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.

So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

The lack of resiliency can work against them in objective based game, as well as the fact that moving severely gimps the ability of units to shoot, and shooting is the primary strength of the Tau.

spectreoneone wrote:So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

There are a few possible reasons for this -

1) Your using too little terrain on the table. Of course tau will win on a wide open field... they have quite good shooting.

2) Your opponents are using poor lists. Blood Angels should have little difficulty smashing tau aside, in a properly built army.

3) Your opponents are just making bad calls, or playing poorly.

4) Your not following 1 or more of the rules.

Horst wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

There are a few possible reasons for this -

1) Your using too little terrain on the table. Of course tau will win on a wide open field... they have quite good shooting.

2) Your opponents are using poor lists. Blood Angels should have little difficulty smashing tau aside, in a properly built army.

3) Your opponents are just making bad calls, or playing poorly.

4) Your not following 1 or more of the rules.

Any reason you're not giving the possibility of the OP any credit for implementing an effective strategy?

Horst wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

There are a few possible reasons for this -

1) Your using too little terrain on the table. Of course tau will win on a wide open field... they have quite good shooting.

2) Your opponents are using poor lists. Blood Angels should have little difficulty smashing tau aside, in a properly built army.

3) Your opponents are just making bad calls, or playing poorly.

4) Your not following 1 or more of the rules.

What is considered too little terrain? I've only been playing for literally 4-5 months, and it's just been with my friend who got me into the game...never been to the game shop or a tourney and watched a match, so I'm not sure. We've got the standard 4x6 board, and we slap down some buildings or things of the like...no REAL terrain models (pretty much a mix of various household implements), as we haven't spent time building/money buying any.

As for fighting the Angels...I think it boiled down to the fact that he blew most of his rolls, and I pounded him with volume of fire from my suits/FWs. For the most part, though, I've been taking advantage of JSJ with my suits, sacrificing stealthsuit squads to take down vehicles after a deep strike, and using FWs as shooty meatshields to keep my suits out of assault after they jump back. My FWs have never survived a game, and I haven't lost a single one of my XV8/XV9s.

But, I still am wondering that what, aside from really poor CC ability, is the real Achilles heel of the Tau, and why so many people passionately hate them. To be honest, I chose Tau before I knew anything about their capabilites...I just liked how they look; clean lines, and some sweet looking battlesuits (except for the ankles!). Thus far, though, I want to thank everybody for their opinion. It's nice to have some insight into this matter!

Welcome to the fight young Shas'O

The Tau codex is a old one, and alot of its units and special rules have become weakened as the other codexs and 5th Ed rules were developed but...

With good tactics, luck and your opponent's bad luck , they can certainly win (as can any army list )

But that being said there are more than a few people on this site that hate /resent the Tau due to them not fitting with their own individual ideas of the 40k settting, wether its the grimdarkness or lack there of, or even that they want to associate the Tau look as some kind of Anime army.

So pack your asbestos underarmor in many threads.

I love my Tau, and have put a huge amount of work into them, even building a super heavy grav tank for them and a host of support and varient battlesuits, its that very tech oriented approach to them that drew me to the Tau.

And I win alot with them as well, even against armies that some on here will say should always win/stomp/wipe out/table the Tau, but its not easy, gotta think on your feet and be willing to displace and run when required.

We play with fairly large tables, with alot of terrain, or sometimes with much less, its all up to the senario, we adapt.

So goodluck and keep playing what you enjoy, feel free to check out my galleries for my Tau stuff, and most importantly have fun..its a game after all.

peebzguy wrote:

Horst wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

There are a few possible reasons for this -

1) Your using too little terrain on the table. Of course tau will win on a wide open field... they have quite good shooting.

2) Your opponents are using poor lists. Blood Angels should have little difficulty smashing tau aside, in a properly built army.

3) Your opponents are just making bad calls, or playing poorly.

4) Your not following 1 or more of the rules.

Any reason you're not giving the possibility of the OP any credit for implementing an effective strategy?

The idea that a weak army can win against a competent opponent with a strong army just because of "strategy" is wishful thinking.

People won with the Old Necron Codex and it sucked more than the current Tau Codex.

You can win with Tau against the newer Codexes with Proper Planning. It's just harder than your opponent winning with the Newer Codex against your Tau.

Remember the 6Ps

Proper
Planning
Prevents
Piss
Poor
Performance


People like to mech up? Tau Pop light tanks all day long.
Afraid of Being Assaulted by outflankers? We got kroot bubbles
Not the Green Tide! Oh wait.... Markerlights to get rid of the KFF coversave and Submunition away.

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Welcome to the fight young Shas'O

The Tau codex is a old one, and alot of its units and special rules have become weakened as the other codexs and 5th Ed rules were developed but...

With good tactics, luck and your opponent's bad luck , they can certainly win (as can any army list )

But that being said there are more than a few people on this site that hate /resent the Tau due to them not fitting with their own individual ideas of the 40k settting, wether its the grimdarkness or lack there of, or even that they want to associate the Tau look as some kind of Anime army.

So pack your asbestos underarmor in many threads.

I love my Tau, and have put a huge amount of work into them, even building a super heavy grav tank for them and a host of support and varient battlesuits, its that very tech oriented approach to them that drew me to the Tau.

And I win alot with them as well, even against armies that some on here will say should always win/stomp/wipe out/table the Tau, but its not easy, gotta think on your feet and be willing to displace and run when required.

We play with fairly large tables, with alot of terrain, or sometimes with much less, its all up to the senario, we adapt.

So goodluck and keep playing what you enjoy, feel free to check out my galleries for my Tau stuff, and most importantly have fun..its a game after all.

Thanks for the advice! As you, I love my Tau. I actually just began a re-paint of my army, since I just didn't like the look I originally chose for them. I'll post up pics once I have a few finished (Being in the military and having two kids kind of takes up most of my time). I chose a Fortress Gray/Chaos Black with Blood Red accents. No name for the Sept yet, but I really like the combo.

Again, thanks to all for the advice/criticism!

Hey I'm a tau player to, I never understood why everyone dislikes them/ thinks they blow I do very well with them against mech IG

I notice you only play Annihilation and always lose your fire warriors.

I suggest trying some of the objective claiming missions and see how it goes.

The tau have been my favorite army since I started playing, but they're far from my best. They are unforgiving of any mistakes, as miscalculating an inch is the difference between dominating the battlefield with relentless shooting, or getting steamrolled in assault. It's an army that forces you to make important decisions constantly, and takes options away from your opponent.

You often find yourself making strategic sacrifices, but the Tau reward good play by removing entire units and multiple vehicles from the table every turn.

spectreoneone wrote:So, I've been reading a lot of threads and articles about how much the Tau are under-powered, or how they can't hold their own...in my (limited) experience, I've been quite effective with my Tau army. Out of 6 games (of varying point values), I've only lost one against CSM. I've played Orks twice, 'Nids once, Blood Angels once (nearly tabled my opponent), once against Black Templar, and the loss against CSM. Now, these were all annhilation games, not objective based.

My question is, what gives? Is my opponent just tactically unsound? Are we fudging up the rules? Or is Tau really that good in annhilation? The only non-standard GW models I have are two XV9s (one with 2 PIGs and the other with 2 TL BCs) and an XV89 commander unit. I guess what has me puzzled is how much of a discrepency there is between my experience with the game and what the community seems to feel. Any sort of insight that anybody can provide me would be great. Thanks!

I think your personal circumstances must be conducive to easier wins with your Tau.

The broad experience of Tau players, including at tournaments, is that as an army they are not very strong and are even weaker at annihilation. The rules contain factors that explain this.

junk wrote:The tau have been my favorite army since I started playing, but they're far from my best. They are unforgiving of any mistakes, as miscalculating an inch is the difference between dominating the battlefield with relentless shooting, or getting steamrolled in assault. It's an army that forces you to make important decisions constantly, and takes options away from your opponent.

You often find yourself making strategic sacrifices, but the Tau reward good play by removing entire units and multiple vehicles from the table every turn.

Pretty much this. There's not alot of room for error and the learning curve is quite steep, however, once you understand the basic strategies and overall deplyoment, playing them becomes slightly easier.

I love my mech tau <3.

Having utterly, utterly crushed Tau every time I've played them, except the very first time I have to say that I agree with the general tone here.

Tau have good shooting and that's it. If you use the 25% of the table with terrain then most competent 5th ed armies can close the distance and then it's bye, bye time.

Last time I played Tau it was with my Grey Knights and it was a total tabling, the only unit they had left was something in reserve. I lost maybe 5 models. The time before I got my tyranids into cc within two turns and it was utterly brutal, another tabling and I lost a few gaunts, no harm done to my stealers, trygon, etc.

My friend who plays them is highly competent, he handles his other armies very well. I would say his tactics for Tau are right. he mixes in kroot to ensure he has some cc counter-attacking ability and he positions his men to take effective use of terrain. He has a good spread of units and as I say he handles other troops well. he has no lack of ability. He knows that Tau must keep the distance open and must use terrain to soften assaults. Yet he still gets hammered.

I don't personally like Tau and would not have a Tau army but I do not hate them. I am neutral. I just like the game and I will play anyone!

My observations of Tau about why they are so weak are:

- fire warriors MUST have BS4, at present they are no better than IG basic troopers. Given that they are the backbone of a shooty army this is a glaring issue.

- Tau infantry have too few options and variants.

- Kroot are woefully underpowered as a cc unit, put them up against genestealers. OK they are cheaper model for model but they will get utterly crushed. Hormagaunts will get the drop on them and then obliterate them, especially if given toxin sacs or adrenal glands.

Tau mech is good, their weapons are powerful but their infantry is, frankly, rubbish compared to other 5th ed infantry.

At present it needs excellent tactics, dice roll luck and probably a poor opponent for Tau to win. A competent opponent with a decently designed anti-Tau list holds all the cards.

Hopefully a new Tau codex will address these issues with more variety of troops and better points/stat line balance.

I say bravo at winning repeatedly with tau. As previously stated, tau are very unforgiving with mistakes and though luck and opponent also come into the equation good tactics, forward thinking and knowledge of not just your own army but also your opponent's can see you through a good amount of wins. Keep up the good game!