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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Remember Eldar wards that caused you to roll 3d6 for ld tests when using pyskers, or the current rune priests? Those are some of the most hated abilities around, because its your army doing something to mine, and there isn't a lot I can do about it.

No, that's not at all why they're hated. Those abilities are hated because they're 5th edition leftovers after 6th edition nerfed psychic defense. They weren't a problem with psychic hoods were area psychic denial, but when 6th reduced hoods to nothing more than a small bonus to defend against psychic attacks ROW and rune priests were suddenly way more effective than any other psychic defense. And it was even worse because both (old) farseers and rune priests are cheap models with access to the best psychic powers, so you were getting an extremely efficient divination psyker and getting free "better than you're supposed to have in 6th" psychic defense.

Expect the same thing to happen with BA vanguard vets now that (supposedly) the C:SM version can no longer assault out of deep strike. People are going to hate the BA unit because they're going to have a rule they're not supposed to have anymore (and will almost certainly lose when BA get a new codex) just because GW is slow at updating codices.

Those rules were hated in 5th and 6th edition alike. 6th only nerfed psyker defense for marines (and recently Eldar) since no other army (nids shadow of the warp isn't great) got anything worth mentioning.
At least now orks and such get deny the witch, and for a while armies could ally in Eldar for the amazing psyker defense. For DE, this was a god send, since they don't have any psyker defense.
If the reason they are hated is because they are 5th edition hold overs, why aren't 5th edition and older codexes widely hated? You don't see nids, orks, or even GK hated on (least anymore). The reason they are hated is because it removes your army's ability to do something that you invested in, just by plonking the model down on the table.

BA are widely considerd the weakest loyalist chapter (now that BT will be in C:SM)so I can't honestly seem them being hated for anything. If they are, then you'll have a point, but considering there isn't a single BA are overpowered thread in 6th on this or any forum...

Akiasura wrote:
Those rules were hated in 5th and 6th edition alike.

Not really, it was just part of the game. Psykers were more powerful, but could be negated by an enemy psyker even when they weren't using offensive powers. I guess maybe someone hated it, but I don't remember any widespread outrage that psychic hoods on librarians were too good.

If the reason they are hated is because they are 5th edition hold overs, why aren't 5th edition and older codexes widely hated?

Because people don't hate old rules in general just because they're old. They hate old rules that do things that you aren't "allowed" to do in the modern game anymore. Rune priests were hated because 6th edition made a new "rule" that psychic defense would be much weaker and their much more powerful ability only exists because GW is lazy and doesn't properly update old rules in an edition change. Since they're almost guaranteed to get a nerf whenever SW get a new codex it's easy to see it as abusing an edition change rather than using a legitimate unit.

And psychic defense isn't the only thing people hate. You see the exact same hatred about the Vendetta because there's no way it would have been printed at AV 12 and 130 points in 6th.

BA are widely considerd the weakest loyalist chapter (now that BT will be in C:SM)so I can't honestly seem them being hated for anything. If they are, then you'll have a point, but considering there isn't a single BA are overpowered thread in 6th on this or any forum...

So what? Eldar up until their current codex were considered a pretty weak army and that didn't stop people from hating ROW for breaking the 6th edition design rules. Once C:SM vanguard vets get their new rules people are going to hate it every time the BA version assaults out of deep strike just because is lazy about updates.

Nids and orks, hard to hate what is under-preforming (and still the godamn doom of malantai is still the single most hated unit in my local, and I assume other places too-he is annoying s feth with "I kill your guys by just being around" power)

GK still get hate for their dreadknights and "everything is scoring" shenanigans, its just that their termis get equalized by DA, and paladins nerfed (no more allocation shenanigans) so there are less things to hate.

You don't hate 5th edition for having things that are from last edition, you hate them for having things from 5th edition that mess up the 6th edition rules, for examples see IG/necron aircraft, pre-codex eldar psyker defense, etc.
The things that dont mess the new edition-no reason to hate.


As for ZebioLizard2Made "challenge", easy:

Sisters: "Miraculous Intervention" is probably the most rule-braking any single unit in the game is capable of, braking the death rules. repetitively, and can keep trying if fails unlike necron dudes. this also renders her the best warlord in the game, unchallenged. (when prices are compared naturally)
Not much, but they don't even have a codex for crying out loud-what do you expect?

Chaos: "Chaos Boons" (aka, random, unlimited powerups), pskyers (common rule brakers, but not everyone has it), kharn cant be ID from force weapons and grants 2+ deny the witch to his unit (practically immune to psykers), ahriman shoots multiple witchfires, multiple items reduce enemy statistics, dirge casters prevent overwatch,
Need I actually read entries now rather then just gloss over pages and check what jumps to my eyes?

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Those rules were hated in 5th and 6th edition alike.

Not really, it was just part of the game. Psykers were more powerful, but could be negated by an enemy psyker even when they weren't using offensive powers. I guess maybe someone hated it, but I don't remember any widespread outrage that psychic hoods on librarians were too good.

You're right, psychic hoods were never hated.
That's why I claimed ROW and Rune staffs were too good and widely hated. Before GK, wolves were considered the power dex, and one of the complaints was how pyskers might as well not show up.
How could a psyker negate an enemy psyker in 5th?

If the reason they are hated is because they are 5th edition hold overs, why aren't 5th edition and older codexes widely hated?

Because people don't hate old rules in general just because they're old. They hate old rules that do things that you aren't "allowed" to do in the modern game anymore. Rune priests were hated because 6th edition made a new "rule" that psychic defense would be much weaker and their much more powerful ability only exists because GW is lazy and doesn't properly update old rules in an edition change. Since they're almost guaranteed to get a nerf whenever SW get a new codex it's easy to see it as abusing an edition change rather than using a legitimate unit.

And psychic defense isn't the only thing people hate. You see the exact same hatred about the Vendetta because there's no way it would have been printed at AV 12 and 130 points in 6th.

You see hatred for the vendetta and heldrake because they are both way too strong for their points, and there is still little anti air in the game relative to the frequency of fliers. It has nothing to do with the vendetta being old and everything to do with it being undercosted for what it does...just like the drake.
Rune priests were hated well before 6th, since they were arguably the best psyker in the game in an army that is supposed to hate pyskers. Even now, they are one of the few codexes that sometimes don't take divination, because jaws of the world wolf is really that good. Not to mention that damn bird not allowing people to infiltrate within a huge area of the board, and allowing 2+ to hit living lightings (with range unlimited).

BA are widely considerd the weakest loyalist chapter (now that BT will be in C:SM)so I can't honestly seem them being hated for anything. If they are, then you'll have a point, but considering there isn't a single BA are overpowered thread in 6th on this or any forum...

So what? Eldar up until their current codex were considered a pretty weak army and that didn't stop people from hating ROW for breaking the 6th edition design rules. Once C:SM vanguard vets get their new rules people are going to hate it every time the BA version assaults out of deep strike just because is lazy about updates.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Well my issue is that the benefit to having a very High BS is much greater than a very high WS. It's polarizing, and doesn't really demonstrate a model or units prowess accurately.

BS 6 allows you to reroll to hit (you need a 6, but still). WS 6.. you still hit WS2 on a 3+. While it has been this way for a while, it's just another thing that makes Melee worse than shooting overall.

For me its one of the most annoying things in the game - so many times I have had high WS characters fluff their rolls against inferior opponents. Yeah its stupid to watch an DE Archon fail to even hit a Tau/Gretchin in CC, higher WS should be 3+. Double 2+ and re-roll if more than double.

Vendeta and helldrake are different things.

The chicken in undercoated, the V was just fine when it was a mere skimmer.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. This is incredibly off topic anyway

Tau can be boring to play against, however play objectives, if you are just turning up placing you models and just going at it, its not going to be fun. Also make sure you have a decent set up of terrain, and not just some open killzone in the middle or near the Tau player ( seen it so many times the tau player sets up terrain so that they have clear shooting lines and have a kill zone an opponent will have to run across to get into assault. Set up terrain properly, make sure it is challenging for all players

Forcing Tau gunlines to move can cause them headaches as they have to spread out a bit more which means you can isolate portions of it and then pick them apart. I play DE and I have not had to many issues against tau. I force them to play my game, in my 1000 point list ( which I use for quick games not my usual optimised 1850pts)

I use 2x6 reavers with heatlances
2 x 5 wracks with liquefiers
In venoms with duel splinter cannons
2x talos with liquefiers and splinter cannons
4 trueborn with blasters in a venom with splinter cannons
Haemonculi with venom blade and liquefier.

I use cover effectively use the bladevane to force the tau to move to react to this. I pick out the marker lights this way as if they put them at the front I will shoot the unit in a way to remove it, if it goes at the back I will bladevane it out. I focus on one section of the army and remove it.

At 1000 points I have come against armys with 2 riptides (and a lot of firewarriors and some pathfinders) and the shooty tau character ( no battle suited). I have also fought a kroot sniper army, battle suit armys, a good flavour of tau.

Yes they really do punish mistakes however by playing missions, playing on an appropriate board size and placing terrain correctly makes for a decent match up.

I have to agree with the original post and disagree with the number of players saying tau is not a tournament winning army. If the Tau player knows what he is doing and is using his tools effectively, then it is a serious threat. For example

I have one friend who is a Tau player who likes to use some of everything. A number of suits, a riptide, broadsides, hammerhead, fire warriors, and maybe even kroot will be on the table. He tends to lose one, win one.

I recently played in a tournament against a Tau player who ran loads of Fire Warriors, 9 Broadsides with SMS, 2 Riptides, a Sniper Team, and a Missile Commander. He also brought an ADL and stacked his troops and objectives on it. Intercept was also abundant throughout the army, the commander, Broadsides, Riptides all having it. He managed to table each opponent by turn 4 in 4 consecutive games.

I find the new Tau actually really easy to play the missions with. Mark'Os with marker drones are scoring along with pathfinders and Piranha in the scouring with Mark'os and Piranha being fast and mobile. Heavy Support is slower than it used to be but good at holding backfield objectives in armies with low Firewarrior count in Big Guns Never Tire. In normal mission games Kroot are amazing at knocking units off backfield objectives and being cheap infiltrators. That and all of those don't hinder them at all from having long range weaponry to slow advances and to clear people off objectives.

I had a game recently and there is a few battle reports that show the same principle idea that Tau are much less effective without their marker support. The first turn I lost an entire markersquad which was about half of my support and there were so many units that were hugging cover that I couldn't boost more than a unit or two a turn, and not to extraordinary effect. Oddly enough I ended up winning my game because I played the objective and brought in outflanking kroot to contest objectives and still had 5 scoring units in my backfield to bunker onto objectives. It was a close game though.

I play Tau and feel its not fair to degrade my hard work at making a balanced optimised list that can face everything by stating everything is OP.

Having said that I can see that my optimisation method has made my army appear OP.
That's because I like to play with the mindset that its sort of real and therefore winning is really the preferable option.

I think the problem with 40k is the battles in a vacuum. Not many battles have any meaning and therefore it causes people to play it to win.
If however the whole thing were based on a global campaign or something then a lot more variable would be involved and make the whole thing more interesting and balanced.

Just an interesting point, Tau didnt even place in the top 50 at nova, and on average, the BT players did better than the tau players did.

 davou wrote:
Just an interesting point, Tau didnt even place in the top 50 at nova, and on average, the BT players did better than the tau players did.

i think you've misread something:

quiestdeus wrote:
We discussed it a bit here in person, but the stats on army win percentage across the entire event (not just the top bracket) is incredibly interesting.

http://app.torrentoffire.com/#/stats/armies

Armies that included either Tau (primary or allies) won 66% of the time. Eldar has a similar figure.

Eldar allied to Tau? 76% win rate.

Take into account the sheer volume of both tau and eldar in attendance, and the number of tau vs tau or eldar vs eldar games that occurred keeping those rates down, and man...

It really makes you think.

I am very excited to see what else we can mine as more and more data is gathered from ToF.

Out of 304 games 202 won and 102 lost... Pure Tau has 87 games with 57 victories...

Indeed so! someone linked me very old results.