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.

AbaddonFidelis wrote: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.

(1) I don't see how it is difficult to focus fire and anniliate a squad if NEED to. (2) You need to inflict 100% casualties on a squad in order to claim an objective - this applies to ANY kind of army you play and to 40k in general. Frankly, I don't see your point.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.

Yes, and so? Shooty army play mostly by opening gaps and creating space, looking for weak spots etc.

AbaddonFidelis wrote: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.

Many competitive IG armies arent built with any bit of CC ability at all (which SIMPLY, proved that you DON'T need to be able fight in close combat to win a game). I think this is the 3rd time I said this. Get it?

Oh, unless you are telling me those shooty IG lists consisting of squads of guardsmen with lasguns, embarked in Chimeras, are actually good fighters, then well...

striderx wrote:Oh, unless you are telling me those shooty IG lists consisting of squads of guardsmen with lasguns, embarked in Chimeras, are actually good fighters, then well...

Better than firewarriors, maybe. Better than Kroot?

Tau troops suck. Don't get me wrong the models are IMHO some of the best troops models in the game and they do have the best basic weapons of any troops but that dosen't mean that they don't suck. They aren't an army of troop choices that can do just about everything (Space Marines), they're specialised and need to work in cohesion with the rest of the force.

You can't rely on your Fire Warriors to win you games. Tau aren't Orks or Nids where you can win a game just by throwing more or and more troops at the enemy. So if you're tired of hearing crap about how Tau suck and being beaten then don't depend on your Firewarriors to do everything and work on making your entire force work better together.

An army doesn't need to ROLF stomp the other side in CC to handle being assaulted.

Dwarfs in WHFB have absolutely no magic, but do not forfeit the magic phase because they have a lot of dispelling ability. There is a huge difference between not being good at a phase and forfeiting the phase.

Tac Marines are not good in CC, but Codex Marines have combat tactics allowing units that are bad in CC to have a chance to escape from CC. Even though Tac marines are not good in CC they don't completely forfeit the assault phase.

IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.

Tau are the single worse army in CC as even mechanized guardsmen will charge fire warriors in CC and win, and to add insult to injurer they have no ability to remove units from CC nor do they have an means to control the damage. Their best and most expensive 200+ point squads of infantry with terrible CC stats. Anything that can't stomp them can tarpit them. Once they are in CC they can't get out of CC, and the damage done in CC is in no way compartmentalized.

striderx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: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.

(1) I don't see how it is difficult to focus fire and anniliate a squad if NEED to. (2) You need to inflict 100% casualties on a squad in order to claim an objective - this applies to ANY kind of army you play and to 40k in general. Frankly, I don't see your point.

I know you dont. which is sad, really, because it couldnt be any more obvious. but here, let me try again.
you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases. do you know why? of course you dont. This is why: each game turn consists of two player turns. Models that shoot can shoot only in the controlling player's turn, while models that assault fight in close combat during the controlling player's and the opponent's turn. hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output. Furthermore an assaulting unit does not have to inflict 100% casualties on its opposing member because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated. Assaults are therefor a more efficient way to eliminate opposing models, assuming equal capabilities. Additionally models in cover have a 4+ cover save meaning that even if allof your shots hit and all of those shots wound odds are that only half of those shots will inflict a wound. It is simply not possible, given the current state of the tau codex to capture enough ground in 6 turns to make up for these advantages.

striderx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If they advance you have to retreat or else you'll get caught in assault and annihilated.

Yes, and so?

reread that statement as many times as you need to in order to grasp the point. It cant be explained any more clearly.

striderx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It really couldnt be any more simple. Shooty armies survive by giving up space capturing objectives requires capturing spaceGuard unlike tau can actually fight in close combat hence they are better able to hold and capture objectives than tau.

Many competitive IG armies arent built with any bit of CC ability at all (which SIMPLY, proved that you DON'T need to be able fight in close combat to win a game). I think this is the 3rd time I said this. Get it?

yes but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degree
AF

Yeah, but his point is that all guard are not assault capable. A mechvet army is dead on foot, because they have no assault capability. The rely on blasting targets off objectives, ussually by rolling up 2+ chimeras with meltas in them. Mechvets win not because they can assault, but because all of their troops are in av12 transports with 3x special weapons, and no assault capabilit. Add to that too many av12 and av14 vehicles for the enemy to kill before they have melta and plasma in their face, and you have victorious guard. The bane of a mechanized force is being bogged down by assault troops that can open your cans, because once your vets are out of their vehicles you can just call them dinner. The have almost no assault ability, and do not need it to capture objectives.

Your argument is flawed abbadon. Have you ever seen a total mech guard force in action?

vets have more fire power and more assault capability than tau fire warriors do. If tau had similar capabilities they could push opponents off of objectives too. the point is not that its impossible for shooting armies to capture objectives. the point is that shooting armies are at a disadvantage when attempting to capture objectives. guard have the tools to overcome these disadvantages, tau do not.

Yes, which means that its the tau which are at a disadvantage, and not shooty armies. The problems with the tau isn't that they're shooty. The problems with the tau are that they either aren't shooty enough (no special weapons for troops, and no str8-10 pie plates), or not versatile enough for other builds. If kroot were a bit better they'd have an excellent cc option.

shooty armies are at a disadvantage when it comes to capturing objectives because
1. you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases... hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output.
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.
3. shooting armies rely on maintaining distance between themselves and assaulting units in order to be effective; otherwise they will be caught in assault and annihilated. capturing objectives requires a player to take rather than to give up ground.

guard can overcome these disadvantages becasue they are absurdly shooty. tau are just marginally shooty and so cant. if the game was based on kill points rather than objectives tau would be doing alot better right now, without necessarily changing anything in their book.

The Tau have a step learning curve that usually frustrates folks for sometime. They will always struggle against a fast assault focused army since they forsake this phase of the game utterly.

It will interesting to see what a new codex will bring them.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.

I see the point you are trying to make, however you should read your rulebook better. Whenever a unit loses 25% of its men, it has to take a morale check, and possibly fall back. That means that if a squad of 10 marines take 3 casualties (not a crazy hard thing to do), it has the possibility of falling back (ignore ATSKNF in this case). So merely killing three marines could push it off an objective.

I'm aware that units that get shot at have to take a morale check. but units that lose an assault are more likely to break because
1. units that take a moral check due to shooting take it free of any negative modifier
2. units that take a moral check due to assaults often take it at a heavy modifier
3. most scoring units in the game are leadership 8 9 10, or even fearless, and many of those units get for free, or can buy at relatively little cost, upgrades that further reduce their chance of running.
4. units that fail a morale test due to shooting are more likely to be able to regroup than those that fail it due to assaults (assuming the unit lives at all after breaking due to assault) because they are less likely to be within 6" of an enemy unit when they get a chance to regroup.

There's no reason to assume that because we disagree, I dont know the rules. is there?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm aware that units that get shot at have to take a morale check. but units that lose an assault are more likely to break because
1. units that take a moral check due to shooting take it free of any negative modifier
2. units that take a moral check due to assaults often take it at a heavy modifier
3. most scoring units in the game are leadership 8 9 10, or even fearless, and many of those units get for free, or can buy at relatively little cost, upgrades that further reduce their chance of running.
4. units that fail a morale test due to shooting are more likely to be able to regroup than those that fail it due to assaults (assuming the unit lives at all after breaking due to assault) because they are less likely to be within 6" of an enemy unit when they get a chance to regroup.

There's no reason to assume that because we disagree, I dont know the rules. is there?

1. & 2. I think there are equal opportunities to receive a negative modifier (ordinance weapons?) in both shooting and assaulting.
3. I think this is a moot point, as all of those points would apply equally to shooting and assaulting, and therefore wouldn't give an advantage to shooting moral checks.
4. Your absolutely right. I concede this point to you.

schadenfreude wrote:IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.

Then here, as I have reiterated, you are talking about mechanized vs non mechanized. You are very confused, I can see. Being inexpensive and expendable don't make you good in close combat.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:es but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degreeAF

Squad of 10 guardsmen (many IG lists build their troop choice that way - read up some lists if you need to) in chimera are better than FWs in CC? Yeah, tell people WS3 > WS2 and therefore guardsmen are marginally better, and try to prove your point that way

Leprousy wrote:Yeah, but his point is that all guard are not assault capable. A mechvet army is dead on foot, because they have no assault capability. The rely on blasting targets off objectives, ussually by rolling up 2+ chimeras with meltas in them. Mechvets win not because they can assault, but because all of their troops are in av12 transports with 3x special weapons, and no assault capabilit. Add to that too many av12 and av14 vehicles for the enemy to kill before they have melta and plasma in their face, and you have victorious guard. The bane of a mechanized force is being bogged down by assault troops that can open your cans, because once your vets are out of their vehicles you can just call them dinner. The have almost no assault ability, and do not need it to capture objectives.

Your argument is flawed abbadon. Have you ever seen a total mech guard force in action?

Are you exceptionally smart, or is it just... I reiterated the flaws of their argument thrice, but only you caught it. They may have come to the same conclusion anyway, but saying a PURELY shooty army is a problem in itself is a wrong way to argue their point.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:shooty armies are at a disadvantage when it comes to capturing objectives because
1. you get 1 shooting phase for every 2 assault phases... hence once assaulting models are in assault, assuming equal capabilities they have twice the damage output.
2. shooting units need to inflict 100% or near 100% casualties on an assaulty unit that is holding an objective before they can move in to claim it. assaulty units however do not have to inflict 100% casualties on their opposing members because a squad that loses combat by even 1 casualty can break in which case it can be completely annihilated.
3. shooting armies rely on maintaining distance between themselves and assaulting units in order to be effective; otherwise they will be caught in assault and annihilated. capturing objectives requires a player to take rather than to give up ground.

If that's the way you argue it, there is no end to it. SHooty armies can shoot assaulty armies from far, more so if they wreck their transports/mobility. Given that, shooty armies can either totally anniliate a squad, or reduce them to such a state where it is 2 against 10 when the assaulty army reaches the CC line.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:guard can overcome these disadvantages becasue they are absurdly shooty. tau are just marginally shooty and so cant. if the game was based on kill points rather than objectives tau would be doing alot better right now, without necessarily changing anything in their book.

And now, you said it yourself - "Guards are absurdly shooty". It is an issue of shooting capability, not an issue of building a list to be purely shooty.

Its not your fault for being too dense to get it. Its mine for continuing the conversation. /thread

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its not your fault for being too dense to get it. Its mine for continuing the conversation. /thread

Not at all, when everyone just pointed out your flaw.

In my eyes the Tau army style is try to kill with range or reduce enough that the kroot don't get WTF pwnt. in the assault phase.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

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

So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:IG are worse than tac marines in CC, but mechanized IG units are very inexpensive and expendable. The multiple small units of IG compartmentalizes the damage, and thus contains and controls the amount of damage that a single assault can reap. Being mechanized in Chimeras and Vendettas also provides another source of protection from CC.

Then here, as I have reiterated, you are talking about mechanized vs non mechanized. You are very confused, I can see. Being inexpensive and expendable don't make you good in close combat.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:es but guard arebetter at shooting than Tau, and better in close combat as well. Get it? Its a question of degreeAF

Squad of 10 guardsmen (many IG lists build their troop choice that way - read up some lists if you need to) in chimera are better than FWs in CC? Yeah, tell people WS3 > WS2 and therefore guardsmen are marginally better, and try to prove your point that way

Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.

Guardsmen outshoot tau because:

-Guardsmen are cheaper, and therefore bring more guns into the fight.
-Orders. They can FRFSRF, and auto regroup thanks to orders. In cover, guardsmen can get 3+ Cover save by going to ground and getting right back to the fight.
-FWs are forced to close the gap against guardsmen. The devilfish cant do anything to hurt the chimera, they must get near to get side shots. Infantry squad with lascannons or autocannons can hurt the devilfish.
-Please dont tell me you're gonna markerlight guardsmen infantry.

Guardsmen are better in CC

-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.

Yuber wrote:So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.

1) Against an assault army, you shoot for 2 turns (more if you bubble wrap) at the opponent, while the opponent spend 2 turns doing nothing but just moving towards you (with the exception of DS armies or stuff like deffkoptas - there are always exceptions).
2) Shooting gives you greater flexibility in your target (especially with the LOS rule), while for assault you don't always have the luxury of doing so.

And the list goes now. The above list of items by AF is just a short sighted and narrow view of the difference between shooting and assaulting. The 2 are just different.

Throwing the ball back to you, maybe you want to take another look at how 40k is played and re evaluate certain aspects of the game.

Yuber wrote:Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.

If it's about points value, you called that point efficiency, not an issue of building an army to be purely shooty. It's about how you word/phrase your arguments. I was laughing at the silliness of claiming a pure shooty army will not work.

Yuber wrote:Guardsmen are better in CC

-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.

Probably so. In a similar fashion, kroots will trump the guardsmen in CC. Again my point is, the WS3 and I3 didnt suddenly make the Guardsmen "GOOD in CC". They are sometimes (not talking about blobs here, I reiterate) still made to be PURELY shooty, which makes the initial claim/argument by schadenfreude flawed.

schadenfreude wrote: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.

This was the assertion that this entire argument has been based upon, and I think that it has been lost... No body has argued that 100% casualties have to be inflicted by a shooty army to capture a held objective. This is largely true (failing a morale test of course), and frankly has nothing to do with the argument. The counter argument to schadenfreude's assertion is that Guard can build a shooty army that is effective, because they have the means to blast the enemy off of the table, while Tau does not. In consequence the problem with Tau isn't that they are a shooty army, but is that their codex does not allow for a shooty enough army. This does not mean that a pure shooty army is a bad build across the game. You just need the right codex to accomplish it, and tau is not that codex.

Lets get back on track.

Leprousy wrote:

schadenfreude wrote: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.

This was the assertion that this entire argument has been based upon, and I think that it has been lost... No body has argued that 100% casualties have to be inflicted by a shooty army to capture a held objective. This is largely true (failing a morale test of course), and frankly has nothing to do with the argument. The counter argument to schadenfreude's assertion is that Guard can build a shooty army that is effective, because they have the means to blast the enemy off of the table, while Tau does not. In consequence the problem with Tau isn't that they are a shooty army, but is that their codex does not allow for a shooty enough army. This does not mean that a pure shooty army is a bad build across the game. You just need the right codex to accomplish it, and tau is not that codex.

Lets get back on track.

A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.


Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.


The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.

schadenfreude wrote:A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.

Has this got anything to do with your concept of "a pure CC or pure shooting army". If yes, please enlighten. Because this looks to me like a psychic power.

schadenfreude wrote:Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.

The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.

So if I m not wrong, you mean all those IG lists that are somehow build to be purely shooty, are not PURELY shooty within your definition, because you view guardsmen to be good in close combat?

striderx wrote:

Yuber wrote:So much truth in this post. If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe you should re-evaluate on how the game is played.

1) Against an assault army, you shoot for 2 turns (more if you bubble wrap) at the opponent, while the opponent spend 2 turns doing nothing but just moving towards you (with the exception of DS armies or stuff like deffkoptas - there are always exceptions).
2) Shooting gives you greater flexibility in your target (especially with the LOS rule), while for assault you don't always have the luxury of doing so.

And the list goes now. The above list of items by AF is just a short sighted and narrow view of the difference between shooting and assaulting. The 2 are just different.

Throwing the ball back to you, maybe you want to take another look at how 40k is played and re evaluate certain aspects of the game.

Yuber wrote:Its all about points values. 10 man infantry squad and a chimera costs 105 points. 10 man tau and a devilfish and disrupter costs a whooping 185 points.

If it's about points value, you called that point efficiency, not an issue of building an army to be purely shooty. It's about how you word/phrase your arguments. I was laughing at the silliness of claiming a pure shooty army will not work.

Yuber wrote:Guardsmen are better in CC

-Because WS 3 > WS2. Guardsmen also strike first.
-Higher initiative value means that guardsmen are more likely to sweep.
-Because a FW squad, or hell, a broadside or a battlesuit stuck in combat is a unit not shooting for a couple of turns. Very lethal for tau.

Probably so. In a similar fashion, kroots will trump the guardsmen in CC. Again my point is, the WS3 and I3 didnt suddenly make the Guardsmen "GOOD in CC". They are sometimes (not talking about blobs here, I reiterate) still made to be PURELY shooty, which makes the initial claim/argument by schadenfreude flawed.

Im never claimed a shooting army never works, in fact, my SW army is purely shooty.

What AF stated is correct but not in general sense; it's only about tau. Which is correct, generally or not.
Regarding Kroot, kroot comes to do assault on guard. Not the other way around. Its pretty silly to see a Tau player moving kroot forwards to engage a 50 points infantry squad to "beat" it in assault.

yeah no one said that shooty armies dont work. what I said was that shooty armies are at a disadvantage vs. assaulty armies when it comes to capturing objectives. in a kill points game they dont have to hold space so its a non-issue. in the objective missions, because they rely on keeping the distance between themselves and the opponent, they have a hard time taking objectives away from an opponent who is already on them. guard are so fantastically shooty that they can overcome this. space wolves have the close combat capabilities to capture and hold space once theyve softened it up with shooting. tau dont have either of these, thats their problem.

The simple truth is no one plays Tau looking for an easy win. It makes winning all the more sweet.

Tyranic Marta wrote:I have a couple of major questions about the tau in terms of every body saying theyre crap, cause i have had enough of a coupla my mates insisting that theyre armies are crud thn turnin around and nearly kickin my butt.
So: #1: is it not fantastic that theyre BASIC guns are strength 5??? i mean they have no S4 or lower weaponry xcept 4 flamers... thats like saying they wound everyone on 2's and 3's, how is this crap???

I think that one of the issues with Tau is that they only have 2 HQ choices, and you are required to field one of them first. The Battlesuit Commander is necessary to run a Tau Army. My roommate and I run a little loosey goosey on some rules, that being one of them (when he knocks the dust off of his Tau) so he can play the Ethereal for a few hundred fewer points. also, there is the issue of Troop choices as well. You need to take at least one gruop of FCW with you, and all things considered, Kroot are just as effective at shooting, and they can actually enter into Close Combat. FCW cannot enter melee and expect to stand a chance against Grots, let alone Orks. imo, if you wanna play Tau, do it the way that the codex pretty much makes you, otherwise, you aren't competitive. just my opinion. I don't even play Tau, I just beat up on them with a speed freaks ork army sometimes. Or a Kan army... that's always fun...

synchronicity wrote:The simple truth is no one plays Tau looking for an easy win. It makes winning all the more sweet.

+1 to that

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:A 50 point Guard PCS with quad flamers can wipe out 500 points nob bikers in an assault. IG shoots until they take 25% casualties, psychic battle squad knocks their leadership down to 2, they fall back, and the 50 point squad assaults them. If the Nob Bikers fail their leadership check with a leadership stat of 2 the PCS will annihilate the nob bikers in CC. Guard armies can do great things in the CC phase as long as they don't fight fair.

Has this got anything to do with your concept of "a pure CC or pure shooting army". If yes, please enlighten. Because this looks to me like a psychic power.

Unleash Rage, Paroxism, Weaken Resolve, and Warptime are all psychic powers that happen to kick butt in the assault phase, and all that matters is the end result. If the end result is IG destroying enemy units in the assault phase how is that any different than Unleash Rage, Paroxism, or Warptime?

striderx wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Guardsmen are about twice as good as Fire Warriors in CC. The stats are nearly the same, but guardsmen are half the cost. One a point for point basis guardsmen are not that bad in CC, they just tend to die fast because people charge 200 points of zerkers into 100 points of guardsmen.

The MSU of guardsmen make them less vulnerable to CC because their losses are lessened. A squad of melta vets is less than a squad of crisis suits. An infantry squad costs less than a squad of fire warriors. Reducing the damage taken in lost CC is an important aspect of maintaining partial control over the CC phase.

So if I m not wrong, you mean all those IG lists that are somehow build to be purely shooty, are not PURELY shooty within your definition, because you view guardsmen to be good in close combat?

They are more like dwarfs in the magic phase of WHFB. They can't do anything in that phase of the game, but they can try to shut things down or minimize the damage. You don't have to assault to have some type of defense against being assaulted in the assault phase.

Case in point #1: Fast Vehicles like the Vendetta. It can't assault, but if it moves >6" then 6s are needed to hit it in CC
Case in point #2: MSU of Dirt cheap guardsmen. Take 210 points of Tau crisis suits in 1 squad versus 210 points of guardsmen in 3 squads. If the Tau get assaulted 0 out of 210 points get to shoot on the next turn. If a squad of guardsmen gets assaulted 140 out of 210 points gets to shoot on the next turn.

IG are a shooting army that have some damage control in the assault phase
Tau are a shooting army that have no damage control in the assault phase.

schadenfreude wrote:Unleash Rage, Paroxism, Weaken Resolve, and Warptime are all psychic powers that happen to kick butt in the assault phase, and all that matters is the end result. If the end result is IG destroying enemy units in the assault phase how is that any different than Unleash Rage, Paroxism, or Warptime?

I shoot a unit of nob bikers with my Crisis Suits + Broadsides, reduce the squad to one biker left with a wound. I charge the nob biker with a squad of kroots, kill it. Now I prove to you Tau rock in CC.

I m not sure if anyone will accept such a ridiculous argument. Please try again.

schadenfreude wrote:Case in point #1: Fast Vehicles like the Vendetta. It can't assault, but if it moves >6" then 6s are needed to hit it in CC

That's a case of mechanized vs non mechanized, 4th time I m saying this (although I think you ll still be confused for the 5th time). FireWarriors can too embark in devilfish that can move 12". Not that it matters in our discussion here.

schadenfreude wrote:Case in point #2: MSU of Dirt cheap guardsmen. Take 210 points of Tau crisis suits in 1 squad versus 210 points of guardsmen in 3 squads. If the Tau get assaulted 0 out of 210 points get to shoot on the next turn. If a squad of guardsmen gets assaulted 140 out of 210 points gets to shoot on the next turn.

Moot point. Guardsmen are the units doing the bubble wrap. Crisis Suits are the units being bubble wrapped. No one in their right mind (maybe that's what you do, I don't know) would place Crisis Suits in the same way you place Guardsmen.

You know, there is a difference between what you want to argue for, and HOW you argue it. You can't seem to argue your points PROPERLY, though you may come to the same conclusion nevertheless.

Let's keep it polite people, and don't make it personal. Several warnings have already been handed out in this thread.