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.

I only posted the Stelek list because some people wanted to see it. Personally, if I was running Tau, I'd run something like:

Shas'el, T/L Missile Pod, Plasma

3 Crisis Suits, T/L Missile Pod, Plasma

3 Crisis Suits, T/L Missile Pod, Plasma

3 Crisis Suits, T/L Missile Pod, Fusion

10 Fire Warriors
Devilfish, Dpod, SMS, Multi-tracker

10 Fire Warriors
Devilfish, Dpod, SMS, Multi-tracker

6 Fire Warriors

10 Kroot

10 Kroot

8 Pathfinders
Devilfish, Dpod, SMS, Multi-tracker (give ride to 6 FW)

2 Piranhas

2 Piranhas

2 Broadsides

Railhead

Railhead

Even looking at this though... it's a list I've beaten with both my Battlewagon Orks and my Marines. Once you crack the Railheads and Devilfish, everything else is just clean-up.

Edit:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:As for the railgun issue, 5 is minimum at 2000 points. I would take at least 4 once you got to 1500 then at least 5 once you get to 2000. If you don't have 7-9 by 2500 you are going to lose.

In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.

You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.

shealyr wrote:In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.

You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.

Actually you can fire at 6 targets because of target lock. I would almost always take that target lock if I am taking 9 broadsides at 2k or 2500.

Between the large blast and reliable transport popping (so as to break opponent's mobility), I ll choose the latter. As with all/most armies, you can't have everything. Besides, breaking mobility gives Tau more turns of shooting, and the SMS on the broadsides isn't crap either.

yeah, 9 b-sides generate 36 S5 AP5 shots at 24" that don't require LOS and only give cover saves if you are actually in cover (area terrain) not for intervening terrain or models.

Lack of Blast/Templates is a weakness of the Tau army though

striderx wrote:

shealyr wrote:In order to take that many though, you sacrifice your opportunity to take Hammerheads, and the large blast template is one of the codex's best weapons. Especially now vs. Dark Eldar.

You also run into the problem of target selection. At most, you'll be firing Railguns at 3 targets per round. That in and of itself is a huge weakness of the codex.

Actually you can fire at 6 targets because of target lock. I would almost always take that target lock if I am taking 9 broadsides at 2k or 2500.

Between the large blast and reliable transport popping (so as to break opponent's mobility), I ll choose the latter. As with all/most armies, you can't have everything. Besides, breaking mobility gives Tau more turns of shooting, and the SMS on the broadsides isn't crap either.

A single T/L BS3 Railgun is far from 'reliable' transport popping, which is what you're getting if you give up the extra BS. Against AV11, you have a 35% chance of getting an immobilize, wreck, or explode. result, halved if they get cover. I don't know how you choose to interpret Mathammer, but personally, if it's hovering around 1/3 without cover, I'd say it's not reliable... especially when you're paying the points premium that they cost.

Somehow people seem to think that if they're playing Tau, once transports are popped, everything is just going to magically die. The reality is, you need to bring more than just pulse rifles and the burst cannons on your Fish to clear out infantry.

shealyr wrote:
A single T/L BS3 Railgun is far from 'reliable' transport popping, which is what you're getting if you give up the extra BS. Against AV11, you have a 35% chance of getting an immobilize, wreck, or explode. result, halved if they get cover. I don't know how you choose to interpret Mathammer, but personally, if it's hovering around 1/3 without cover, I'd say it's not reliable... especially when you're paying the points premium that they cost.

Somehow people seem to think that if they're playing Tau, once transports are popped, everything is just going to magically die. The reality is, you need to bring more than just pulse rifles and the burst cannons on your Fish to clear out infantry.

1) I always give Broadsides TA. They shouldnt even be moving much.
2) If 9 TL railguns doesnt sound reliable to you (also, 18 more Missile shots from the FireKnives to help a little) , then why are you only bringing 2 railguns + 2 or 3 TL railguns?
3) How is the RailGuns on broadsides considered "premium costing" - when used to pop transport, as compare to those on HH? The central of discussion here is to pop transport or reduce mobility.
4) The rest of the firepower doesnt come from pulse rifles and burst cannons. They come from FireKnifes. More anti tank from the Piranhas.

which is why I bring fireknife squads. It's not that you have one t/l railgun firing at a transport - it's that you have as many as needed.

A scenario is in order

You've got three squads of broadsides lined up in a 2000+ game. You mark your targets and declare firing. First unit shoots 2 shots at a rhino with about a 70% of getting a good result (more if you markerlight it), the Target locked leader fires at another rhino - if he kills it, Great! If not though, you now have the opportunity to shoot either two more railguns at it, or you can shoot another single shot at it etc etc. It's basically about not wasting your shots. Instead of having a bunch of railguns being shot at one target, you can either have a bunch of railguns being shot at one target, or a couple railguns being shot at a target, or even one railgun being shot at a target. It gives you an option, which for 5 points, isn't bad. I find that usually, you get 4 "good" shots off and another "meh" shot by taking 9 b-sides with a target lock in each team.

Since it's on the team leader, you don't even have to give up the extra BS since a target lock can be hard-wired. Of course, I usually go for advanced stabilization systems over target arrays.

The hitting problems are solved by pathfinders. I dont use parannas. They seem to do very well at generating tokens for me. Remove a few and bam! the tank is gone! Also, the last time i moved my broadsides was my last. best just to let them sit iom. Fireknifes are good and always will be.

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:
In the case of Tau they are underpowered. It's a crap codex,

You might want to back this up with some explanations. Such general comments aren't very useful for discussion purposes.

That was a summary of a point that you snipped out of that quote, andyou didn't even bother to rebuke the point I was summarizing.

I play Tau, and here's why I see it as being an underperforming codex:

1. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. A good example of this is plasma weaponry; the Tau pay 20 points for a plasma gun (that cannot be taken by any Troop choices at all), and although it doesn't have Gets Hot, it's only S6. They're also in much smaller squads in the Tau army, making it harder to use ablative wounds to protect the plasma gun.

2. Leadership is a terrible problem. The only ways to boost leadership above 8 are with HQ choices. The Ethereal provides a re-roll (if it can be seen), but if it dies the consequences are terrible.

3. Claiming objectives is difficult for the Tau to do against many other armies because they do not have any good close combat troops, or really any "tough" troops. The best they can do is 6 Firewarriors in a Devilfish, and with the mandatory Disruption Pod on the DFish they still cost more than a min Space Marine Tac squad in a Rhino, which can fight and survive much better than the Tau.

4. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

5. Most new codexes have units with a "Wow!" factor; it's how the game is changing these days. The only "Wow!" factor units that the Tau have go the other way; "You're paying 205 points for Aun'Va?! Seriously?!"

That's the basic problems with the Tau codex. It's not unplayable, but it hasn't aged all that well. There are other crummy codexes out there too, so the Tau aren't alone. A good player CAN do well with them, so they're not hopeless, but there's a good reason you don't see them in the top three of tournament results.

schadenfreude wrote:That was a summary of a point that you snipped out of that quote, andyou didn't even bother to rebuke the point I was summarizing.

You said :-

schadenfreude wrote:I think the general problem with the tau is the codex tries to completely control 1 phase of the game (Shooting) by completely giving up on another (assault). What results tends to be a poorly balanced army that is either overpowered or underpowered.

In the case of Tau they are underpowered. It's a crap codex, and if a player can win tournaments with them it's a combination of top tier player skill and being matched up against the right armies.

And didnt go on to explain what is crap about it. I don't think anyone can rebute, without you first giving your inputs.

For a guide, check what Lorek has done. Right or wrong, it is at least comprehensive and gives food for thought.

Going to say what I had to say again, I'll try to be more detailed and less offensive to the thin skinned.

The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.

4th ed bugs were a poorly balanced army that lacked ranged firepower especially in the critically needed light vehicle anti tank/transport cracker. The addition of hive guard added a unit that covered a critical weakness of Tyanids.

Tau have always been less balanced than Tyanids as bug shooting>Tau CC. 4th ed bugs were bad at shooting, but the codex didn't completely give up on it. Tau pretty much completely gave up on CC (kroot is the best they have) forfeiting a complete aspect of the game, also have Tau have no psychic defense thus technically they are forfeiting 2 aspects of the game.

A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.

I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.

There is also the issue that they were built for 4th ed missions. Fire warriors & kroot were never intended to go into the middle of a Tyanid deployment zone and hold an objective. The low durability of troops just wasn't an issue in 4th ed, back then it was ok if a Tau player took 2 units of troops and they both died. Every 5th ed book has solid choices for troops: MEQ for the 3 SM codex, Nids have a huge selection of troops all rock solid +scoring MC if they want, and IG has both melta vets & platoons both have a lot of durability through numbers. Tau are living in the past. Weak troops=weak foundation for the army. Some very good players can beat people in tournament games with Tau, but they do so with a weak foundation for their army, and because of the weak foundation the entire army is ready collapse like a house of cards.

schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.

A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.

I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.

Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.

Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.

I play Tau, and here's why I see it as being an underperforming codex:

1. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. A good example of this is plasma weaponry; the Tau pay 20 points for a plasma gun (that cannot be taken by any Troop choices at all), and although it doesn't have Gets Hot, it's only S6. They're also in much smaller squads in the Tau army, making it harder to use ablative wounds to protect the plasma gun.

2. Leadership is a terrible problem. The only ways to boost leadership above 8 are with HQ choices. The Ethereal provides a re-roll (if it can be seen), but if it dies the consequences are terrible.

3. Claiming objectives is difficult for the Tau to do against many other armies because they do not have any good close combat troops, or really any "tough" troops. The best they can do is 6 Firewarriors in a Devilfish, and with the mandatory Disruption Pod on the DFish they still cost more than a min Space Marine Tac squad in a Rhino, which can fight and survive much better than the Tau.

4. Other armies do things more point efficiently than the Tau. I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

5. Most new codexes have units with a "Wow!" factor; it's how the game is changing these days. The only "Wow!" factor units that the Tau have go the other way; "You're paying 205 points for Aun'Va?! Seriously?!"

That's the basic problems with the Tau codex. It's not unplayable, but it hasn't aged all that well. There are other crummy codexes out there too, so the Tau aren't alone. A good player CAN do well with them, so they're not hopeless, but there's a good reason you don't see them in the top three of tournament results.

This is an excellent summary of the Tau's problems. I couldn't have said it better myself.

To add on to why I feel they suffer in the context of the game; Warhammer 40k is very troop oriented and assault oriented. 2/3 of the games are objective games in which you need durable troop choices to win. 100% of the time you MUST take two troop choices. The assault phase is where most of the real killing gets done. Sure, there are shooting armies who can do well, but the abundance of cover, the fact that shooting happens once per game turn but assault happens twice, and the ability to sweep opponents in assault leads to a better output in assault. If the Tau were guaranteed 2-3 turns of shooting they could do well. As it stands they are not. Speed and tricky units leads to 1-2 turn assaults. Tau have absolutely NOTHING that can stand up to CC. Don't try to tell me Kroot are worth anything there either.

Sure, Tau can cling to a semi-competitive mono build, but in a game of variety an customization, isn't having only one good build an inherent failure in itself?

In response to striderx:
IG handle shooty a LOT better than Tau do. Tau can shoot and scoot, but when it comes to raw volume of firepower, the Imperial Guard stomp Tau flat. This comes from my point of Tau paying more for the same capabilities as other armies, as well as the Imperial Guard having a better selection of weapons to use.

IG also benefit from having much cheaper bodies to throw into the fray, and actual options for their troops to enhance their role (and in fact, their options are cheap enough that you can kit out a blob squad for shooting and assault and still not adversely impact the rest of your army). You can also afford to throw away a speed bump unit with IG; Tau have a more difficult time of this (there are Kroot, but Kroot don't shoot nearly as well as an IG Infantry squad).

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.

A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.

I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.

Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.

Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.

It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF

Oh, one other thing that affects the Tau is table size. Broke my heart to see the standard table size get set to 4x6 instead of 4x8. I do miss the maneuverability that the extra space afforded.

The Tau need a new codex, it's as simple as that. Until a new codex comes out Tau will never be hailed as a truly good army IMHO. Although I usually say that all armies are equal at the same points with equally well made lists, similar player experience and ability but I think Tau are an exception to this rule. Tau can win, I'm not completely casting them out, but I think the army list and player would have to be a lot better than the opposition.

the new forge world toys help balance them out. I think its always appropriate to let tau players use them, given the sorry state of their codex

Tau have a bad codex. It has no answer against certian lists, and common lists, not exotic theoretical lists.

Most of the 'Competitive' lists I've seen have relied heavily on piranha walls for blocking enemy movement. Someone took Tau high into the rounds of 'ard boyz in the last go round, and it sparked a lot of conversation. But when you went back and looked at the batreps, they had extremely good match ups and/or their opponent made silly mistakes. Now a lot of this is what 40k is about, especially tournaments, I'm sure the Tau player is very good, but they were beating Chaos Daemons and funky Ork lists, not Mech IG and Space Wolves. I said then that the Tau have no answer for an all jump BA list, and as fate would have it that Tau player was eliminated by an all jump BA list in the next round.

Now enter the Dark Eldar, and I really think the final nail has hit the coffin for 4e Tau. You can't piranha block their skimmers, they can out volume of fire the Tau easily (and while doing it inside of their Vehicles), their skimmers have a 5++, and that's huge. I know you may not think it's huge, but it really is, and their assault troops can assault you from beyond plasma rifle or SMS range, and their pain token system gives them better than 4+ saves.

Armies are too fast for Tau to deal with in 5e. Multiple armies have been given options to effectively 'shrink' the board, Tau are going to have to be given drastic measures to 'stretch' the board back out, or a complete reworking of their army.

striderx wrote:Stelek says he uses Tau competitively, and that Tau is actually the top army.
And he beat DashofPepper, who claims to be the top few player (according to some sort of ranking).
So let's say Tau is playable.

He beat Dash with Space Wolves, which he now brings to the most recent GT's.

This is very discouraging. I am fairly new to the hobby, and I currently play vanilla marines. I was interested in starting tau as a second army, though at least several months down the road. I am very attracted to their look, and the "shootyness" of the army. I was never a big fan of close combat. I am not interested at all in tournament play, I'm just in it for fun. But an army that only wins at the hands of a general on par with Napoleon, or by an odd match up, doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a "win at all costs" player, but I would want an army that can win every once in awhile. Is there any point of starting tau, given what I have said, or should I wait until they get an update? I have heard that we are more likely to have another ice age before we get an update .

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:The problem with any codex that tries to completely control 1 phase of the game is that it ends up a poorly balanced army. Being weak in 1 aspect of the game is 1 thing, completely giving up control of 1 aspect of the game is another. Prime examples are Tyanids and Tau.

A lack of counter attack units, power weapons, or ability to leave combat such as hit & run or combat tactics means it's not just easy to steamroll Tau in CC, it also means it's easy to tarpit Tau. Prime example is 2 plague marines with no champ no power weapon and no power fist can tar pit 3 broadsides or 3 crisis suits for the rest of the game.

I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.

Just curious on this ONE point. Isnt alot of IG armies built purely shooty? In fact, you are the first person in my 40k journey who makes such a claim. That got me really curious.

Why is being purely shooty a bad thing? It doesnt stop you from capturing objective. It doesnt stop you from killing things. And when you are shooty, you don't need to win CC. Whatever you throw away as speed bumps are just to buy you another turn of shooting. And which is also why you never allow your bsides or crisis suits to be assaulted until all your speed bumps are dead.

Being purely shooting army matters a whole lot when expensive units get sucked into CC with no chance of escape.

IG have several defenses against CC.

Power Blobs are actually a mean CC unit in non mechanized armies, but they are in the minority. Most iG armies are mechanized which have the advantage of being expendible.

Extendibility: Most squads are 70-100 points & mechanized so their loss isn't a great loss as opposed to a unit of broadsides or crisis suits. A good example is a squad of tac/plague/grey hunters/assault marines with a power fist being reduced to 2 members through shooting. Even with the squad being 80% dead if they charge IG infantry, crisis suits, or broadsides they will probably win. The difference between Tau and IG is the Tau's loss is going to be about 250% of the IG's loss in points before CC ends.

Tau don't so much need to win CC as they need a way to get expensive units out of CC that get stuck there.

IG also has very competitive troops selections that achieve durability through extendibility. IG is a well balanced 5th ed codex, while Tau remain an out of balance 4th ed codex.

PraetorDave wrote:This is very discouraging. I am fairly new to the hobby, and I currently play vanilla marines. I was interested in starting tau as a second army, though at least several months down the road. I am very attracted to their look, and the "shootyness" of the army. I was never a big fan of close combat. I am not interested at all in tournament play, I'm just in it for fun. But an army that only wins at the hands of a general on par with Napoleon, or by an odd match up, doesn't appeal to me. I'm not a "win at all costs" player, but I would want an army that can win every once in awhile. Is there any point of starting tau, given what I have said, or should I wait until they get an update? I have heard that we are more likely to have another ice age before we get an update .

well no one wants to lose... or play at a disadvantage. its not necessarily about being a waac player. I think that you should play the army you like the best for fluff and model reasons, because a 40k army is a long term investment and you dont know what their next rule set will look like. tau will get an update sooner rather than later, and they're playable right now if you just want to throw down at your flgs. But there will come a point when you say "I'm not losing because I'm getting out-played. I'm losing because I don't have the tools I need." since you already have space marines, which are quite competitive, why not go for another army?

AF

schadenfreude wrote:IG have several defenses against CC.
Power Blobs are actually a mean CC unit in non mechanized armies, but they are in the minority.

Which therefore brings my point. Most competitive IG are built PURELY shooty, something which you said you don't believe in. But they do well.
So I m asking this question in general (not army specific), because you said "I'm not sold on the concept of a pure CC or pure shooting army. Until Kroot become as good at CC as Hive Guard are at shooting the codex will remain severely flawed.". Most IG list don't include that...

schadenfreude wrote:Most iG armies are mechanized which have the advantage of being expendible.

So now do you mean being purely shooty is not good, or not being able to mechanize is no good? There are stark differences, you know that???

schadenfreude wrote:A good example is a squad of tac/plague/grey hunters/assault marines with a power fist being reduced to 2 members through shooting. Even with the squad being 80% dead if they charge IG infantry, crisis suits, or broadsides they will probably win. The difference between Tau and IG is the Tau's loss is going to be about 250% of the IG's loss in points before CC ends.

Not a good example, because SW is not a shooty army, although they do well being shooty. But that's because they are (IMHO) a codex that's on the top of the league.

schadenfreude wrote:Tau don't so much need to win CC as they need a way to get expensive units out of CC that get stuck there.

Which comes again to your point - why do you need to be both shooty and assaulty then? Being assaulty doesnt necessarily solve the above problem, nor is it the only way to solve the problem.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF

But you haven't explained why being PURELY SHOOTY hinders capturing of objective. Most IG are built purely shooty, most list don't have power blobs...

Powerguy wrote:The problem with Tau is that there is really only 1 competitive build available.

This is the problem here. It's not that Tau are weak, it's just that there is only one way to play them well.

If you haven't figured out how to do that then they're rubbish. Also, if you have figured it out, then you won't be surprising anybody since there's only that one good build.

Ig are better than tau in cc in that squads 25% of their point cost caant reliable steamroll or tarpit their units.

45 points of meq tarpitting or killing 240 points of tau units is far worse than 100 points of marines killing 100 points of guardsmen.

Broadsides/crisis suits being tarpitted/killed by meq 25% their point size if far worse than what it takes to handle ig. The same ratio would be a single tac marine attempting to charge 10 guardsmen.

I have a friend who started tau, and is very frustrated especially playing my mech guard. Even though broadsides have a 75% chance of hitting, and a 82.5% of penning av12, he just can't take out enough tanks. He targets my heavies first turn, and even if he kills them I've gotten into his troops by second turn, and by third or fourth he's left with broadsides and suits. Thow in that I deepstrike marbo and stormies that can tarpit broadsides (if not out right kill) in turn 2, and he is toast.

Tau just can't handle an army that can out move them.

schadenfreude wrote:Ig are better than tau in cc in that squads 25% of their point cost caant reliable steamroll or tarpit their units.

45 points of meq tarpitting or killing 240 points of tau units is far worse than 100 points of marines killing 100 points of guardsmen.

Broadsides/crisis suits being tarpitted/killed by meq 25% their point size if far worse than what it takes to handle ig. The same ratio would be a single tac marine attempting to charge 10 guardsmen.

How has this got anything to do with the problem with being PURELY shooty? That's an issue of point efficiency.

AspireToGlory wrote:He beat Dash with Space Wolves, which he now brings to the most recent GT's.

Yeah, I know that. I said Stelek, someone who beat Dash (who claims to be one of the better player around), says Tau is awesome. Simple, and just that.
So, what's your point?

IMHO, tau is good at shooting. They just dont bring that much guns compared to other shooty armies.

striderx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It actually does stop you from capturing an objective. Since even 1 survivor from a squad can hold an objective, both guard and tau are far better at holding objectives than they are at capturing them. guard do in fact have close combat options - power blobs and rough riders are both quite strong. compare to Tau who do not have close combat options. at all. Given the tremendous bump in mobility over the last year or so of codices, you dont always have the option of choosing when you're in assault and when you arent. It just doesnt work that way. AF

But you haven't explained why being PURELY SHOOTY hinders capturing of objective.

if you're shooty and they're assaulty you have to inflict 100% casualties on the enemy squad before you can capture the objective they're holding.
If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.
It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing space
Guard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.
Get it now?
AF