Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Well, it's not the ITC's job to balance the game. It's to provide ambiguous rules interpretations that they find fair and reasonable, and I personally feel as if they do a good job of that, generally.
So, in the case of the coordinated firepower rule, the concern was that by being able to combine their shooting, and all included special rules, tau shooting would go from amazing to basically unstoppable.
And it's not fair to say they've only target tau this way. They nerfed (or, interpreted, depending on what you play) SM skyhammer formation to disallow attaching ICs and reaping the benefits. So, you couldn't DS and charge with Lysander first turn.
As for eldar, well, they don't have any ambiguous rules. All of their rules are very clear in their overpoweredness. But even then, warp spyders were limited to flicker jumping once per enemy shooting phase.
At any rate, you may hold out hope, GW may FAQ individual armies, and if they do you can bet they'll address that one.
Vaktathi wrote: Theyre the ones that got a bunch of new stuff so thats what got acted on. That rules interpretations were wildly divergent didnt help.
If Eldar get a grip of new stuff any time soon with much disagreed upon rules, expect it to get hammered as well.
The raw in the tau codex was pretty clear with only a few bad wordings. Most of the "confusing" wordings were people trying to find ways to argue that the raw wasn't rules as intended. Regardless, there were quite a few rulings they did that were obviously against Raw.
Vaktathi wrote: Theyre the ones that got a bunch of new stuff so thats what got acted on. That rules interpretations were wildly divergent didnt help.
If Eldar get a grip of new stuff any time soon with much disagreed upon rules, expect it to get hammered as well.
The raw in the tau codex was pretty clear with only a few bad wordings. Most of the "confusing" wordings were people trying to find ways to argue that the raw wasn't rules as intended. Regardless, there were quite a few rulings they did that were obviously against Raw.
Well you should try and argue with the vocal opposition to get it redacted.
the ITC also doesn't have to follow RAW ether. its a case of they feel it was over powered and or just opportunity for endless argument so they took an easier route of just nerfing it as they see fit.
its just unfortunate for those who are passionate about tau.
It's that time of the month again. This has been retread enough that reading through past threads should be enough, threads that you have participated in yourself Jaxler. Quit complaining about house rules.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, it's not the ITC's job to balance the game. It's to provide ambiguous rules interpretations that they find fair and reasonable, and I personally feel as if they do a good job of that, generally.
Don't you mean "their job is to make as much money as possible"?
Because that's their only motivation. Well, there's a side dash of making rulings that favor their friends, but mostly it's the money.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, it's not the ITC's job to balance the game. It's to provide ambiguous rules interpretations that they find fair and reasonable, and I personally feel as if they do a good job of that, generally.
Don't you mean "their job is to make as much money as possible"?
Because that's their only motivation. Well, there's a side dash of making rulings that favor their friends, but mostly it's the money.
'
See, this here is how a reasonable discussion dies. Next time just put up a couple of photoshopped pictures of reece with a hitler mustace and frankie with devil horns and save everyone some time, yeah?
Frankie and Reece are not perfect, The ITC does things that many could find objectionable, and nerfing someone's army or prefered playstyle is never an easy pill to swallow, I myself went off pretty hard when I found out about the 'no chapter masters in battle companies' ruling, but I understand some sort of facilitating force is necessary to play a game like this with any sort of competitive spirit in mind. They do what they can, it's not perfect, you could even argue that in some ways it's straight up bad, but it's certainly better than trying to play pre-FAQRAW.
It's always odd to me that the two things you hear most often on all 40k forums but Dakka especially are 1. GW RULES ARE WRITTEN BY CHIMPANZEES AND SUCK EGGS AND ARE SO VAGUE AND BAD CAN THEY EVEN READ!?!?!?!?!?!?! and 2. HOW DARE YOU COME IN HERE AND TRY TO CHANGE GW RULES, YOU'RE NOT GW YOU DON'T GET TO MAKE NEW RULES, WE NEED TO ALL DO GW RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it seems odd to me that so many people hate the way the rules are written, react to attempts to change said rules with hissing and spitting.
They dont nerf tau, the people do. No one wants to play Tau super op monster hunter, tank hunter.... Who cares if they nerfed tau? they are still top tier. And the only time they nerfed stuff was for flicker jumps, corsair flicker jumps, invis, and ranged d. only one of those things nerf tau. so please think about these things, im tired of seeing people that talk about this
I think it is pretty telling that, in spite of the nerfs, Tau are still performing incredibly well. They are situated pretty evenly with Necrons and Space Marines. Eldar are still a cut above, but Tau are the one army best equipped for dealing with them.
Edit: Forgot to mention, Tau are one of the armies the least negatively affected by the new (awful) flyer rules. So cry me a frickin' river over your "nerfs".
casvalremdeikun wrote: I think it is pretty telling that, in spite of the nerfs, Tau are still performing incredibly well. They are situated pretty evenly with Necrons and Space Marines. Eldar are still a cut above, but Tau are the one army best equipped for dealing with them.
I think its pretty telling that even with the nerfs Tau and Eldar did so well. On the other hand my Orks got nerfed and...wait they didn't get a nerf, and we still didn't do well
casvalremdeikun wrote: I think it is pretty telling that, in spite of the nerfs, Tau are still performing incredibly well. They are situated pretty evenly with Necrons and Space Marines. Eldar are still a cut above, but Tau are the one army best equipped for dealing with them.
Edit: Forgot to mention, Tau are one of the armies the least negatively affected by the new (awful) flyer rules. So cry me a frickin' river over your "nerfs".
Not even close considering the Tau haven't won any major ITC tournaments. As power creep closes in expect them to get shut out more and more. They're currently tier 1.5 in the ITC. Thank god for actual statistical data to back myself up but I've gone into this dozens of times and then some. Look back at my old posts you'll find all the relevant links I use. As a matter of fact I cite this stuff so often I should make my own topic collating the information. It's now been 4 major tournaments since the new Tau update and none of the Tau have taken the top 10. And in the top 25 there has only been two Tau lists/players per Tournament. One of these was revealed to have been erroneously listed as Tau when it was another army. So that makes a grand total of 7 Tau lists in the past 4major tournaments to breach the top 25 and their standings are falling as the year goes on. One Tau player was even nerfed the day he showed up and had no spare models for other list building. It's complete bs the bias that is in the ITC with the Tau. The idea they are "top" tier is a joke considering every new major tournament to get in shows no Tau win.
On top of this with Space Marine power creep and downright game breaking psychic powers that only make their existing top tier lists better we're possibly poised to see Eldar dethroned as the too beat army and list. It all depends on how the meta plays out now.
I know Reccius has the best interest of the ITC at heart and claims he is unbiased but I just can't help but seeing the injustice of it all. No man is perfectly unbiased and I'll continue to beat my drum he has the Tau nerfs done wrong. In some cases he isn't at fault but their voter base and even the other tournament organizers are full of it. There is this perceived bias that Tau really are that good when they aren't.
perhaps because Eldar are buffed by psychic powers, which there is some defense against, while Tau shooting and JSJ has effectively NO defense against. . .
carldooley wrote: perhaps because Eldar are buffed by psychic powers, which there is some defense against, while Tau shooting and JSJ has effectively NO defense against. . .
but! but!;.....but! LOS blocking terrain, if we had more of it (insert other useless suggestion here).
You know how to defend against the Tau buffs? Murder their super weak and fragile pathfinders or marker drones who provide their markerlights. Suddenly they hit as well as imperial guard, But with 12 shots per unit instead of 145.
As to why Tau where nerfed, Because they are Tau. Thats it, If people get a chance to nerf Tau they will nerf Tau. Thats just how Things are.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I think it is pretty telling that, in spite of the nerfs, Tau are still performing incredibly well. They are situated pretty evenly with Necrons and Space Marines. Eldar are still a cut above, but Tau are the one army best equipped for dealing with them.
Edit: Forgot to mention, Tau are one of the armies the least negatively affected by the new (awful) flyer rules. So cry me a frickin' river over your "nerfs".
Not even close considering the Tau haven't won any major ITC tournaments. As power creep closes in expect them to get shut out more and more. They're currently tier 1.5 in the ITC. Thank god for actual statistical data to back myself up but I've gone into this dozens of times and then some. Look back at my old posts you'll find all the relevant links I use. As a matter of fact I cite this stuff so often I should make my own topic collating the information. It's now been 4 major tournaments since the new Tau update and none of the Tau have taken the top 10. And in the top 25 there has only been two Tau lists/players per Tournament. One of these was revealed to have been erroneously listed as Tau when it was another army. So that makes a grand total of 7 Tau lists in the past 4major tournaments to breach the top 25 and their standings are falling as the year goes on. One Tau player was even nerfed the day he showed up and had no spare models for other list building. It's complete bs the bias that is in the ITC with the Tau. The idea they are "top" tier is a joke considering every new major tournament to get in shows no Tau win.
On top of this with Space Marine power creep and downright game breaking psychic powers that only make their existing top tier lists better we're possibly poised to see Eldar dethroned as the too beat army and list. It all depends on how the meta plays out now.
I know Reccius has the best interest of the ITC at heart and claims he is unbiased but I just can't help but seeing the injustice of it all. No man is perfectly unbiased and I'll continue to beat my drum he has the Tau nerfs done wrong. In some cases he isn't at fault but their voter base and even the other tournament organizers are full of it. There is this perceived bias that Tau really are that good when they aren't.
I find that there is this perception that tau are absurdly OP because they can PUB stomp better than almost any other army IMO, though once you get to a competitive setting they're outdone by eldar, space marines and most other top tier armies. This, and people have seemed to always hated tau, and be more willing to complain about them since they were first created. I find it funny that I make a thread about ITC being biased, and in peoples defense of the ITC rulings they saying stuff like "Tau are OP and the best" without any real evidence, when most evidence that's not purely anecdotal actually seems to indicate that they're actually top mid tier.
Tau got 11th at LVO with all of the ITC nerfs. They aren't bad even with the nerfs they just aren't eldar (though nothing is eldar).
In ITC's defense, almost all of the Tau nerfs went through player vote so most of them were voted in by the player base and not just arbitrarily placed in by ITC. That said they did inadvertently bias the vote with some article on the blog about how broken combined fire was but they are just people and are not perfect.
Well, Player vote will always be all non Tau players voting to nerf (Or preferably ban) Tau. Heck even during 5'th edition when Tau where the weakest army in the game, People wanted them to be nerfed even more.
Merellin wrote: Well, Player vote will always be all non Tau players voting to nerf (Or preferably ban) Tau. Heck even during 5'th edition when Tau where the weakest army in the game, People wanted them to be nerfed even more.
This is hyperbole. Not even all of the tau nerfs got voted into effect (namely the Ghostkeel nerf did not get passed). Tau may be the least favorite army to play against (as supported by a dakka poll on the subject) but the idea that their is a conspiracy that has it out for tau is far-fetched
Merellin wrote: Well, Player vote will always be all non Tau players voting to nerf (Or preferably ban) Tau. Heck even during 5'th edition when Tau where the weakest army in the game, People wanted them to be nerfed even more.
This is hyperbole. Not even all of the tau nerfs got voted into effect (namely the Ghostkeel nerf did not get passed). Tau may be the least favorite army to play against (as supported by a dakka poll on the subject) but the idea that their is a conspiracy that has it out for tau is far-fetched
I don't have a dog in this fight, but when the codex was dropping/ITC ruling was in discussion the threads on dakka were downright venomous.
They are hated by neckbeards everywhere
Compare that reaction with what happened when SM out-eldar'd eldar on their home turf (or even more fitting for this discussion, when superfriends went legal after ITC voting/ruling) and you can see what I mean. The bias is real, at least to me.
Personaly, I play Tau, They are my favorite army and have been since I started the game during 5'th edition, And I wouldent mind them being a bit weaker then they are right now (Might mean I'd get more matches) But Tau hatred does not come from their power level because they where just as hated in 5'th edition when they where the weakest army in the game.
carldooley wrote: perhaps because Eldar are buffed by psychic powers, which there is some defense against, while Tau shooting and JSJ has effectively NO defense against. . .
but! but!;.....but! LOS blocking terrain, if we had more of it (insert other useless suggestion here).
if using terrain when moving your men, deep strike and invuln saves are what you consider to be useless when dealing with firepower, than I fear your problem is larger than just tau.
Also, if you can JSJ so that your model can't be seen from any angel, I suspect you did a poor job setting up the table. Outflank is a thing people can do.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Edit: Forgot to mention, Tau are one of the armies the least negatively affected by the new (awful) flyer rules. So cry me a frickin' river over your "nerfs".
If that's the case then it's because no Tau player in their right mind would take those flyers in the first place.
I don't care how good they are, I'd never use those ugly fething things, anyway. Would have bought three barracudas if they were offered in plastic, though.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Edit: Forgot to mention, Tau are one of the armies the least negatively affected by the new (awful) flyer rules. So cry me a frickin' river over your "nerfs".
If that's the case then it's because no Tau player in their right mind would take those flyers in the first place.
I don't care how good they are, I'd never use those ugly fething things, anyway. Would have bought three barracudas if they were offered in plastic, though.
That. Was. My. Point.
That and Tau can poop out more Skyfire than any other army in the game.
-They nerfed them, get over it
-Despite the nerfs, Tau are still a top tier army
-Gak happens, the ITC isn't neutral, they don't write rules, they just interpret them
Vaktathi wrote: Theyre the ones that got a bunch of new stuff so thats what got acted on. That rules interpretations were wildly divergent didnt help.
If Eldar get a grip of new stuff any time soon with much disagreed upon rules, expect it to get hammered as well.
The raw in the tau codex was pretty clear with only a few bad wordings. Most of the "confusing" wordings were people trying to find ways to argue that the raw wasn't rules as intended. Regardless, there were quite a few rulings they did that were obviously against Raw.
Doesn't matter how crystal clear the rules are, if its strong and xenos, it gets nerfed by ITC, regardless of RAW. It's the reason why I keep correcting people who, for whatever reason, think the ITC is an FAQ, it's not an FAQ when they make up their own rules against the raw, its house ruling.
Vaktathi wrote: Theyre the ones that got a bunch of new stuff so thats what got acted on. That rules interpretations were wildly divergent didnt help.
If Eldar get a grip of new stuff any time soon with much disagreed upon rules, expect it to get hammered as well.
The raw in the tau codex was pretty clear with only a few bad wordings. Most of the "confusing" wordings were people trying to find ways to argue that the raw wasn't rules as intended. Regardless, there were quite a few rulings they did that were obviously against Raw.
Doesn't matter how crystal clear the rules are, if its strong and xenos, it gets nerfed by ITC, regardless of RAW. It's the reason why I keep correcting people who, for whatever reason, think the ITC is an FAQ, it's not an FAQ when they make up their own rules against the raw, its house ruling.
ITC goes out of their way to FAQs, people complain about their rulings. ITC lets others vote on the ruling, people complain. Everything checks out here.
The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.
The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.
The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
But, the ITC is intentionally witch hunting Tau players!!
The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.
The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
But, the ITC is intentionally witch hunting Tau players!!
Read that as internationally, which may be even better as they're being adopted for tournaments around here too now.
Crimson Devil wrote: Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).
Crimson Devil wrote: Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).
Even before the ITC rulings, most Tau players refused to admit their codex was near broken and on par with Necrons and SM. I believe that's the 'chip' he's referring to. Tau are crying that their codex is too weak, but they still beat most other codices hand over fist.
Crimson Devil wrote: Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.
What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).
Even before the ITC rulings, most Tau players refused to admit their codex was near broken and on par with Necrons and SM. I believe that's the 'chip' he's referring to. Tau are crying that their codex is too weak, but they still beat most other codices hand over fist.
I'm a Tau player and I wouldent mind if the Tau got a bit weaker. I dont want my favorite army to be in the top tier because it makes people hate the already hated Tau even more.. I want them to be a solid mid tier army, Then it will be easier to get matches.
While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.
Vaktathi wrote: While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.
My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.
Vaktathi wrote: While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.
My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.
Jax, it breaks down to this.
Option #1; The ITC was actually clarifying rules and the Tau came out on the butt end.
Option #2; The ITC have it out for the Tau specifically.
I'm more likely to believe #1, otherwise you're asking the ITC to come up with equally arbitrary buffs to Tau even though there are other armies out there who could ACTUALLY use said buffs. Seriously it is pretentious, all you have to do is not participate in a ITC tourney; you don't see Martel saying ITC should give BA scouts and dreads the same statline as Codex: Space Marine.
Vaktathi wrote: While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.
My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.
Jax, it breaks down to this.
Option #1; The ITC was actually clarifying rules and the Tau came out on the butt end.
Option #2; The ITC have it out for the Tau specifically.
I'm more likely to believe #1, otherwise you're asking the ITC to come up with equally arbitrary buffs to Tau even though there are other armies out there who could ACTUALLY use said buffs. Seriously it is pretentious, all you have to do is not participate in a ITC tourney; you don't see Martel saying ITC should give BA scouts and dreads the same statline as Codex: Space Marine.
It wouldn't help anyway. That's not what's really wrong with BA. I'm actually sick of people proposing that changing those will fix BA. Assault power armor is dead because of lists like Tau. You need TWC or Wraiths to assault now. I honestly have no fething clue what to do with BA or DE (after the jink ruling) in 7th. They are both fethed conceptually.
-They nerfed them, get over it
-Despite the nerfs, Tau are still a top tier army
-Gak happens, the ITC isn't neutral, they don't write rules, they just interpret them
The real question is, why do the Tau players in particular complain so much! After these nerfs I swear more than 10 threads pop up specifically for tau players complaining, I have to this day seen no other army complain as much as this about their respective nerfs, from what I read they weren't even game breaking nerfs, just par for the course when it comes to such high tier armies.
I was lulled into a false sense of security... for weeks I hadn't seen one of these threads and BAM they are at it again. Its like a god damned daemonic incursion, one minute there is silence, next minute dozens of tau players swarm the forums and comment as if they poppee out of thin air
Jaxler wrote: Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Nerfing Eldar is hard because it isn't the formations that make them so good its the individual units and what they do that make them so good. With out redesigning the entire codex TO's (in this case ITC) really can't do much. As a long term Elder player I do agree GW went overboard on the elder.
As for nerfing Tau, I assuming you are referring to the formation that the wording implied that your entire army gain the benefits from the formation. I cant remember the name of it or the benefit. Tau are still hot fire without that, you may not be top dog to Eldar but you still wreck face against most of the other codices.
And I wouldn't worry too much the new FAQ (rough Draft I know) is putting a stop to that formation mixing and sharing with every army. If I read some of those FAQ's right.
I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...
Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.
Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.
Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.
Kriswall wrote: I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...
Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.
Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.
Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.
The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.
Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM
Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.
are tau players just so buthurt that they cant see that the top itc player rankings right now are mostly tau players? i mean cmon eldar had more nerfs than u. flicker jump, pale host and the nerf to range d to which extent eldar field the most of. sure they get psychic powers but thats what a culuxus is for, if you guys refuse to play tau in the most optimized way then not are fault
Kriswall wrote: I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...
Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.
Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.
Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.
The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.
Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM
Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.
I didn't even mention CSM. CSM are currently in a bad place. I'll give you that. Not sure why you brought it up.
The only thing worse than a CSM player from a 'woe is me, nerf them all' standpoint is a Sisters player. I've played tons of games against tons of players. I have yet to table anyone on turn 1 through shooting. Try not to be melodramatic or hyperbolic and people will take you more seriously.
I fully support making balance changes if one or two specific lists are constantly winning tournaments. I don't support making arbitrary balance changes to nerf armies that aren't constantly winning. I would also support balance changes to give benefit to some of the weaker units in armies that consistently rank towards the bottom.
In a best case scenario, every army should have between 1-3 army builds that could win a tournament with a good player.
Kriswall wrote: I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...
Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.
Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.
Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.
The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.
Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM
Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.
I didn't even mention CSM. CSM are currently in a bad place. I'll give you that. Not sure why you brought it up.
The only thing worse than a CSM player from a 'woe is me, nerf them all' standpoint is a Sisters player. I've played tons of games against tons of players. I have yet to table anyone on turn 1 through shooting. Try not to be melodramatic or hyperbolic and people will take you more seriously.
I fully support making balance changes if one or two specific lists are constantly winning tournaments. I don't support making arbitrary balance changes to nerf armies that aren't constantly winning. I would also support balance changes to give benefit to some of the weaker units in armies that consistently rank towards the bottom.
In a best case scenario, every army should have between 1-3 army builds that could win a tournament with a good player.
I fully support a more balanced game. However, I've had several games where Tau (only slightly tied with Eldar and Drop Pod SM) have crippled me enough Turn 1 to make it impossible for me to come back. I'm talking 50%-75% of my points just gone. I could even handle Tau if they didn't have the Ignores Cover on 2 Markerlights and no LoS needed on Missiles. That right there will kill 2/3 armies I have and hurt the last (DA).
jreilly89 wrote: I fully support a more balanced game. However, I've had several games where Tau (only slightly tied with Eldar and Drop Pod SM) have crippled me enough Turn 1 to make it impossible for me to come back. I'm talking 50%-75% of my points just gone. I could even handle Tau if they didn't have the Ignores Cover on 2 Markerlights and no LoS needed on Missiles. That right there will kill 2/3 armies I have and hurt the last (DA).
If you're playing against Tau and you're deploying within line of sight of the majority of his/her army, you probably need to adjust your deployment strategy. Seeker missiles don't need line of sight, but it's not like Tau armies are loaded down with them... at least no Tau army I've seen. Few units can take them, they're relatively expensive (for an upgrade that's one and done) and are single use. I'd be curious to see what your list is like that an average Tau player can consistently kill 75% of it in one round of shooting. You should be using plenty of line of sight blocking terrain. Tau will always dominate an open or limited terrain battlefield. They suffer in terrain heavy scenarios as the opponent can advance while keeping most of their army out of line of sight.
So... possibly reevaluate your deployment strategy as well as what sort of terrain you're using? It's not necessarily a Tau issue. Could be a tactical/strategic game play issue.
So here is my thoughts, ITC should make rulings were the intent is murky, they should not make rulings to try to balance the game. Here are my reasons why:
1.) There is so much broken gak in the game, they would spend all of their time writing these erratas, and we the players would need to read said encyclopedic erratas.
2.) Game balance put to a vote is a generally a bad idea, everybody has a dog in the fight, and rarely do cooler heads prevail.
3.) GW is litigious and willing to take a crap on it's fans at any moment. If they thought ITC rules were hurting the sales of a new unit, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't feel bad about slapping ITC with a cease and desist.
If ITC wants to get into the balance game, they should use ELO and handicapping based on army, and touch the rules as little as they can. They certainly have a large enough data set to get elo ratings for the armies, and then it's just figuring out victory point handicap values. Imagine a glorious new future where chaos marines can win a match against eldar by playing to the objectives and fighting smart. This has the advantage of not touching army composition at all, is mathematically fair, and adjust automatically to changes in the rule set. I wonder if I could get access to ITCs results and create elo brackets for the armies, because it would be interesting to see how big of a handicap Orks would need to be able to beat tau.
For what it's worth, looks like they released a mechanicus FAQ. They may well be giving each army a FAQ, and if so, I'm certain CP will be addressed in the tau one.
Jaxler wrote: Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Another fun fact:
There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.
I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.
People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.
I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.
Jaxler wrote: Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Another fun fact:
There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.
I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.
People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.
I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.
And now we come full circle to the "Learn 2 play". Cheers!
Jaxler wrote: Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Another fun fact:
There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.
I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.
People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.
I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.
Third problem: can table lower tier lists without trying hard. Without even moving in some cases. Just line up and shoot. Melee is not that useful against Tau, because you can't live long enough to use it. I guess Wraiths and TWC can. There's very few units that can actually beat a Riptide in melee now that I think of it even if they do live. Tau are losing to the top of the heap because they can field units survivable enough to take the abuse. Most lists can't.
Lol just army swapped with my local Tau player today. We had pre-made lists and I suggested it because he said he wanted to get another army and was looking at GK.
ABSOLUTE ANNIHILATION!
This is a guy who has a year and a half of experience as Tau getting in a game at minimum a week. I tabled him T3 off a interceptor shot w/ a Riptide. Oh man, that was a horrible point and click adventure.
5 point interceptor, disgusting. Can't say I wasn't gleeful, he felt the pain.
Jancoran wrote: So does the general even matter, in your opinion.
General always matters, just when the codex is stronger it matters less so.
The difference between an Eldar player and a GOOD Eldar player is one only aims to table, the other WILL table you and win on points because he will use the mobility they have to score fast.
For Tau it becomes more a game of target priority. You have to know what the opponent's units are capable of which is pretty easy because you simply have to ask. If you ask me the difference between a good and bad Tau player, it is that the good player realizes he will have to sacrifice some units for the best result, the bad one will start cracking when the pressure starts simply because they aren't used to having to deal with a game they did not dictate.
Martel732 wrote: It matters, but much less with a 7.0 list vs a 7.5 list. The mathematics are very overwhelming.
I feel like this is where a lot of the problems people experience are coming from. A space marine player VS a tau player or eldar VS tau can be a fun close match where quality of the general actually matters, but when your dealing with any codex pre necrons vs another pre necron list it becomes a blow out. The problem isn't tau so much IMO as GW not giving other armies the update they need.
The thing I find annoying, is that as a tau player we're always given more hate. It's rather annoying when half the people at the GW call your army cheese as a guy your about to play puts down his thunder wolf calv and complains just because you've brought pathfinders. Other armies are comparable to tau in strength but the one people always hate on is us. It gets rather annoying when someone says your army is weebo, shouldn't be in 40k, is noble bright, and that bringing a list that doesn't spam OP units is still cheese by virtue of being tau. We have to deal with some people calling fire warriors OP. I know this may seem hyperbolic, but when some people in the community think fire warriors are OP, what am I supposed to do if I don't want to be a cheese monger? Run an army of pure vespid?
I guess this is why it urks me when I see the ITC nerf to coordinated fire power and ghost keals (which was blatantly not RAW) and the piranha wing (which was a fun formation turned meh by the ruling). When space marines and eldar don't get hit too hard and then tau get smacked on the hand, it just seems like it's something biased because I've been very much trained to assume people are biased when talking about tau. When you've a vocal part of the community who complain about your army endlessly, it's hard not be made a bit more sensitive to stuff.
Part of me wishes in hindsight that I'd of made this discussion about tau's treatment by the community, and how they're always singled out when it's time for criticism. I feel like the problem here is far bigger than just tau's current powerlevel.
Eldar for being way ahead of the power curve every edition. (Gamgee a Tau player made a thread about boycotting Eldar games) Space Marine because all xenos players don't like they get updates every other month, grav, gladius. Chaos Space Marine for complaining Blood Angels for complaining Grey Knights for Mary Sue and 5th... and Draigo... and Babycarrier... Tyranids because flyrants/FMC in general Space Woofs because woof woof woof Sisters because "Hey at least your GETTING an update/model"
Honestly a large part of the treatment is because Tau are a nail that's sticking out, every other faction has taken the gak that is tossed at them in stride and managed not to make ten+ threads a month complaining. It was actually really quiet on the board for the last few weeks regarding Tau besides "Which army do you dislike playing most?". Tau are a minority that pushes an issue that only concerns itself, so when the vast majority pushes back with issues that are worse and haven't been addressed while saying "Why are you so special? We have bigger/more problems!"... don't be surprised.
Some of the other threads that I see for BAD factions are asking how can we be better? They're brainstorming to fix their codex's key issue within RAW. I haven't seen a Tau thread that should be asking "How can we be more fun to fight?" in a while, I think the last one was coincidentally a month or two ago when the board was getting sick of the Tau ITC threads and as a result all the feedback was snarky. Maybe a new one is in order?
People banter about armies all the time, people complain I bring 2 Dreadknights I don't care, I know they're still going to play me, it's that or play a Necron vs. Necron mirror match with the others guys (why the feth does everyone own Necrons at my store). I go "woe is me, fething WRAITHS" a decent amount. Honestly it isn't cheese until it reaches the point they say no I don't want to play you. As for fluff... people bitch about fluff ALL the time, look at that goddamn Background board, #2 thread "What retcons did you dislike?" 8 pages worth, another thread "What fluff do you like?" 1 page.
Quickjager wrote: They're brainstorming to fix their codex's key issue within RAW. I haven't seen a Tau thread that should be asking "How can we be more fun to fight?" in a while, I think the last one was coincidentally a month or two ago when the board was getting sick of the Tau ITC threads and as a result all the feedback was snarky. Maybe a new one is in order?
This would have been a good idea, if only GW hadn't given us a functional reprint of the previous Codex. I mean, they didn't even change the art on the front! just a pastel swap. They took the 'broken' stuff in the book (Riptide) and rather than making some of the minor changes in the entry suggested by the community (+15p to the cost of the Ion Accelerator), they doubled down and allowed us to field them in units of up to 3, and gave us a reason to do so (not that they needed to. . .).
Yea in that regards you're like the Eldar, ahead of the power curve and are expected to take the hate because you have good codex. Honestly the Tau need to become more generalized, its all shooty and not many armies play it as well as they do as those that potentially can are AV.
I stand by the fact I think the Tau need a complete codex revamp to make Farsight Doctrines more prominent for melee.
Jaxler wrote: If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Gamgee wrote: Not even close considering the Tau haven't won any major ITC tournaments. As power creep closes in expect them to get shut out more and more. They're currently tier 1.5 in the ITC.
Merellin wrote: As to why Tau where nerfed, Because they are Tau. Thats it, If people get a chance to nerf Tau they will nerf Tau. Thats just how Things are.
Kriswall wrote: Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
As usual the same Tau players are complaining because the Tau are not winning every tourney. Yet Tau are better than the following armies today.
* Sisters
* Blood Angels
* Dark Angels
* Cult Mechanius
* Skitarii
* Astra Miliarum
* CSM * Dark Eldar
* Harlequins
* Imperial Knights
* Inquisition
* Khorne Daemonkin
* Militarum Tempestus
* Assassains
* Orks
* Nids
* GK * LoTD
Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is ....
Edit : Added GK and LodD for Quickjager
If I'm completely honest, yes, I think Tau get nerfed because they are Tau.
But then again. If an army comes out first on every "What army is the most annoying/irritating/frustrating/gak to play against" poll (which are made on a nearly weekly basis), maybe people are kind of justified in trying to make it a bit less annoying/irritating/frustrating/gak.
Jancoran wrote: So does the general even matter, in your opinion.
General always matters, just when the codex is stronger it matters less so.
The difference between an Eldar player and a GOOD Eldar player is one only aims to table, the other WILL table you and win on points because he will use the mobility they have to score fast.
For Tau it becomes more a game of target priority. You have to know what the opponent's units are capable of which is pretty easy because you simply have to ask. If you ask me the difference between a good and bad Tau player, it is that the good player realizes he will have to sacrifice some units for the best result, the bad one will start cracking when the pressure starts simply because they aren't used to having to deal with a game they did not dictate.
I dunno bout that. I've seen pretty good proof here and elsewhere that people are giving the codex all the glory and not even asking when someone screams "OMG Tau table me every game" or whatever, as to what the guy being tabled did to deserve it. CAN it happen? sure.
I'll say this. the really nasty Tau lists require that the opponent not make any dumb errors... And that sounds a lot like most "narsty" versions of most codex's. So there again, I think that the General is not being accorded his fault as may be appropriate nor his due. heck Space marines place well almost every time not because the codex is better but there are just MORE OF THEM to try!
The Wulfen are scarier than the Tau Empire in my opinion, when properly played. My experience so far with them has been hairy to say the least. I've had to SERIOUSLY work hard to get those wins and it doesn't matter with what army. I think the new hate should be directed at Wulfen. I say that....but then I am 5-2 against Wulfen. So the General matters. I dont think people give that nearly enough weight. The Wulfen is scary though and it won't take long for me to lose another game to them I imagine. All my wins were close affairs and that codex is just crazy good. But then its space Marines so for some weird reason, people dont hate it near as much. Its always been that way with Marines. they just get a shoulder shrug when they break the game as if its supposed to be that way or something, even when it isn't... ah well.
Martel732 wrote: I've always despised tbe mary sue wolves. Ever since 2nd.
General matters, but so do the tools. A lot.
What don't you despise?
I think the general matters more than the units. Mainly because I've seen some truly terrible players.
I don't mind DA being nasty. They deserve it after many years. I kinda don't mind Necrons being rough either. Necrons aren't a "you don't get to play" rough, they are tough to take off the table. I don't mind the DK and GK on the table, even though I think their fluff is basically bad fan fic.
Do I feel like the Tau needed to be nerfed? Yes. Does that mean they SHOULD be nerfed? No. I feel like there should have been a lot more data collected before the ITC decided to nerf the Tau, and I feel like they should not have made so many nerfs at once. I still feel like nerfs were needed based on non itc games I have played against tau, but I think there should have been more of a scalpel approach rather than a chainsaw.
Eldar on the other hand are just complete cheese. Even their garbage is good. Eldar are the thing that really and truly needs the nerfs above all else. The Imperium superfriends stuff needs to be toned down a little. I feel like IoM should not be allies with everything among themselves. Certain armies should be sorta super friends like while others should not. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, and Iron Hands should be for obvious reasons. Other IoM factions that are at odds with each other on the other hand should not be all buddy buddy.
NorseSig wrote: Do I feel like the Tau needed to be nerfed? Yes. Does that mean they SHOULD be nerfed? No. I feel like there should have been a lot more data collected before the ITC decided to nerf the Tau, and I feel like they should not have made so many nerfs at once. I still feel like nerfs were needed based on non itc games I have played against tau, but I think there should have been more of a scalpel approach rather than a chainsaw.
Eldar on the other hand are just complete cheese. Even their garbage is good. Eldar are the thing that really and truly needs the nerfs above all else. The Imperium superfriends stuff needs to be toned down a little. I feel like IoM should not be allies with everything among themselves. Certain armies should be sorta super friends like while others should not. Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, and Iron Hands should be for obvious reasons. Other IoM factions that are at odds with each other on the other hand should not be all buddy buddy.
That's only fair, imo. BA seem to get along with most except for the Mechanicus.
in the case of the coordinated firepower , they dont nerf it, just dont allow a wrong interpretation of the rule from some tau players that want win just deploying the army
Franarok wrote: in the case of the coordinated firepower , they dont nerf it, just dont allow a wrong interpretation of the rule from some tau players that want win just deploying the army
which wrong interpretation? The RaW one? The one that says that a buffmander gets to share its buffs across the entire army when doing a CFP, or the one that lets us Target Lock out of a single target (with the buffs)?
They could have limited it to no ICs being in the CFP if MCs are present in the shot, you know like RaW, but that could have been gotten around by giving a Shas'vre the buff equips instead.
Or you know, darkstrider not working with anything not Firewarriors or Breachers, or Pathfinders?
Darkstrider can't ever be a part of a hunter contingent, even if he joins a unit that does the rules of it won't effect him. He's not a factor here.
Target locking out is RAW allowed, but could have been matched to the Firebase Support Cadre who specifically says all models must shoot at same target, and none would have said a word as its a reasonable change.
The silliest thing about the CFP nerf is that people panicked that "tau could use it to share buffs across entire army!", without realizing just how little such buffs tau actually has.
To list EVERYTHING that can be shared (beyond markers) :
1-PEN chip tank/monster Hunter. Only matters against these targets.
2-the reroll hits signature system, hardly relevant as the CFP makes markerlight buff them all, getting BS 7 or higher with ease.
3-ignores cover item, again hardly relevant as markerlights are a thing.
4-longstrike tank hunter. Spesific target only.
That's it. There is nothing else beyond markers to even share unless you got it via random warlord trait or odd scenario rules or something. (guessing the mirrorcodex too if you are FSE, but that item is God awful even when you know you face marines)
This nerf specifically hardly even effect us. It doesn't really do much to begin with.
What irks us is not the power level change, but the clear attempt to hurt us, an attempt that failed only because of total lack of understanding of the tau codex to begin with.
Other nerfs, the firestorm formation and the ghostkeel, anyone saw them in competitive play in ITC turnies? Once? After a clear change of rules regarding them (not even room to dispute it was outright contradiction of the written rules) they became unplayable. Mostly because even without said nerfs they were of questionable value to begin with.
Now these two are sore spots. Cool units that would allow tau to slightly break out of the "spam riptides or lose" shell and actually be more engaging got taken down with no reason beyond being tau.
Jancoran wrote: So does the general even matter, in your opinion.
General always matters, just when the codex is stronger it matters less so.
The difference between an Eldar player and a GOOD Eldar player is one only aims to table, the other WILL table you and win on points because he will use the mobility they have to score fast.
For Tau it becomes more a game of target priority. You have to know what the opponent's units are capable of which is pretty easy because you simply have to ask. If you ask me the difference between a good and bad Tau player, it is that the good player realizes he will have to sacrifice some units for the best result, the bad one will start cracking when the pressure starts simply because they aren't used to having to deal with a game they did not dictate.
I dunno bout that. I've seen pretty good proof here and elsewhere that people are giving the codex all the glory and not even asking when someone screams "OMG Tau table me every game" or whatever, as to what the guy being tabled did to deserve it. CAN it happen? sure.
I'll say this. the really nasty Tau lists require that the opponent not make any dumb errors... And that sounds a lot like most "narsty" versions of most codex's. So there again, I think that the General is not being accorded his fault as may be appropriate nor his due. heck Space marines place well almost every time not because the codex is better but there are just MORE OF THEM to try!
The Wulfen are scarier than the Tau Empire in my opinion, when properly played. My experience so far with them has been hairy to say the least. I've had to SERIOUSLY work hard to get those wins and it doesn't matter with what army. I think the new hate should be directed at Wulfen. I say that....but then I am 5-2 against Wulfen. So the General matters. I dont think people give that nearly enough weight. The Wulfen is scary though and it won't take long for me to lose another game to them I imagine. All my wins were close affairs and that codex is just crazy good. But then its space Marines so for some weird reason, people dont hate it near as much. Its always been that way with Marines. they just get a shoulder shrug when they break the game as if its supposed to be that way or something, even when it isn't... ah well.
Thats because mureens are the largest playerbase, with that comes the herd mentality. Eldar powers come out "Omg so broken " But when these new powers that are easily far better than them for mureens only, suddenly its "they are good, but not game breaking except that one power!" Unfortunately, tau and necrons will always be considered op, even when their marine counterparts are stronger, just the way she goes for now.
Jaxler wrote: If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.
Gamgee wrote: Not even close considering the Tau haven't won any major ITC tournaments. As power creep closes in expect them to get shut out more and more. They're currently tier 1.5 in the ITC.
Merellin wrote: As to why Tau where nerfed, Because they are Tau. Thats it, If people get a chance to nerf Tau they will nerf Tau. Thats just how Things are.
Kriswall wrote: Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.
As usual the same Tau players are complaining because the Tau are not winning every tourney. Yet Tau are better than the following armies today.
* Sisters
* Blood Angels
* Dark Angels
* Cult Mechanius
* Skitarii
* Astra Miliarum
* CSM * Dark Eldar
* Harlequins
* Imperial Knights
* Inquisition
* Khorne Daemonkin
* Militarum Tempestus
* Assassains
* Orks
* Nids
* GK * LoTD
Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is ....
Edit : Added GK and LodD for Quickjager
And marines are in the same position and itc hasn't smacked THEM in the face with the nerf hammer for some reason... Oh, AND they are stronger than tau and necrons, so put those armys their as well. Notice something off?
The psychic powers literally came out and have been almost universally held to be OP except technomancy. Librarus is essentially a more defensive Santic. Most people agreen they're gonna be nerfed.
And marines are in the same position and itc hasn't smacked THEM in the face with the nerf hammer for some reason... Oh, AND they are stronger than tau and necrons, so put those armys their as well. Notice something off?
Reece and Frankie talked about their ideas for nerfs to the new powers in a recent Signals from the Frontline. A vote on them and some other things is coming up soon, although no date is set yet.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Tau paranoia........
Because the best way to allow for competitive tournament games is to have 40k players -- who can't remember all the rules, have no idea what game balance looks like, and have held grudges against whole factions for years -- to vote on it.
Before it's even appeared in a tournament game, and while Eldar and Space Marine lists are dominating everyone else.
Preferably after insinuating on BoLS that this status quo will change, if Tau aren't preemptively nerfed.
What's the difference between an Ork and a Tau in a fight?
One goes WAAAAGH!
The other goes Waaaaah!
The psychic powers will be nerfed end of story, some have been nerfed already via previous ITC ruling (rerolling 2++ nerf), or just don't work because some ITC terrain is built into the board.
The only ones I can see becoming insane is that one Geomancy one that ignores cover/LoS and Electrodisplacement. But getting either of those reliably would involve not rolling for Invis.
And marines are in the same position and itc hasn't smacked THEM in the face with the nerf hammer for some reason... Oh, AND they are stronger than tau and necrons, so put those armys their as well. Notice something off?
Reece and Frankie talked about their ideas for nerfs to the new powers in a recent Signals from the Frontline. A vote on them and some other things is coming up soon, although no date is set yet.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Tau paranoia........
Since the vast majority of players are mureen, I will be very (pleasantly) surprised if its voted to be nerfed.
Jewelfox wrote: Because the best way to allow for competitive tournament games is to have 40k players -- who can't remember all the rules, have no idea what game balance looks like, and have held grudges against whole factions for years -- to vote on it.
Before it's even appeared in a tournament game, and while Eldar and Space Marine lists are dominating everyone else.
Preferably after insinuating on BoLS that this status quo will change, if Tau aren't preemptively nerfed.
*drops mic*
You shouldn't litter.
You're right. They should drop the voting and just make the decisions themselves. That would fit better into the tau bigot cabal conspiracy theories about them. How they go around burning Imperial Aquilas on unsuspecting Tau's lawns.
And marines are in the same position and itc hasn't smacked THEM in the face with the nerf hammer for some reason... Oh, AND they are stronger than tau and necrons, so put those armys their as well. Notice something off?
Reece and Frankie talked about their ideas for nerfs to the new powers in a recent Signals from the Frontline. A vote on them and some other things is coming up soon, although no date is set yet.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Tau paranoia........
Since the vast majority of players are mureen, I will be very (pleasantly) surprised if its voted to be nerfed.
As a dirty mureen player, I would vote to nerf them. Of course because I play mureens I can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Jewelfox wrote: Because the best way to allow for competitive tournament games is to have 40k players -- who can't remember all the rules, have no idea what game balance looks like, and have held grudges against whole factions for years -- to vote on it.
Before it's even appeared in a tournament game, and while Eldar and Space Marine lists are dominating everyone else.
Preferably after insinuating on BoLS that this status quo will change, if Tau aren't preemptively nerfed.
*drops mic*
You shouldn't litter.
You're right. They should drop the voting and just make the decisions themselves. That would fit better into the tau bigot cabal conspiracy theories about them. How they go around burning Imperial Aquilas on unsuspecting Tau's lawns.
And marines are in the same position and itc hasn't smacked THEM in the face with the nerf hammer for some reason... Oh, AND they are stronger than tau and necrons, so put those armys their as well. Notice something off?
Reece and Frankie talked about their ideas for nerfs to the new powers in a recent Signals from the Frontline. A vote on them and some other things is coming up soon, although no date is set yet.
And now back to your regularly scheduled Tau paranoia........
Since the vast majority of players are mureen, I will be very (pleasantly) surprised if its voted to be nerfed.
As a dirty mureen player, I would vote to nerf them. Of course because I play mureens I can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Hopefully people do the right thing and try to fix that op dex but we really just need to hang on and just HOPE this new GW CEO will try and fix it, otherwise the game will crumble.
