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.

Sure, he could have been around for awhile. Most players that have played a lot of armies, in my experience, have bounced between armies, often selling off big parts of their existing ones in order to get minis for their next one. Certainly this has much more to do with indecisiveness than keeping options open.

For the record a battlesuit should only ever take PR and MP?

See here we have to argue =]

Firestorms and Deathrains are just as succesful at killing things. I believe regardless of your AP2 claim of the PR, that the math hammer gurus will show that the Firestorm has the same capablities as removing marines as the Fireknife.

Not to mention in 5E AP2 is moot to most people in terrain so the shot count of the Firestorm comes into play.

But this thread isnt about suits its about why we argue about suits =]

and the answer to that is simply because Im right and most people are wrong =]

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...

6 of them were for actually getting the Tau culture better, 3 were about touchy subjects ( Taros, sterilization from Dark Crusade and racism ) and 1 was fan fiction ( Protoss Empire vs. Tau Empire ). SO of 10 threads I posted about Tau only 3 were "hate threads", the rest was for learning and 1 was for fun. I hardly call that "Tau crusade threads", it is more likely that mods looks all Tau threads a little more closer because Tau are such a mysterious and strange faction that everybody have questions - most of them are inspiring rage with Tau players. I myself are a victim of this, I posted question to learn about Tau and religion after I learned that they allow Imperial citizens who became part of their Empire to continue preaching Imperial Creed. I started a thread about this to see if there is more info on this and I wanted to know about Kroot and Vespid religions to, but Mod closed thread after 2 posts calling it "security risk" for Dakka.

And a note to, I have started 10 threads regarding Tau and about 200 regarding Imperium of Man, rest were for Eldar and some fun. I hardly call that "Tau witch hunt"..

Milisim wrote:For the record a battlesuit should only ever take PR and MP?

See here we have to argue =]

Firestorms and Deathrains are just as succesful at killing things. I believe regardless of your AP2 claim of the PR, that the math hammer gurus will show that the Firestorm has the same capablities as removing marines as the Fireknife.

Not to mention in 5E AP2 is moot to most people in terrain so the shot count of the Firestorm comes into play.

But this thread isnt about suits its about why we argue about suits =]

and the answer to that is simply because Im right and most people are wrong =]

Firestorm for the win. Kind of feel quanitity has quality all of its own with out the price premium. Think maybe we all argue over crisis suit loadouts the most lol.

Wow, i know 4 tau players and they are all different. 1 is a serious tourney gamer he is quite good but he is an enjoyable person to be around. 1 is exactly as described superior and cocky but he is still my friend (his list is 9 broadsides, and like 60 firewarrior and a commander in suit.) One is simply terrible at playing Tau but he is also cool. The fourth is a quite guy who i've never played.

So i think your premise is not based on enough facts.
Do Tau players on the internet tend to be argumentative. Yes.
But if GK could wack your whole army with one character you would be angry and argumentative too.

Tau players argue because The Greater Good is a sham and there are no Ethereals in real life to mind control them.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Tau players argue because The Greater Good is a sham and there are no Ethereals in real life to mind control them.

Or maybe we continue to argue until consensus is achieved instead of resorting to summary executions in the name of a dead guy in a chair.

At what point in the Tau fluff have you ever seen any suggestion that there's some kind of democratic process in the Tau Empire?

It's an oligarchy, not a republic.


Stop taking this personally, son. It's a game. You aren't your army. And neither am I a Space Marine, nor a Genestealer Cultist.

I see a claw! KILL THE MUTANT!

My riposte maybe cut you a bit. Sorry, all in fun. (thanks chief)

Cut deeper next time. We need less SM players out there! =]

Veteran Sergeant wrote:At what point in the Tau fluff have you ever seen any suggestion that there's some kind of democratic process in the Tau Empire?

It's an oligarchy, not a republic.


Stop taking this personally, son. It's a game. You aren't your army. And neither am I a Space Marine, nor a Genestealer Cultist.

I would say its a Confederation and I believe you are thinking Theocracy and GW droped the ball calling it an empire.

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious group or religion.
I would say yes the Tau part of the Confederation would be a Theocracy.

I play Ultramarines and Eldar. What does that say about me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Milisim wrote:Cut deeper next time. We need less SM players out there! =]

Jealousy is an ugly emotion.

Empire is a misleading term, as there is no "Emperor" for the Tau. Meritocratic Oligarchy is likely the best term, as a small group of those who have earned the position govern while consulting each other on their various areas of expertise.

I find myself arguing with Tau players most because the ones I run into on the table top are so very different from me. I see playing Tau as a zen exercise (well not precisely- it's very stressful.) I try to play as precisely as possible. I apply as much firepower as needed at a particular point and move on to the next. Every movement is carefully considered. My proximity to objectives relative to the enemy is always on my mind. Honestly I have to: the army allows no mistakes. This appeals to the part of me that wants to defeat my enemy because of MY superiority, not because my army does all the work for me. Now, I don't intentionally gib myself for a challenge, because that's no fun, but like Hannibal I do love it when a plan comes together. Also I enjoy asserting Carthaginian dominance.

Most other Tau players I find are usually... less precise. They think the army "looks cool" or play O'Shovah because they want a CC Mecha army :wince: They like the idea of this great shooting army, but then are easily discouraged at the learning curve required to play it well. The Tau are an army that can be built around Math, and that appeals to my analytical nature. That's what I consider "fun." There's nothing fun for me about putting models on the field only to watch them get pointlessly destroyed. At the same time, I prefer to experiment with certain units, and items that I have long since figured out how to use, other Tau players discount as "worthless."

The truth of the matter Tau players argue because we're frustrated at the status of our army, and we are all struggling to find a list that breaks us free of years of sub par competition. We argue because we're just gnawing old bones long bereft of nourishment. Promises of glory and hopes for the furture for our forces come to naught, with the old and the bitter grumbling in our cups, and the young railing fruitlessly against the obvious. When your best conversation, then, is what can be done to improve your situation, many ideas reasonable and not will be proposed. I see more arguments about how to FIX the army than anything else.

Nice post Nagashek.

Tun_Tau wrote:I would say its a Confederation and I believe you are thinking Theocracy and GW droped the ball calling it an empire.

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious group or religion.
I would say yes the Tau part of the Confederation would be a Theocracy.

You should have wiki'd what an ogliarchy is when you were looking up theocracy. You'd have found that it's a far better descriptor for the Tau than theocracy. While theocracy isn't necessarily wrong, good arguments are based on what provides the best answer, and The Greater Good isn't really a religion, the Ethereals are not strictly religious leaders.

And the word is also riposte, and it didn't cut very deep at all. Your blade is somewhat... dull.

Dull blade or not, it got under your skin a bit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It took Nagashek to make your point for you.

Or he's got too much time on his hands and too many fun story ideas. I don't know about anyone else, but I've found the 'right' armies: Tzeentch, Eldar, Inquisition, Dark Eldar and Dark Angels all give me the right mixture of cunning, clever plots, powerful elite units, maneuverability, and firepower to fit with my favored themes.