Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does it get as heated in other army list forums as in Tau?
my theory's.
1. Takes a slightly rebelous personality to play an underdog army.
2. The codex lends itself to heated arguements with as many load out options as it has.
3. The age of the codex has created a solidified dogma to list building.
Ahhh another day off to ponder human behavior.

Tun_Tau wrote:Does it get as heated in other army list forums as in Tau?
my theory's.
1. Takes a slightly rebelous personality to play an underdog army.
2. The codex lends itself to heated arguements with as many load out options as it has.
3. The age of the codex has created a solidified dogma to list building.
Ahhh another day off to ponder human behavior.

I wouldn't say I have seen subjects around/talking about Tau get any more heated than any other conversations on dakka dakka. Could you give an example?

There have been lots of flamey topics concerning Tau...
The best indicator as to whether a Tau thread will become flamey is if it's started by Brother Coa...

Argue? For there to be an argument you would need two sides.

Which means % based would be higher against IoM players since they represent 50% of the hobby.

Now what % of IoM argue Im sure would be higher than Tau players who argue as there are about 20 Tau players left in the world. =]

For the record Im a Tau player and I LOVE to argue. Although its not about my codex, as it is generally agreed by everyone to be obsolete. Rather my arguments stem from the Codex Creep and how it effects everyone not just myself.

I think the codex has been out for long enough that most people tend to agree with what works and what dosent.

You can build any Tau list you like.... But if trying to win with a out of date codex is a priority then you would do well to toe the line with crisis suits and broadsides...

Really a lot of the arguing seems to come down to "Your list needs more hammerheads/broadsides, crisis suits, and hazard suits." The problem with the Tau dex is that even with the help of IA, you still have two, maybe three or four viable general list builds.

purplefood wrote:
The best indicator as to whether a Tau thread will become flamey is if it's started by Brother Coa...

That is not true, not every thread I started is Tau-hate oriented or about the Tau.
My Tau threads don't even count as "many" in my posted thread lists.

And now to OP: the most Tau oriented threads burst to flames because:

-technology comparison.
-rumors about Tau sterilizing, mind-controlling their allies to control them easier.
-Tau military capabilities ( this is the usually the most touchy one ).

When it comes to TT most complain comes from Tau players themselves who argue that their army is weakest now. While that may not be true ( it mostly depends on how do you play ) it is true that GW give more attention to Space Marines in the last years and a result Tau codex has became weaker for staying the same while other codexes get updated or renewed.

On the table, Tau are barely-competitive and get the worst treatment by GW after the SoB

In fluff, the way their lore is set up provokes controversy. They are mostly the only shining light in the grimdark of 40k, any many people don't like this. There's not-so-nice things they do that are subtlety implied or stated, and these are used by people who get annoyed by their overall depiction as the "best" shade of grey. They're also the weakest faction as they're not Galaxy-spanning, which makes them a punching bag for fanboys of the bigger factions.

You know, I hate to say it, but I think I agree with the OP here. Tau fluff and aesthetics draws in a certain personality type, and that type is more likely to argue about fine details.

Tau's mecha look means that you're going to draw in harder core nerds than other armies, and harder core nerds trend higher amongst things like autism-spectrum than lower orders of nerds. Furthermore, tau come across as incredibly cold, calculating, superior, and efficient, which is naturally going to draw in people who are cold, calculating, and with probably more of a superiority complex*. Put this certain personality type in a competitive environment that has a lot of details to argue over, and I don't think it's that surprising. Especially when their codex is now so relatively uncompetitive, and they're no longer getting the win rates they think they deserve.



* I've become more of a believer over time that different armies don't just attract different play styles, but different personalities. That rules tend to be set up to synergize with fluff only reinforces decisions that people make. Then, of course, this breaks out and becomes meta. If I'm a brooding person, and I have a brooding friend who plays eldar, I'm more likely to play eldar, which has a very broody fluff. Likewise, every ork player I know is at least a little wacky, while I've certainly come across my fair share of proud space marine commanders.

I have a friend who plays Tau, and he is a rather argumentative sort. I'm not sure I could say that the two are in any way related though. I hardly think that my sample group of 1 is very credible as a "study".

Thats just the way of this xeno filth to argue among themselfes..

Tau and Imperial players are the easiest to butthurt.

Just how it is. Besides Disorder is the way to go.

Most arguments I've seen were about fluff and "grimdark"-ness.

Wait did I just get called cold, calculating , superior and efficient? I wish.
I am terribly attracted to ice queens however....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to say it is intersting to see what people post and what armies they play.

The arguments I see are about army composition and how to equip battlesuits. For the record:

A battlesuit-less army can win (and does)
Battlesuits should only have plasma and missile pods, or plasma and fusion on HQ and bodyguards with special issue guns were-ever
Stealth suits work

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:
The best indicator as to whether a Tau thread will become flamey is if it's started by Brother Coa...

That is not true, not every thread I started is Tau-hate oriented or about the Tau.
My Tau threads don't even count as "many" in my posted thread lists.

And now to OP: the most Tau oriented threads burst to flames because:

-technology comparison.
-rumors about Tau sterilizing, mind-controlling their allies to control them easier.
-Tau military capabilities ( this is the usually the most touchy one ).

When it comes to TT most complain comes from Tau players themselves who argue that their army is weakest now. While that may not be true ( it mostly depends on how do you play ) it is true that GW give more attention to Space Marines in the last years and a result Tau codex has became weaker for staying the same while other codexes get updated or renewed.

Last I counted you had made 16 threads about Tau and most, if not all, had MOD visitations because of people activating their friend switches...

Arguably the most ignorant thread I've ever seen.

Silentway wrote:Arguably the most ignorant thread I've ever seen.

That made me laugh!

*shrug* the Tau player in our group is probably the most passive non-arguementative guy I know.

purplefood wrote:

Last i counted you had made 16 threads about Tau and most if not all had MOD visitations because of people activating their friend switches...

The Tau player in my area is probably the most relaxed player I've seen.

U know I love tau. They have a cool looking army and disrupt the grim 40k universe.

I think there could be some obvious reasons why a tau player could be argumentative. Playing one of the most out dated army and trying to win is going to be a headache and I'd probably grasp for whatever obscure rule I could as well.

I wouldn't go as far to say ALL tau players are like that though.

This thread is poorly named, poorly worded and with poor intentions.

Tau was my first army and introduction into Warhammer 40k. I enjoy the fluff, I have a lot of fun playing them, and I have met many new people in my area through this game.

It was kind of rhetorical question I asked myself after reading the bickering going on in the forums and decided to post.
I'm not sure questions or even the sometimes bad answers you get have poor intentions. It does however pass the time.

Ailaros wrote:* I've become more of a believer over time that different armies don't just attract different play styles, but different personalities. That rules tend to be set up to synergize with fluff only reinforces decisions that people make. Then, of course, this breaks out and becomes meta. If I'm a brooding person, and I have a brooding friend who plays eldar, I'm more likely to play eldar, which has a very broody fluff. Likewise, every ork player I know is at least a little wacky, while I've certainly come across my fair share of proud space marine commanders.

But what does this say about guys like me who own and play 6 or so armies?

SM, SW & BA (each played once in a while)
Tau
bugs
Eldar
CSM
daemons
DE

Silentway wrote:Arguably the most ignorant thread I've ever seen.

Mwahahaha...

Really!?, you've been here since 2008 and THIS is the most ignorant thread you've ever seen?

You sir, have a remarkably high threshold for ignorance.

I salute you.

Ailaros wrote:You know, I hate to say it, but I think I agree with the OP here. Tau fluff and aesthetics draws in a certain personality type, and that type is more likely to argue about fine details.

Tau's mecha look means that you're going to draw in harder core nerds than other armies, and harder core nerds trend higher amongst things like autism-spectrum than lower orders of nerds. Furthermore, tau come across as incredibly cold, calculating, superior, and efficient, which is naturally going to draw in people who are cold, calculating, and with probably more of a superiority complex*. Put this certain personality type in a competitive environment that has a lot of details to argue over, and I don't think it's that surprising. Especially when their codex is now so relatively uncompetitive, and they're no longer getting the win rates they think they deserve.



* I've become more of a believer over time that different armies don't just attract different play styles, but different personalities. That rules tend to be set up to synergize with fluff only reinforces decisions that people make. Then, of course, this breaks out and becomes meta. If I'm a brooding person, and I have a brooding friend who plays eldar, I'm more likely to play eldar, which has a very broody fluff. Likewise, every ork player I know is at least a little wacky, while I've certainly come across my fair share of proud space marine commanders.

I agree with your asterisk whole heartedly Ailaros. That's why there are certain armies that make me die a little inside whenever I am forced to play them without knowing the player.

At first, your main point (about Tau players) kind of set me aback. I am a Tau player, and don't think I'm like that. If anything, I'm hot-headed, impulsive, a poor planner, and tactically inferior to almost everyone I face. (I picked up Tau because I wanted to be shooting the effective guns for once.) But as I sat and thought about it, I think you may have a nugget of truth to what you're saying. I thought about the other people I have seen who play Tau, and I think most of them fit that at least a little. If nothing else, the more calculating, "cold" players will (I think) gravitate towards armies with a greater emphasis on shooting, a spectrum the Tau are at the far end of. So you may have a point there.

Brothererekose wrote:

Ailaros wrote:* I've become more of a believer over time that different armies don't just attract different play styles, but different personalities. That rules tend to be set up to synergize with fluff only reinforces decisions that people make. Then, of course, this breaks out and becomes meta. If I'm a brooding person, and I have a brooding friend who plays eldar, I'm more likely to play eldar, which has a very broody fluff. Likewise, every ork player I know is at least a little wacky, while I've certainly come across my fair share of proud space marine commanders.

But what does this say about guys like me who own and play 6 or so armies?

SM, SW & BA (each played once in a while)
Tau
bugs
Eldar
CSM
daemons
DE

Schizophrenia maybe?

Brothererekose wrote:But what does this say about guys like me who own and play 6 or so armies?

It means you haven't found the right army yet. What gets people into an army is a lot of possible reasons, what gets people to stay in an army is that the army matches their philosophy on the field and their personality in the fluff.

Jimsolo wrote:I am a Tau player, and don't think I'm like that. But as I sat and thought about it, I think you may have a nugget of truth to what you're saying. I thought about the other people I have seen who play Tau, and I think most of them fit that at least a little. If nothing else, the more calculating, "cold" players will (I think) gravitate towards armies with a greater emphasis on shooting, a spectrum the Tau are at the far end of. So you may have a point there.

Right, what I was talking about is a trend, as well, rather than an iron-clad rule.

I mean, I've seen it in myself as well. The guard fluff talks about commanders who see fighting as nothing more than a numbers game. Any casualties that are required to get what you want are acceptable casualties. You see things in the world of odds and calculating things, and nothing else matters. The rules make for this kind of behavior as well. If you're a person who can't stomach spending a couple of years painstakingly putting together a guard army only to see you having to remove fistfuls of said models at a time in a game, you're not staying with guard. Guard fluff and rules encourage people who are ruthless number crunchers to play guard, just like the fluff says the commanders should be. No heroes, no toys, no nonsense. Just boots, bayonets, and tank treads.

To get back to the tau, you can see it plainly as well. They're an army that has superior weaponry (both in fluff and in practice), that engages in the "superior" form of combat (by not needing to rely getting your hands bloody in close combat), that has a superior aesthetic (lots of clean, crisp lines, high-tech, modern form-follows-function style), and a "superior" political and military logistics system. Naturally, this is going to attract people who want to do things "right". This is no thrown-together ork army. This is no technophopic brute force of guard. This is sophisticated fighting by superior means.

Assuming that you take this attitude, it makes a lot of sense that tau players would be so bickersome. I mean, there's currently a threat here asking why you never hear ork players complaining. It's because ork fluff and playstyle doesn't encourage the kinds of people who would complain about things to play orks. Easy as that.

Ailaros wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:But what does this say about guys like me who own and play 6 or so armies?

It means you haven't found the right army yet. What gets people into an army is a lot of possible reasons, what gets people to stay in an army is that the army matches their philosophy on the field and their personality in the fluff.

Either that or he's been playing for long enough that either his preferences have changed, or he just enjoys having lots of options.