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.

You can aim a minigun. Unless you're the Heavy it's not like your bullets are flying everywhere. They're going to have a rough area where you can expect the shots to land.

Also, there is a difference between thousand year old genetically modified super soldiers running up to a tank and masterfully bashing his sword against the side of a tank for a minute and a skilled and experienced gunner firing hundreds of rounds at places where he knows they'll have a chance of doing some damage. Close combat is not a really good way to take out a tank unless you have some serious explosives on you. Or a huge fist.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can aim a minigun. Unless you're the Heavy it's not like your bullets are flying everywhere. They're going to have a rough area where you can expect the shots to land.

Also, there is a difference between thousand year old genetically modified super soldiers running up to a tank and masterfully bashing his sword against the side of a tank for a minute and a skilled and experienced gunner firing hundreds of rounds at places where he knows they'll have a chance of doing some damage. Close combat is not a really good way to take out a tank unless you have some serious explosives on you. Or a huge fist.

Al Queda in Iraq begs to differ.

Tanks fare incredibly poorly against infantry able to get close enough to use hand grenades and guns against visor slits. That can't happen to a Land Raider. Why? Maybe really thick plexiglass or some gak, I don't know, but it's protected against that kind of stuff.

A vulnerable point is a vulnerable point, no matter if it is a Str 5 gunshot or a Str 5 power ax hit. Even with the Raider sitting still, the master of a thousand battles can't do it. A master of the forge who literally knows everything there is to know about a Land Raider, who has repaired them for centuries, can't do it (without a power fist that is part of his servo arm). The man who has spent centuries repairing every square inch of a Land Raider can't find such weak spots. Why?

What evidence is there of Al Queda taking out Abrams with grenades and rifles? There have been reports of infantry using charges and finishing the damaged vehicles off by putting grenades through the openings, but there isn't much support for the notion that there are loads of WWII era hatch throws.

 PhillyT wrote:
What evidence is there of Al Queda taking out Abrams with grenades and rifles? There have been reports of infantry using charges and finishing the damaged vehicles off by putting grenades through the openings, but there isn't much support for the notion that there are loads of WWII era hatch throws.

EFP's. Used by AQIR to take out some of our tanks.

I got this directly from a tank crew member, who showed me pictures of what they did to his vehicle.

As for infantry tactics to take them out, it's pretty hard to do if the tank is supported by infantry.

Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Yes but according to Emp, models are 100% the fluff and the fluff is all lies, so...

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can aim a minigun. Unless you're the Heavy it's not like your bullets are flying everywhere. They're going to have a rough area where you can expect the shots to land.

Also, there is a difference between thousand year old genetically modified super soldiers running up to a tank and masterfully bashing his sword against the side of a tank for a minute and a skilled and experienced gunner firing hundreds of rounds at places where he knows they'll have a chance of doing some damage. Close combat is not a really good way to take out a tank unless you have some serious explosives on you. Or a huge fist.

Al Queda in Iraq begs to differ.

Tanks fare incredibly poorly against infantry able to get close enough to use hand grenades and guns against visor slits. That can't happen to a Land Raider. Why? Maybe really thick plexiglass or some gak, I don't know, but it's protected against that kind of stuff.

A vulnerable point is a vulnerable point, no matter if it is a Str 5 gunshot or a Str 5 power ax hit. Even with the Raider sitting still, the master of a thousand battles can't do it. A master of the forge who literally knows everything there is to know about a Land Raider, who has repaired them for centuries, can't do it (without a power fist that is part of his servo arm). The man who has spent centuries repairing every square inch of a Land Raider can't find such weak spots. Why?

A Gatling cannon is going to do a better job of taking out armor if the guy who is firing it has a lot of battlefield experience with that cannon, the machine that's using it and the armor he up against than a technician or guy with a sword. Pask has engaged and successfully destroyed Chaos Space Marine in the past and it's reasonable to assume that he's figured out the weaknesses in the armor. Why Vanguard Veterans haven't figured it out? They may have an inkling but they either can't really reach those places in the minimal amount of time they have to destroy the Land Raider or they know that it's difficult and dangerous to do without the proper AT equipment so they don't bother. It's probably a lot easier to take out a tank with a ranged weapon that's not entirely suitable to the task but armed with the know how of where to hit than it is to run up to it without the proper equipment and bash it to death.

it's a game mechanic and another discussion. Take it to another thread.

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

EmpNorton insists on it. I'll just drop the Pask Punisher discussion as it is off topic.

I think the Tau are too friendly with people. They just roll planets and let the negotiations start once they've got a Pulse Rifle jammed down the throat of local Planetary Governor.

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

As in the base is fluff, but is altered by rule restrictions, balance issues, ect. For example, hammerheads is supposed to use range to it's advantage when fighting the vehicles of the guard. Now this doens't really translate to tabletop, because otherwise the HH would break the general range cap of 72". Not only that, look at the ranges compared to the size of a tank. The ranges are pitifully small. Or how marines can be easily killed by small arms fire. The look of the rules are influenced by the fluff, but are not fluff based.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

As in the base is fluff, but is altered by rule restrictions, balance issues, ect. For example, hammerheads is supposed to use range to it's advantage when fighting the vehicles of the guard. Now this doens't really translate to tabletop, because otherwise the HH would break the general range cap of 72". Not only that, look at the ranges compared to the size of a tank. The ranges are pitifully small. Or how marines can be easily killed by small arms fire. The look of the rules are influenced by the fluff, but are not fluff based.

You might not get a 100 translation, but the themes are still there. The HH still has a monster range on the table top. (I have a hard time finding tables big enough to really handle it even.) And with marines being killed by small arms.. Well I tend to subscribe to the 12 man rule with them not the SM can kill everything rule, so them being taken out by small arms fits. (You don't actually find a small arm on the table top though. Most are super powerful army guns.)

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

As in the base is fluff, but is altered by rule restrictions, balance issues, ect. For example, hammerheads is supposed to use range to it's advantage when fighting the vehicles of the guard. Now this doens't really translate to tabletop, because otherwise the HH would break the general range cap of 72". Not only that, look at the ranges compared to the size of a tank. The ranges are pitifully small. Or how marines can be easily killed by small arms fire. The look of the rules are influenced by the fluff, but are not fluff based.

You might not get a 100 translation, but the themes are still there. The HH still has a monster range on the table top. (I have a hard time finding tables big enough to really handle it even.) And with marines being killed by small arms.. Well I tend to subscribe to the 12 man rule with them not the SM can kill everything rule, so them being taken out by small arms fits. (You don't actually find a small arm on the table top though. Most are super powerful army guns.)

Themes yes, but we shouldn't compare the effectiveness of stuff by compairing their tabletop stats, especialy when those change edition to edition.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

As in the base is fluff, but is altered by rule restrictions, balance issues, ect. For example, hammerheads is supposed to use range to it's advantage when fighting the vehicles of the guard. Now this doens't really translate to tabletop, because otherwise the HH would break the general range cap of 72". Not only that, look at the ranges compared to the size of a tank. The ranges are pitifully small. Or how marines can be easily killed by small arms fire. The look of the rules are influenced by the fluff, but are not fluff based.

You might not get a 100 translation, but the themes are still there. The HH still has a monster range on the table top. (I have a hard time finding tables big enough to really handle it even.) And with marines being killed by small arms.. Well I tend to subscribe to the 12 man rule with them not the SM can kill everything rule, so them being taken out by small arms fits. (You don't actually find a small arm on the table top though. Most are super powerful army guns.)

Themes yes, but we shouldn't compare the effectiveness of stuff by compairing their tabletop stats, especialy when those change edition to edition.

The fluff changes from edition to edition. I mean take 3ed tau. They were actually good with no sinister side. Then in the next edition they got dirty.

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

What dose that mean?

I do think that the rules inform the fluff well the fluff informs the rules. It's actually more the case in 40k then other games. Every rule has some kind of fluffy reason to exist.

As in the base is fluff, but is altered by rule restrictions, balance issues, ect. For example, hammerheads is supposed to use range to it's advantage when fighting the vehicles of the guard. Now this doens't really translate to tabletop, because otherwise the HH would break the general range cap of 72". Not only that, look at the ranges compared to the size of a tank. The ranges are pitifully small. Or how marines can be easily killed by small arms fire. The look of the rules are influenced by the fluff, but are not fluff based.

You might not get a 100 translation, but the themes are still there. The HH still has a monster range on the table top. (I have a hard time finding tables big enough to really handle it even.) And with marines being killed by small arms.. Well I tend to subscribe to the 12 man rule with them not the SM can kill everything rule, so them being taken out by small arms fits. (You don't actually find a small arm on the table top though. Most are super powerful army guns.)

Themes yes, but we shouldn't compare the effectiveness of stuff by compairing their tabletop stats, especialy when those change edition to edition.

The fluff changes from edition to edition. I mean take 3ed tau. They were actually good with no sinister side. Then in the next edition they got dirty.

Still doesn't mean we should use tabletop for fluff discussions. And things like weapon strengths seem to remain about the same edition to edition in the fluff.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

nomotog wrote:

The fluff changes from edition to edition. I mean take 3ed tau. They were actually good with no sinister side. Then in the next edition they got dirty.

Still doesn't mean we should use tabletop for fluff discussions. And things like weapon strengths seem to remain about the same edition to edition in the fluff.

Didn't the rail gun drop to 9 str in the new version?

I think the reason people use rules in fluff debates is because they are clearly defined numbers that are easy to compare. You know comparing the str values of two weapons to tell which one has the bigger punch. (Actually fill me in here if the fluff states that HHs are super long ranger or if it's something we kind of thought up because it's rules range is so big?)

S:10 AP: 1 72" range. It's on par for any Imperial tank cannon in terms of range.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Guys... why are you using TT rules to discuss fluff, we already know they don't translate well or there would be 5 marines and a Razorback on the table.

Defiantly. The tabletop versions really have no place in fluff discussions. Otherwise there would be no space marines left at this point. And elder would rule the galaxy.

EmpNorton insists on it. I'll just drop the Pask Punisher discussion as it is off topic.

I think the Tau are too friendly with people. They just roll planets and let the negotiations start once they've got a Pulse Rifle jammed down the throat of local Planetary Governor.

I'll agree to drop that topic. Another day, another time.

You need to re-read that second+third sentence. They seem to invalidate each other.

At any rate, we know that Tau prefer to lead with traders, showing off their superior Tau tech. Once they're trading, the Tau send advisers to the local Planetary Government. They slowly sow the ideals of the Greater Good and the advantages of being part of the Empire, then they simply allow the government to declare its allegiance. If the Tau can flip a world without firing a shot, they will, even if it takes 20 or 30 years. this is discussed at length in the Tau Codex. Threatening with the stick first just isn't how they roll. Show them the carrot a lot. The stick only comes out if there is immediate violent resistance or no hope whatsoever of conversion.

The fact that the stick comes out at all is proof that they're aggressive. Forcing people to do stuff is a negative quality.

The Tau are coalition (Empire) builders. You don't build an empire without using force somewhere down the line.

Also the Tau have to have that stick on hand given who they're dealing with. It can be a defensive measure as well.

Out of the main factions we know of, Humans are the only ones willing to consider the tau proposal most of the time. And even then the watercaste diplomats are just as likely to be heard as they are to be shot at and burned in the streets by zealous defenders and have a crusade slam into their home territory erasing all tau life as it goes.

Were it not for a warp-storm, the Tau would have been wiped out by the Imperium long before they were even space capable.

And that's just humans. That stick becomes a necessity when dealing with the other factions like Orks,Tyranids, Chaos, both kinds of Eldar, and Necrons who either don't accept diplomatic proposals, don't respect the tau as they are a young race, or would really just rather stomp, destroy and devour the Tau for bothering them or getting in their way.

The tau are also in a race against time to put as much space between themselves and the Imperium's eventual mass reprisal, the next Grog Irontoof or the next Hive Fleet that is hurtling toward them. The stick becomes a way to make things go more fluidly in that regard.

 Las wrote:
The fact that the stick comes out at all is proof that they're aggressive. Forcing people to do stuff is a negative quality.

No. It's what allows civilization to exist.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Las wrote:
The fact that the stick comes out at all is proof that they're aggressive. Forcing people to do stuff is a negative quality.

No. It's what allows civilization to exist.

There is no voting or consent to the Tau stick, unlike in our societies. That's the difference. The use of force to uphold laws in a decent society stems from authority of the people of that society. That is not true of the Tau empire.

 Las wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Las wrote:
The fact that the stick comes out at all is proof that they're aggressive. Forcing people to do stuff is a negative quality.

No. It's what allows civilization to exist.

There is no voting or consent to the Tau stick, unlike in our societies. That's the difference. The use of force to uphold laws in a decent society stems from authority of the people of that society. That is not true of the Tau empire.

A large number of races, including many human worlds, signed up of their own free will.

The Tau grant death to those that don't want to join them. Gue'vesa WANT to be part of the Empire.

Actually one of the sneaky bits the tau can take advantage of is that on a world someone will want to join. You might have a official who wants to join so the tau will help the official "convince" the people. Meanwhile if it's the people who want to join over official objections, the tau can help the people over throw their oppressive government.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Las wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Las wrote:
The fact that the stick comes out at all is proof that they're aggressive. Forcing people to do stuff is a negative quality.

No. It's what allows civilization to exist.

There is no voting or consent to the Tau stick, unlike in our societies. That's the difference. The use of force to uphold laws in a decent society stems from authority of the people of that society. That is not true of the Tau empire.

A large number of races, including many human worlds, signed up of their own free will.

The Tau grant death to those that don't want to join them. Gue'vesa WANT to be part of the Empire.

Even if that were true, it's still a negative quality.

Interestingly enough, in tau society, it might not be. To non-tau entering the empire, yes, but within Tau, not so much. It is self imposed servitude, not bound by threats or violence. The reason they serve the ethereals is that they believe that they know best the path of the greater good. You can see with the enclaves that tau still work together without the interference of the ethereals. It's a negative quality to us, but not to them. Just to put it in perspective.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Interestingly enough, in tau society, it might not be. To non-tau entering the empire, yes, but within Tau, not so much. It is self imposed servitude, not bound by threats or violence. The reason they serve the ethereals is that they believe that they know best the path of the greater good. You can see with the enclaves that tau still work together without the interference of the ethereals. It's a negative quality to us, but not to them. Just to put it in perspective.

But their relations with others is what were talking about. Otherwise we can talk about how the orks and tyranids don't have negative qualities either.

 Las wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Interestingly enough, in tau society, it might not be. To non-tau entering the empire, yes, but within Tau, not so much. It is self imposed servitude, not bound by threats or violence. The reason they serve the ethereals is that they believe that they know best the path of the greater good. You can see with the enclaves that tau still work together without the interference of the ethereals. It's a negative quality to us, but not to them. Just to put it in perspective.

But their relations with others is what were talking about. Otherwise we can talk about how the orks and tyranids don't have negative qualities either.

The orks and Tyranids are like rabid dogs. They're not evil, but they need to be put down for the good of society.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Las wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Interestingly enough, in tau society, it might not be. To non-tau entering the empire, yes, but within Tau, not so much. It is self imposed servitude, not bound by threats or violence. The reason they serve the ethereals is that they believe that they know best the path of the greater good. You can see with the enclaves that tau still work together without the interference of the ethereals. It's a negative quality to us, but not to them. Just to put it in perspective.

But their relations with others is what were talking about. Otherwise we can talk about how the orks and tyranids don't have negative qualities either.

The orks and Tyranids are like rabid dogs. They're not evil, but they need to be put down for the good of society.

These are irrelevant points.