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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then they're not a "mostly shooting army" are they?

Typically in historical scenarios, attackers need at least a 1.5: 1 numbers advantage over defenders to even have a chance. Tau force most lists to be an attacker.

Historically that's true because terrain normally favors the defenders.

... which is why I made the comment I did. Do you have something to actually add to the thread?

Fauk wrote:

The only question I have for you is: How much terrain do you use? Do you have any kind of LOS-blocking terrain?

You can check out my gallery, I have a terrain folder in there ( I think lol) , but yes we use lots of Los blocking terrain and plenty of terrain in general. Trees, small rock walls, deep rock canyons, ruins, buildings ect...

OP did you say one of your fellow players uses BA?

I can see a potential how to beat Tau straight off with BA (not that it will definitely work).

Army list ideas time.

BA primary SM allies
BA
Priest drop pod

Command Squad (3x melta) with jumppacks

Tactical (10) 2 hand flamers, flamer, heavy flamer in pod
Tactical (10) 2 hand flamers, flamer, heavy flamer in pod

Assualt Squad (5) 2 melta pistols, 2 melta guns in pod
Assualt Squad (5) 2 melta pistols, 2 melta guns

Devastators (5) 4xlascannons with pod (not in it)

SM
Librarian with jump pack with BA command squad

Scouts (5) snipers

Centurions Grav weapons (in BA pod with Priest)
Devastators (5) 4xlascannons with pod (not in it)

it's an approximation (not calculated out) i believe would put some hurt on Tau.

 Byte wrote:
Find a local tournament. Play. Eat humble pie.

Exactly this, you've just been playing people who aren't on your level.

I also go 100% victory when I play against some players, tournaments help you meet those who can give you a hard time.

Also, local tournaments are sometimes not much better in terms of competition, if you're always winning, you need to try something harder.

also maybe try some varity, go with a more daring load out, experiment with different ideas you may not normally use.

incorporate diffrent units and tactics even if there not o effective or abit specaliesd.

I stuck at 40K, and I beat a Tau player the other day w/ SoBs. Heavy terrain game (36" width), denied shots wherever possible until I could close the gap. It's not impossible, just have to level the field and deny the long distance shooting wherever possible.


Oh, and I learned that Riptides *hate* Exorcists. And Dom squads w/ 4 meltas in a drop pod is lultastic against a backline hammerhead

(but yeah, I really do suck at 40k. Just need moar practice)

How can that [terrain] be more important than army composition?

Dude, do you even 40k?

Seriously, it's pretty straightforward to make a good list. I mean besides the 1K sons player in this thread, a good list is easy. Playing that list on the table is where a little more skill comes in. Yes there're dice rolling around, but only in small volumes like challenges and heavy weapons is that a truely random element. Using terrain, or limiting its use against you IS one of the very few core elements of the game... and unlike list building, can't be cut and pasted off the internet.

"Seriously, it's pretty straightforward to make a good list."

I think this is a poor assumption.

Martel732 wrote:
"Seriously, it's pretty straightforward to make a good list."

I think this is a poor assumption.

Indeed.

If that were the case, there would be a lot less netlisting.

Writing a good list is really hard, it takes a lot of testing against a lot of various opponents with different playstyles.
In a way, it's always a work in progress and never finished.

On top of that, many players are just unable to see which units are good, which combination of units would give them an advantage and so on.
The majority of the players I've met were simply unable to write a good competitive list.


But his other point is very important. Terrain and the use of LoS blockers makes a world of difference in all games, whether it is to limit the opponent's firepower or to minimize assault opportunities.

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Then they're not a "mostly shooting army" are they?

Typically in historical scenarios, attackers need at least a 1.5: 1 numbers advantage over defenders to even have a chance. Tau force most lists to be an attacker.

Actually that number was determined to be 10:1 based on results from historical battle statistics.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Then they're not a "mostly shooting army" are they?

Typically in historical scenarios, attackers need at least a 1.5: 1 numbers advantage over defenders to even have a chance. Tau force most lists to be an attacker.

Actually that number was determined to be 10:1 based on results from historical battle statistics.

I did say "at least" because I didn't know the exact number.

Lobukia wrote:Yes there're dice rolling around, but only in small volumes like challenges and heavy weapons is that a truely random element.

I'd just like to note that 40k doesn't come anywhere close to large enough numbers for the law of large numbers to really apply.

Plus, not all die rolls are created equal. Any particular die roll in a slough of bolter shots isn't likely to have much impact on a game compared to the die roll for who goes first or when the game ends or if you manage to get that unit on an objective in a charge or not.

When you boil 40k down to the die rolls that really, really, matter, the number is tiny, not large. You can't control for luck in 40k, certainly not over the course of a single game.

Not that it makes terrain any less important, but still...

If you're mates change their lists/exchange sides when playing said lists and you're still curb stomping them, why not do a series of "learning games" where you start out the game but if your mates are going to make obvious errors or have no clue how to counter your forces, you stop the game and mentor them through the possibilities or tactics?

That way they learn something rather than just getting whopped over and over.
Something like if your mate decides to target your kroot instead of the pathfinders, you stop the game and explain why the PFs need to die, what might happen if they dont and why the kroot are potentially not as big a threat.

Other than that I'd echo that it sounds a bit like a big fish in a small pond. Try the wider community to see how you stack up.

You could try a more challenging army, say Orks? If you're still consistently beating your 2 opponents, then you're certainly a better player than them. However, "better" is relative.
The key thing is, are you all having fun? If so, then no problem. However, if it's only you having fun, then you may eventually run out of opponents.

 Ratius wrote:
If you're mates change their lists/exchange sides when playing said lists and you're still curb stomping them, why not do a series of "learning games" where you start out the game but if your mates are going to make obvious errors or have no clue how to counter your forces, you stop the game and mentor them through the possibilities or tactics?

That way they learn something rather than just getting whopped over and over.
Something like if your mate decides to target your kroot instead of the pathfinders, you stop the game and explain why the PFs need to die, what might happen if they dont and why the kroot are potentially not as big a threat.

Other than that I'd echo that it sounds a bit like a big fish in a small pond. Try the wider community to see how you stack up.

I second this. If I see my opponent making a crucial error I will usually point it out them unless it's a torny - It makes for a more challenging game. After a game I will usually talk to my opponent too - try to guide his strategy better if I rofl stomped him. Plus it's mostly dice - you are probably just get absurdly lucky and that will even out eventually. Really if you are winning more than 60% of your games and you play a lot something is wrong with your opponents lists - try to help him make a stronger one. Swap armies and show him how you'd play it. If he doesn't care to be taught then yes, you probably just are better than him.

"Really if you are winning more than 60% of your games"

Is this true even for elite armies? Don't Eldar win upwards of 70% in the tournament scene? Couldn't that number be even higher in casual games? The Tau are pretty elite in the current meta.

Eldar and Tau armies, carry their Gernerals.

I know this because being a Tau player and Eldar player as well, the shift I saw going from 5th to 6th and into 7th made me shelf both my armies for something more entertaining and less "You suck as a friend for bringing even 1 Wave Serpent / Wraithknight / Riptide / Rvarna and I never wanna play with you again" Like, Daemons.

CSM Were my first army. I shifted to Daemons early on in my 40k life, then picked up Tau which became a mainstay for my collection. Back in the day you were considered a GOOD general if you managed to win a game with Tau. These days the shift in power and ignoring of so many rules simply to make the army "FEEL" less hindered for their apparent weak CC skills, lets one believe that Tau is an actual "Balanced" army. They flow together, work well and have seamlessly tunneled shooting phases.

Sadly that it. Tau have Movement phases, shooting phases and in between you remove the need for your worrying about special rules that are literally 100% of the table top gaming scene, Cover. When you take an army, that is supposed to be good at shooting, through volume of fire, high strength or what have you, and give it the capacity to ignore rules that are supposed to protect every other assault oriented army / units in the game and effectively ignore RULES and table top SCENERY, you break a game.

The only thing that makes a good game of 40k is the Table and terrain you play on. Everyone knows this. If you have no terrain, you aren't playing 40k. The only upside to Terrain is the ability to create LoS blocking terrain which can help a ton, but every modern day Tau or Eldar player will complain out every orifice on his body about LoS blocking terrain, even in the most minute of amounts.

 r_squared wrote:
You could try a more challenging army, say Orks? If you're still consistently beating your 2 opponents, then you're certainly a better player than them. However, "better" is relative.
The key thing is, are you all having fun? If so, then no problem. However, if it's only you having fun, then you may eventually run out of opponents.

Orks are way better than CSM, how's that going to be more challenging ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Really if you are winning more than 60% of your games"

Is this true even for elite armies? Don't Eldar win upwards of 70% in the tournament scene? Couldn't that number be even higher in casual games? The Tau are pretty elite in the current meta.

No.

Eldar win about 56% right now, with 50% against most other top armies.

That number would not be any higher in casual games, because competitive play only measures the most powerful builds, and Eldar have a very big variance in terms of power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GoliothOnline wrote:
Eldar and Tau armies, carry their Gernerals.

I know this because being a Tau player and Eldar player as well, the shift I saw going from 5th to 6th and into 7th made me shelf both my armies for something more entertaining and less "You suck as a friend for bringing even 1 Wave Serpent / Wraithknight / Riptide / Rvarna and I never wanna play with you again" Like, Daemons.

CSM Were my first army. I shifted to Daemons early on in my 40k life, then picked up Tau which became a mainstay for my collection. Back in the day you were considered a GOOD general if you managed to win a game with Tau. These days the shift in power and ignoring of so many rules simply to make the army "FEEL" less hindered for their apparent weak CC skills, lets one believe that Tau is an actual "Balanced" army. They flow together, work well and have seamlessly tunneled shooting phases.

Sadly that it. Tau have Movement phases, shooting phases and in between you remove the need for your worrying about special rules that are literally 100% of the table top gaming scene, Cover. When you take an army, that is supposed to be good at shooting, through volume of fire, high strength or what have you, and give it the capacity to ignore rules that are supposed to protect every other assault oriented army / units in the game and effectively ignore RULES and table top SCENERY, you break a game.

The only thing that makes a good game of 40k is the Table and terrain you play on. Everyone knows this. If you have no terrain, you aren't playing 40k. The only upside to Terrain is the ability to create LoS blocking terrain which can help a ton, but every modern day Tau or Eldar player will complain out every orifice on his body about LoS blocking terrain, even in the most minute of amounts.

Daemons have been on nearly the same power level as Eldar for all the duration of good v6-v7 Eldar.

Tau can be extremely affected by LoS blockers, whereas Eldar can take advantage of their mobility and most real Tau or Eldar players wouldn't complain about it.

Now, the power gamers who just bought a FoTM army, maybe.

morgoth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
You could try a more challenging army, say Orks? If you're still consistently beating your 2 opponents, then you're certainly a better player than them. However, "better" is relative.
The key thing is, are you all having fun? If so, then no problem. However, if it's only you having fun, then you may eventually run out of opponents.

Orks are way better than CSM, how's that going to be more challenging ?....

It'd be more challenging than Tau.

 GoliothOnline wrote:
Eldar and Tau armies, carry their Gernerals.

I know this because being a Tau player and Eldar player as well, the shift I saw going from 5th to 6th and into 7th made me shelf both my armies for something more entertaining and less "You suck as a friend for bringing even 1 Wave Serpent / Wraithknight / Riptide / Rvarna and I never wanna play with you again" Like, Daemons.

CSM Were my first army. I shifted to Daemons early on in my 40k life, then picked up Tau which became a mainstay for my collection. Back in the day you were considered a GOOD general if you managed to win a game with Tau. These days the shift in power and ignoring of so many rules simply to make the army "FEEL" less hindered for their apparent weak CC skills, lets one believe that Tau is an actual "Balanced" army. They flow together, work well and have seamlessly tunneled shooting phases.

Sadly that it. Tau have Movement phases, shooting phases and in between you remove the need for your worrying about special rules that are literally 100% of the table top gaming scene, Cover. When you take an army, that is supposed to be good at shooting, through volume of fire, high strength or what have you, and give it the capacity to ignore rules that are supposed to protect every other assault oriented army / units in the game and effectively ignore RULES and table top SCENERY, you break a game.

The only thing that makes a good game of 40k is the Table and terrain you play on. Everyone knows this. If you have no terrain, you aren't playing 40k. The only upside to Terrain is the ability to create LoS blocking terrain which can help a ton, but every modern day Tau or Eldar player will complain out every orifice on his body about LoS blocking terrain, even in the most minute of amounts.

Thank you. I have a buddy I regular play who runs Tau and he even admits he does cheese (jumping Crisis suits in and out of LoS). Tau are one of the few armies that have actually forced me to expand into FW units just so I can counter some of their shenanigans. I recently bought a Fire Raptor and hope to mow some of them down.

 r_squared wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
You could try a more challenging army, say Orks? If you're still consistently beating your 2 opponents, then you're certainly a better player than them. However, "better" is relative.
The key thing is, are you all having fun? If so, then no problem. However, if it's only you having fun, then you may eventually run out of opponents.

Orks are way better than CSM, how's that going to be more challenging ?....

It'd be more challenging than Tau.

Yeah I'm mixing up threads my bad.

Anyway, on a proper table with 25% terrain, at least two LoS blockers, of which one in center and at least 7" wide, the Tau army list he talked about is easy to beat.

He wouldn't stand a chance against me (I play competitive Mechdar, Tau are a hard matchup, but not his Tau), and the only reason he's always winning is that his opponents are plain bad / use badly designed lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Thank you. I have a buddy I regular play who runs Tau and he even admits he does cheese (jumping Crisis suits in and out of LoS). Tau are one of the few armies that have actually forced me to expand into FW units just so I can counter some of their shenanigans. I recently bought a Fire Raptor and hope to mow some of them down.

What army do you play ?

I think JSJ is awesome, it adds a lot of depth to the game and is in no way cheesy.

Now blacksun filters.. that's cheesy.

Martel732 wrote:
"Really if you are winning more than 60% of your games"

Is this true even for elite armies? Don't Eldar win upwards of 70% in the tournament scene? Couldn't that number be even higher in casual games? The Tau are pretty elite in the current meta.

I would think so, even elite armies have to roll dice and even bad armies can roll dis proportionally well. So eldar having a 60%ish win average is actually insane.

morgoth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Thank you. I have a buddy I regular play who runs Tau and he even admits he does cheese (jumping Crisis suits in and out of LoS). Tau are one of the few armies that have actually forced me to expand into FW units just so I can counter some of their shenanigans. I recently bought a Fire Raptor and hope to mow some of them down.

What army do you play ?

I think JSJ is awesome, it adds a lot of depth to the game and is in no way cheesy.

Now blacksun filters.. that's cheesy.

DA mostly. How is JSJ awesome, when then can jump up, melta/plasma you, and jump back behind buildings?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Really if you are winning more than 60% of your games"

Is this true even for elite armies? Don't Eldar win upwards of 70% in the tournament scene? Couldn't that number be even higher in casual games? The Tau are pretty elite in the current meta.

I would think so, even elite armies have to roll dice and even bad armies can roll dis proportionally well. So eldar having a 60%ish win average is actually insane.

Okay, I was just pondering.

As you guys have pointed out my brother and friends lists aren't exactly optimal for competitive play. But we haven't played competitive for a fair while. But that's my point. We are all running unoptimised lists, my tau aren't anything scary, made up of mixed and match weapons and some of the least competitive units. My brothers themed list, is made up of a powerful hero and expensive troops, and that's about it. And our friends blood angels are mixed and matched units that cost a lot and don't do much outside of close combat.

On a side note, we had a discussion triggered by this thread, and we may start playing more competitively.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
As you guys have pointed out my brother and friends lists aren't exactly optimal for competitive play. But we haven't played competitive for a fair while. But that's my point. We are all running unoptimised lists, my tau aren't anything scary, made up of mixed and match weapons and some of the least competitive units. My brothers themed list, is made up of a powerful hero and expensive troops, and that's about it. And our friends blood angels are mixed and matched units that cost a lot and don't do much outside of close combat.

On a side note, we had a discussion triggered by this thread, and we may start playing more competitively.

Ahh you see - here is the thing. Tau are really strong even with random crap from all over the book. Because basically everything is good. Suits are amazing. fire warriors are amazing. hammer heads aren't bad they just aren't riptides. Skyrays are pretty good. Strealth suits are pretty good (not compared to most tau stuff but compared to everyone else they aren't bad units for any codex. Basically everything is good. Cept vespeds...I've never seen one used ever. cept in DOW they are pretty awesome. So I'm not sure why they suck on the table top.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
As you guys have pointed out my brother and friends lists aren't exactly optimal for competitive play. But we haven't played competitive for a fair while. But that's my point. We are all running unoptimised lists, my tau aren't anything scary, made up of mixed and match weapons and some of the least competitive units. My brothers themed list, is made up of a powerful hero and expensive troops, and that's about it. And our friends blood angels are mixed and matched units that cost a lot and don't do much outside of close combat.

On a side note, we had a discussion triggered by this thread, and we may start playing more competitively.

Tau non-optimised army is leagues above a csm unoptimised army. I mean you're not running an unbound list of vespids, are you.

On that note, can someone explain why Vespids are so bad? I've never seen anyone run them at all.

Mostly cause there are better options. Not that a unit of vespids is so bad. But it's also not that a unit of 1000 sons is bad - they're both just mediocre. It's when you simultaniously stack the mediocricy of 3+ units that it becomes bad. Exactly what a CSM player's doing.