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.

Was it Fireknive suit spam hybrid tau? That's the good one.

Mech tau sucks.

No, though that may be what he usually runs. He mentioned having to build this list last minute due to missing models. It had two units of three broadsides, a unit of pathfinders, two units of FCW (one took the Pathfinders’ Devilfish), four units of kroot (including two big units of kroot/kroot hounds), an ethereal and a crisis suit HQ, from what I remember. I really like units of Kroot/hounds for outflanking and infiltrating.

I think Mech Tau is okay. Devilfish are too expensive by comparison with Chimerae, but with SMS and disruption pods they’re pretty solid.

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

Please tell this to any of the competitive gamers I have played recently. I try to tell them this too and they laugh in my face.

(Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, but its not like you provided any basis for your statement.)

I refer you to the UKGT results of the past few years, the comparable points costs in various codexes (e.g. Devilfish vs Chimaera, Devilfish vs Rhino) and the rules changes in 5th edition which work against Tau more than against armies with any decent H2H capability.

Please note that bad is a relative statement. You claim that Tau are equal to any other army. I claim they aren't. I'm not saying they are the worst army, or that they are very much worse than most of the others, or that they are completely uncompetitive.

I believe they are less competitive than many, based on the factors I mentioned above, which are printed evidence.

don_mondo wrote:Sorry, but this is a bad comp scoring system, as far too much of it is purely subjective and dependent upon the judge's opinion. It is a fine example, however, of exactly why I don't like comp.....

Well sir, I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

Please tell this to any of the competitive gamers I have played recently. I try to tell them this too and they laugh in my face.

(Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, but its not like you provided any basis for your statement.)

I refer you to the UKGT results of the past few years, the comparable points costs in various codexes (e.g. Devilfish vs Chimaera, Devilfish vs Rhino) and the rules changes in 5th edition which work against Tau more than against armies with any decent H2H capability.

Please note that bad is a relative statement. You claim that Tau are equal to any other army. I claim they aren't. I'm not saying they are the worst army, or that they are very much worse than most of the others, or that they are completely uncompetitive.

I believe they are less competitive than many, based on the factors I mentioned above, which are printed evidence.

1500 points is not competitive.

3 round tournaments do not prove an actual good list

Actually, one of those UKGT tournaments was won by a tau army (in 2009 I believe) much like the one I said is competitive.
(3rd one in case you ignore the first 2)

All of that refuted by 3 simple arguments...

"1500 is not competitive"? Seriously?

Are we talking about comp for 40k or comp for Fantasy? While 40k is relatively balanced, Fantasy is, to quote another, a train wreck.

Mannahnin wrote:"1500 is not competitive"? Seriously?

and neither are three games...

or games that Tau win, apparently.

Actually, I understand his point that a lot can happen to make certain armies be successful on smaller scales. I think he means that given 100 game tournaments Tau's ability to win them outright is significantly less. A valid point I think.

But I do disagree that 1500 is not competitive. Its just a different Meta that affects which armies are, or are not, competitive.

More justification for composition systems, the varying power levels both between armies, within a given codex and game sizes.

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

Please tell this to any of the competitive gamers I have played recently. I try to tell them this too and they laugh in my face.

(Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, but its not like you provided any basis for your statement.)

I refer you to the UKGT results of the past few years, the comparable points costs in various codexes (e.g. Devilfish vs Chimaera, Devilfish vs Rhino) and the rules changes in 5th edition which work against Tau more than against armies with any decent H2H capability.

Please note that bad is a relative statement. You claim that Tau are equal to any other army. I claim they aren't. I'm not saying they are the worst army, or that they are very much worse than most of the others, or that they are completely uncompetitive.

I believe they are less competitive than many, based on the factors I mentioned above, which are printed evidence.

1500 points is not competitive.

3 round tournaments do not prove an actual good list

Actually, one of those UKGT tournaments was won by a tau army (in 2009 I believe) much like the one I said is competitive.
(3rd one in case you ignore the first 2)

All of that refuted by 3 simple arguments...

No.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/231372.page

Uh, you linked a WHFB tournament. Sorry what was your point?


1500 points isn't competitive because its just rock/paper/scissors because you can't field enough stuff to be able to deal with multiple different army types.

Mannahnin wrote:"1500 is not competitive"? Seriously?

That's ironic, seeing as how that's probably the points value for the Las Vegas tournament GW will be running and people are chasing after the golden tickets for it.

Amazingly, UKGTs have been a competitive mirage for the past 10 years!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/233402.page

Timmah has a point though, one which is better illustrated in increasingly smaller games. Everyone knows how slowed 40k gets when someone brings a pair of Land Raiders to a 1000 point game.

I used to run three Daemon CSM at 1000 points. 12 MC wounds at T6. Back that up with 4 missile launchers/autocannons and 4 heavy bolters and you're golden. Honestly LRs aren't that big of a deal in my book at that point level (melta = 10 point investment).

Danny Internets wrote:Timmah has a point though, one which is better illustrated in increasingly smaller games. Everyone knows how slowed 40k gets when someone brings a pair of Land Raiders to a 1000 point game.

:looks around innocently:

mikhaila wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:"1500 is not competitive"? Seriously?

That's ironic, seeing as how that's probably the points value for the Las Vegas tournament GW will be running and people are chasing after the golden tickets for it.

Isn't it though. Seriously since when did GW become the authority on competitiveness?

I think most people will agree the game becomes a whole lot more tactical when you get into the 1850-2000 range.

Kilkrazy wrote:Amazingly, UKGTs have been a competitive mirage for the past 10 years!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/233402.page

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/2007/10/40k-gt-heat-1-r.html#more

And here is a link to prove you wrong.

This one tau got 1st. According to your argument they must be good!!11!

(he got max points I might add, in a 6 round tournament)

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I used to run three Daemon CSM at 1000 points. 12 MC wounds at T6. Back that up with 4 missile launchers/autocannons and 4 heavy bolters and you're golden. Honestly LRs aren't that big of a deal in my book at that point level (melta = 10 point investment).

Did you miss the point intentionally?

i think comp scores are a joke tbh. the main rules already say how much of what you need and can have in a given army, (40k or whfb) and imposing any furthar limit on what should be taken is basiclly imposing ones personal thought into what i should play. forget the fact, that ive chosen an army for its particular style. built a list that i like, then play it in a tourney?if i choose to max out one particular strength, thats my choice. i shouldnt be penalized (and potentially have the tourney lost) because some idiot thinks my double units of screamers/flamers is cheesy. or my orc trukk speed freaks list is too powerful...or whatever. if its such a big deal, then everyone should play the same list, no point in a codex, giving you OPTIONS on what to take, and let the dice decide. hell, we dont even need models.... just throw dice back and forth untill someone rolls 6 6's in a row - that person wins.

i think that IF there is a comp score category, everyone starts out at a base level of 5 out of 10. yo can never loose points, and these points have no bearing on the main tourney. however you EARN points by: having an army that functions well together as a whole. (ie nice combos, etc) and fitting the fluff of a particular army. extra points for choosing a theme, and sticking to it, (ie speed freaks have nothing but trukk boys and bikes, gunline IG just have tons of wep plats..or tank companys everythings a tank or in transport, and so on.) i think that the second you start telling people what they "should" take in a tournament list, even if its just by penalizing certian units and bonusing others, it takes away the fundamental part of the game:

choose, build and play an army YOU like, and be damned to anyone else.

CptZach wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:"1500 is not competitive"? Seriously?

That's ironic, seeing as how that's probably the points value for the Las Vegas tournament GW will be running and people are chasing after the golden tickets for it.

Isn't it though. Seriously since when did GW become the authority on competitiveness?

I think most people will agree the game becomes a whole lot more tactical when you get into the 1850-2000 range.

Kilkrazy wrote:Amazingly, UKGTs have been a competitive mirage for the past 10 years!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/233402.page

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/2007/10/40k-gt-heat-1-r.html#more

And here is a link to prove you wrong.

This one tau got 1st. According to your argument they must be good!!11!

(he got max points I might add, in a 6 round tournament)

Well I was talking about finals. I am not interested in spending hours to look through every single heat.

So in one round a Tau army placed under 4th edition, and that makes them exactly equal in power to all other codexes except Necrons and the other one (can't remember it) under 5e?

Great logic!

tau placed in 4th edition. Oh man, because no codexs got knocked why down the power tree by 5th. Oh wait, every skimmer heavy xenos race sucks now.

DarthSpader wrote:*snip*

Just wanted to say that was a good post.

I'd like to know on what basis 1500 points is not competitive?

If you are going to use the argument that some armies/builds are inherently stronger at 1500, then fine - except you can apply that same argument to any points value. Some armies scale incredibly well, others have a fairly narrow window of viability, some do better in higher PV games, others in low PV.

Ultimately, if everyone in a tourney is playing to the same PV, then it will be competitive because people will try to maximise the effectiveness of their force at that value. Does that mean that some armies/builds will be seen less frequently? Perhaps, but it does not take away from the competitiveness of the builds that are used.

Anyway, I don't think it really matters.

If winning the competition is your primary motivation, just play whatever you consider to be the strongest codex.

When the game changes, change with it.

If you just want to have the chance to play a series of games, play your usual army. If it is a weaker codex (we could argue about that all year) then enjoy the greater challenge.

Dainty Twerp wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Sorry, but this is a bad comp scoring system, as far too much of it is purely subjective and dependent upon the judge's opinion. It is a fine example, however, of exactly why I don't like comp.....

Well sir, I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

And that is certainly your prerogative, but call me a name again and it's on.......... I'm a Sergeant, I work for a livin'... Or was at least, now I'm a retired Sgt. And still work for a livin'.

Kilkrazy wrote:Anyway, I don't think it really matters.

If winning the competition is your primary motivation, just play whatever you consider to be the strongest codex.

When the game changes, change with it.

If you just want to have the chance to play a series of games, play your usual army. If it is a weaker codex (we could argue about that all year) then enjoy the greater challenge.

Hehehehehe, and every once in a while the wheel turns and your 'weak' army becomes better. Started playing IG in 2nd ed cause I was told no one could win with them. Been playing them ever since, through thick and thin, with a few temporary lapses to play other armies just to mix it up.

The general idea was that IF you are going to have comp, would these be perfered to grading the comp and applying it as a penalty to your scores?