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.

 King Pariah wrote:
It feels like every faction has at least one significant shortcoming that can be rightfully complained about OR is very powerful leaving a fairly large power gap between the weak codices and the strong which also can be rightfully complained about.

but isn't this a good thing? Otherwise, we end up playing HH in 40k, where it is balanced by all the factions being effectively the same?

 carldooley wrote:

 King Pariah wrote:
It feels like every faction has at least one significant shortcoming that can be rightfully complained about OR is very powerful leaving a fairly large power gap between the weak codices and the strong which also can be rightfully complained about.

but isn't this a good thing? Otherwise, we end up playing HH in 40k, where it is balanced by all the factions being effectively the same?

"Isn't it a good thing that every codex either has one significant shortcoming OR is OP? Otherwise, wouldn't all factions be basically the same?"

No.

No it isn't.

No they wouldn't be.

Except for the short-coming thing. I agree that all factions should have short-comings.

I actually meant the shortcomings. If I want to round out my Tau, then I bring 1 or 2 Culexii.

Traditio wrote:
Aside from their one-dimensional (and consequently OP) play style on the table?

This is literally the only valid complaint about Tau. Everything else is subjective (or just plain bullgak).

Tau models, fluff, etc. are no more "ridiculous" than any other faction in the game. They have as much of a place in 40k as Marines do.

And even the play style can be mitigated by playing an unorthodox list. It's certainly not the ONLY way to play.

Traditio wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
It's been 0 days since our last Tau hate thread.

That's because the Tau are an unsightly abomination and an unspeakably disgusting black mark against 40k that it's not even funny.

I think you're getting them confused with the dudes so bland the only way you can tell them apart is by what primary color their 8 year old player has slathered them, who actively stagnate the entire game by hoovering up 6 months of releases in a row because they're *oh so important*.

At least tau have the decency to wait in line and don't think they're more important than everyone else combined.

CSM because of the hole GW puts them in. In theory they are the most interesting faction, and could be used for lengthy discussions of the nature of humanity. But GW says they are for the evulz and thus are completely one dimensional.

Aside from that, the Ultramarines. They are Ultra everywhere, supposedly Ultra cool, are the Ultra best faction and are Ultra amazing in every Ultra way.
My spirutual lieges.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

Personally I don't like space wolves. A bunch of assorted chedder. Which is sad. Because I lost over 300 guardsmen.
So I have a grudge towards them.

Be glad I don't play Eldar. That number would at least triple. Ooooh, I can already hear the D-scythes calling.

I don't really have any "worst faction" I truly dislike when it comes to 40k, but there are however three armies that make my nose twist.

Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

Space Wolves. Because a cool concept can be absolutely ruined when the joke is missed and things go too far. Wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf. Also ThunderWOLF Cavalry, a stupid aberration that should have never seen the light of the day. And MURDERFANG of course.

Lastly, Ultramarines and Grey Knights, side by side, insufferable Mary Sues. Grey Knights were kinda cool back in the day, but then they were swallowed whole by The Ward.

If people think that any of the factions in 40K are not evil, then I think you've missed the core concept of a dystopian setting.

 Korinov wrote:
Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .




So, what is the weakest faction (if played by themselves)?
Orks?
CSM?
IG?

Everybody insults the tau but I like the design. It's different and for a western company to pull off a successful anime style is impressive.

In my opinion chaos is so boring. "Edgy bikers in space" just isn't my cup of tea. I like the lore of them (world eaters fluff is great" but the whole "marine but spikey" astectics is just boring and ugly to me.

As somebody I'm who studies china as my major I find it confusing why the elder use ying and yang symbols. Although it has been useful putting then on my planes as blessings.

 carldooley wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .




So, what is the weakest faction (if played by themselves)?
Orks?
CSM?
IG?

Dark Eldar. No Coven allowed.

 Gamgee wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .




So, what is the weakest faction (if played by themselves)?
Orks?
CSM?
IG?

Dark Eldar. No Coven allowed.

Dark Eldar are quite weak, but they still have decent shooting. They are definitely above Orks and CSM in terms of power, even with the nerfs from the FAQ. Scourges and Reavers are still untouched and are pretty decent

StevetheDestroyeOfWorlds wrote:
They are definitely above Orks and CSM in terms of power, even with the nerfs from the FAQ.

This could be said of a vast majority of 40K armies, so that's not really saying much about DE.


As for my own personal preferences:

Rules-wise -- I dislike Tau. Not so much that they're OP, but because their rules predispose them towards the same OP sorts of lists that are very varied. Their fluff and models are very cool, though.

Fluff-wise -- I dislike the DE, but that's more to do with Slaanesh than anything else.

Model-wise - The only faction I dislike as a result is a sub-faction: The Wulfen. The new models are horribly ugly.

Hate Tau for the look of their fire warriors, hate Space Wolves for their obnoxious, hypocritical douchebaggery attitude they put forth towards the Thousand Sons, and the stupid shaggy hair look they have, and imperial guard Cadians for looking like a pile of wet butt.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Hate Tau for the look of their fire warriors, hate Space Wolves for their obnoxious, hypocritical douchebaggery attitude they put forth towards the Thousand Sons, and the stupid shaggy hair look they have, and imperial guard Cadians for looking like a pile of wet butt.

I dont dislike any army out there. The worst faction is probably CSM atm, since they need desperately an update.

Chaos Space Marines
Everything is overpriced points wise

I am not going to say Sisters because we are honoestly beating a dead horse at this point and you know what you got into by playing that army.

 Nurgle wrote:
Chaos Space Marines
Everything is overpriced points wise

I am not going to say Sisters because we are honoestly beating a dead horse at this point and you know what you got into by playing that army.

IMO their only problem is lack of models. Not to downplay that, because it's a pretty serious problem, but rules-wise they are solidly mid-tier. Only had the pleasure of playing a sisters army once in an army swap and it was good fun. In my opinion they play a LOT better than almost any of the pre-necron releases.

 carldooley wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .

That's the point I was trying to make. Tau have had 30'' basic guns since the beginning, which they shouldn't have.

I didn't play 40k when fish of fury were a thing.

i don't get the hate against Tau. They have serious weaknesses and at least you get to kill something when you fight against them (unlike Necrons). Giant suits aside they are probably the only believable Sci-Fi army in the setting and not just Orks/Elves/WW2 in space.

Tyranids for me, because they've already won 40k. They've won. They're the winners. In fact, 40k is just a blissfully ignorant prequel to a world where Tyranids have eaten everything. Kinda makes it all pointless.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
i don't get the hate against Tau. They have serious weaknesses and at least you get to kill something when you fight against them (unlike Necrons). Giant suits aside they are probably the only believable Sci-Fi army in the setting and not just Orks/Elves/WW2 in space.

Not sure why people hate their fluff (I guess it has something to do with taking the whole "Greater Good" at face value and thinking the Tau are suppose to be the "good guys" which would go against the whole grimdark setting) but gameplay wise they can be frustrating to play against. Tau are basically an extreme in terms of gameplay as shooting is their best and only real option so there is very little reason for the Tau to want to get into close combat or even go near the enemy as that puts them at risk for melee combat. It creates a lot of frustration as few armies are able to go shot for shot with the Tau which makes it so nearly all armies are going to want to get in close to neutralize their range and shooting advantage. It also makes it so assault focused armies win or lose based on their ability to even make it into close combat against the Tau and once you get into close combat the Tau unit falls apart like tissue paper. Now combine this setup with some potentially durable units like the Riptide and now the Stormsurge (which having stomps lets it break the whole "Tau are bad at close combat" theme) and it becomes even more frustrating as your shooting is even less effective against them while they continue to potentially shoot you off the table.

All that being said I do enjoy playing my Tau and think their fluff is interesting but I don't fault people from not like playing against them as they can be incredibly unfun for some armies to go up against. The fact that Tau are among the top tier in army power doesn't help matters.

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure why people hate their fluff (I guess it has something to do with taking the whole "Greater Good" at face value and thinking the Tau are suppose to be the "good guys" which would go against the whole grimdark setting) but gameplay wise they can be frustrating to play against.

I honestly think that for most people that's all it really is. They've never really read or understood the Tau background, and don't want to. They just hear the "Greater Good" and think "'Good'? Ew, 40k isn't supposed to have 'good guys'! Feth Tau!"

 Vankraken wrote:
Tau are basically an extreme in terms of gameplay as shooting is their best and only real option so there is very little reason for the Tau to want to get into close combat or even go near the enemy as that puts them at risk for melee combat. It creates a lot of frustration as few armies are able to go shot for shot with the Tau which makes it so nearly all armies are going to want to get in close to neutralize their range and shooting advantage. It also makes it so assault focused armies win or lose based on their ability to even make it into close combat against the Tau and once you get into close combat the Tau unit falls apart like tissue paper. Now combine this setup with some potentially durable units like the Riptide and now the Stormsurge (which having stomps lets it break the whole "Tau are bad at close combat" theme) and it becomes even more frustrating as your shooting is even less effective against them while they continue to potentially shoot you off the table.

There's a couple ways you could fix this, I think. One would have been to drastically reduce their weapon ranges. Having some of the best shooting in the game and a range advantage is what causes a lot of the frustration: the Tau player never has to move and the other player is always forced to run the gauntlet, and they won't always make it (if they ever do). I've seen people defend the bullgak Eldar codex because "At least they have to move around a little" before they table you, so maybe that's the way to go. Alternatively I think you could do away with the markerlights ability to increase BS, since BS3 isn't that great for an army that relies entirely on shooting, and it could balance out that way. Your shooting isn't quite as devastating when you're missing half your shots.

Or failing that we could all just play with the Space Marine codex, I guess. Seems to work for 30k...all the 30k players seem happy, anyway.

Dark Eldar. Nothing about them appeals to me, from the fluff to the models.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the fluff either. They're Eldar who are some how corrupted but don't follow Chaos. They're pirates but instead of wanting booty, they want humans to enslave and torture?
Is there a reason they prey only on humans?

Oh yeah, and all the spikey bits hurt when you accidentally step on one barefoot.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Dark Eldar. Nothing about them appeals to me, from the fluff to the models.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the fluff either. They're Eldar who are some how corrupted but don't follow Chaos. They're pirates but instead of wanting booty, they want humans to enslave and torture?
Is there a reason they prey only on humans?

Oh yeah, and all the spikey bits hurt when you accidentally step on one barefoot.

They don't only prey on humans.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Oh yeah, and all the spikey bits hurt when you accidentally step on one barefoot.

Grots are rough as well. And lootas are no picnic either.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Dark Eldar. Nothing about them appeals to me, from the fluff to the models.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the fluff either. They're Eldar who are some how corrupted but don't follow Chaos. They're pirates but instead of wanting booty, they want humans to enslave and torture?
Is there a reason they prey only on humans?

Oh yeah, and all the spikey bits hurt when you accidentally step on one barefoot.

My understanding is that Eldar partied and fethed Slaanesh into existence which wiped out most of the Eldar. While the craftworlder turned puritan and rely on soulstones to save their souls from being consumed by she who thirsts, the Dark Eldar figured that instead of putting away the keg and going into AA that they should take things in a.... darker direction. They use the suffering of others to sustain themselves to buy time from Slaanesh draining their souls. They seek out slaves to be used for cruel torture and entertainment as part of their attempt to keep the party going and buy time. While humans are common targets of their slave raids they also will take Tau, Ork, and many of the other less heard of xenos races. I am not sure if they can use Chaos followers for their soul draining needs while I believe Necrons and Nids are only useful for sport in fighting pits. Eldar are considered a highly sought after and rare prize.

Yeah, not appealing to me sound like they're BDSM Eldar.

Each to their own I guess.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure why people hate their fluff (I guess it has something to do with taking the whole "Greater Good" at face value and thinking the Tau are suppose to be the "good guys" which would go against the whole grimdark setting) but gameplay wise they can be frustrating to play against.

I honestly think that for most people that's all it really is. They've never really read or understood the Tau background, and don't want to. They just hear the "Greater Good" and think "'Good'? Ew, 40k isn't supposed to have 'good guys'! Feth Tau!"

For me, it's the other way around. We have a few Tau players in the area who take "Greater Good" at face value and have a holier-than-thou attitude about playing the "good guys" despite all the Orwellian undertones.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Tau are basically an extreme in terms of gameplay as shooting is their best and only real option so there is very little reason for the Tau to want to get into close combat or even go near the enemy as that puts them at risk for melee combat. It creates a lot of frustration as few armies are able to go shot for shot with the Tau which makes it so nearly all armies are going to want to get in close to neutralize their range and shooting advantage. It also makes it so assault focused armies win or lose based on their ability to even make it into close combat against the Tau and once you get into close combat the Tau unit falls apart like tissue paper. Now combine this setup with some potentially durable units like the Riptide and now the Stormsurge (which having stomps lets it break the whole "Tau are bad at close combat" theme) and it becomes even more frustrating as your shooting is even less effective against them while they continue to potentially shoot you off the table.

There's a couple ways you could fix this, I think. One would have been to drastically reduce their weapon ranges. Having some of the best shooting in the game and a range advantage is what causes a lot of the frustration: the Tau player never has to move and the other player is always forced to run the gauntlet, and they won't always make it (if they ever do). I've seen people defend the bullgak Eldar codex because "At least they have to move around a little" before they table you, so maybe that's the way to go. Alternatively I think you could do away with the markerlights ability to increase BS, since BS3 isn't that great for an army that relies entirely on shooting, and it could balance out that way. Your shooting isn't quite as devastating when you're missing half your shots.

Or failing that we could all just play with the Space Marine codex, I guess. Seems to work for 30k...all the 30k players seem happy, anyway.

It's always good to see a player admitting that their faction could use a little balancing act (I readily admit that the Decurion needs work). To me, one of the big issues with Tau is actually the Supporting Fire USR. Their only real weakness (melee) is completely covered by the ability to overwatch with 4-6 units at once when in their superdetachment! On top of that, a few lucky shots from a snapfiring Markerlight and the rest of the units are overwatching at a full BS (or possibly higher!). Overwatch as a whole needs to be nerfed in order to make Assault a viable strategy again, but any Overwatch nerfs are going to disproportionally affect Tau. Like I said, they could use a balance pass (along with Eldar, SW, SM, and Necrons), but nerfing Overwatch without giving Tau something to compensate would go too far in the other direction.