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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
We don't know if he railgun had changed at all in the new codex though.

The old rail gun was fine, it's just the platform it came on was super expensive compared to the Skyray and only had one shot a turn. I think if you did the math on it, even without the submunition rounds you'd have to value the rail gun on the hammerhead as something like 70pts, which is awful.

I'd be able to get on board if they replaced the drones on the Hammerhead with two Heavy Rail Rifles, without changing the points, as at least then it would have three powerful shots a turn, with one being extra strong.

Edit: Heck, even if they just gave it more drones and a shield field, like they did with the fortification, I could get behind it :p

LucidNinja wrote:
Could you imagine if they made tau OP but only at 12 inches, that would be pretty cool, get close and hope you kill everything before you get charged. Wait that's not OP it's interesting :-P

That... would be great.

 GoliothOnline wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's a regular railgun, just twin-linked. It's the same one that's on the hammerhead.

Looks must deceive then. Rules are stupid too, but hey, w/e floats the Tau boat.

We don't have the rules for the Fortification, so saying the rules are stupid is even more premature than the rest of this thread.

Even if Tau was nerfed You'll still have an army at worst that is much better than over half the races, most likely 3/4's of them

Tau really doesn't need buffs, this downplay is purely embarrassing

Just take away buffmander and then keep everything the same, plus these new suits and fortifications, this should be enough.

Especially when you add on new formations dog piling special rules onto them.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just take away buffmander and then keep everything the same, plus these new suits and fortifications, this should be enough.

Especially when you add on new formations dog piling special rules onto them.

As someone who plays support in MOBAs, I actually really love the concept of a buffmander, it just feels right D:

I think the problem is that every round of codicies at least two are "misses". One gets either ignored or nerfed too hard and one goes OTT (recent choices BA, then GK, then Crons, then Tau, then Eldar, then amazingly Eldar again). At worst I think Tau are being brought back into line. If it wasn't for the giant stupid easy button Eldar, I feel like 7th would be possibly the most balanced edition in a long time.

 Lobukia wrote:
I think the problem is that every round of codicies at least two are "misses". One gets either ignored or nerfed too hard and one goes OTT (recent choices BA, then GK, then Crons, then Tau, then Eldar, then amazingly Eldar again). At worst I think Tau are being brought back into line. If it wasn't for the giant stupid easy button Eldar, I feel like 7th would be possibly the most balanced edition in a long time.

7th has a lot more problems than just Eldar, as much as I'd love to just be able to pin it on them. Between unkillable Necrons, SM's with infinirerolls and Grav-spam, and a host of other issues, 7th's balance issues are pretty legion.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I think the problem is that every round of codicies at least two are "misses". One gets either ignored or nerfed too hard and one goes OTT (recent choices BA, then GK, then Crons, then Tau, then Eldar, then amazingly Eldar again). At worst I think Tau are being brought back into line. If it wasn't for the giant stupid easy button Eldar, I feel like 7th would be possibly the most balanced edition in a long time.

7th has a lot more problems than just Eldar, as much as I'd love to just be able to pin it on them. Between unkillable Necrons, SM's with infinirerolls and Grav-spam, and a host of other issues, 7th's balance issues are pretty legion.

It's Apocalypse, balance goes out the window. Jervis has stated he doesn't like balance in wargames, it get's in the way of putting your minis on the tabletop.

Bartali wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I think the problem is that every round of codicies at least two are "misses". One gets either ignored or nerfed too hard and one goes OTT (recent choices BA, then GK, then Crons, then Tau, then Eldar, then amazingly Eldar again). At worst I think Tau are being brought back into line. If it wasn't for the giant stupid easy button Eldar, I feel like 7th would be possibly the most balanced edition in a long time.

7th has a lot more problems than just Eldar, as much as I'd love to just be able to pin it on them. Between unkillable Necrons, SM's with infinirerolls and Grav-spam, and a host of other issues, 7th's balance issues are pretty legion.

It's Apocalypse, balance goes out the window. Jervis has stated he doesn't like balance in wargames, it get's in the way of putting your minis on the tabletop.

That's pretty insane as you can create a world where there is balance, and tons of awesome minis to field. The two are simply not mutually exclusive.

Edit: That's like saying "Hey, we can try to make balanced rules for all of these cool models, although we might not always get it right, so we're not even going to try..."

At least give it a shot when it comes to balance, worst case scenario is you end up where you were in that stupid statement of not trying to balance things at all.

Can't they just give him a pension or something, and remove him from the design team?

Maybe the tau will get great formations or suit support systems. They could still be good.

Why do people let Dman troll so hard on this forum every new tread he makes he just sits there going trolololololol he is the master hypocrite and always thinks everyone else is a goob honestly though I love reading his threads for exactly this reason haha.

I'm hopeful that the new Tau codex will turn out to be good, But not OP. I'm not sure I belive that, But I hope it will be so.. I love Tau, And I realy dont want them to get another super OP codex. I know they will always be the single most hated army in the entire game no mather how weak they get, But I'm hoping that if they get a well balanced not OP codex they might be slightly less hated and you might get slightly less hate for playing them..

 Hawkeye888 wrote:
All the little taubabies

I'm pretty sure the OP plays Eldar, for one, and is only disappointed that nothing looks grossly overpowered yet because they were hoping Tau would steal some of the hate away from Eldar.

I've been a Tau fan since 2006 and I think the new units are fine. Breachers are kinda meh but I don't think any of it "sucks" yet. If anything I'm deathly afraid the book will be overpowered if for no other reason than I'm sick and tired of people constantly bitching about my fething army and I want it to stop.

 Tinkrr wrote:
That's like saying "Hey, we can try to make balanced rules for all of these cool models, although we might not always get it right, so we're not even going to try..."

Bingo. You just described exactly the GW design studio's attitude.

Makumba wrote:
Can't they just give him a pension or something, and remove him from the design team?

Maybe the tau will get great formations or suit support systems. They could still be good.

After Alessio left, it seems he's been given free reign. I lot of people blame Kirby et al for the direction of 40K and GW, but it's probably got more to do with Jervis than anything else

 Sidstyler wrote:

I'm sick and tired of people constantly bitching about my fething army and I want it to stop

Seems very much like a "If you run into an donkey-cave in the morning, you ran into an donkey-cave. If you run into donkey-caves all day, you're the donkey-cave." kind of situation.

If one person bitches about your army, he's a problem. If everyone bitches about your army, your army is the problem.

With the current Tau army choices (not including the new few units we've seen lately) they are still a very competitive force even measured up against Newcrons, SM, and Eldar.

I really hope GW doesn't crack out the upcoming new codex. They don't NEED to get more power creep.

If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

Armies with a powerful shooting phase that normally don't lost a lot of models are never popular. Tbh, shooting in any game that doesn't cater to it exclusively is not popular.

So in 40k, this means that Tau are hated. At least against guard you get to remove models and you feel like your stats matter. Tau can, through support, wound on 3's or better and hit on decent chances from down town. Their creation coming at a bad time didn't help.
In WMH, Cygnar (who isn't even a strong faction) garners a lot of hate. It is also a mobile shooty skirmish force.
In most fighting games, people hate zoners.

Tl:dr, It's not about cheese, Tau aren't fun to play against.

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

I agree. It's ok to hate GW's ruleset Tau (and a couple of other outliers, but we'll stick to Tau for this example), and their very negative impact on game balance - but don't blame the player, that's ridiculous. The army is extremely appealing aesthetically to many, and when a lot of people began their Tau collection, they were drastically underpowered. On top of that, playing the strongest race in the game doesn't make you an donkey-cave, it's which models you bring to the table. And even THEN, there is nothing wrong with building your army to the height of its strategic potential, in fact I wouldn't enjoy victory half as much if my opponent had to gimp down his army and play easy mode for me - but for some I think they'd rather any sort of win than take a loss. I play Nids and there is nothing I enjoy more than the challenge of trying to take down my buddies super duper beefed up Tau list.

Ideally, Tau wouldn't be so strong (and maybe they won't be come next release and they might be a bit more sensible). But I play this game competitively, and hardcore Tau is in the game, so pretending they aren't and playing against easy mode Tau does nothing for me. Neither does calling someone an donkey-cave for playing with the tools GW gave them.

Akiasura wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

Armies with a powerful shooting phase that normally don't lost a lot of models are never popular. Tbh, shooting in any game that doesn't cater to it exclusively is not popular.

So in 40k, this means that Tau are hated. At least against guard you get to remove models and you feel like your stats matter. Tau can, through support, wound on 3's or better and hit on decent chances from down town. Their creation coming at a bad time didn't help.
In WMH, Cygnar (who isn't even a strong faction) garners a lot of hate. It is also a mobile shooty skirmish force.
In most fighting games, people hate zoners.

Tl:dr, It's not about cheese, Tau aren't fun to play against.

I think this is just wrong. If this was the case than DE would be the most hated race in the game. The fact is, balance comes into play. Tau is just too damn cost efficient. If Ork Boyz were all T6 and just steamrolled you at face to face range without barely losing numbers, they'd be just as hated. Fact is Tau isn't just an annoying style of play - it's a proven tournament golden child, one of the more broken races in the game. This is what makes them hated.

In your example for fighting games, let's look at MKX for an example, where the characters who've done copped the most hate from the competitive player base in the games lifespan are Kung Lao, Tanya and Shinnok, with honourable mentions to Erron Black, Raiden and Kung Jin, all very aggressive high pressure characters, while people spent a lot of time demanding buffs for underpowered characters like Kenshi and Kitana, the zoners. Street Fighter IV, most hated character? Blanka hands down and he doesn't even have a projectile, he's all mix ups and unpredictability. Look at Starcraft, most hated race is hands down Protoss for their perceived number of aggressive options which can be super challenging to learn to recognise competively, while Terrans annoying walling up is mostly laughed at. I think for the most part, competitive players complain about the stuff the identify as OP not the stuff that annoys them, everyone has a little bitch about the annoying stuff but for the most part recognises people have different play styles and balance is more important. Of course, there WILL always be morons who just can't handle losing and complain about dumb stuff, but that's part of everywhere.

I love how everyone wants this balanced game and nothing op and what not, in case everyone hasn't noticed GW has never takin what the players and collectors had to say in to consideration. They just do what they want, it's always been like this, not to meantion that in every edition there's always something for people to complain about. It's a game and everyone just needs to adapt to it, if your just a collector/painter then you still have a lot of cool minis you can build and paint. If your a player then you just have to go with the flow, everyone hates on army's when they feel there to strong (and some are) but know one is forcing you to play against them (except in events, but that's what your bring to events, strong armys) there's no real stat for how many people play for fun and how many people play competitively, it up to your gamin group to pick what kind of games you want to play.
Fluff players can play there games and make house rules on things they find a bit over the top and that's fine, but it's not fair to bash competitive army's or players just because you might not like something, everyone has there own version of what they find fun.

I don't understand the whole 'just make everything OP' argument. If everyone becomes super powered then the game TRULY becomes about that first turn role to see who's OP units can kill the other guys first. The game phases would be:

1) deploy
2) roll for first turn
3) congratulate winner
4) pack up

Not as much fun IMHO. I'd rather a largely balanced list of factions with a couple outliers than a game where everything is cranked up to over 9,000.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

I agree. It's ok to hate GW's ruleset Tau (and a couple of other outliers, but we'll stick to Tau for this example), and their very negative impact on game balance - but don't blame the player, that's ridiculous. The army is extremely appealing aesthetically to many, and when a lot of people began their Tau collection, they were drastically underpowered. On top of that, playing the strongest race in the game doesn't make you an donkey-cave, it's which models you bring to the table. And even THEN, there is nothing wrong with building your army to the height of its strategic potential, in fact I wouldn't enjoy victory half as much if my opponent had to gimp down his army and play easy mode for me - but for some I think they'd rather any sort of win than take a loss. I play Nids and there is nothing I enjoy more than the challenge of trying to take down my buddies super duper beefed up Tau list.

Ideally, Tau wouldn't be so strong (and maybe they won't be come next release and they might be a bit more sensible). But I play this game competitively, and hardcore Tau is in the game, so pretending they aren't and playing against easy mode Tau does nothing for me. Neither does calling someone an donkey-cave for playing with the tools GW gave them.

Akiasura wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

Armies with a powerful shooting phase that normally don't lost a lot of models are never popular. Tbh, shooting in any game that doesn't cater to it exclusively is not popular.

So in 40k, this means that Tau are hated. At least against guard you get to remove models and you feel like your stats matter. Tau can, through support, wound on 3's or better and hit on decent chances from down town. Their creation coming at a bad time didn't help.
In WMH, Cygnar (who isn't even a strong faction) garners a lot of hate. It is also a mobile shooty skirmish force.
In most fighting games, people hate zoners.

Tl:dr, It's not about cheese, Tau aren't fun to play against.

I think this is just wrong. If this was the case than DE would be the most hated race in the game. The fact is, balance comes into play. Tau is just too damn cost efficient. If Ork Boyz were all T6 and just steamrolled you at face to face range without barely losing numbers, they'd be just as hated. Fact is Tau isn't just an annoying style of play - it's a proven tournament golden child, one of the more broken races in the game. This is what makes them hated.

In your example for fighting games, let's look at MKX for an example, where the characters who've done copped the most hate from the competitive player base in the games lifespan are Kung Lao, Tanya and Shinnok, with honourable mentions to Erron Black, Raiden and Kung Jin, all very aggressive high pressure characters, while people spent a lot of time demanding buffs for underpowered characters like Kenshi and Kitana, the zoners. Street Fighter IV, most hated character? Blanka hands down and he doesn't even have a projectile, he's all mix ups and unpredictability. Look at Starcraft, most hated race is hands down Protoss for their perceived number of aggressive options which can be super challenging to learn to recognise competively, while Terrans annoying walling up is mostly laughed at. I think for the most part, competitive players complain about the stuff the identify as OP not the stuff that annoys them, everyone has a little bitch about the annoying stuff but for the most part recognises people have different play styles and balance is more important. Of course, there WILL always be morons who just can't handle losing and complain about dumb stuff, but that's part of everywhere.

This is a great post, but come on. Hands down, I would rather fight Shinnok and Raiden than Scorpion if anyone gets my blood boiling, it's the fact that Scorpion's movesets have unblockables that go right into his teleport BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dman137 wrote:
I love how everyone wants this balanced game and nothing op and what not, in case everyone hasn't noticed GW has never takin what the players and collectors had to say in to consideration. They just do what they want, it's always been like this, not to meantion that in every edition there's always something for people to complain about. It's a game and everyone just needs to adapt to it, if your just a collector/painter then you still have a lot of cool minis you can build and paint. If your a player then you just have to go with the flow, everyone hates on army's when they feel there to strong (and some are) but know one is forcing you to play against them (except in events, but that's what your bring to events, strong armys) there's no real stat for how many people play for fun and how many people play competitively, it up to your gamin group to pick what kind of games you want to play.
Fluff players can play there games and make house rules on things they find a bit over the top and that's fine, but it's not fair to bash competitive army's or players just because you might not like something, everyone has there own version of what they find fun.

Dman, it's easy to say "just adapt to it" when you play one of the strongest armies in the game.

I have about 6 different army's and play with all of them.
SM
Tau
Eldar
Orks
CSM
IG
Necrons
And do really well with all of them, even in the current meta

 godswildcard wrote:
I don't understand the whole 'just make everything OP' argument. If everyone becomes super powered then the game TRULY becomes about that first turn role to see who's OP units can kill the other guys first. The game phases would be:

1) deploy
2) roll for first turn
3) congratulate winner
4) pack up

Not as much fun IMHO. I'd rather a largely balanced list of factions with a couple outliers than a game where everything is cranked up to over 9,000.

I agree, but you can be defensively OP as well as offensively. Riptide is a good example of a model whose damage output really wouldn't be that insane for the points, if he wasn't impossible to put down with an equal amount of points and kept firing just as hard until the last wound dropped. If the same amount of Firepower was sat on 4 Firewarrior bodies for the same amount of points he'd be fine.

Either way, just slamming the power creep up to full speed doesn't solve the problem . "If everyone is OP, then nobody is OP!". Sure, if everyone is made equally OP. But that's not alternative to just addressing RAMPANT balance issues, you have to do both, and doing the latter makes the former much less relevant and just likely to change the nature of the game itself, entirely unnecessarily. Compared to years ago everyone IS op now - except due to the ignoring of gameplay balance, there is still massive outliers. We can ramp everyone up to 110% (like what has already been done) but if we don't focus on making them equal in power, there will still be outliers. It's not a hard concept, and the most efficient and effective way to balance the entire game scape would be to find the most common level of power that the majority are floating around, and focus on bringing the outliers towards this, by bringing down the power level of the OP demes and beefing up the weaker ones. Arguing otherwise just makes me think you want an another easy-win button.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

Armies with a powerful shooting phase that normally don't lost a lot of models are never popular. Tbh, shooting in any game that doesn't cater to it exclusively is not popular.

So in 40k, this means that Tau are hated. At least against guard you get to remove models and you feel like your stats matter. Tau can, through support, wound on 3's or better and hit on decent chances from down town. Their creation coming at a bad time didn't help.
In WMH, Cygnar (who isn't even a strong faction) garners a lot of hate. It is also a mobile shooty skirmish force.
In most fighting games, people hate zoners.

Tl:dr, It's not about cheese, Tau aren't fun to play against.

I think this is just wrong. If this was the case than DE would be the most hated race in the game.

There was a point where DE weren't exactly well loved, but they've never been the most powerful zoners. They also have, traditionally, died to a stiff breeze and don't have a lot of synergy in their lists that makes their shooting ignore stats (unless you mean poison on weapons?). They don't use the castle/turtle strategy most people equate with zoners.
You're going to have to explain how DE are less fun to fight than Tau, or are better ranged fighters. Because, quite frankly, I think that is just wrong.

 SHUPPET wrote:

The fact is, balance comes into play. Tau is just too damn cost efficient. If Ork Boyz were all T6 and just steamrolled you at face to face range without barely losing numbers, they'd be just as hated. Fact is Tau isn't just an annoying style of play - it's a proven tournament golden child, one of the more broken races in the game. This is what makes them hated.

Well, of course balance comes into play. That goes without saying, and is why Eldar have been hated in nearly every edition of this game. The Chaos 3.5 dex still draws hatred from non-chaos players for its power levels.
But that doesn't really apply to Tau. They have been strong, been weak, but outside of a brief time they were never top of the pack. They've usually been the bottom of the higher tier, or top of the middle. But usually hated despite their power level. Marines have been hated for being the golden boys, Eldar for being op....people have different reasons for hating. But for Tau? It's their playstyle.

 SHUPPET wrote:

In your example for fighting games, let's look at MKX for an example, where the characters who've done copped the most hate from the competitive player base in the games lifespan are Kung Lao, Tanya and Shinnok, with honourable mentions to Erron Black, Raiden and Kung Jin, all very aggressive high pressure characters, while people spent a lot of time demanding buffs for underpowered characters like Kenshi and Kitana, the zoners.

I am not a MK player, not the recent ones really, but I was always under the assumption that the most hated character to fight was scorpion. The teleports and spear are really annoying.
OP characters will always be hated, but zoners are hated regardless of power levels.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Street Fighter IV, most hated character? Blanka hands down and he doesn't even have a projectile, he's all mix ups and unpredictability.

He is the projectile . Blanka is also very strong and easy to play, and uses a turtling strategy, which is associated with zoning characters.
Other hated characters, in most SF games, are Sagat, Akuma, Ken, Ryu. They are easy to play and have strong zoning abilities, especially Sagat and Akuma.

In MVC, nobody likes it when you pick zoners or characters with long range. Zero might be one of the best characters in the game, but nothing is more annoying than Doom's missile assist BS.

If you want another fighting game where zoners are hated, take a look at SSB4. I've had people suicide when I pick Megaman, who isn't even that good. People also hate on duck hunt and link a lot, and they aren't top tier characters. Diddy, post nerf, gets a past, as does Shiek. Probably the only other character that gets a lot of hate is ZSS, because she is insanely easy to play and hard to punish.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Look at Starcraft, most hated race is hands down Protoss for their perceived number of aggressive options which can be super challenging to learn to recognise competively, while Terrans annoying walling up is mostly laughed at. I think for the most part, competitive players complain about the stuff the identify as OP not the stuff that annoys them, everyone has a little bitch about the annoying stuff but for the most part recognises people have different play styles and balance is more important. Of course, there WILL always be morons who just can't handle losing and complain about dumb stuff, but that's part of everywhere.

I'm not sure if you mean starcraft 1 or 2?
In both, terrans where everyone's least favorite matchup for a while. I can't speak for the current meta.

In 1, terrans were probably the weakest race (protoss were the strongest and easiest to play) but their castle strategies made everyone despise playing them. Not to mention sending a stealthed unit to a map corner and making your enemy comb the entire place with detectors to find it. Terran games lasted a very long time compared to games against the other races.

In 2, which I have less experience in, it was my understanding that terran were hated more for similar reasons. The castle strategy is seen as a pain to deal with. You know you'll win, but this match will take 3 times as long as everyone else.
I can't see how you can call any race in SC a zoner, since everyone uses guns. If you mean castling strategies are annoying (which zoners in most games use) than these games kinda prove my point.

I think from what I've seen so far tau are being reigned back.

Akiasura wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
If you're suggesting it's my army specifically then you're wrong. I never ran a "cheesebuild" so that's not the issue. The problem is that people have viewed Tau in general as a cheese army, and assume that you're an donkey-cave if you bring them to the table at all. And that's an attitude that will only get worse if GW doesn't make some attempt to reign the bullgak back in and not try to make every codex like Craftworlds.

Armies with a powerful shooting phase that normally don't lost a lot of models are never popular. Tbh, shooting in any game that doesn't cater to it exclusively is not popular.

So in 40k, this means that Tau are hated. At least against guard you get to remove models and you feel like your stats matter. Tau can, through support, wound on 3's or better and hit on decent chances from down town. Their creation coming at a bad time didn't help.
In WMH, Cygnar (who isn't even a strong faction) garners a lot of hate. It is also a mobile shooty skirmish force.
In most fighting games, people hate zoners.

Tl:dr, It's not about cheese, Tau aren't fun to play against.

I think this is just wrong. If this was the case than DE would be the most hated race in the game.

There was a point where DE weren't exactly well loved, but they've never been the most powerful zoners. They also have, traditionally, died to a stiff breeze and don't have a lot of synergy in their lists that makes their shooting ignore stats (unless you mean poison on weapons?). They don't use the castle/turtle strategy most people equate with zoners.
You're going to have to explain how DE are less fun to fight than Tau, or are better ranged fighters. Because, quite frankly, I think that is just wrong.

 SHUPPET wrote:

The fact is, balance comes into play. Tau is just too damn cost efficient. If Ork Boyz were all T6 and just steamrolled you at face to face range without barely losing numbers, they'd be just as hated. Fact is Tau isn't just an annoying style of play - it's a proven tournament golden child, one of the more broken races in the game. This is what makes them hated.

Well, of course balance comes into play. That goes without saying, and is why Eldar have been hated in nearly every edition of this game. The Chaos 3.5 dex still draws hatred from non-chaos players for its power levels.
But that doesn't really apply to Tau. They have been strong, been weak, but outside of a brief time they were never top of the pack. They've usually been the bottom of the higher tier, or top of the middle. But usually hated despite their power level. Marines have been hated for being the golden boys, Eldar for being op....people have different reasons for hating. But for Tau? It's their playstyle.

 SHUPPET wrote:

In your example for fighting games, let's look at MKX for an example, where the characters who've done copped the most hate from the competitive player base in the games lifespan are Kung Lao, Tanya and Shinnok, with honourable mentions to Erron Black, Raiden and Kung Jin, all very aggressive high pressure characters, while people spent a lot of time demanding buffs for underpowered characters like Kenshi and Kitana, the zoners.

I am not a MK player, not the recent ones really, but I was always under the assumption that the most hated character to fight was scorpion. The teleports and spear are really annoying.
OP characters will always be hated, but zoners are hated regardless of power levels.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Street Fighter IV, most hated character? Blanka hands down and he doesn't even have a projectile, he's all mix ups and unpredictability.

He is the projectile . Blanka is also very strong and easy to play, and uses a turtling strategy, which is associated with zoning characters.
Other hated characters, in most SF games, are Sagat, Akuma, Ken, Ryu. They are easy to play and have strong zoning abilities, especially Sagat and Akuma.

In MVC, nobody likes it when you pick zoners or characters with long range. Zero might be one of the best characters in the game, but nothing is more annoying than Doom's missile assist BS.

If you want another fighting game where zoners are hated, take a look at SSB4. I've had people suicide when I pick Megaman, who isn't even that good. People also hate on duck hunt and link a lot, and they aren't top tier characters. Diddy, post nerf, gets a past, as does Shiek. Probably the only other character that gets a lot of hate is ZSS, because she is insanely easy to play and hard to punish.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Look at Starcraft, most hated race is hands down Protoss for their perceived number of aggressive options which can be super challenging to learn to recognise competively, while Terrans annoying walling up is mostly laughed at. I think for the most part, competitive players complain about the stuff the identify as OP not the stuff that annoys them, everyone has a little bitch about the annoying stuff but for the most part recognises people have different play styles and balance is more important. Of course, there WILL always be morons who just can't handle losing and complain about dumb stuff, but that's part of everywhere.

I'm not sure if you mean starcraft 1 or 2?
In both, terrans where everyone's least favorite matchup for a while. I can't speak for the current meta.

In 1, terrans were probably the weakest race (protoss were the strongest and easiest to play) but their castle strategies made everyone despise playing them. Not to mention sending a stealthed unit to a map corner and making your enemy comb the entire place with detectors to find it. Terran games lasted a very long time compared to games against the other races.

In 2, which I have less experience in, it was my understanding that terran were hated more for similar reasons. The castle strategy is seen as a pain to deal with. You know you'll win, but this match will take 3 times as long as everyone else.
I can't see how you can call any race in SC a zoner, since everyone uses guns. If you mean castling strategies are annoying (which zoners in most games use) than these games kinda prove my point.

Holy crap I spent forever typing a reply on my iPad and then it randomly crashed so I'm pissed. However, I like your style, let's just leave it at that. I might type it again when I get back to the PC. Maybe not tho. fething frustrating. More frustrating than playing some twisted combination of Riptides that Flameport out of their Terran walls and cancel into Blanka balls.

 Vryce wrote:
Odd you started this thread OP. Considering a little over a week ago you started the thread talking about how awesome the Ghostkeel is.

Tell me, how does it feel to be the living embodiment of contradiction?

Hes secretly Malal

For now, I'm liking the Ghostkeel and the Tidewall. Breachers are too niche and Stormsurge doesn't do what it should do. Hope the codex has a lot of nice, but not OP, things.

As long as Tau codex is on par with SM one, minus the free transports for everybody (unnecessary, in my view), I'll be quite ok.