military advantage of the Tau, fluffwise, is that they are extremely adaptable and aren't bogged down by traditions. They aren't beholden to a little rulebook (unlike the Space Marines are) which tells them exactly what they should do in such and such circumstances.
In a universe that's playing by WWI and WWII rules, the tau are playing by the rules of modern warfare.
2. Granted that the Imperium is one of the, if not the, most technologically advanced faction in the 40k universe, the Space Marines are the Emporer's angels of death. They are the Emporer's fury. They are his special "children." As such, they have access to the best of the best that the Imperium has in the way of wargear. They are the best of the best, the cream of the crop, of what the Imperial forces have to offer. They are elite, genetically altered super soldier demigods, and they have the equipment to match
Got to correct you on this, because the Imperium aren't close to being the most technologically advanced faction in the 40k universe. It could be argued that they're more advanced than the Tau, but the Eldar factions and the Necrons are far, far above them in terms of tech level, and there are other, more minor factions like the Slaugth who are also superior in their fields of expertise.
Between all of them, Necrons sit at the top, however.
Robin5t wrote:Tot to correct you on this, because the Imperium aren't close to being the most technologically advanced faction in the 40k universe. It could be argued that they're more advanced than the Tau, but the Eldar factions and the Necrons are far, far above them in terms of tech level, and there are other, more minor factions like the Slaugth who are also superior in their fields of expertise.
Between all of them, Necrons sit at the top, however.
I don't necessarily want to disagree with anything that you've said. I do, however, wish to note the following:
1. Necron warriors are 13 ppm. Necron immortals are 15 ppm. [In my view, Necron troops are undercosted for what they do, but let's ignore this for the time being.] Dire avengers are 13 ppm. Tactical marines are 14 ppm. Fire warriors are 9 ppm. One of these things is not like the other. Just saying.
2. Regardless of who precisely is "Top Dog," it nonetheless still has to be admitted that the Tau simply aren't it. They are a new, fledgling society. Are they up and coming with great promise? Sure. Their situation is comparable to that in which China is now when compared to the United States [except, of course, the Tau are significantly less of a threat in the eyes of the Imperium].
It simply makes no sense that their 9 ppm xenos version of imperial guardsman should be able to outshoot my 14 ppm super soldiers. This is simply indisputable.
It would be like an average Chinese soldier being able to outshoot Captain America, presupposing that Captain America has been armed with the best small arms that the United States has to offer.
Jewelfox wrote: I'm doing my best to listen and be a good, sporting opponent. I think there are a lot of valid criticisms of the effect that Tau have on the meta. "Anime fans go home" is not one of them.
IMO your willingness to use lots of terrain is already a good thing. My Tau buddy has never done my SoB over as badly as poor Martel's Blood Angels seem to fare (one story was 1200 pts wiped out in one turn IIRC), in fact I've yet to lose against him. Sure, he doesn't own a Riptide but he does have a solid core of suits, vehicles and infantry. With terrain on the board my Rhino rush will usually get most of my girls at least within range for bolters, at which point Firewarrior squads can already break and run. Once the outflanking Dominions in Immolators come in it's total chaos in his lines. The game usually ends with his suits jumping around trying to not give my Exorcist LOS. But I guess it's because he's a very bad player, or I'm very good, or the SoB are simply the best army vs Tau, not because I plan what to kill based on how easy it is vs what benefit it provides him.
In all honesty it seems (to me at least) that the worst problem with Tau isn't their power, even if it is considerable, but that players refuse to change tactics to deal with them. When facing any other army most units are independent - they have all their killing power in themself and wiping that unit out is the only way to stop it. But the Tau share power. Cripple the markerlight units and all the rest are weakened, kill the Buffmander and lose his buffs etc. Why do people insist on pouring fire into a buffed Riptide when they could wipe out the guys giving it buffs first? It's not likely to die in one turn (and if it does then the crying was unnecessary) but the ML guys will. Marines in drop pods should be able to do it way easier than my SoB in tanks. If the Tau player has infantry left at the end of the game you've done something wrong.
Hmm. Terrain, as you said. Skip the formations. Take some Devilfish and Hammerheads so your opponent can feel good about blowing up tanks. Maybe use that crappy flyer? Though I guess they'll cry about lacking AA if you do. Some people are never happy.
To be honest I feel the same way about Necrons as others do about Tau/Eldar. Can't kill them, can't stop them and their badly balanced flyers also fall over and break your models. ;-)
Robin5t wrote:Tot to correct you on this, because the Imperium aren't close to being the most technologically advanced faction in the 40k universe. It could be argued that they're more advanced than the Tau, but the Eldar factions and the Necrons are far, far above them in terms of tech level, and there are other, more minor factions like the Slaugth who are also superior in their fields of expertise.
Between all of them, Necrons sit at the top, however.
I don't necessarily want to disagree with anything that you've said. I do, however, wish to note the following:
1. Necron warriors are 13 ppm. Necron immortals are 15 ppm. [In my view, Necron troops are undercosted for what they do, but let's ignore this for the time being.] Dire avengers are 13 ppm. Tactical marines are 14 ppm. Fire warriors are 9 ppm. One of these things is not like the other. Just saying.
2. Regardless of who precisely is "Top Dog," it nonetheless still has to be admitted that the Tau simply aren't it. They are a new, fledgling society. Are they up and coming with great promise? Sure. Their situation is comparable to that in which China is now when compared to the United States [except, of course, the Tau are significantly less of a threat in the eyes of the Imperium].
It simply makes no sense that their 9 ppm xenos version of imperial guardsman should be able to outshoot my 14 ppm super soldiers. This is simply indisputable.
It would be like an average Chinese soldier being able to outshoot Captain America, presupposing that Captain America has been armed with the best small arms that the United States has to offer.
I disagree.
The Imperium have been in a state of technological regression. There is a huge power disparity throughout the the Imperium, with an emphasis on utility and ease of manufacture for the guardsman, and shock and awe/icon of Emperor's power for the Astartes. Lasguns ARE the baseline gun in the fluff, which relates to why the bolter is better. And we can all agree that there is a huge power game between fluff marines and game marines.
Does this mean that they should be the best around. Absolutely not.
The Tau Empire have none of the division the Imperium does. In the Imperium, the Adeptus Mechanicus hordes tech, keeping it for their own legions and giving Astartes the bolters for which they are always depicted as carrying. In Tau society, there are far less men to equip, so the baseline is far higher. The Tau's age as a race is irrelevant, considering that they can still have developed incredibly quickly. If we were to pit every Space Marine against every Tau, the marines would outnumber the Tau. Yet they survive. They've adapted to be able to bring down Astartes and have some of the strongest weapons. This completely fits with their fluff.
I have no idea why you're trying to use real life examples here, or at least I don't understand them. What would be a far better premise is Captain America with his top-of-the-line ballistic weapons, and the Chinese army with railguns. Except, Cap has plot armour, strongest of all. Marines don't. And it absolutely makes sense that one faction's baseline could beat another considering the sizes of their domain. The Imperium has a lot of resources, but has to divide them around the galaxy, yet the Tau can concentrate them for a smaller force, ending up with a better baseline.
As you seem to think that NOTHING should be able to beat your 14ppm demigods, consider this. In terms of game balance, Tau and Marines are costed about right. Space Marines have a lot of statline changes, and try to be good at everything. Tau, as befitting their philosophy, are essentially min-maxers. Their baseline stats aren't exceptional, but all of their points go into their gun. Unlike all of the other races you cited, the Tau are the only one (bar the Dire Avenger, of who's stats I'm not sure of) with a guardsman statline.
On a meta level, their points are better spent, but that's an issue with shooting's dominance in 7th.
The Imperium have been in a state of technological regression.
They're still technologically more advanced, so far as I'm aware, than the Tau, no?
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see one of the technologically most advanced societies giving their elite super soldiers guns which are inferior to the rank and file soldiery of a technologically inferior society.
Does this mean that they should be the best around. Absolutely not.
They most certainly SHOULD be the best around, in terms of base infantry, relative to non-elite, non-exceptional infantry. There is nothing exceptional or elite about the average fire warrior.
As Imperial Guard are to IoM, so too are Tau to the Xenos.
I have no idea why you're trying to use real life examples here, or at least I don't understand them.
China is, I assume, technologically and economically inferior to the United States. It's on its way up, of course, but currently, the US is still number one. Let us take a random Chinese soldier, given standard equipment for a Chinese soldier. Let us further assume that Captain America has the best wargear that the United States has to offer.
Are you going to tell me that the Chinese Soldier is going to be better equipped?
What would be a far better premise is Captain America with his top-of-the-line ballistic weapons, and the Chinese army with railguns. Except, Cap has plot armour, strongest of all. Marines don't.
Except, the average Chinese soldier doesn't have railguns (I assume). That's my point.
And it absolutely makes sense that one faction's baseline could beat another considering the sizes of their domain. The Imperium has a lot of resources, but has to divide them around the galaxy, yet the Tau can concentrate them for a smaller force, ending up with a better baseline.
This is precisely why Tau should be equipped in a way inferior to Space Marines. If you were making the argument about Imperial Guard, I would agree. But we're talking about what is already a relatively tiny, elite fighting force which is supposed to have the best equipment that the Imperium has to offer. We're talking about, what, roughly a million space marines? Compared to how many Imperial worlds?
As you seem to think that NOTHING should be able to beat your 14ppm demigods
In terms of base infantry? Perhaps necron infantry.
Other than that? No. Man on man, space marines should win pretty much every time in terms of statline, equipment, etc.
Literally the only reason why any base infantry should be able to beat tactical marines in absolutely any respect is because the tacticals are outnumbered. My marines should hit as hard as orks and should shoot as well as fire warriors.
And in fact, before my marine rips that ork's face open with his chainsword, that ork's buddies should have been filled with bolter rounds.
And after my space marine gets finished shooting that fire warrior in the face with his bolter ammunion, he should be decapitating that fire warrior's friends with well placed chainsword strikes.
Why?
Because I repeat:
THEY ARE GENETICALLY ALTERED, ELITE, SUPER SOLDIER DEMIGODS.
...
...
That said, there should be fewer chainswords and boltpistols than Ork close combat weapons and fewer boltguns than tau carbines.
consider this. In terms of game balance, Tau and Marines are costed about right. Space Marines have a lot of statline changes, and try to be good at everything. Tau, as befitting their philosophy, are essentially min-maxers.
1. Thus the reason that Tau are "broken" and aren't fun to play against. Armies of min-maxers aren't fun to play against. Players who min-max also aren't fun to play against.
2. In virtue of that very points efficiency/specialization, they are undercosted for what they do. Sternguard have to pay for the additional leadership point and for the extra attack that they probably won't use.
In fact, seriously consider this: why should a base tau infantryman be able to match my sternguard's kraken rounds in terms of strength and range and EXCEED them in terms of strength?
1) Tau will outgun literally anyone, and this frustrates some people. Fire warriors always beat guardsmen, eldar, and space marines without having cover even. Broadsides obliterate anything that moves before it even has a chance to shoot.
----add plenty of LoS blocking terrain, use city style tables
2) Tau are very static, and even if you're playing tactical objectives tau can still just chill out and shoot stuff and possibly win still if they have objectives near their deployment zone
----no objectives in deployment zone, put LoS blockers near certain objectives so you have to move forward to shoot the guy holding it. Even then, still be willing to move your models.
3) Riptides. If not prepared (casual list) they're hard to deal with, and have some JSJ shenanigans.
----If you think your opponent has a casual list leave it at home. Only use in games above 1000.
Overall just don't sit in corners, try to move stuff towards objectives, try to bring varied lists, make it that you have to move forward to at least the middle of the table to do stuff.
I never play static Tau anymore. Well I can if I feel like it but eh. I even like putting my SS up centerline and getting some stompy mayhem now and again on my opponents and watch as they die to them in melee. Heh.
scrooge you guys. I agree with Gamgee, you are using background fluff to make justifications for the tabletop game.
OTOH, I already play enclaves. (and should keep such criticisms in mind that you folks aren't down on all tau players, but gunlines, which IG can do better)
Traditio wrote: 1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?.
what base troops are these? I take crisis for troops, please oh please tell me what gun this is for my suits? \sarcasm
Traditio wrote: In a universe that's playing by WWI and WWII rules, the tau are playing by the rules of modern warfare.
an excellent point, and one that us Tau players should keep in mind when these particular discussions roll around. and one that should be kept in mind - modern battle is more skirmish than line, as our weapons are too lethal for line to have a chance. But when one meets the other, line beats skirmish much of the time. Watch 'The Patriot' (a horrid movie by all accounts) for what happens when a skirmish army tries to match a line army in battle.
SRSFACE wrote: I think, for me, all they need to do is scale back how powerful Markerlights are.
If they simply made it so markerlights gave enemy units a -1 cover penalty per markerlight burnt, rather than 2 simply remove all cover, I would be okay with that.
The problem with this is that mathematically application of a -1 cover penalty is quite often identical to a +1 BS until you hit BS6. Depending on armor save of target and AP value of weapon, but it approximately holds true.
Iron_Captain wrote: And no, I have never played anything before 6th and know no one else who did. Tau have always been OP and are still OP, alongside Eldar. Meanwhile, Orks and CSM have always been next to useless.
So you start off basically by admitting you have no idea what you're talking about, since your experience playing 40k has been very short and limited, and then boldly make bullgak claims about editions you admittedly weren't around for as if they were indisputable fact?
As a Tau player who refuses to use Stormsurges in the local meta, I know the feeling of worrying about playing against Tau. Sunday at a tournament, I looked at all the lists, from Eldar to Necrons and feared not a one, With the exception of the other Tau player. In 1850 he brought a small CAD with 2 SSs and a Riptide wing. He had interceptor on everyting, and I was running a beta strike dawn blade with retaliation cadre as my core.
I worried about being tabled turn 1 before I could DS in. I worried about being tabled when I did DS in. When I did arrive, SMS neutered me since I tried to DS out of LOS.
By turn 3 I was just chucking dice out there when he said roll.
On the other hand, I played 2 games previously, which I won, but was by no means a landslide, and came down to 1 or 2 points and my opponents as well as myself were pulling up models from the board in an almost even match up, except the other Tau player that is.
The point is, I played a heavy cheesy suit list, with farsight, killling everything they came in contact with, and the 2 previous games were still fun and competitive. Don't blame Tau if you can't win. My list was not an all comer list, and I paid for it dearly, but I don't blame Tau,
I have been grav gunned to death turn 1 by Space Marines, lost 2 riptides that way, I have been out numbered by Necrons, and had units eaten by scarabs. The shrimp with the tentacles, hate them.
Eldar literally are the bane of my existance. even one WK takes 1 or 2 turns of concentrated fire power giving my opponent freedom of movement.
I have been run over by IG tank lines, even when running OSC.
I have watched as I ran away in fear of being tabled while Admech Skitaari in drop pods ruined my hopes and dreams.
Do not blame Tau. Blame your play style, Your desire to compete, or your inability to adapt.
Final note. The player who spanked me so hard, got spanked hard himself by Eldar WKs and Seer councils. So having watched a 1500 point Eldar list dominate the local meta uncontested, Hate Eldar. No one likes Space Elves.
It's also very unrealistic to ALWAYS be fighting Tau in a city. You know what the dumbest part is? In starcraft, Zerg want open areas so they can get a surround, and the shooty Terrans want lots of terrain to create chokepoints to massacre others. Tyranids really need a muta/ling style build. Hormagaunts should be rewritten to get about a 24" move, and Nids could a 60 pt ish pt spammable flyer. Would be fun. You could throw in some AP3 banelings, too.
As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win
You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.
Jewelfox wrote: So, Tau are my favourite (and only) faction right now, but they're also the most hated -- or least fun to play against -- according to this thread.
Leaving aside issues of bias and prejudice, which we're not going to be able to do much about in the span of one game, you still have the issue of Tau being really shooty and making a lot of the game non-interactive. Obviously, if you close with them they fold like a wet paper bag, but until then -- or if you get some bad charge / reserve rolls -- you're just target practice.
So, speaking as a Tau player, how do I make the game more fun for the people I play against ... and increase the odds of people wanting to get into a pickup game with me? Besides using lots of LoS-blocking terrain (which I personally enjoy) and refraining from using Riptides unless my opponent has something equivalent.
(One thing I thought of already: I bought an extra deck, and can offer to let my opponent use the new Tactical Supremacy objectives, which get rid of a lot of unwinnable ones and give out higher rewards for smashing stuff in assault. I also refuse to redraw my own unwinnable objectives, and instead try to plan around those being in the deck.)
Well, just to throw this out there...
Find a copy of the older Tau codices and use their rules for Smart Missile Systems instead of the current garbage ones.
master of ordinance wrote: As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win
You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.
I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha
Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it.
Did you not have internet access for the month prior to and the months after Craftworld: Eldar dropped?
To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.
So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.
To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.
So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.
1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?
People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.
ITT: Impractical weapons of terror ought to beat out weapons of war
You do understand that the reason Boltguns aren't widespread among the Imperium is a dogmatic issue, right?
1. They are essentially rocket propelled grenade launchers. Why do you think it's a stupid idea for space marines, when, in fact, dire avengers get bladestorm, necrons get gauss and Tau get S5, 30 inch range rapid fire weapons FOR THEIR BASE TROOPS?
People keep saying that boltguns are and should be the average. Except, they shouldn't be. Among Imperial forces outside of elite forces like the Space Marines, boltguns aren't average. Boltguns are elite weaponry. What is and should be average are lasguns.
ITT: Impractical weapons of terror ought to beat out weapons of war
You do understand that the reason Boltguns aren't widespread among the Imperium is a dogmatic issue, right?
Most of the fluff I have read says something about the sheer weight and how its almost impossible for a non-augmented human to lift and use a boltgun. Course the game goes screwy when you then see them issued to special characters and such.
Boltguns have been available as wargear options for things like humble IG sergeants in every edition, bolters come in an array of sizes and capabilities that are close enough that the tabletop game amalgamates them into a single statline because a D6 system isn't granular enough to differentiate them.
That said, they're monstrously impractical weapons from a realistic standpoint, based far more in "cool factor" than any sort of practical reality. There have been rocket propelled projectile guns made, they don't really work well as a small arm weapon, and the way many GW boltguns are actually designed they weapons wouldn't function at all (particularly the bolters that have magazines that feed practically right at the muzzle).
master of ordinance wrote: As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win
You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.
I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha
Yeah but the main difference you have two comparable shooty armies. Guard have pretty much nothing that the tau can't do better. Sure you may see the IG winning against Tau every so often, but it will often be the result of sheer dumb luck.
Guardman<Firewarriors
Russes><Suits
Wyverns><Markerlights
FRFSRF><Ethereal Bonus Shot
Hydras><Tau AA ability
It's more Guards fault seeing we really need a decent update, we haven't really had a true update since 3rd/4th. Also tanks are horrific in 7th, seeing the high toughness of Suits they're incredibly hard to one shot in comparison to tanks. People often fear the number of tanks at the start of a battle, but once the dust clears most find that fear unfounded in reality.>
After playing a good bundle of games with R&H and messing around a lot with artillery, tanks really do stink to high heaven. They look cool, so they are still fun to bring along, and some of them just define cool (plasmacutioner and whatnot) but lets look at artillery, and its tank equal.
First, an earthshaker vs a basilisk.
Pro
Basilisk - can move
Earthskaker - 360 line of sight, 4 T7 wounds, 8 crew, Cheap
Con
Basilisk - Can be one shot with a melta gun, 45 degree line of sight, can be immobilized/shaken, any downside of vehicles.
Earthskaher - can fail moral test, dies to tank shock, dies to strength test. FW rules, FW model (though easy to convert/proxy)
Same goes for medusa, though with medusa, the movement is an actual con, as it has smaller range. Where the Earthshaker range is 10 feet. Movement is nothing special. I can plop artillery out of line of sight and shoot 3 tables away! Both tanks and artillery are pretty much instant dead when something gets into CC with them, provided it has a grenade.
Tanks are more diverse with weaponry, but the bottom line is you just need to kill tanks and infantry. I've got an artillery piece for the role of every tank! They work so much better too, its crushing to only bring my tanks out when I want to weaken my list/dust them off. Tanks really are weaker than toughness. (Though wyverns still are better than quad mortars thanks to twin linked/ignore cover, only tanks I still bring regularly)
Despite how unfair Necrons are and Eldar are almost no one comes online to bitch about it.
Did you not have internet access for the month prior to and the months after Craftworld: Eldar dropped?
To answer the OP, for my money the most obnoxious thing about playing against Tau is they can pretty much just castle up in corner and force their opponent to come to them while putting them under a withering hail of fire. Between that and how gimped assault is in this edition, it can be extremely hard for the opponent to accomplish anything even remotely satisfying. There's also the extremely easy access to Ignores Cover in the form of networked markerlights all over the list like a rash. Pathfinders, I don't mind so much because they're not too hard for a competent opponent to focus on and get rid of, but the networked lights mean I have to kill practically every character in the army to get rid of the markerlight support.
So, if you want to make playing against your Tau more fun for your opponent, I'd say the big thing is make lists intended to come out of your deployment zone. Use Fire Warriors in Devilfish, get them within rapid fire range, contest the midfield. Also, play a variety of units instead of just spamming the best ones. It'll make your army look more interesting on the table, and if there's one an opponent finds especially obnoxious, they can always focus on it and get rid of it. People will probably still sneer about Tau, but there's a considerable difference between people hating Tau and people hating your Tau.
Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.
I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.
pm713 wrote: I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.
Seems similar to the Tau. I've seen way more people just decide to never play them or ban them outright for YEARS now. Welcome to the club.
Tau basically fine except for the Riptide and Stormsurge. You shoot them, some die, they shoot back, a few more die. If you get to assault, you can mash them badly. The Riptide and Stormsurge just change the math too badly in their favor.
Tau are on par with the current top codexes, so if your playing someone not using these armies, then no matter what you do, you will get some complaint.. it is what it is.
To help your opponent feel better about it, if playing a lower power codec, maybe help him tactically throughout the game.. such as when your playing someone new.. "hey man, i know you think shooting my riptide is a good idea here.. but he is gonna tank it all.. wipe out this squad of suits instead" ... for a quick example
master of ordinance wrote: As a Guard player I have many problems with Tau but they can all be summed up with: Tau do everything my faction does but they do it better.
-Gunlines? Tau win
-Mobile strike teams? Tau win
-Big support units? Tau win
-Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures? Tau win
-Ignores cover? Tau win
You can see that this does get a bit tiring to face after a while.
I watched an Imp Knight get pick up off the table yesterday, turn 1, before firing a single shot. What killed it? IG. IG can work. I have seen it work, and watched it lay the smack down, even on myself. It has weaknesses, but all armies do. Even Tau. I'm just not gonna tell you what they are muhahahahha
Yeah but the main difference you have two comparable shooty armies. Guard have pretty much nothing that the tau can't do better. Sure you may see the IG winning against Tau every so often, but it will often be the result of sheer dumb luck.
Guardman<Firewarriors
Russes><Suits
Wyverns><Markerlights
FRFSRF><Ethereal Bonus Shot
Hydras><Tau AA ability
It's more Guards fault seeing we really need a decent update, we haven't really had a true update since 3rd/4th. Also tanks are horrific in 7th, seeing the high toughness of Suits they're incredibly hard to one shot in comparison to tanks. People often fear the number of tanks at the start of a battle, but once the dust clears most find that fear unfounded in reality.>
To sum it up, the Guard are a gunline army that has been nerfed into immobility and has its units stats and points stuck in 3rd edition where a single tank was a major threat and a single section of infantry could hold the line.
Gamgee wrote: Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.
Eldar and Necrons get a lot of flak from players so Tau are not alone in being complained about. As a Tau player I have played games where I ended up turn 2 tabling the opponent and it just sucks to see that happen because the other person didn't have fun and what fun I was having quickly ended as more and more models where removed from the table. I have also played games against Tau where my army (Orks in particular) gets obliterated and it ends up being a game of set up and pack up. Similar things have happened against Eldar where you spend less time playing and more time removing your stuff from the table. Tau can be a very frustrating army to play against and it doesn't help that they are the combination of being extremely good at shooting, extremely bad at melee, and one of the top armies in the game. Tau typically doesn't get in close, they prefer to use range to keep them safe, have easy access to ignores cover plus accuracy boosts, and can pump out a lot of shots with good strength. Against Tau basically everything becomes an assault unit as getting into close combat with majority of Tau units is to the other players advantage so Tau players almost never have a reason to get into charge range or contest objectives as their units are much better off shooting instead of moving in or trying to tie up units in close combat. Its frustrating to play against that which really saps the enjoyment of other players. Especially for armies that tend to struggle getting into close combat and don't have the means to out shoot or shut down the Tau shooting (few armies do). Tau can be incredibly frustrating to play against, its easy to see when playing as Tau, its easy to feel that way playing against them.
I love my Tau so much and they are always going to be my #2 army but I hate how GW ignores how frustrating Tau can be to play against and instead release gak like the Stormsurge and the Riptide Wing which are so incredibly powerful its hard for the "have not" armies to do anything against that. I hate that I have to worry about my list ending up being too much of a squig kicker list because my opponent isn't playing a hypercompetitive list. My #1 goal when playing 40k is that both players are having fun and when playing Tau I have to be really careful to not ruin my opponents day (almost never a concern for my Orks, sometimes an issue for the GK). It's annoying to have to worry about coming across as TFG or WAAC because I'm playing as Tau because of the ability for Tau to just wreck people's faces if they don't have the tools to handle that amount of firepower. Same can be said for Eldar or Necrons in that they need to be careful to not completely outclass their opponent's army because their codex is so strong. With Tau (and Eldar) its very apparent from turn 1 just how powerful they are and generally they don't slow down until you start killing prime targets.
As to how to make it fun?
Lots of LoS blocking terrain - Force the Tau to not shoot across the map and actually get in closer.
Progressive objectives/Maelstrom - Makes the Tau need to move for map control instead of turtle if they want to win.
Make sure the relative power levels of each list are compatible - Both players should have a fair shot of winning and the game shouldn't be decided before the models are even placed.
Don't be a jerk/be friendly - Being friendly and take the focus off the results of the dice help keep things less tense and more enjoyable.
14ppm Space Marine demigod 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
assault/krak/frag grenades, TSKNF, s4 pistol/bolter, CHAPTER TACTICS ... did i forget anything else?
Seems pretty balanced to me (being serious, balanced as base troops for their cost)
I'm just saying. Nerf fire warriors to a S4, AP 5, 24 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or heck, even make it S4, AP 6, 30 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or even S 5, AP 6, 24 inch range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote:Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.
Eldar are probably far more OP than Tau.
That said, there's a clear difference between Eldar and Tau. The problem with Eldar is that they are OP. Eldar as such, however, are perfectly fine. They are an army of highly mobile specialists. In a game with Eldar, stuff happens. Eldar are fun to play and fun to play against (so long as the Eldar player isn't spamming the most OP stuff in the book).
Tau at the very core are just annoying to play against.
Have you played Dark Souls?
Tau are like the two archers at Anor Lando.
Have you played Dark Souls II?
Eldar are like the drakekeepers with the giant maces.
The drakekeepers with maces need a giant nerf. They need to be made more like the giants in Anor Lando.
Those 2 archers in Anor Lando should simply never have been thought up in the first place.
The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.
The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).
Vaktathi wrote: The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.
The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).
What riptides do you run? Mine always wiff in droves
Vaktathi wrote: The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.
The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).
I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.
Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?
Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?
Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?
In serious though, Riptides tank, thats what they are in a Tau list to be.
Riptide wing is GOOD, don't get me wrong, and it mitigates the need for some markerlight support with the cascading fire.. however, it requires markerlights for every target for both shooting attacks.. so to ignore cover of all the targets that shooting phase, you would need at 3-6 sources landing 12 markerlights (assuming just 3 riptides) That is alot of extra cost in our lists to make these units consistent in their offense. Ap2 pie plates hurt.. but a lot is invested into that to really be effective.
Opponents have many options to bypass Tau shootyness.. get in close, take out support troops. Someone mentioned IG .. I hate IG, because I know they will have Wyverns (i think thats the artillery one ?!) and my pathfinders will all die turn 1.
It takes 1 wound in CC for a on average fail leadership and get overrun with our initiative 2. Nothing is fearless save an Ethereal giving stubburn, or warlord traits or a relic choosing stubburn
If you can't shoot a riptide to death you can definitely psychic shriek it to death, or charge it and just tie it up for an entire game.
There are many tactical decisions you can make to mitigate Tau effectiveness, and I am not saying it is easy, just takes practice.
Vaktathi wrote: The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.
The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).
I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.
Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?
Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?
Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?
I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.. in order to bring our BS up we need an 11 ppm pathfinder, or 14ppm marker drone... so we actually start paying more to bring out ballistic to match and exceed that of a space marine if you start looking at averages and what we need to bring to get there. .. example.. pathfinder BS3 so we need '2' to effectively get 1 markerlight consistently (22points)
Don't joke.. I actually do and it does better then most people give it credit..
Even the regular suits manage quite well against enemies that aren't that good in CC. My Tau mate charges me with suits if he thinks they can't get away from shooting. They're strong and tough and have a good save and LD, good chances against a non-CC squad that isn't marines.
Don't joke.. I actually do and it does better then most people give it credit..
Even the regular suits manage quite well against enemies that aren't that good in CC. My Tau mate charges me with suits if he thinks they can't get away from shooting. They're strong and tough and have a good save and LD, good chances against a non-CC squad that isn't marines.
Absoutely, just hitting the assault phase and saying "i am charging you", totally throws your opponent into a scramble.. they never expect it. I rather have my unit stuck in CC with your guys the rest of the game, if it means not having them blown away your next shooting phase.
I rarely win combat long term, but sometimes i can survive long enough to be annoying or reduce stack buffs (like furious charge, +1 attacks etc) that otherwise would put me at a disadvantage.
Vaktathi wrote: The fire warrior isnt sucj a huge issue, and the S5 30" gun has been their big hallmark since 3E.
The bigger issue is big robots that are too hard to kill, and the ability to toss around long range, high strength ap2 weaponry with high accuracy that ignores cover (as even other shooting armies can usually only do some of these things, not all at once).
I agree that there are bigger issues, but it's still one that personally annoys me a great deal.
Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?
they dont inherently, they have worse accuracy, just a better gun, which is fine, Bolters are powerful weapons next to a Lasgun, but just arent the most fearsome in the 40k universe. And in general, the only advantage Fire Warriors have is range. BS3 S5 puts out equivalent wounds to BS4 S4 in most instances.
Why should they shoot better than Imperial Fists?
Because SM's are a generalist unit that are good at everything but not necessarily the best at everything. Likewise, the Imperial Fists becoming some sort of "bolter snipers" is relatively recent, it used to just be an ability that Sergeant Lysander granted to his squad back in 3E from some sort of great bridge defense battle, then Lysander became a huge beatstick CC character (and ironically lacks any bolter now), and its only in the last few years that they made this a big army wide thing for them, they used to just be the Loyalist Iron Warriors.
Why should they shoot better, in many instances, than fething Sternguard?
They dont unless theyve got Markerlights. Sternguard are, again, also a generalist unit (theyve all got 2 attacks base, etc) that can pack weapons that Fire Warriors cannot.
Tau also predate the existence of Sternguard as a unit by two editions.
I just wanted to say I dig that army concept. I feel like breachers, pathfinders, and stealth suits (especially ones modified to look like XV-15s!) would fit the theme quite well, along with a general focus on mobility.
Grizzyzz wrote:I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.
Bull pucky.
They have 1 less BS on the model but 1 more S on their gun. Apart from combat doctrines and chapter tactics, fire warriors and space marines have statistically IDENTICAL shooting. Not to mention that with the 1 higher S, fire warriors can touch things that space marines can't. Fire warriors wound wraithknights on 6s and glance 11 AV on 6s.
14ppm Space Marine demigod 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
assault/krak/frag grenades, TSKNF, s4 pistol/bolter, CHAPTER TACTICS ... did i forget anything else?
Seems pretty balanced to me (being serious, balanced as base troops for their cost)
I'm just saying. Nerf fire warriors to a S4, AP 5, 24 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or heck, even make it S4, AP 6, 30 inch range, and you'll have no complaints from me. Or even S 5, AP 6, 24 inch range.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote:Oh wow one month of complaints. Everyone complains the first month about everything in the first month. Since the day I got here Tau have been Tau bitched about. From the longest days of lurking people have been Tau bitching. Same goes for the site that shall not be named and its player base. Tau bitching ad nauseum. You'll see a bit of Eldar or Necron frustration, but not hate. Not downright furious bile like Tau players get. I regularly have to listen to people telling me they would remove my army from the game, remove its core mechanics, or completely overhaul its visuals and lore so that it isn't Tau. I think the least the other faction players can do is take some hate and live with it for a change.
Eldar are probably far more OP than Tau.
That said, there's a clear difference between Eldar and Tau. The problem with Eldar is that they are OP. Eldar as such, however, are perfectly fine. They are an army of highly mobile specialists. In a game with Eldar, stuff happens. Eldar are fun to play and fun to play against (so long as the Eldar player isn't spamming the most OP stuff in the book).
Tau at the very core are just annoying to play against.
Have you played Dark Souls?
Tau are like the two archers at Anor Lando.
Have you played Dark Souls II?
Eldar are like the drakekeepers with the giant maces.
The drakekeepers with maces need a giant nerf. They need to be made more like the giants in Anor Lando.
Those 2 archers in Anor Lando should simply never have been thought up in the first place.
Have you not played Dark Souls I?
Fine.
Tau are like the Shrine of Amana.
If anything the SM comparatively is under costed when compared to a fire warrior. ATSKNF is just SOOO good compared to what other armies get on top of the stat line, the right grenades for every situation to do something, and the best standard armor save in the game among troops (outside gray knights though they are still marines... though not actually marines and more evolved and created outside the emperor's knowledge but enough about storyline). the tau have Str 5 weapons because that is what they do... they are less likely to hit than the emperor's special snowflakes and they both cause wounds on 3's... but the marines have a better shot at surviving it. Marines actually have some of the best anti tau as tau have difficulty with AV14 barring hammerheads which nobody takes. knock out their pathfinders first doubly do if they took emp grenades and then just ride up in those land raiders, block LOS and rip apart the fish. I agree they are the lease fun to play against but tau are beatable, I can sometimes do it with orks in battlewagons assuming I can postpone side armor shots for a while.
as for elder... yea they are strong and top tier but WAY funner to play against (and harder to play than tau)
Grizzyzz wrote:I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.
Bull pucky.
They have 1 less BS on the model but 1 more S on their gun. Apart from combat doctrines and chapter tactics, fire warriors and space marines have statistically IDENTICAL shooting. Not to mention that with the 1 higher S, fire warriors can touch things that space marines can't. Fire warriors wound wraithknights on 6s and glance 11 AV on 6s.
That's not fair. At all.
Your space marine also has access to lots of special wargear and weapons that can make them better and more versatile. And it doesn't matter if i can harm a WK with my s5 gun when it is going to take 195 shots to take it down
Again, a marine has access to grav weapons, plasma, etc that can make them better at shooting tougher targets. Your marine is clutch, it is such an amazing model for its cost.
Grizzyzz wrote:I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.
Bull pucky.
They have 1 less BS on the model but 1 more S on their gun. Apart from combat doctrines and chapter tactics, fire warriors and space marines have statistically IDENTICAL shooting. Not to mention that with the 1 higher S, fire warriors can touch things that space marines can't. Fire warriors wound wraithknights on 6s and glance 11 AV on 6s.
That's not fair. At all.
Why not? Tau pay the points to min-max at shooting. Plus, you admit yourself, aside from combat doctrines and Chapter Tactics. Marines aren't as bad as you make out.
Plus, Marines are able to outfit varieties of weapons in their Tactical Squads, allowing them to deal with said AV11 and high toughness creatures better. Also, krak grenades are a higher strength, allowing marines to kill AV12 and wound Wraithknights better.
Marines really aren't that bad off. Tau pay for their speciality in shooting, Marines pay for their high stats and jack-of-all-trades nature.
Grizzyzz wrote:I think your asking the wrong question.. I think what you are meaning to ask is "why do they get a s5 base gun".. as a standalone model, a Firewarrior actually "shoots" worse then a space marine being lower BS.
Bull pucky.
They have 1 less BS on the model but 1 more S on their gun. Apart from combat doctrines and chapter tactics, fire warriors and space marines have statistically IDENTICAL shooting. Not to mention that with the 1 higher S, fire warriors can touch things that space marines can't. Fire warriors wound wraithknights on 6s and glance 11 AV on 6s.
That's not fair. At all.
and in CCSM's are an order of magnitude more capable, have access to things like drop pods that Fire Warriors do not, and have organic access to atuff like Meltaguns, Powerfists, Lascannons, Flamers and Meltas that Fire Warriors have no ability to field.
The +1S on their guns is really very minor in comparison, and the ability to glance AV14 or wound WK's is realtively trivial as thats desperation fire in most instances, and SM's with their specialized heavy/special/cc weapons are much more of a threat to such units typically.
Specifically focused on "shooting" capabilities and NO OTHER SPECIAL RULES...we are evenish matchup within rapid fire range, otherwise without marker support space marines actually are better then Tau one on one between these units.
Didn't expect that outcome to be exactly as this, very interesting.
Specifically focused on "shooting" capabilities and NO OTHER SPECIAL RULES...we are evenish matchup within rapid fire range, otherwise without marker support space marines actually are better then Tau one on one between these units.
Didn't expect that outcome to be exactly as this, very interesting.
I did. I've done this math before.
The same applies for Space Marines vs. Scions. They are exactly equivalent.
GW sometimes spends more time in unit design than people give them credit for.
Why should base Tau infantry shoot better than space marines?
Base Tau infantry do not shoot better than Space Marines, other than in terms of a 6" range difference. Mathematically, the BS difference and S difference cancel each other out against everything that is not T8 or AV11. 2/3 x 1/2 and 1/2 x 2/3 are the same, you know.
Specifically focused on "shooting" capabilities and NO OTHER SPECIAL RULES...we are evenish matchup within rapid fire range, otherwise without marker support space marines actually are better then Tau one on one between these units.
Didn't expect that outcome to be exactly as this, very interesting.
I did. I've done this math before.
The same applies for Space Marines vs. Scions. They are exactly equivalent.
GW sometimes spends more time in unit design than people give them credit for.
The problem with Scions is that they are 50% more expensive than the fire warriors, rely on their targets to be in the open without any cover save to even achieve parity with the tagets theyre ostensibly specialized to hunt, and have to be within 9" to double tap (which means anything left alive gets to hit back and almost assuredly wipe the Scions ).
Its those instances that show GW really is poor at game design
Base Tau infantry do not shoot better than Space Marines, other than in terms of a 6" range difference. Mathematically, the BS difference and S difference cancel each other out against everything that is not T8 or AV11. 2/3 x 1/2 and 1/2 x 2/3 are the same, you know.
I get the math balance haha, it was the points balance within rapid range that really surprised me haha
Specifically focused on "shooting" capabilities and NO OTHER SPECIAL RULES...we are evenish matchup within rapid fire range, otherwise without marker support space marines actually are better then Tau one on one between these units.
Didn't expect that outcome to be exactly as this, very interesting.
That's simply not a fair assessment. If you want to assess them, you must assume that they are shooting at an identical target. Here's how they both fare vs. a space marine:
Against a space marine, a space marine with boltgun (not counting combat doctrines or chapter tactics) has: a 2/3 chance of hitting, a 1/2 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 1/18 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
Against a space marine, a fire warrior (not counting marker lights) has: a 1/2 chance of hitting, 2/3 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 1/18 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
And again, you're failing to take into account:
1. The increased range
2. The ability to touch things that boltguns can't.
Against a wraithknight, a space marine with boltgun has (discounting chapter tactics and combat doctrines): a 2/3 chance of hitting, a 0/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 0/54 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
Against a wraithknight, a fire warrior (not counting marker lights) has: a 1/2 chance of hitting, a 1/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. He has a 1/36 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
At 30 inch range against a space marine:
A space marine with boltgun has a 0/6 chance of hitting, a 1/2 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 0/18 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
A fire warrior has a 1/2 chance of hitting, a 2/3 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 1/18 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
Fire warriors have identical to better shooting at 5 POINTS LESS PER MODEL than a space marine (again, not counting combat doctrines, chapter tactics and marker lights).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:and in CCSM's are an order of magnitude more capable, have access to things like drop pods that Fire Warriors do not, and have organic access to atuff like Meltaguns, Powerfists, Lascannons, Flamers and Meltas that Fire Warriors have no ability to field.
The +1S on their guns is really very minor in comparison, and the ability to glance AV14 or wound WK's is realtively trivial as thats desperation fire in most instances, and SM's with their specialized heavy/special/cc weapons are much more of a threat to such units typically.
I only wish to note that you simply cannot compare an upgraded space marine to a fire warrior. It's not a fair comparison. A tactical marine with a plasma gun is a 29 point model, whereas the fire warrior is only 9 ppm.
Here's how it works - Tau get more range. Space Marines ignore an entire part of the assault phase and invalidate units designed to sweep on the charge. I agree that is unfair but Tau aren't the guilty ones there.
pm713 wrote: That's hardly some amazing OP ability.
Here's how it works - Tau get more range. Space Marines ignore an entire part of the assault phase and invalidate units designed to sweep on the charge. I agree that is unfair but Tau aren't the guilty ones there.
And they pay a premium to do it. What's your point?
Against a wraithknight, a space marine with boltgun has (discounting chapter tactics and combat doctrines): a 2/3 chance of hitting, a 0/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. Thus, he has a 0/54 chance of causing an unsaved wound. Against a wraithknight, a fire warrior (not counting marker lights) has: a 1/2 chance of hitting, a 1/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. He has a 1/36 chance of causing an unsaved wound.
Nearly 200 shots from pulse rifles to take out a WK, it really means nothing that we can potentially wound them outside the most dire of circumstances. That said.. you have options too.. Krak grenades and the potential to take special issue wargear.
Fire warriors have identical to better shooting at 5 POINTS LESS PER MODEL than a space marine (again, not counting combat doctrines, chapter tactics and marker lights).
As I showed and stated the matchup is about even in shooting.. but where your 5ppm comes from is the laundry list of extra gear and rules your marines have.
Stated it before.. marines are a really good base troop, one of the best.
They're still technologically more advanced, so far as I'm aware, than the Tau, no?
No. They're not. They have ancient "technological" artifacts, but from the point of view of the Imperium these are basically magic weapons. They don't understand anything about them. The Imperium doesn't have technology in our sense at all. They believe that machines work because of the action of spirits, and that those spirits help you because you pray to them and appease them. Tech-Prists are essentially shamans. Space Marines have the weapons they have because it was written somewhere in some holy book thousands of years ago that they should have these weapons, not because somebody sat down and made a cost-benefit analysis of bolters. That's why innovation is heresy -- they are not, as in our understanding, refining equipment, but rather violating the holy laws of the machine, which again is understood as an animate creature.
It's a central part of the setting.
That's why the Tau and innovating and the Imperium is not. The Imperium has ancient magic items er I mean technology lying around that is, well, nigh-magical (and the Imperium thinks that it is magical!). But they will not innovate. They will not put these things together in new ways. Because, as mentiond, that would be violating the holy laws of the machine, which is a living thing.
pm713 wrote: That's hardly some amazing OP ability.
Here's how it works - Tau get more range. Space Marines ignore an entire part of the assault phase and invalidate units designed to sweep on the charge. I agree that is unfair but Tau aren't the guilty ones there.
And they pay a premium to do it. What's your point?
That things aren't as unfair as you make out. If they're unfair at all.
redleger wrote: As a Tau player who refuses to use Stormsurges in the local meta, I know the feeling of worrying about playing against Tau. Sunday at a tournament, I looked at all the lists, from Eldar to Necrons and feared not a one, With the exception of the other Tau player. In 1850 he brought a small CAD with 2 SSs and a Riptide wing. He had interceptor on everyting, and I was running a beta strike dawn blade with retaliation cadre as my core.
I worried about being tabled turn 1 before I could DS in. I worried about being tabled when I did DS in. When I did arrive, SMS neutered me since I tried to DS out of LOS.
By turn 3 I was just chucking dice out there when he said roll.
On the other hand, I played 2 games previously, which I won, but was by no means a landslide, and came down to 1 or 2 points and my opponents as well as myself were pulling up models from the board in an almost even match up, except the other Tau player that is.
The point is, I played a heavy cheesy suit list, with farsight, killling everything they came in contact with, and the 2 previous games were still fun and competitive. Don't blame Tau if you can't win. My list was not an all comer list, and I paid for it dearly, but I don't blame Tau,
I have been grav gunned to death turn 1 by Space Marines, lost 2 riptides that way, I have been out numbered by Necrons, and had units eaten by scarabs. The shrimp with the tentacles, hate them.
Eldar literally are the bane of my existance. even one WK takes 1 or 2 turns of concentrated fire power giving my opponent freedom of movement.
I have been run over by IG tank lines, even when running OSC.
I have watched as I ran away in fear of being tabled while Admech Skitaari in drop pods ruined my hopes and dreams.
Do not blame Tau. Blame your play style, Your desire to compete, or your inability to adapt.
Final note. The player who spanked me so hard, got spanked hard himself by Eldar WKs and Seer councils. So having watched a 1500 point Eldar list dominate the local meta uncontested, Hate Eldar. No one likes Space Elves.
TL;DR Instead of blaming tau when you lose you should blame yourself. It's your fault because you're not running grav spam or using necrons/eldar, the other two superpowers in the current meta. Buy a wraithknight or you're a loser.
Traditio wrote: Fire warriors have identical to better shooting at 5 POINTS LESS PER MODEL than a space marine (again, not counting combat doctrines, chapter tactics and marker lights).
The marines are also much better in close combat due to better stats and ATSKNF and whatever buffs they get is usually impossible to take away since it's integral to them unlike Tau Markerlights. The Space Marine squad won't become weaker if you kill another Space Marine squad. The Firewarriors will. That is if the Tau player is actually wasting Markerlights on them instead of a Riptide or suit squad. And ofc, the marines are much less likely to run away when taking casualties.
Grizzyzz wrote:Range doesn't matter, you have means of getting to me faster then my troops can get to you. ala droppods
Again, that's simply not a fair assessment. At that point, we're no longer comparing a tactical marine to a fire warrior. We are comparing a tactical marine + drop pod to a fire warrior.
6" of range is literally nothing. At that range, your marines move 6" and can now fire their range at my fire warriors.
That's assuming that they are firing at each other. Assuming that they are firing at the same target, that's a volley of shooting one turn earlier.
And even vs. each other: that's a choice on MY turn between either moving into your threat range, taking fire from you, and then moving in and shooting the following turn, or else, NOT taking the risk and selecting a different target.
Traditio wrote:Nearly 200 shots from pulse rifles to take out a WK, it really means nothing that we can potentially wound them outside the most dire of circumstances. That said.. you have options too.. Krak grenades and the potential to take special issue wargear.
1. 1 model per unit may use a grenade in the shooting phase...at an 8 inch range. Do you feel safer firing 10 shots at a wraithknight from 30 inch range or firing a single shot at a wraithknight at 8 inch range? Do pray tell.
2. You cannot compare an upgraded marine to a fire warrior. Again, it's simply not a fair comparison.
3. Let's compare your pulse rifles vs. my sternguard Hellfire ammunion against a WK
Your NINE POINT model with a pulse rifle (not counting MLs) has: a 1/2 chance of hitting, a 1/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. At 30 inch range.
My TWENTY TWO POINT model with hellfire ammunion (not counting chapter tactics) has: a 2/3 chance of hitting, a 1/6 chance of wounding and a 1/3 chance of bypassing armor. At 24 inch range.
pm713 wrote: That's hardly some amazing OP ability.
Here's how it works - Tau get more range. Space Marines ignore an entire part of the assault phase and invalidate units designed to sweep on the charge. I agree that is unfair but Tau aren't the guilty ones there.
And they pay a premium to do it. What's your point?
That things aren't as unfair as you make out. If they're unfair at all.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone has ever said "curses, these tac marines are just so good in CC!" Then you need to also consider that tau will most likely kill melee oriented units with shooting or their massed overwatch, while marines will fire some piddly bolters then get charged and die.
Vaktathi wrote:and in CCSM's are an order of magnitude more capable, have access to things like drop pods that Fire Warriors do not, and have organic access to atuff like Meltaguns, Powerfists, Lascannons, Flamers and Meltas that Fire Warriors have no ability to field.
The +1S on their guns is really very minor in comparison, and the ability to glance AV14 or wound WK's is realtively trivial as thats desperation fire in most instances, and SM's with their specialized heavy/special/cc weapons are much more of a threat to such units typically.
I only wish to note that you simply cannot compare an upgraded space marine to a fire warrior. It's not a fair comparison. A tactical marine with a plasma gun is a 29 point model, whereas the fire warrior is only 9 ppm.
The game isnt built around naked individual infantrymen, its built around units, you have to take the unit options and capabilities into consideration. A Space Marine Unit has far more tools to deal with a much wider variety of threats, able to potentially emgage a greater number of targets (combat squads) at potentially even longer ranges than FW's (they dont have anything that can hit out to 48") and can be successful at both shooting an CC.
That Fire Warriors have a couple advantages that SM's dont is not unfair. FW's are slightly better at 12-24" with their basic guns than SM's against a narrow range of targets (that is, again, largely desperation fire), and can hit targets within a 6" range band that SM's cannot with their basic guns, but SM's are *dramatically* better at under 12" once assault ranges are threatened, and have upgrade options to give them far greater reach and versatility than Fire Warriors could ever hope for.
The unit capability is what matters, SM's are not designed or intended to be fielded unupgraded.
kingbobbito wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone has ever said "curses, these tac marines are just so good in CC!" Then you need to also consider that tau will most likely kill melee oriented units with shooting or their massed overwatch, while marines will fire some piddly bolters then get charged and die.
Their massed overwatch. At BS 2 or higher (OVERWATCH BS CAN BE IMPROVED WITH MARKERLIGHTS!). With support fire from nearby squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:The game isnt built around naked individual infantrymen
Again, I refuse to enter into a consideration of tactical marine + upgrades vs. fire warriors. That's not what's under consideration.
kingbobbito wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone has ever said "curses, these tac marines are just so good in CC!" Then you need to also consider that tau will most likely kill melee oriented units with shooting or their massed overwatch, while marines will fire some piddly bolters then get charged and die.
Their massed overwatch. At BS 2. With support fire from nearby squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:The game isnt built around naked individual infantrymen
Again, I refuse to enter into a consideration of tactical marine + upgrades vs. fire warriors. That's not what's under consideration.
Woah.. firewarriors do not have BS2 overwatch and thats an extra 5ppm on suit squads.
If youre refusing to talk about that, then theres no point in making a comparison, as the game is unit based, and SM units arent intended to be run naked with no upgrades. You're arbitrarily narrowing the discussion in a way that does not reflect the usage and capability of the units.
Even if you want to talk naked infantry, again, FW's advantages are pretty much a 6" rangeband and desperation fire against certain targets, while SM's have a far greater advantage in close quarters and in unit functionality with chapter tactics, combat squads, etc. Naked SM's can relatively easily kill almost any tank in the game on assaults with krak grenades they come with for free, FW's have to hope its AV11 or 10 on whatever armor facing they are in and are far less effective than the SM's with Kraks are.
kingbobbito wrote:To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone has ever said "curses, these tac marines are just so good in CC!" Then you need to also consider that tau will most likely kill melee oriented units with shooting or their massed overwatch, while marines will fire some piddly bolters then get charged and die.
Their massed overwatch. At BS 2. With support fire from nearby squads.
Three squads of fire warriors firing overwatch is at least 3 times more threatening than a single squad of marines firing overwatch. Losing a model or two from a melee powerhouse on your own turn while you try to charge (that you may fail) is a bit frustrating. Sure, you'll wipe out the fire warriors, but a good melee squad will have no trouble with tacs either. Nothing is more of a slap to the face than losing half a melee squad to 60 overwatch shots from tau.
Grizzyzz wrote:Woah.. firewarriors do not have BS2 overwatch and thats an extra 5ppm on suit squads.
Oh. Never mind.
Still, though, their overwatch BS can be improved with marker lights. That's completely OP.
You can ask a lot of tau players... overwatch is still crappy, markerlights or not.. If i am lucky i get 1 markerlight hit in overwatch on a good day.. and when that happens only 1 supporting squad gets to fire at bs2 which is still not super great.
unless i have a nice unit of plasma crisis suits nearby, your marines laugh at a line of firewarriors in overwatch.
** I do want to note, if you start charging a line of firewarriors that has multiple units of other FWs nearby Plus an ethereal that popped the +1 shot bubble... then mistakes are being made.
kingbobbito wrote:Three squads of fire warriors firing overwatch is at least 3 times more threatening than a single squad of marines firing overwatch. Losing a model or two from a melee powerhouse on your own turn while you try to charge (that you may fail) is a bit frustrating. Sure, you'll wipe out the fire warriors, but a good melee squad will have no trouble with tacs either. Nothing is more of a slap to the face than losing half a melee squad to 60 overwatch shots from tau.
I completely agree. Feth Tau. They are just like the Anor Lando archers or the Shrine of Amana.
Anyway, Marines and Fire Warriors have more or less equivalent shooting, point by point, assuming that doctrines and the extra 6" range are roughly equivalent in value.
Placed 24", or even 30", across from each other, in an equal points matchup between Marines and Fire Warriors, the Marines will win, unless the Fire Warriors can somehow maintain a relevant 6" range difference for a significant period of time, which is going to be impossible because a) 6' + running is more than just 6" and b) even if this were not the case, the table is finite and they can only move so far. At which point, by the way, if they break, which is not unlikely, they will run off the board.
I don't think the Marines even have to engage in close combat at all to win this match, but if they just run across the table, they are almost certain to reach the Fire Warriors and butcher them in close combat, since they will statistically lose no more than a few models in the c. 2 turns they have to cross the intervening space.
pm713 wrote: I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.
In one upcoming tournament here in Finland did exactly that, craftworld space elves are completely banned. So far I haven't seen anyone complain about it.
pm713 wrote: I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.
In one upcoming tournament here in Finland did exactly that, craftworld space elves are completely banned. So far I haven't seen anyone complain about it.
I imagine that's because the WAAC players can play another army and people who wanted fun have given up.
Vaktathi wrote:and in CCSM's are an order of magnitude more capable, have access to things like drop pods that Fire Warriors do not, and have organic access to atuff like Meltaguns, Powerfists, Lascannons, Flamers and Meltas that Fire Warriors have no ability to field.
The +1S on their guns is really very minor in comparison, and the ability to glance AV14 or wound WK's is realtively trivial as thats desperation fire in most instances, and SM's with their specialized heavy/special/cc weapons are much more of a threat to such units typically.
I only wish to note that you simply cannot compare an upgraded space marine to a fire warrior. It's not a fair comparison. A tactical marine with a plasma gun is a 29 point model, whereas the fire warrior is only 9 ppm.
The game isnt built around naked individual infantrymen, its built around units, you have to take the unit options and capabilities into consideration. A Space Marine Unit has far more tools to deal with a much wider variety of threats, able to potentially emgage a greater number of targets (combat squads) at potentially even longer ranges than FW's (they dont have anything that can hit out to 48") and can be successful at both shooting an CC.
That Fire Warriors have a couple advantages that SM's dont is not unfair. FW's are slightly better at 12-24" with their basic guns than SM's against a narrow range of targets (that is, again, largely desperation fire), and can hit targets within a 6" range band that SM's cannot with their basic guns, but SM's are *dramatically* better at under 12" once assault ranges are threatened, and have upgrade options to give them far greater reach and versatility than Fire Warriors could ever hope for.
The unit capability is what matters, SM's are not designed or intended to be fielded unupgraded.
Grizzyzz wrote:Woah.. firewarriors do not have BS2 overwatch and thats an extra 5ppm on suit squads.
Oh. Never mind.
Still, though, their overwatch BS can be improved with marker lights. That's completely OP.
And Dark Angels can overwatch at full BS with their entire army without having to hit on 6's with another unit to increase the BS of one unit in overwatch.
pm713 wrote: I've seen people just ban Eldar on reputation alone so it's unfair to say it was one month of complaints. Honestly I see way more about Eldar than Tau.
In one upcoming tournament here in Finland did exactly that, craftworld space elves are completely banned. So far I haven't seen anyone complain about it.
I'd complain... but I play elder and have since 4th when they were the lowest tier army along side tau. I prefer footdar with a lord of war (lol why is he LOW) Avatar. though as I understand that when I bring all the bikes and fun stuff they are pretty overpowered. I only bring the WK and wave serpents to tournaments.
Merellin wrote:And Dark Angels can overwatch at full BS with their entire army without having to hit on 6's with another unit to increase the BS of one unit in overwatch.
Dark Angels ravenwing are also completely OP. An entire army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks on turn 1? Which don't sacrifice their next turn's shooting capabilities? 3+ rerollable jinks after turn 1? The ability to take landspeeders which can fire overwatch, even if they're not even the ones being assaulted?
I call shenanigans!
GW needs to calm the feth down and dial things down a notch or 10.
kingbobbito wrote:Three squads of fire warriors firing overwatch is at least 3 times more threatening than a single squad of marines firing overwatch. Losing a model or two from a melee powerhouse on your own turn while you try to charge (that you may fail) is a bit frustrating. Sure, you'll wipe out the fire warriors, but a good melee squad will have no trouble with tacs either. Nothing is more of a slap to the face than losing half a melee squad to 60 overwatch shots from tau.
So this is where discussion and practice actual differ. Let's say you did have 60 overwatch shots. That's 10 hits and math showed it took 9 hits to averagely remove 1 marine.. so really. That is some scary overwatch indeed..
Let's assume however it is soo scary..
) why is the dedicated melee unit charging into a group of units unsupported? Tactically speaking you would wipe them out leaving yourself in the open in the middle of my army. No bueno
if they are supported. Why charge them in first? Overwatch is still once per turn. Let me waste some by charging an expendable unit first.
Just some friendly tips. Works on other armies too!
** EDIT ** Bad maths 2.2 marines fall to 60 overwatch shots. My error
Vaktathi wrote:and in CCSM's are an order of magnitude more capable, have access to things like drop pods that Fire Warriors do not, and have organic access to atuff like Meltaguns, Powerfists, Lascannons, Flamers and Meltas that Fire Warriors have no ability to field.
The +1S on their guns is really very minor in comparison, and the ability to glance AV14 or wound WK's is realtively trivial as thats desperation fire in most instances, and SM's with their specialized heavy/special/cc weapons are much more of a threat to such units typically.
I only wish to note that you simply cannot compare an upgraded space marine to a fire warrior. It's not a fair comparison. A tactical marine with a plasma gun is a 29 point model, whereas the fire warrior is only 9 ppm.
The game isnt built around naked individual infantrymen, its built around units, you have to take the unit options and capabilities into consideration. A Space Marine Unit has far more tools to deal with a much wider variety of threats, able to potentially emgage a greater number of targets (combat squads) at potentially even longer ranges than FW's (they dont have anything that can hit out to 48") and can be successful at both shooting an CC.
That Fire Warriors have a couple advantages that SM's dont is not unfair. FW's are slightly better at 12-24" with their basic guns than SM's against a narrow range of targets (that is, again, largely desperation fire), and can hit targets within a 6" range band that SM's cannot with their basic guns, but SM's are *dramatically* better at under 12" once assault ranges are threatened, and have upgrade options to give them far greater reach and versatility than Fire Warriors could ever hope for.
The unit capability is what matters, SM's are not designed or intended to be fielded unupgraded.
But that drives their cost up significantly.
It absolutely does, but with SM armies, the troops are intended to fill roles that Fire Warriors are not too, and such enhancements a lot to the utility of these units.
From a purely infantry perspective, theress nothing wrong with FW's vs Space Marines. There are some issues with the Tau army as a whole (as there are with SM's too), but fundamentally Fire Warriors having better guns than SM's is not something thats unfair or unbalanced.
S5 guns are not the problem with Tau. Its the MC suits and gimmick abilities.
Merellin wrote:And Dark Angels can overwatch at full BS with their entire army without having to hit on 6's with another unit to increase the BS of one unit in overwatch.
Dark Angels ravenwing are also completely OP. An entire army of bikes with 2+ rerollable jinks on turn 1? Which don't sacrifice their next turn's shooting capabilities? 3+ rerollable jinks after turn 1? The ability to take landspeeders which can fire overwatch, even if they're not even the ones being assaulted?
I call shenanigans!
GW needs to calm the feth down and dial things down a notch or 10.
That's really not how things are. Unless you have nothing but Dark Shrouds and Black Knights. As for the turn 1 thing you give up a turns shooting for that.
"S5 guns are not the problem with Tau. Its the MC suits and gimmick abilities."
I agree. S5 is survivable and from personal experience not super efficient against most AV 11 targets. There's a huge efficiency difference between fire warriors glancing out a Rhino. (Which might be FREE, might I add) and scatterbikes glancing out an IK on the side. Being able to glance out AV 12 on 6's allows you to get a lot more bang for your buck. Glancing out AV 11 is not nearly as good.
Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
IF scatter lasers were S5 instead of S6, it would bring them back into firewarrior realm of destructiveness. Which is more manageable.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
IF scatter lasers were S5 instead of S6, it would bring them back into firewarrior realm of destructiveness. Which is more manageable.
Why not make the bike weapons 1 heavy per 3 bikers again? Seems a better fix.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, scatterbikes are a whole other level of silly, not just in firepower but in resiliency (getting Space Marine T and SV) and mobility. A single Scatterbike beats a trio of FW's all day long.
IF scatter lasers were S5 instead of S6, it would bring them back into firewarrior realm of destructiveness. Which is more manageable.
Why not make the bike weapons 1 heavy per 3 bikers again? Seems a better fix.
Short answer: the scatterlaser is cheap and spammable outside bikers. If the scatterlaser weren't an unreasonable weapon in the era of hullpoints, the bikes wouldn't be as offensive. How good would marine bikers be at 21+10=31 ppm with heavy bolters? The answer is meh.
Additionally, the scatterlaser has never really been a fair weapon due to its range, strength, ROF, and cover system combination. It was the original wound spammer back when everyone was obsessing over AP.
Eh, Id be ok with them if they were back at 1 for 3. I think Eldar heavy weapons in general are undercosted and making them 5ppm more across the board would go a long way to fixing some issues. The Scatterlaser at S6 doesnt bother me too much, its the ability to spam 10 of them per troops slot. On tanks its not an issue, and War Walkers dont seem to be particularly en vogue anymore, but the bikers are just silly, I think even at S5, 40 shots at 36" on a jetbike unit is still excessive.
Thank god they got rid of Laser Lock though...
The fixes for Eldar I think are relatively simple in general. Dump bikes back to 1 in 3 for heavy weapons, up heavy weapons costs by 5pts, dump the fomations (goes for everything really, not just Eldar), change Distort weapons back to their 6E versions, get rid of Fire Dragons AP0, bring the Serpent Shield weapon down to S5, neuter Invisibility, increase the Wraithknights cost by 100pts, and you have a strong and internally well balanced army that isnt ultra easymode broken.
On Knights, the bikes wiuld have to get to the side and would only be doing 1 hp per turn with a full squad (assuming no shield and no psychic buffs). The HP thing is more of a core rules issue that needs to be addressed in general than a Scatterlaser specific one.
War Walkers Im largely ok with, they at least are heavy support, and being AV10 open topped walkers with a squad size of 3, are much easier to kill, with less mobility and overall firepower (and faster firepower degradatiin per casualty) relative to Troops Scatter bikes
Vaktathi wrote: On Knights, the bikes wiuld have to get to the side and would only be doing 1 hp per turn with a full squad (assuming no shield and no psychic buffs). The HP thing is more of a core rules issue that needs to be addressed in general than a Scatterlaser specific one.
War Walkers Im largely ok with, they at least are heavy support, and being AV10 open topped walkers with a squad size of 3, are much easier to kill, with less mobility and overall firepower (and faster firepower degradatiin per casualty) relative to Troops Scatter bikes
Fortuned warwalkers in ruins are NOT easy to kill, unfortunately.
Vaktathi wrote: On Knights, the bikes wiuld have to get to the side and would only be doing 1 hp per turn with a full squad (assuming no shield and no psychic buffs). The HP thing is more of a core rules issue that needs to be addressed in general than a Scatterlaser specific one.
War Walkers Im largely ok with, they at least are heavy support, and being AV10 open topped walkers with a squad size of 3, are much easier to kill, with less mobility and overall firepower (and faster firepower degradatiin per casualty) relative to Troops Scatter bikes
Fortuned warwalkers in ruins are NOT easy to kill, unfortunately.
True, but they are exceedingly vulnerable to many common ignores cover weapons, having to rely on that 5+ instead, and that relies on there being ruins on the table in a place thats good for them to operate from, and can be challenged in the psychic phase and the psyker can be killed to prevent the power being used, unlike an armoe save or Jink on Jetbikes.
Iron_Captain wrote: And no, I have never played anything before 6th and know no one else who did. Tau have always been OP and are still OP, alongside Eldar. Meanwhile, Orks and CSM have always been next to useless.
So you start off basically by admitting you have no idea what you're talking about, since your experience playing 40k has been very short and limited, and then boldly make bullgak claims about editions you admittedly weren't around for as if they were indisputable fact?
You'd make a good politician.
Thanks for the compliment I absolutely love politics. I think I want to be a diplomat when I finish my education.
But the discussion here is about the current (7th edition), which makes earlier editions completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Tau were powerful or weak in 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th editions, the only thing that matters is that they are OP in 7th edition. The second and third statements are facts. They are true for me, but your mileage might vary. There is no such thing as "indisputable facts".
Its just weird you'd write 'always' when you really mean 'this edition', and call it a fact. By saying always, its not a fact. By saying 'this edition', then sure, it becomes a fact.
Many people here remember when those factions were in a distinctly different power balance.
I need to keep up appearances to the Tau community, how could I have let such a thread slide
Tau have one flaw in general. They forsake everything to specialize in one phase. Because of that the designers have to give them the tools necessary to handle everything in that one phase.
And that phase is the least interactive phase in the game.
Every army has a way to participate in most phases. Most of the time an army is built to specialize in two phases, because speciality armies always are meant to overpower the others in those phases.
Tau don't get that. Shooting only. Alongside good durability on robots that shouldn't be ducking MC.
Tau have one flaw in general. They forsake everything to specialize in one phase. Because of that the designers have to give them the tools necessary to handle everything in that one phase.
Respectfully disagree, and it is a general misconception that Tau can only play in the shooting phase. While they are only ws2, I have charge many firewarriors into combat in the right situations to much success. Whether it be firing carbines and then charging or taking out a landraider with EMP grenades. My favorite moment was taking out a Ironclad with Firewarriors in CC.
-------
It is all about the people you play against honestly. Play people who revel in the 'pick a ruin and castle' you are not going to have much interaction. But I think it is unfair of everyone to label a community based on what previously was the norm.
Most Farsight Enclaves and even newer Tau Empire lists are much more interactive. Look at the core formation for the Hunter Contingent. "units withing 12" of commander or fireblade may run and shoot"... Tau with battlefocus, Awesome! Even the rules are trying to pull people off of gunlines and be mobile.
And maybe it is just me, but how does it help anyone to bring toxic comments and tell a group to pack up and leave, or straight ban them.. this goes for any army not just Tau. I think the 40k community in general has become worse over this past year in terms of just utter hatred towards each other. Anyway, point is, remember we are all apart of this Grimdark universe and the Tyranids are coming for everyone!
Grizzyzz wrote: Respectfully disagree, and it is a general misconception that Tau can only play in the shooting phase. While they are only ws2, I have charge many firewarriors into combat in the right situations to much success. Whether it be firing carbines and then charging or taking out a landraider with EMP grenades.
My Tau opponent doesn't usually charge with his Firewarriors but his suits often do if it seems like a good idea. They can outlast weaker non-CC dedicated infantry and remain shielded from shooting while doing so, not always a bad thing. Not to forget they can play mobility too - suits have JSJ, Kroot can outflank, you can pack Firewarriors into Devilfish. A Tau player doesn't have to play gunline, and in fact might surprise an opponent pretty nastily if he goes for another option.
So, Traditio refuses to consider unit upgrades in his Space Marine vs Tau comparison, but bringing up markerlights is fair game?
Anyhow, I'm going to chime in and add to the voices who are pointing out that Space Marines Tac Squads get access to upgrades that Tau Fire Warriors don't get. Want to play the range game? Take a missile launcher in your squad. That'll let you take out Fire Warriors from 18" further out than they can reach with their pulse rifles. And their transport too! Or, give the squad a flamer, a combi-flamer, and a drop pod with a deathwind launcher. That'll put some hurt on Fire Warriors.
It's also worth pointing out that Fire Warriors have minimal upgrade options - networked markerlight for the squad leader is about it. So that S5 shooting is all they've got.
On the flipside, against the Tau players I've been playing against, the ability to dakka down Rhinos through glances has not been a desperation move. Part of that may be our meta - we play with 40% Troops minimum, so our players are obliged to take a lot of Fire Warriors. They can glance out Rhinos pretty reliably. Our SoB player doesn't use them anymore - she's switched over to Repressors for her Battle Sisters squads. My counter has been to start using a Land Raider Crusader (loaded with Scouts, because they're plenty killy for Fire Warriors) and to field a couple of Whirlwinds.
As for Overwatch, yes it's a nuisance, but if you understand how it works you can mitigate. The unit being charged can only fire overwatch once and can't fire overwatch if it's locked in combat. So lead the charge with something cheap and expendable to eat the overwatch.
It's also worth pointing out that Fire Warriors have minimal upgrade options - networked markerlight for the squad leader is about it. So that S5 shooting is all they've got.
Just want to clarify. Fire warriors may upgrade one to be a squad leader, who may upgrade further to have a markerlight and target lock HOWEVER it is not networked.. as awesome as that would be
Additonally as of the new Codex/Campaigns Fire warriors may take either a misslepod or Smart missile turret as an additional upgrade. However it should be noted that the squad must remain completely stationary (can't snapfire after moving like a missle launcher). If they move, it is "disassembled and strapped to the mule" essentially.
Fire Warriors are in fact flatly worse across the board than Space Marines. In fact, except for their Armor Save, they are inferior to Guardsmen. They are, indeed, awful, other than their gun, and mediocre with it.
They're designed to function in synergy with other units -- markerlight-equipped units, Etherials, Fireblades -- like Tau units in general.
I know this isn't news to people -- maybe I just like hearing myself talk.
My Tau opponent doesn't usually charge with his Firewarriors but his suits often do if it seems like a good idea. They can outlast weaker non-CC dedicated infantry and remain shielded from shooting while doing so, not always a bad thing. Not to forget they can play mobility too - suits have JSJ, Kroot can outflank, you can pack Firewarriors into Devilfish. A Tau player doesn't have to play gunline, and in fact might surprise an opponent pretty nastily if he goes for another option.
Crisis Bodyguards are actually more or less Ogryns in close combat.
Alcibiades wrote: Fire Warriors are in fact flatly worse across the board than Space Marines. In fact, except for their Armor Save, they are inferior to Guardsmen. They are, indeed, awful, other than their gun, and mediocre with it.
They're designed to function in synergy with other units -- markerlight-equipped units, Etherials, Fireblades -- like Tau units in general.
I know this isn't news to people -- maybe I just like hearing myself talk.
My Tau opponent doesn't usually charge with his Firewarriors but his suits often do if it seems like a good idea. They can outlast weaker non-CC dedicated infantry and remain shielded from shooting while doing so, not always a bad thing. Not to forget they can play mobility too - suits have JSJ, Kroot can outflank, you can pack Firewarriors into Devilfish. A Tau player doesn't have to play gunline, and in fact might surprise an opponent pretty nastily if he goes for another option.
Crisis Bodyguards are actually more or less Ogryns in close combat.
They give up fewer points when they die and are often functionally superior in the context of a list. That's the gripe, I believe. Most of a space marine's "advantages" over a fire warrior don't matter much anymore.
They give up fewer points when they die and are often functionally superior in the context of a list. That's the gripe, I believe. Most of a space marine's "advantages" over a fire warrior don't matter much anymore.
I actually have to agree with him on this. Fire Warriors have a good amount of support options. Sit them in cover and they have long range weapons with the ability to boost their BS and Ignore Cover. Then, if anything gets close, they have options to double or triple their shots, in addition to the aforementioned buffs. They just work better. Space Marines just pay for a 3+ save and some wargear, and that's all they really bring to the table most of the time.
Martel732 wrote: They give up fewer points when they die and are often functionally superior in the context of a list. That's the gripe, I believe. Most of a space marine's "advantages" over a fire warrior don't matter much anymore.
Yes. When you start tossing around force multipliers like hot cakes....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
krodarklorr wrote:I actually have to agree with him on this. Fire Warriors have a good amount of support options. Sit them in cover and they have long range weapons with the ability to boost their BS and Ignore Cover. Then, if anything gets close, they have options to double or triple their shots, in addition to the aforementioned buffs. They just work better. Space Marines just pay for a 3+ save and some wargear, and that's all they really bring to the table most of the time.
Yes. That's why space marines (i.e., tac marines) need buffs and fire warriors need nerfs! I would say "expunge them [and all Tau] from the game," but models are expensive and there are lots of tau players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grizzyzz wrote:Most Farsight Enclaves and even newer Tau Empire lists are much more interactive. Look at the core formation for the Hunter Contingent. "units withing 12" of commander or fireblade may run and shoot"... Tau with battlefocus, Awesome! Even the rules are trying to pull people off of gunlines and be mobile.
Bull pucky! You and I both know how tau use battlefocus. Not to make them more "mobile," i.e., actually to move across the battlefield. It just makes them harder to hit because of JSJ nonsense.
I think its an issue of infantry in general and scale creep. Relative to each other, there's nothing wrong with FW's or SM's. But when games are starting to look more and more like Kursk instead of a platoon scale engagement, a lot of things like infantry become increasingly less granular in many instances. When we are seeing stuff like scatterbike units able to dump the firepower of half an IG gunline on their own, or D weapons and GC's in play, individual infantry become increasingly irrelevant.
Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
Hey, 29 ppm for a guy with a plasma cannon. Good thing he's slightly better in close combat than a guardsman!
Martel732 wrote: Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
The bulk of a tac squad acts as bullet sponges for the special/heavy weapon guys in the unit while every fire warrior is contributing equally to their offensive potential. As FWs die their firepower drops off at a steady rate. When Tac Marines die they tend to lose the more expendable guys first while the real heavy hitters with special weapons are usually the last to die so firepower doesn't drop off as hard from casualties until the special weapons die. That and ATSKNF means that Tacticals stay in the fight longer and tend to not run off the board. These factors muddle how effective a Tactical Marine unit can be compared to the more straight forward Fire Warrior unit. Not saying your wrong btw, its just that the points and power are loaded onto a few guys who tend to die last.
krodarklorr wrote: Fire Warriors have a good amount of support options. Sit them in cover and they have long range weapons with the ability to boost their BS and Ignore Cover.
The squad only gets one Markerlight of it's own so the rest of the buffs will have to come from somewhere else. The Firewarriors aren't doing it all alone unlike a marine squad that has all of it's stuff in it.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
It also causes a massive surge in their damage output.
Heck, against some not-too-special targets the plasma does more than the 7 boltguns that are used by his bullet catcher buddies.
Tau however, don't quite have such radical stat-shifting guns on their fire warriors. you got a good basic gun-but that's all you are getting.
If you want a good comparison, don't compare fire warriors to tacticals-compare them to bolter scouts.
Ignoring for a moment that scouts got alternative weapons, heavy weapons and such. just basic bolter scouts.
Scouts pay two more per dude.
They have THE SAME shooting output against most targets due to BS versus better gun difference, with warriors having a slightly better range.
+2WS +1S +2I makes them less of a paper towel in CC compared to the FW.
+1 T means they don't die quite as easy.
Defensive grenades replaced by frag and krak grenades, a definite upgrade.
Lose out Supporting Fire, and in return get ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, Infiltrate, Move Through Cover and Scout. holy gak that's alot of special rules.
Honestly, can you even attempt to argue the FW are somehow better than the scouts?
Because if I could switch my FW to scouts, I wouldn't even blink. heck even assuming that there get no relevant chapter tactics at all-its still probably an upgrade.
And then you got the fact they can get far better options in upgrades, transports and alternate loadouts.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
It also causes a massive surge in their damage output.
Heck, against some not-too-special targets the plasma does more than the 7 boltguns that are used by his bullet catcher buddies.
Tau however, don't quite have such radical stat-shifting guns on their fire warriors. you got a good basic gun-but that's all you are getting.
If you want a good comparison, don't compare fire warriors to tacticals-compare them to bolter scouts.
Ignoring for a moment that scouts got alternative weapons, heavy weapons and such. just basic bolter scouts.
Scouts pay two more per dude.
They have THE SAME shooting output against most targets due to BS versus better gun difference, with warriors having a slightly better range.
+2WS +1S +2I makes them less of a paper towel in CC compared to the FW.
+1 T means they don't die quite as easy.
Defensive grenades replaced by frag and krak grenades, a definite upgrade.
Lose out Supporting Fire, and in return get ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, Infiltrate, Move Through Cover and Scout. holy gak that's alot of special rules.
Honestly, can you even attempt to argue the FW are somehow better than the scouts?
Because if I could switch my FW to scouts, I wouldn't even blink. heck even assuming that there get no relevant chapter tactics at all-its still probably an upgrade.
And then you got the fact they can get far better options in upgrades, transports and alternate loadouts.
This.
Marines are heavy infantry in an edition which doesn't favour heavy infantry.
Compare FW with a unit of a closer armour and size class, and you see a huge difference.
Yeah it's clear that space marines are discriminated against by GW and totally given short shrift in terms of power and options.
Space Marine players: the rich white straight Christian males of the 40k community, continually under attack by the oppressive GW not giving them subfaction specific rules for their homebrew chapter and not updating the totally ancient miniature line.
It's just a feeling, but I have a real issue with Tau dice rolling - buckets of dice flood across the table, followed by watching the other player pick out loads of them for re-roll this and re-roll that for what feels like every unit.
For a time-consuming game, it just feels extra bloated. - I'd like to see the dice rolling part streamlined more.
krodarklorr wrote: Fire Warriors have a good amount of support options. Sit them in cover and they have long range weapons with the ability to boost their BS and Ignore Cover.
The squad only gets one Markerlight of it's own so the rest of the buffs will have to come from somewhere else.
Marker Drones are a thing.
It boosts the points value of a squad up by 49 points to do so, but it is not impossible to have a Fire Warrior Team with 3x Markerlights within the unit.
The Firewarriors aren't doing it all alone unlike a marine squad that has all of it's stuff in it.
You would have a point if it weren't such a low opportunity cost for Markerlights to function compared to what they give.
Martel732 wrote: Marines are never 14 pts a model though. They are always armed with grav or plasma or what not. This actually decreases their survivability/pt significantly.
It also causes a massive surge in their damage output.
Heck, against some not-too-special targets the plasma does more than the 7 boltguns that are used by his bullet catcher buddies.
Tau however, don't quite have such radical stat-shifting guns on their fire warriors. you got a good basic gun-but that's all you are getting.
You're totally right. Tau don't have unit upgrades like Imperial armies do.
You know what they DO have though? Synergy beyond belief with the characters in the army.
Fire Warriors, while not being able to toss a Plasma Rifle into the squad, don't necessarily need to. Park Fire Warriors near an Ethereal doing "Storm of Fire" and all of a sudden, they're firing three shots at 15" range. Never mind that if they stay still and have a Fireblade in the unit they're firing four shots at 15".
Can you think of any other army that gets to do that with no LD test or gimmick beyond you stating that "I'm doing this power now"?
If you want a good comparison, don't compare fire warriors to tacticals-compare them to bolter scouts.
Ignoring for a moment that scouts got alternative weapons, heavy weapons and such. just basic bolter scouts.
Scouts pay two more per dude.
They have THE SAME shooting output against most targets due to BS versus better gun difference, with warriors having a slightly better range.
+2WS +1S +2I makes them less of a paper towel in CC compared to the FW.
+1 T means they don't die quite as easy.
Defensive grenades replaced by frag and krak grenades, a definite upgrade.
Lose out Supporting Fire, and in return get ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, Infiltrate, Move Through Cover and Scout. holy gak that's alot of special rules.
Honestly, can you even attempt to argue the FW are somehow better than the scouts?
Because if I could switch my FW to scouts, I wouldn't even blink. heck even assuming that there get no relevant chapter tactics at all-its still probably an upgrade.
And then you got the fact they can get far better options in upgrades, transports and alternate loadouts.
Which FW are we talking about here? Strike or Breacher?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merellin wrote: But why would you put 3 expensive markerlights in a fire warrior unit when the fire warrior unit cant use it's own markerlights?
You do know that you're not limited to fielding "just one" unit of Fire Warriors, right?
Kanluwen, How does giving them 1 extra shot at half range, Make them shoot 2 shots at max range..? Storm of Fire gives Pulse weapons 1 extra shot at half the weapons maximum range.
Merellin wrote: Kanluwen, How does giving them 1 extra shot at half range, Make them shoot 2 shots at max range..? Storm of Fire gives Pulse weapons 1 extra shot at half the weapons maximum range.
That's my bad, however...it doesn't change the point I was attempting to make. Fire Warriors can put out an OBSCENE volume of firepower, whether at their full 30" range or at 15".
To pretend that the presence of a Plasma Gun or some other kind of special weapon is somehow a benefit when that unit can potentially be put down outside of their 'best' range is asinine.
People are complaining about fire warriors so much, yet people seem to ignore that fire warriors got a big buff by having their min squad size lowered, and aren't a staple in every tau list. In fact I've seen people opt to take kroot or as few squads of min warriors as possible. If they were OP in the codex, than I suspect that'd be used far more often in the competitive scene.
Also fire warriors are essentially a crap guy with a high quality gun. Most of your points are going into the guy's gun and save, and beyond that not much else. It's a min maxed unit, that frankly drops to pie plates and runs like hell. They're not optimal in a tau list.
I'm of the mind tau shouldn't be nerfed, but other codexes should be buffed.
Jaxler wrote:I'm of the mind tau shouldn't be nerfed, but other codexes should be buffed.
I completely agree. Codices don't need buffs. Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
@OP-I am not sure I understand your question. Every army has options that can be unfun and more competitive except Chaos and Orks. I honestly think a lot of the hate Tau see (not flaming here, just an observation) comes from Marine players or competitive players who have realized Tau now have a paper to their rock. Marine/Imperial armies are some of the most un-fun to play in a competitive arena IMO due to their ability to pull from soooooo many options with limited downsides. It is very hard to adapt to because they have sooooo many options. Not sure why we don't see more hate threads there.
To me this game becomes fun when I am playing in a group and learn to adapt to my opponent. If you play in a static gaming group then they will complain when you bring something that beats them consistently (table flipping rage quit hehe). If people want to have fun playing against Tau then they need to adapt. There are no Auto Win buttons in the Tau list and everything has a strong counter so tell your gaming group to adapt. They will figure out the paper to your rock and then you will need to adapt again. Learning and adapting to a challenge is where this is fun for me, kinda like a puzzle. Years ago I was playing a list that I won a lot with (DE with the incubus court) and my group started complaining how broken it was. So....I swapped armies with them and they soon realized how much glass the DE really were heh. We ran an event where you swapped armies with opponents so they could try something new and learn the strength/weakness of other armies. It stopped a lot of the "over powered" conversations hehehe.
Jaxler wrote:I'm of the mind tau shouldn't be nerfed, but other codexes should be buffed.
I completely agree. Codices don't need buffs. Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Honestly I can't disagree with this. As a Guard player half the time I wonder why I bother putting my infantry down, they're essentially irrelevant now.
War Kitten wrote:Honestly I can't disagree with this. As a Guard player half the time I wonder why I bother putting my infantry down, they're essentially irrelevant now.
It's not just Guard, either. Khorne Berserkers, Tactical Marines, Thousand Sons, Sternguard, you name it.
All of these things should be really good on the table top. Because of gigantic robots, they aren't as good as they should be. Giant robots and overpowered bikes (whether space marine, dark angels, eldar, or otherwise).
I think a lot of the hate Tau gets is that they are a gunline AND a mobile army without the weaknesses of either. They counter every "counter" that usually exists, which makes their basic army builds have no real weaknesses. This causes frustration for most casual players and frustration = not fun. Are they weak in melee? Absolutely. Good freaking luck ever getting into melee with Tau unless the tau player monumentally screws up. A lot of this is of course not on the players - its on the rules GW built Tau with. Rather than having creative ways to try and counter things that could work or fail, they were given every hard counter in the book. You want to try and break up a gunline using DS/Pods? All their really killy units get interceptor dirt cheap! Want to try and use fliers to force snapshots? Nope! Elective Skyfire. Dodge their immense firepower with strategic terrain and careful movement? Markerlights - which you cant take cover against - strip that away. With all of those abilities coming on very good units Tau will take anyway, there is very little give and take in their army makeup. They get all the cool toys that very selective units in other codexs/armies get.
A glaring gap for tau is a lack of psychic presence, but many people don't like having to rely on psykers. Personally I like librarians but avoid them like the plague when with friends because of all the "cheese" that comes from them. This weakness can be exploited by some armies, and looks to be the one area where Tau doesn't match up to other lists.
At this point, unless you personally tailor a Tau list to include lesser seen units like kroot, stealth suits (sorry for that pun), or armor/fliers, it will be frustrating for most people who have seen the same Tau list and tactics a dozen times. The only real "fix" that I could see is GW making more of their units specialized by focusing the Intercepter/Skyfire/Ignores Cover onto specialist units and not the general whole army. They really need to make Kroot, Vespids and other weak units more useful - give Tau its power through choice and a plethora of unit options that can be effective instead of concentrating all the power into a few select builds that overwhelm and counter everything with the same army list every time. They have started to do this with things like the awesome Breacher teams, but at the same time they over did it and made them a little too killy, but its a step in the right direction at least.
Another glaring gap in tau is having the worst leadership in the game. any weapon/power/whatever that targets leadership will be twice as efficient against tau than anyone else.
Also, how is the fact tau has the common "power build" any different from eldar power build "spam scatbikes/spiders plus as many wraithknights you are allowed", the marine powerbuilds "I have more obsec than you got units in general", and every other power build out there?
I keep finding it staggering how people keep throwing accusations against tau as if the very same things are not true for many other armies. in fact, every other functional army. its the nature of games to have powerbuilds evolve.
And of course tau has an answer to fething everything-IT SHOULD. its not marines with a bazillion allies to cover any possible need, its not eldar with super-specialists who are above and beyond anyone else in their niches (and also got a few allies, and some mind boggling brute force units), and its not non-functional like chaos and some xenos who are non-functional FOR THE VERY REASON THEY LACK ANSWERS TO COMMON THREATS AND GET NO INNER SYNERGY.
Yes, tau can answer and hard-counter practically anything but psykers-but the tau general has to CHOOSE. you can't fit it all into a list, you can't cover every angle at once.
The iternal balance issues make it a bit too monotonic in the competetive scene, but what you need to fix that is not nerfing tau, but redestributing power by tweaks. making X a bit less and Y a bit more (ion accelerators for example are a bit too good, while the HBC not quite enough. the HYMP a bit too good, the HRR not quite enough, etc)
And frankly, the age of formations solved it a bit. yes you got the ball-busting riptide wing that should never existed, but things like the OSC gives a new angle on tau being up close and personal "dance around" fighters, things like the retaliation cadre is a very much "in your face" type force, etc. the formations do little to benefit the boring gunline, and far better support mobile forces, irregular engagement methods and precision tactical use of units for gaining the maximum effect.
The problem is not tau, very much not tau.
The problem is that some armies LACK that level of proper army inner working, unifying themes, or proper rules. going over them quickly:
=Chaos is a pisspoor mesh or rules without a theme and generally bad units all around who are inferior to imperial ocunterparts. the marines are the worst of it, the daemons rely on gimmiks because they lack the inner workings required.
=Orks have the mob rule that is supposed to enforce large numbers. except it also applies to small units like nobs? they should benefit from being a horde, not looking at indiviual units and saying "well, pay a toll for not making that unit big enough"
=Nid's theme of synapse is a pure negative, and both the units feding on it (gaunt hordes for example) and the units meant to uphold it (warriors) are simply not good enough, they are pushed to abusing the few units who work around the problem/lists that hardly cares.
="Astra Millitarum" (still going with IG) have the most unwieldy composite formation ever, and while the order system is great, the support pieces are just lacking in power level. most tanks overprice, and infantry paying as much as marines for upgrades who don't offer nearly as much of an effect, artillery and airforce are great but don't belong on the 72*48 table but only apocalypse ranges, and such. they are not built for the 1000-2000 scale, but the 2500+ on the massive table.
=Dark eldar, are practically non-existent because thier other eldar brothers (clowns, crafts and pirates) all out-do them in most fields, many of their units suck and the place they should have shined (leadership shenanigans) is disfunctional because every marine army is practically immune due to the DE's own rules saying ATSKNF is immune, so you really shouldn't even bother.
In contrast, look at codex marines, dark angels, eldar, necron new space wolves-they all HAVE a "gameplan", an inner synergy, proper tools to handle mostly anything and the ability to spin around multiple paths to victory. and the work, usually as good or better than tau too (well, eldar work TOO good due to a few choice OP units, but if you took the wraithknight/scatbike/spider out of the equasion, the army would work properly)
Don't bring the tau down, mark the disfunctional into real armies, rather than the mash of random unrelated units they are today.
how to balance dysfunctional and tau? stick to a single CAD with (possibly) a single ally (see below), Leave the formations at home, but allow your opponent to field whatever they want.
I will say it again. . .
the last game that I played, the shrieks of outrage weren't over my stormsurge, but rather my Culexus. (so be careful which ally you bring too)
1) the only unit that has "networked" markerlights are the Skyray and the Sunshark bomber. So it doesn't matter if FW's or any unit has its own markerlights.. they cant use them. and if we do take them, then we are looking at committing multiple units at ONE target. and if you know this MSU.
2) If you are worried about potentially 40 shots coming from one squad of FWs... which averagly downs only 4.5 marines.. and at BS5 from markers only..7.5 marines.. remember how many points we dropped to get that.. at a minimum 110 points (154 w/ pathfinders to get 2 marker hits).. and that was for a guy that by default has no save, and gives up an extra victory point.. and another that is still t3 with a 4+ save. Oh and they can't move else they don't get to fire the extra shot.
3) If even after (2) you are still worried.. Marines MSU like nobody else. Sure i have a 10 man squad in a pod.. oh .. they are 2x5 man squads now when they deploy in your face. So all those shots go into 1 unit and doesn't really matter how many i have then.. you have another
4) I realize its not always reliable.. but that said.. marines do have ways to gain their buffs through their psychers and chapter tactics.. Imperial fists, just reroll 1s wow. Ultrasmurfs.. dont get me started as you can potentially use everything twice in your parking lot lists... LIBRARIAN CONCLAVE.. take Tiggy and you literally now can nearly get all the psychic powers you need to be viable and will statistically get successes for them all.
5) Using point (4) you have access to invisibility preventing pie plates regardless of marker buffs (which still snap fire themselves)
Point is.. Marines have an equal internal synergy, people just for some reason don't think about it in the same way because Tau's is completely focused to one phase where theirs are split to two to three phases.
You know what is really scary as a Tau player.. when a white scars biker army on their turn 1 is in your face because they can move 24" and then act as normal. (one of many examples.. of good marine lists)
Large durable Monstrous creatures are just so unfun to play against. When you fight vehicles, you know that if you get a penetrating hit, even if you fail to kill it you may do some extra, useful damage like immobilize, Stun, destroy a weapon etc. This makes vehicles also fun to play with, your Tank lost its main gun, what to do? No worries, you can still find ways to make use of it.
By contrast, Monstrous Creatures just lose a wound when you get by their save, no extra effects, you can't instakill it. They stomp on with maximum combat effectiveness until you grind down their last wound, then they disappear. No explosion, no crater, no nothing. It is so BORING.
Sure Tau aren't the only offender but they are amongst the worst. And it is made worse by that Tau actually have a selection of interesting, variable vehicles, they just never see use because their rules are so crappy compared to Giant Monster Robots.
Good luck anyone trying to convince me, or even yourself that for example this list is any fun to play against.
Backfire wrote: Large durable Monstrous creatures are just so unfun to play against. When you fight vehicles, you know that if you get a penetrating hit, even if you fail to kill it you may do some extra, useful damage like immobilize, Stun, destroy a weapon etc. This makes vehicles also fun to play with, your Tank lost its main gun, what to do? No worries, you can still find ways to make use of it.
By contrast, Monstrous Creatures just lose a wound when you get by their save, no extra effects, you can't instakill it. They stomp on with maximum combat effectiveness until you grind down their last wound, then they disappear. No explosion, no crater, no nothing. It is so BORING. Sure Tau aren't the only offender but they are amongst the worst. And it is made worse by that Tau actually have a selection of interesting, variable vehicles, they just never see use because their rules are so crappy compared to Giant Monster Robots.
Good luck anyone trying to convince me, or even yourself that for example this list is any fun to play against.
The problem is not with MCs its that tanks are awful in the current Meta.. the fact that they CAN explode and take random damage is what brings them down a lot. MCs can be ID.. they are also susceptible to maledictions and other psychic witchfires/novas etc. ------- I saw that list, it is by far a ROCK in the rock paper scissor game.. its completely min-maxed and thus has some serious counters. You think that List is unbeatable.. Ask Alex Harrison if he is afraid of that list with his warp spider spam? Wounding all of them on 2s and flicker jumping when they are targeted. Additionally riptides have the least optimal loadout of Tau to take down wraithknights.
Grey knights would be laughing at that list.. Psilencer finally has some uses here, plus all their other force weapons.
I think BOLS Goatboy and his harliquins might even have a decent shot here with some trickery. As the are still Tau in CC.
Dark Angels 2+ reroll shenanigans.. no markerlights
Standard marines though.. so many psychic options not to mention MSU. Only 1 turn you need to worry about the double shooting phase. and with no markerlights you can jink and take all the cover saves you want. Run a Librarious conclave star run up .. lower their leadership and psychic shriek. More then likely you will kill a riptide.. and then at lower leadership they most likely will fail and fall back .... and since they DONT have ATSKNF they will need to then regroup and if they do, they are snapfiring for another turn... devastating if that is on a 3 man riptide squad.
He also has 0 objective secured where space marines have ALL objective secured units in their decurian. MAYBE you can't outgun them, but you certainly can win the game in other areas. I am waiting to hear back from his tournament to see how it actually did in practice.
The problem is not with MCs its that tanks are awful in the current Meta.. the fact that they CAN explode and take random damage is what brings them down a lot. MCs can be ID.. they are also susceptible to maledictions and other psychic witchfires/novas etc.
Tanks are awful because MC's do not have similar weaknesses they should, by all logic, have (why doesn't Riptide ever blow up? It has a huge Power reactor just like a tank). "Random damage" which makes vehicles "awful" is one of the factors why they are fun. It would be boring if they were given same wound/save mechanic like MC or infantry.
ID'ing a MC is very rare, compared to the rate vehicles blow up to normal shooting or Close combat attacks. People always bring up Force weapons, but almost all Force weapons are AP3 and Riptide is 2+ T6. In fact your typical Force weapon is more likely to hurt a tank than a Riptide!
I saw that list, it is by far a ROCK in the rock paper scissor game.. its completely min-maxed and thus has some serious counters. You think that List is unbeatable.. Ask Alex Harrison if he is afraid of that list with his warp spider spam? Wounding all of them on 2s and flicker jumping when they are targeted.
I don't think the list is unbeatable. Far from it. I claim it is not fun to play against, regardless of what army, list or units you yourself have. I play this game to have FUN.
The problem is not with MCs its that tanks are awful in the current Meta.. the fact that they CAN explode and take random damage is what brings them down a lot. MCs can be ID.. they are also susceptible to maledictions and other psychic witchfires/novas etc.
Tanks are awful because MC's do not have similar weaknesses they should, by all logic, have (why doesn't Riptide ever blow up? It has a huge Power reactor just like a tank). "Random damage" which makes vehicles "awful" is one of the factors why they are fun. It would be boring if they were given same wound/save mechanic like MC or infantry.
ID'ing a MC is very rare, compared to the rate vehicles blow up to normal shooting or Close combat attacks. People always bring up Force weapons, but almost all Force weapons are AP3 and Riptide is 2+ T6. In fact your typical Force weapon is more likely to hurt a tank than a Riptide!
There was a Proposed rules thread on vehicles not long ago, and I think the majority of people would respectfully disagree with you that vehicles are fun to play because they might explode haha. In fact most of the rules fixes suggested were to give them a toughness and armor save.. Any way not trying to argue about vehicles here.. just tossing you some info to check out
I saw that list, it is by far a ROCK in the rock paper scissor game.. its completely min-maxed and thus has some serious counters. You think that List is unbeatable.. Ask Alex Harrison if he is afraid of that list with his warp spider spam? Wounding all of them on 2s and flicker jumping when they are targeted.
I don't think the list is unbeatable. Far from it. I claim it is not fun to play against, regardless of what army, list or units you yourself have. I play this game to have FUN.
That is extremely reasonable. I also love fun games. Today I am about to play a Harlequin List against my friends GKs.. it is absolutely not in my favor lol..
To be fair to the OP of that list.. he was making a Tournament list.. not one to play for fun .
Not with their T vaues. The other ID mechanics are far too rare to be considered a real threat.
Pfff, why would you need Instant Death anymore when you have D-weapons?
There's that, too, but since MCs usually have more wounds than tanks have hps, they are better against those, too. Not to mention real cover saves.
I thought you couldn't "take cover" against D weapons. as well as FNPs for that matter. But i think his point still stands that those are not rare in the current meta.
D weapons aren't rare, but MCs are still better off.
Well, a 6 ignores even Cover.
The 2-5 results don't, though. That's what kills most targets with D. D weapons don't have the ROF to reliably generate "6"s. The 2-5 result is bad enough.
D weapons aren't rare, but MCs are still better off.
Well, a 6 ignores even Cover.
The 2-5 results don't, though. That's what kills most targets with D. D weapons don't have the ROF to reliably generate "6"s. The 2-5 result is bad enough.
Either way, Instant Death is becoming obsolete when armies have access to D weapons, especially D in CC.
That's very true. Although my codex suffers from a lack of Str D. Funny that. The BA have literally no good way to get rid of Riptides. None.
Maybe Tau players don't understand how undercosted the Riptide is because of D weapons. In which case, maybe it's not undercosted. Maybe the entire C:BA is OVERcosted. If I could bring say 25 tanks or 200 ASM to single battle, some might live to turn 3.
BoomWolf wrote:And of course tau has an answer to fething everything-IT SHOULD
No, it shouldn't.
Every army should have determinate strengths and weaknesses inherent to that army. Space marines SHOULD be the toughest, most capable and well equipped infantry in the game. They should NOT be able to maintain an overwhelming numerical presence on the battlefield.
Eldar SHOULD be a highly specialized, highly mobile army of space elf ninjas. They should NOT be unstoppable destruction machines, nor should they have unkillable giant robots.
Tau SHOULD be highly capable in the shooting phase. It should NOT be impossible to get Tau into close combat, and Tau SHOULD crumble when you do get close enough to chain-sword bash them in the face. Nor, again, should they have unkillable giant robots.
Picking an army should be like picking weapons and armor in Dark Souls 1. Oh, you want to wear havels armor? Fine. But you aren't going anywhere fast. You want to use a great sword? Fine. But your striking speed is going to be SLOW.
Havel in Dark Souls 1 SHOULD NOT have an answer to me circling around him and stabbing him in the back. That should be inherent to the weapons and armor that he uses.
BoomWolf wrote:And of course tau has an answer to fething everything-IT SHOULD
No, it shouldn't.
Every army should have determinate strengths and weaknesses inherent to that army. Space marines SHOULD be the toughest, most capable infantry in the game. They should NOT be able to maintain an overwhelming numerical presence on the battlefield.
Eldar SHOULD be a highly specialized, highly mobile army of space elf ninjas. They should NOT be unstoppable destruction machines, nor should they have unkillable giant robots.
Tau SHOULD be highly capable in the shooting phase. It should NOT be impossible to get Tau into close combat, and Tau SHOULD crumble when you do get close enough to chain-sword bash them in the face. Nor, again, should they have unkillable giant robots.
Picking an army should be like picking weapons and armor in Dark Souls 1. Oh, you want to wear havels armor? Fine. But you aren't going anywhere fast. You want to use a great sword? Fine. But your striking speed is going to be SLOW.
Havel in Dark Souls 1 SHOULD NOT have an answer to me circling around him and stabbing him in the back. That should be inherent to the weapons and armor that he uses.
Martel732 wrote: The worst part is that the Riptide is a beautiful model, but I hate the rules so much that I just want to mallet all of them to pieces.
I have the same feelings, especially for the Wraithknight.
You say that, but I think that Necrons are pretty close to what I'm describing.
Necrons ARE the toughest infantry in the game to kill.
But they pay for it in:
1. Relatively high points costs (in point of fact, the points cost should be a bit higher).
2. Relative lack of transport options.
3. General incompetence in the assault phase and
4. Relative lack of shooting capability. Necron infantry mostly have a 30 inch threat range (6 inch move + 24 inch range for their guns).
Again, that's why I like playing Necrons. I think that Necrons are fun to play against.
Playing Necrons is like wearing Havel's armor and wielding a short sword.
Martel732 wrote: The worst part is that the Riptide is a beautiful model, but I hate the rules so much that I just want to mallet all of them to pieces.
I have the same feelings, especially for the Wraithknight.
You say that, but I think that Necrons are pretty close to what I'm describing.
Necrons ARE the toughest infantry in the game to kill.
But they pay for it in:
1. Relatively high points costs (in point of fact, the points cost should be a bit higher).
2. Relative lack of transport options.
3. General incompetence in the assault phase and
4. Relative lack of shooting capability. Necron infantry mostly have a 30 inch threat range (6 inch move + 24 inch range for their guns).
Again, that's why I like playing Necrons. I think that Necrons are fun to play against.
Necrons are NOT incompetent in assault. Not even close.
You say that, but I think that Necrons are pretty close to what I'm describing.
Necrons ARE the toughest infantry in the game to kill.
But they pay for it in:
1. Relatively high points costs (in point of fact, the points cost should be a bit higher).
2. Relative lack of transport options.
3. General incompetence in the assault phase and
4. Relative lack of shooting capability. Necron infantry mostly have a 30 inch threat range (6 inch move + 24 inch range for their guns).
Again, that's why I like playing Necrons. I think that Necrons are fun to play against.
I also think that Necrons are the most internally balanced codex in the game right now. Everything is decent and can be used effectively. The externally you start to see things like Scatterbikes, D weapon spam, Stomps, ext.
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are NOT incompetent in assault. Not even close.
The average Necron infantry is roughly as capable as an upgraded tactical marine. Marines have higher intiative, but necrons have reanimation protocols.
Necrons do have dedicated assault units, of course.
Necrons are tough, but they can't throttle me the way that Gladius marines, centstar marines, Eldar or Tau do. They just can't kill me off nearly as quickly which means more things can go wrong for them.
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are NOT incompetent in assault. Not even close.
The average Necron infantry is roughly as capable as an upgraded tactical marine. Marines have higher intiative, but necrons have reanimation protocols.
Necrons do have dedicated assault units, of course.
They also have access to relentless which means they can double tap and then assault. And take even fewer wounds in CC than tac marines.
Run some of the Kroot Options, I've always wantted to see a pure kroot force but alas it's not to be. Don't pay the money for FW ones though, just convert your own
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are tough, but they can't throttle me the way that Gladius marines, centstar marines, Eldar or Tau do. They just can't kill me off nearly as quickly which means more things can go wrong for them.
As I said, I LOVE playing against Necrons. It's an army full of people that my boltguns potentially can hurt, of vehicles that my missile launchers can destroy, etc. Not to mention that Sternguard pretty much laugh at Necron warriors.
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are tough, but they can't throttle me the way that Gladius marines, centstar marines, Eldar or Tau do. They just can't kill me off nearly as quickly which means more things can go wrong for them.
As I said, I LOVE playing against Necrons. It's an army full of people that my boltguns potentially can hurt, of vehicles that my missile launchers can destroy, etc. Not to mention that Sternguard pretty much laugh at Necron warriors.
A missile launcher easily destroying a Necron vehicle? Uhh...
And as Martel said, I as a Necron player am not afraid of Boltguns.
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are tough, but they can't throttle me the way that Gladius marines, centstar marines, Eldar or Tau do. They just can't kill me off nearly as quickly which means more things can go wrong for them.
As I said, I LOVE playing against Necrons. It's an army full of people that my boltguns potentially can hurt, of vehicles that my missile launchers can destroy, etc. Not to mention that Sternguard pretty much laugh at Necron warriors.
it takes an insane amount of fire to bring down necrons. Not to mention even your sternguard, maybe the pen armor.. but then they still have a potential 4+ anyway. I hate playing necrons and I play Tau and Eldar
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
Oh wait, I forgot that Tau shouldn't exist and we should all be clanging gardening tools off of each other's pauldrons. My bad.
Grizzyzz wrote:it takes an insane amount of fire to bring down necrons. Not to mention even your sternguard, maybe the pen armor.
Kraken rounds: S4, 30 inch range, AP 4. Basically, it turns the 4+ armor, 4+ FNP into just a 4+ FNP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
krodarklorr wrote:A missile launcher easily destroying a Necron vehicle? Uhh...
And as Martel said, I as a Necron player am not afraid of Boltguns.
I play Crimson Fists (Imperial Fists chapter tactics). Your vehicles, on average, have 13 AV until I score a pen. That means that I'm glancing on 5s, penning on 6s. My missile launchers are, for the first three turns, essentially firing at BS 5 or better, and I reroll failed penetrating hits due to tank hunters.
You can jink, of course....on 4s. But you're snap-shooting on the following turn.
Jewelfox wrote: Srsly though I made this thread to ask for suggestions on making my Tau more fun to play against for people who are okay with playing against Tau.
I didn't make it so people who hate Tau players' guts just for existing can vent about having to share the FLGS with us.
Nerf pulse rifles, you guys
I think that this has basically already been answered in this thread.
Tau aren't fun to play against. Period.
You can mitigate this, of course, by:
1. Allowing your opponent a higher points limit.
2. Loading the field with LOS blocking terrain (not that it matters anyway vs. Tau).
3. Actually bothering to move your Tau in the movement phase.
But ultimately, the people who think that tau aren't fun to play against probably aren't going to like Tau regardless of how you play them.
Tau are fundamentally unfun to play against because of how that army operates. By playing Tau, you have opted to play a "broken" codex.
At this point, I simply have to ask:
Why did you decide to play Tau? Simply because they look cool?
Or because you knew that they were a really strong army? How much research did you do before deciding to play Tau? Were you unaware of the general Tau hate when you purchased your codex and models?
Martel732 wrote: Tau work mostly as I would expect them to except for unkillable MCs.
Try using grav weapons on Riptides, if they are available to your list
Grav weapons have, at most, a 24 inch range. Grav weapons are only really effective on bikes (they might also be effective in the formation that allows drop-podded devastators to have relentless). Even on centurions (who have relentless), I don't think that they're really that good. Even on centurions, they have roughly, at most, a 30 inch threat range. That's it. 30 inches.
If grav weapons are hitting your riptide (a monstrous jump creature), you should strongly consider the possibility that you've made some TERRIBLE tactical decisions.
OP is as much to blame for playing a stronger dex as I do for playing several UP dex's. We liked the aesthetic, playstyle, or just the fluff. Stop implying there's some malicious intent in the OP. Read their blog, it's clear you're wrong, like most of the trash posts I've seen you make on this forum.
Yes, and that's why us Tau players never make friends or play games.
Traditio wrote: Why did you decide to play Tau? Simply because they look cool?
Or because you knew that they were a really strong army? How much research did you do before deciding to play Tau? Were you unaware of the general Tau hate when you purchased your codex and models?
I was aware, after a TVTropes binge, that the Tau were idealists in a galaxy filled with genocidal xenophobes.
I was not aware that some spehss mureen fans got so into character as to call for Tau players' extermination.
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
Oh wait, I forgot that Tau shouldn't exist and we should all be clanging gardening tools off of each other's pauldrons. My bad.
Lets put it this way: Tau were my first army and I was a big Tau fan until the 6th edition Codex. Now my army's gathering dust and likely to stay that way. My sig's kind of a giveaway.
Martel732 wrote: Tau work mostly as I would expect them to except for unkillable MCs.
Try using grav weapons on Riptides, if they are available to your list
Grav weapons have, at most, a 24 inch range. Grav weapons are only really effective on bikes (they might also be effective in the formation that allows drop-podded devastators to have relentless). Even on centurions (who have relentless), I don't think that they're really that good. Even on centurions, they have roughly, at most, a 30 inch threat range. That's it. 30 inches.
If grav weapons are hitting your riptide (a monstrous jump creature), you should strongly consider the possibility that you've made some TERRIBLE tactical decisions.
So Grav centstar with librarians and GoI are non existent? Nor decent positioning? Since a 30" effective shooting range is a 60" diameter circle which cover the majority of the table. And your ignoring the fact that some missions may arise where you need that objective only a Riptide is able to get for you that turn.
It is completely ridiculous to say someone is terrible because their riptide or any other unit for that matter is being shot at... the table is only so big.
When I played marines you know what I did to stop a riptide.. i used a grav cents to force his movement towards little old scout marines.. who unexpectedly charged his riptide and held him in combat for 3 game turns because he couldn't sweep me.
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
To be fair, the giant robots are a revent development of the last couple years for Tau, not a longstanding hallmark. They used to be a very tank heavy army, with Crisis Suits in support (but werent big gigantor robots either).
Martel732 wrote: Necrons are tough, but they can't throttle me the way that Gladius marines, centstar marines, Eldar or Tau do. They just can't kill me off nearly as quickly which means more things can go wrong for them.
As I said, I LOVE playing against Necrons. It's an army full of people that my boltguns potentially can hurt, of vehicles that my missile launchers can destroy, etc. Not to mention that Sternguard pretty much laugh at Necron warriors.
Yeah...sure you can kill Warriors with Bolters...not very well, only slightly easier than than killing Terminators with them...at 1/3rd the price, while a BS4 Krak missile has about a 1 in 108 chance to explode a jinking Necron skimmer, and those Sternguard cost *wayyyyy* more than those Warriors and on average are only killing ~3 with a full 20 shot rapid fire salvo and are removing fewer points from the board than if youd just shot at naked guardsmen.
Martel732 wrote: BA don't have grav cents. There's no point in allying them when a pure vanilla force is strictly better in every way.
Your right.. and I think everyone has always agreed with you, BA aren't good right now.. they got canned in the release cycle.. so maybe play another chapter if you want to handle more situations (since you don't want to ally that is)..
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
To be fair, the giant robots are a revent development of the last couple years for Tau, not a longstanding hallmark. They used to be a very tank heavy army, with Crisis Suits in support (but werent big gigantor robots either).
I liked the Tau vehicle upgrade that made them fast, but not fast. That was so thematically accurate.
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
To be fair, the giant robots are a revent development of the last couple years for Tau, not a longstanding hallmark. They used to be a very tank heavy army, with Crisis Suits in support (but werent big gigantor robots either).
Fluff speaking.. the Imperium is what forced Tau to make riptides exist... so you can only blame yourselves
Martel732 wrote: BA don't have grav cents. There's no point in allying them when a pure vanilla force is strictly better in every way.
Your right.. and I think everyone has always agreed with you, BA aren't good right now.. they got canned in the release cycle.. so maybe play another chapter if you want to handle more situations (since you don't want to ally that is)..
I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
To be fair, the giant robots are a revent development of the last couple years for Tau, not a longstanding hallmark. They used to be a very tank heavy army, with Crisis Suits in support (but werent big gigantor robots either).
Fluff speaking.. the Imperium is what forced Tau to make riptides exist... so you can only blame yourselves
I don't acknowledge the fluff for the most part. Riptides exist to make GW $$$$.
I ask people's permission before bringing my Riptide. I also make sure they know that I'm playing Tau, when I'm scheduling games with them.
If my opponent doesn't have fun, or feels that they never stood a chance against me, I feel like I've failed as a gaming partner. That's why I started this thread. Not because my opponents haven't enjoyed themselves, but because I want to make sure they still do as I get cooler models and learn better skills.
So you can put away your torches, because if you don't want to be in the same game as me then I don't want to play against you, either. I didn't paint these blobs of Tau infantry so that space marine players can complain about how nothing should ever be better than them.
Start a new thread to complain about our fething pulse rifles.
Pulse rifles are fine, I think. S5 is not nearly as obnoxious as S6. Yes, you can glance out AV 11, but not particularly efficiently, and AV 11 units are usually pretty cheap.
Plus, fire warriors actually care about something like a Baal predator rolling up. I don't see any problem with fire warriors. It's more a problem of being able to squeeze 14pts+upgrades worth out of tactical marines. This is why I don't think marines are actually a good starter army, because they are so unfocused.
Martel732 wrote:I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Or maybe a bunch of MCs just need to be nerfed. Riptides should have the following stats:
Martel732 wrote:I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Or maybe a bunch of MCs just need to be nerfed. Riptides should have the following stats:
Walker: AV: F 12, S 12, R 10. 3 HP.
Ditto for wraithlords.
Ditto for wraithknights, except higher AV values.
Nah doesn't matter.. because then they would essentially be like dreadnaughts.. and their would be complaints that riptides get invul saves and have better guns then dreads do.
I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Yeah, it's got really stupid. They should both fix the vehicle damage AND make units like Riptides vehicles. This would remove the absurdities resulting from Riptide's MC status.
Martel732 wrote: BA don't have grav cents. There's no point in allying them when a pure vanilla force is strictly better in every way.
Your right.. and I think everyone has always agreed with you, BA aren't good right now.. they got canned in the release cycle.. so maybe play another chapter if you want to handle more situations (since you don't want to ally that is)..
Well, aren't BA supposed to be chapter in decline? there must be a reason behind it!
Traditio wrote: Or maybe MCs just need to be nerfed. Riptides should have the following stats:
Walker: AV: F 12, S 12, R 10. 3 HP.
Riptides are MCs and not walkers, because they are anime mecha and not vertical tanks. This is part of their appeal for Tau players, or at least for me, and it also reflects their fluff. They are consistently described as agile and responsive.
There are mechanical problems with this, but that is not the fault of Tau players, especially ones who talk things out with their opponents in advance. I've had someone tell me Riptides are hated as much as Knights, and that is bullgak, let me tell you.
If you're questioning why I play Tau, can't I do the same thing in reverse? Why do you play gue'ron'sha and then complain that your tail's getting kicked? Why aren't you using gravstar? Didn't you know people were talking about how powerful Riptides are?
You're assuming that spehss mureens are the default and everything else needs to justify itself somehow. The only thing I need to do to justify myself is bring models to the table. Swing your gardening tools somewhere else if you're not going to help me make that a fun time for me and my opponent.
Backfire wrote:Yeah, it's got really stupid. They should both fix the vehicle damage AND make units like Riptides vehicles. This would remove the absurdities resulting from Riptide's MC status.
Personally, I like the vehicle damage table. The possibility of exploding vehicles makes you seriously consider whether you should bring that tank or not, where you should position it, etc. Were it not for MC shenanigans, the current vehicle damage chart would make infantry pretty fething attractive.
Martel732 wrote:I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Or maybe a bunch of MCs just need to be nerfed. Riptides should have the following stats:
Traditio wrote: Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Yes, because giant robots aren't a valid reason to play 40k and aren't the reason many players get into Tau to begin with.
To be fair, the giant robots are a revent development of the last couple years for Tau, not a longstanding hallmark. They used to be a very tank heavy army, with Crisis Suits in support (but werent big gigantor robots either).
I liked the Tau vehicle upgrade that made them fast, but not fast. That was so thematically accurate.
Yup. I very much miss my vehicle multi-trackers (shoot like a fast vehicle) and target locks (vehicle can split fire its guns, so we don't have to waste SMS shots on a land raider or a railgun shot on a target which is out of LOS).
Also, yes, the big robot phase of the Tau is very much a new thing. Their previous fluff had them eschewing building big robots due to the inefficiency of putting that much of your resources in one thing when Crisis, Hammerheads and Broadsides could handle most things and for anything else there was aircraft like the Manta. Of course that was back before Broadside railguns suddenly became weaker than Lascannons.
Traditio wrote: Yes. Riptides shouldn't have invuln saves. They should work exactly like dreadnoughts.
Stop telling me what my codex should be like. I never asked your opinion. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like my ideas about your Astartes.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Traditio. They are similar looking units, they are both mechanized. though, because of a simple change in unit type, they operate vastly different. I'm sick of MCs-that-should-be-walkers. just make all Walkers MCs and be done with it, or vice versa.
Jaxler wrote:I'm of the mind tau shouldn't be nerfed, but other codexes should be buffed.
I completely agree. Codices don't need buffs. Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Sir, what I'm saying is that tau should be eldar level. So should chaos space marines and orks, everything should be around 7.5 Ed level.
Also I like my riptide, though I feel like common infantry need a place on the table top. I feel like adjusting points could fix this. If anything making them less expensive would help.
Martel732 wrote:I shouldn't have to trash can my army to take on giant stompy robots. That's the whole point. Mechanically, the fact that anti-tank weapons suck both against tanks AND MCs at this point is absurd. Fixing that would fix a lot of problems. If lascannons dealt two or three wounds to Riptides, problem largely solved.
Or maybe a bunch of MCs just need to be nerfed. Riptides should have the following stats:
Walker: AV: F 12, S 12, R 10. 3 HP.
Ditto for wraithlords.
Ditto for wraithknights, except higher AV values.
Why should a Wraithlord be a vehicle.....
It's a vehicular-mechanical construct and not an actual creature. They used to actually be called Eldar Dreadnaughts and use vehicle rules.
Traditio wrote: Yes. Riptides shouldn't have invuln saves. They should work exactly like dreadnoughts.
Stop telling me what my codex should be like. I never asked your opinion. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like my ideas about your Astartes.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Traditio. They are similar looking units, they are both mechanized. though, because of a simple change in unit type, they operate vastly different. I'm sick of MCs-that-should-be-walkers. just make all Walkers MCs and be done with it, or vice versa.
That's understandable, but it's also completely irrelevant to this thread.
What would be relevant is making suggestions like "Ask your opponent if they're okay with your bringing a Riptide or Stormsurge."
Jewelfox wrote:BTW, chainswords should have Gets Hot
Why? Are chainsaws particularly likely to explode?
and weapons with Sniper should deal Instant Death to helmetless Astartes on a 2+.
Helmetless Astartes don't exist ruleswise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:It's a vehicular-mechanical construct and not an actual creature. They used to actually be called Eldar Dreadnaughts and use vehicle rules.
Call me crazy, but maybe even wraithguard should be walkers. AV 10 all around.
Jaxler wrote:I'm of the mind tau shouldn't be nerfed, but other codexes should be buffed.
I completely agree. Codices don't need buffs. Everything should be scaled down to bring the game more in line with a "my army (i.e., this blob of infantry with their vehicles) fights your army (that blob of infantry with their vehicles)" kind of feel. Giant robots and other nonsense like that need to be scaled down. A lot.
Sir, what I'm saying is that tau should be eldar level. So should chaos space marines and orks, everything should be around 7.5 Ed level.
Also I like my riptide, though I feel like common infantry need a place on the table top. I feel like adjusting points could fix this. If anything making them less expensive would help.
Except 7.5 edition level is essentially Apoc, and most things don't do anything in Apoc. 7.5 edition is ridiculous, and there's no sanctioned version of the game that makes basic infantry worth it anymore. Being able to hit on "doesn't matter I hit", spam High S weapons, auto pilot certain units like Wraithknights, have wide access to Ignores Cover (a mechanic that lower tier armies rely on heavily), D weapons making vehicles obsolete, ext.
The game needs to be scaled down, with Apoc being a separate thing.
Wraithlord is 3 Wounds, T8, 3+ and no Inv. So at least it kinda works like a Vehicle which can't be instagibbed or stunned and is vulnerable to most weapons which hurt vehicles too. By contrast, when you compare Riptide and Hammerhead, their durability profiles are completely different and for some reason, Tau don't bother to install same uber-systems which supposedly stop Riptide from getting shaken, stunned or blowing up to their tanks. Strange that.
pm713 wrote:
Why should a Wraithlord be a vehicle.....
Is there any major mechanical difference between a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight?
Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
Wraithlord is 3 Wounds, T8, 3+ and no Inv. So at least it kinda works like a Vehicle which can't be instagibbed or stunned and is vulnerable to most weapons which hurt vehicles too. By contrast, when you compare Riptide and Hammerhead, their durability profiles are completely different and for some reason, Tau don't bother to install same uber-systems which supposedly stop Riptide from getting shaken, stunned or blowing up to their tanks. Strange that.
I honestly think it'd be cool to have some mechanical carnage going on with my mechs. With like systems getting disabled, and stuff. It's the most fun thing about BattleTech.
I don't think that any of the other vehicle rules really make sense for a battlesuit, though. It doesn't help that 40k's vehicle rules are awfully clumsy.
Backfire wrote:Yeah, it's got really stupid. They should both fix the vehicle damage AND make units like Riptides vehicles. This would remove the absurdities resulting from Riptide's MC status.
Personally, I like the vehicle damage table. The possibility of exploding vehicles makes you seriously consider whether you should bring that tank or not, where you should position it, etc. Were it not for MC shenanigans, the current vehicle damage chart would make infantry pretty fething attractive.
Problem with Vehicle damage table now is that instant explosion is unlikely which removes the justification of such weapons like Railgun or Demolisher cannons which rely on single penetrating hit.
In 6th Edition tanks were too vulnerable because of Hull points, so they should have fixed the Hull points (+1 HP for every vehicle would have done wonders), instead they 'fixed' the Damage table which did not need fixing. This shafts one-shot big guns even further than they already were by MC's which laughed to such weapons.
pm713 wrote:Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
1. They're both wraithbone constructs, as are wraithguard. Even if you have a self-driving car, it's still a car.
2. Is the first bit really true? Are wraithknights actually piloted? I was under the impression that the "pilot" basically just hangs out and "talks" to the soul of the eldar inside of the construct. "Hey, bro, we need to take a left. Go that way!" "Affirmative."
pm713 wrote:
Why should a Wraithlord be a vehicle.....
Is there any major mechanical difference between a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight?
Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
I can see Wraithnouns as monstrous creatures. They're quasi-organic walking statues animated by magic. I wouldn't be surprised if they fought on like zombies even after getting dismembered (note: I am not up to date on Eldar fluff and can't say whether or not this is how they're portrayed).
It does make less sense to have battlesuits be MCs, and IMO getting your systems shot up and having to work around them is half the fun of piloting giant mecha. On the other hand, having them use 40k's vehicle rules would make even less sense, fluff-wise, since they use direct neural connections and are as agile as Tau infantry.
I am considering writing variant Riptide rules that use the vehicle damage tables now, partly because that might be more fun and partly because I already wrote variant Nova Reactor rules that were inspired by Evangelion. >_>
I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
If riptides and wraithknights were vehicles, your lascannons would make them explode when: 1. you score a penetrating hit and 2. you roll a 6.
Not to mention they probably wouldn't have invuln or armor saves.
Maybe, but I don't think that's ever going to change. MCs need more vulnerabilities in general. Taking multiple wounds from powerful weapons like demolisher cannons, railguns, lascannons, etc would be a good general meta fix. We could then actually get rid of grav, because that appears to be all grav is really for.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
And that's why I'd let people know in advance, for pickup games, that I wanted to bring a Riptide. I don't want to blindside them with my bullet sponge Distraction Carnifex, and I don't want them to realize it isn't as powerful as they think it is based on how tough it is to kill without grav.
Honestly the best way to deal with one without Grav is to lock it in melee and then otherwise ignore it. You can put VRT on them to let them disengage, but for that you have to give up like FNP or Interceptor.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
And that's why I'd let people know in advance, for pickup games, that I wanted to bring a Riptide. I don't want to blindside them with my bullet sponge Distraction Carnifex, and I don't want them to realize it isn't as powerful as they think it is based on how tough it is to kill without grav.
Honestly the best way to deal with one without Grav is to lock it in melee and then otherwise ignore it. You can put VRT on them to let them disengage, but for that you have to give up like FNP or Interceptor.
You can't live to get to melee though vs Tau. Everything is dead. Plus, the Riptide is hard to catch.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe, but I don't think that's ever going to change. MCs need more vulnerabilities in general. Taking multiple wounds from powerful weapons like demolisher cannons, railguns, lascannons, etc would be a good general meta fix. We could then actually get rid of grav, because that appears to be all grav is really for.
That and killing TEQs.
Honestly you guys, I already know the rules are broken
These responses are not helping me work around their brokenness
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
Also, the AP mechanics is stupid now since it is almost irrelevant against vehicles, and very relevant against MC's. So you have S9 AP3 gun which is very effective against Vehicles, and completely ineffective against Riptides. It doesn't make a lick of sense.
The 'thing' with MC mechanics which is supposed to balance them out is that they can be vulnerable against weapons which Vehicles ignore. However by giving T6 5W Monstrous Creature 2+ save, you essentially give it Vehicle-like invulnerability combined with difficultness of killing it with one-shot heavy weapons - best of both worlds.
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
And that's why I'd let people know in advance, for pickup games, that I wanted to bring a Riptide. I don't want to blindside them with my bullet sponge Distraction Carnifex, and I don't want them to realize it isn't as powerful as they think it is based on how tough it is to kill without grav.
Honestly the best way to deal with one without Grav is to lock it in melee and then otherwise ignore it. You can put VRT on them to let them disengage, but for that you have to give up like FNP or Interceptor.
You can't live to get to melee though vs Tau. Everything is dead. Plus, the Riptide is hard to catch.
Well feth, I guess you're just screwed then aren't you? Maybe you ought to go complain in a thread designed for that purpose, like the "most hated armies" thread
Martel732 wrote: I don't care if they are MCs or not. What I care is that these MCs are sucking up three or four or five times as many lascannon hits as their vehicular counterparts. The mechanics of MCs make all single shot anti-tank weapons worthless AND make high ROF weapons an uphill battle. The bizarro grav mechanic is the only thing that is actually effective against them.
Also, the AP mechanics is stupid now since it is almost irrelevant against vehicles, and very relevant against MC's. So you have S9 AP3 gun which is very effective against Vehicles, and completely ineffective against Riptides. It doesn't make a lick of sense.
The 'thing' with MC mechanics which is supposed to balance them out is that they can be vulnerable against weapons which Vehicles ignore. However by giving T6 5W Monstrous Creature 2+ save, you essentially give it Vehicle-like invulnerability combined with difficultness of killing it with one-shot heavy weapons - best of both worlds.
2+ armor is also disproportionately useful on an MC compared to an meq. Hence why Riptides are immortal, but terminators are chumpos.
Martel732 wrote: Just don't use Riptides and Stormsurges. Done. That's all you need to do. Even missilesides are quite reasonable compared to those units.
Or you could ask if people are okay with playing against them, because maybe some other players don't whine as much about needing to bring grav
pm713 wrote:Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
1. They're both wraithbone constructs, as are wraithguard. Even if you have a self-driving car, it's still a car.
2. Is the first bit really true? Are wraithknights actually piloted? I was under the impression that the "pilot" basically just hangs out and "talks" to the soul of the eldar inside of the construct. "Hey, bro, we need to take a left. Go that way!" "Affirmative."
And Space Marine armour is constructed. So what? Which is what a Wraithknight is. A Wraithlord is like an artificial limb.
Yes. Both are needed. But I'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about.
Martel732 wrote: Just don't use Riptides and Stormsurges. Done. That's all you need to do. Even missilesides are quite reasonable compared to those units.
Or you could ask if people are okay with playing against them, because maybe some other players don't whine as much about needing to bring grav
I'm just used to pre-built lists with no discussion. You'd have to omit them before-hand to be safe from these concerns. This is how I end up with grav in my list vs demons. And why I just can't stack with grav.
pm713 wrote:Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
1. They're both wraithbone constructs, as are wraithguard. Even if you have a self-driving car, it's still a car.
2. Is the first bit really true? Are wraithknights actually piloted? I was under the impression that the "pilot" basically just hangs out and "talks" to the soul of the eldar inside of the construct. "Hey, bro, we need to take a left. Go that way!" "Affirmative."
And Space Marine armour is constructed. So what? Which is what a Wraithknight is. A Wraithlord is like an artificial limb.
Yes. Both are needed. But I'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about.
What are you talking about? Traditio knows all about the Emprah's finest. Which is all that they need to know about 40k, since spehss mureens are the only army that matters.
Everything else ought to gak their pants when a bolter gets pointed at them. If it doesn't, then they're unbalanced. Also, gardening tools make the best close combat weapons, and pauldrons are always in style.
Martel732 wrote: [You can't live to get to melee though vs Tau. Everything is dead. Plus, the Riptide is hard to catch.
Jewelfox keeps suggesting things like short-range grav weapons and assaults.
I don't think that this person fully grasps the idea of what "jump" means in the stat line.
I don't think you read this thread's title
So there's actually something relevant to the title I'll add what I think about the thread title.
Be nice about things. Have a good attitude through the game and try to get feedback about whether your army feels unfair to play against. The main thing is attitude though. If you have a bad attitude then no matter what the army is the game will suck.
Please quit trying to use GW's terrible fluff to justify in game stats. The game stats are what they are independent of the fluff. I don't care what's an MC and what's a vehicle except for the mechanical repercussions.
Jewelfox wrote:What are you talking about? Traditio knows all about the Emprah's finest. Which is all that they need to know about 40k, since spehss mureens are the only army that matters.
Everything else ought to gak their pants when a bolter gets pointed at them. If it doesn't, then they're unbalanced. Also, gardening tools make the best close combat weapons, and pauldrons are always in style.
Yes.
Space marines should be numerically few. But what space marines are on the table should make everyone gak their pants.
I'm just used to pre-built lists with no discussion
I think I see your problem.
All players names go in a kitty with their list. Opponents are randomly assigned. People can not change their list after submission for a reason. (No tailoring) Why do you think this should be a problem?
pm713 wrote:
Why should a Wraithlord be a vehicle.....
Is there any major mechanical difference between a Wraithlord and a Wraithknight?
Well a Wraithknight is a piloted mech and a Wraithlord is basically the body of the soul inside. Wraithlords being vehicles is like saying Space Marines should be vehicles.
By that logic a Defiler should also be an MC and not a vehicle.
Martel732 wrote: [You can't live to get to melee though vs Tau. Everything is dead. Plus, the Riptide is hard to catch.
Jewelfox keeps suggesting things like short-range grav weapons and assaults.
I don't think that this person fully grasps the idea of what "jump" means in the stat line.
I don't think you read this thread's title
So there's actually something relevant to the title I'll add what I think about the thread title.
Be nice about things. Have a good attitude through the game and try to get feedback about whether your army feels unfair to play against. The main thing is attitude though. If you have a bad attitude then no matter what the army is the game will suck.
This is actually something I've needed to learn. I come from a milieu where anime mecha are cool and okay, but skullbloods for the bloodskull god are simply hilarious. > 50% of the people I've played against use and like them though, and I've learned to tone down my rhetoric against them. (And against Nurgle daemons after my roommate got into them; I actually ended up building most of her list.)
The only reason I'm making fun of Astartes in this thread is because Traditio's an Astartes supremacist, who believes they're more legitimate than other factions and thinks Tau shouldn't exist. I am trying to help them realize the extent to which they live in a glass house.
Actual space marines were too powerful in 3rd ed. There is little debate to this. Sweeping advance was a thing, as was Rhino rush.
Four editions later, meqs are back where they were in 2nd. Marines don't make marine lists good, things like grav cents do. I'm not an Astartes supremacist, but I object to them being busted back down to cannon fodder that don't last any longer than guardsmen.
Jewelfox wrote:What are you talking about? Traditio knows all about the Emprah's finest. Which is all that they need to know about 40k, since spehss mureens are the only army that matters.
Everything else ought to gak their pants when a bolter gets pointed at them. If it doesn't, then they're unbalanced. Also, gardening tools make the best close combat weapons, and pauldrons are always in style.
Yes.
Space marines should be numerically few. But what space marines are on the table should make everyone gak their pants.
Don't read any of the Warzone Damocles books. You won't like them.
That tau obviously sucker-punched that marine when he wasn't looking. The marine, fluffwise, is clearly about to get up and chop the tau in half with his chainsword.
Martel732 wrote: Actual space marines were too powerful in 3rd ed. There is little debate to this. Sweeping advance was a thing, as was Rhino rush.
Four editions later, meqs are back where they were in 2nd. Marines don't make marine lists good, things like grav cents do. I'm not an Astartes supremacist, but I object to them being busted back down to cannon fodder that don't last any longer than guardsmen.
I wasn't calling you one. And I actually agree that Astartes should be more powerful. Unfortunately, this conflicts with Games Workshop's burning desire to sell boatloads of identical plastic mans.
If I ever got into spehss mureens, I'd play Grey Knights. You need a lot fewer of them to make a list, they could work as actual knights in TRPGs, and they're good at all the things that my Tau are bad at (and vice-versa).
I'm not certain why they took away the idea of Kroot being assault thugs. That made Tau less helpless against opponents in melee range and reduced the need to massacre every last enemy before they could assault.
That tau obviously sucker-punched that marine when he wasn't looking. The marine, fluffwise, is clearly about to get up and chop the tau in half with his chainsword.
What heresy are you proposing?
I am proposing that you develop a shred of self-awareness, when you go around trying to dictate to other players what things should be like based on the fluff.
Which is kind of a crappy thing to do to begin with. FFS, I haven't done anything to you. Quit threadcrapping on me when I'm trying to help non-Tau players, for the Greater Good of the miniatures hobby.
Martel732 wrote:Just don't use Riptides and Stormsurges. Done. That's all you need to do. Even missilesides are quite reasonable compared to those units.
Is it though? I think if you removed riptides and Stormsurges people would just complain at the MSU crisis spam and broadside spam... people just like to complain
Traditio wrote:
pm713 wrote:And Space Marine armour is constructed.
Do any of the wraith constructs have a non-mechanical component? If you appeal to their souls, you must understand if I wave such an answer off.
So I am pretty sure that all the wraith constructs are not piloted. And fluff wise they actually require a spiritseer to be nearby in order to essentially bridge the gap between the soulstones and the constructs.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not certain why they took away the idea of Kroot being assault thugs. That made Tau less helpless against opponents in melee range and reduced the need to massacre every last enemy before they could assault.
Maybe because we're powerful enough as it is, without being half-decent in assault.
Really? Broadsides are less durable than terminators against things like lascannons and crisis suits are vulnerable to the lowly krak missile. Without Riptides and Surges, BA would much more dangerous vs Tau. Because the weapons we do have would be more relevant.
Martel732 wrote:Just don't use Riptides and Stormsurges. Done. That's all you need to do. Even missilesides are quite reasonable compared to those units.
Is it though? I think if you removed riptides and Stormsurges people would just complain at the MSU crisis spam and broadside spam... people just like to complain
What are you talking about, Grizzyzz?! It's not like we're dealing with some kind of real-world prejudice here, like against anime fans and the audacity they have to think they could beat THE EMPRAH's CHOSEN. Why, they don't even have any skulls on their models, plus they let icky GIRLS in their army. They should feth off and go play Infinity, we're busy having VERY SERIOUS gardening implement duels with our war dollies here!
I was looking for ways to get around these complaints, not to enable scrubs who don't want to change up the way that they play, but so I can change up the way that I play, to make things more challenging / interesting. Because believe it or not, I don't enjoy sitting on gunlines and being unable to contest the rest of the board. Or curbstomping fellow newbies.
