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.

Except the Tau player
This thread is not about demanding change, we'll have to wait till all the codices are updated.
People just want to talk about it.

With the new Grav-weapons it seems like the Riptide-problem is at least a bit 'countered'.

Kangodo wrote:
Except the Tau player
This thread is not about demanding change, we'll have to wait till all the codices are updated.
People just want to talk about it.

With the new Grav-weapons it seems like the Riptide-problem is at least a bit 'countered'.

Theres talking and then theres talking...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Except the Tau player
This thread is not about demanding change, we'll have to wait till all the codices are updated.
People just want to talk about it.

With the new Grav-weapons it seems like the Riptide-problem is at least a bit 'countered'.

Theres talking and then theres talking...

Riptides are slightly diluted by Grav weapons but stil able to deal damage and draw panicky 'oh my gawd!' knee jerk response from on the ground commanders

Makumba wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
How about models I like?
It's a modelling game first, a beer and pretzels game second and somewhere in the last spot is it a competitive game.

I have almost 6000 points in Crons, but only 7 Wraiths, one flyer and 2 Barges.
The rest are Monoliths, warriors, scarabs, triarch stalker, etc, etc.
It might be hard to understand for some people, but (pre-Tau) it can be fun to make up army-lists with any units from the codex and just battle each other.

Ok , but if you collect models not to game , but just to own them , why do you care about losing ?

Winning is nice, but not the priority for myself (or most of the people in our gaming group).

A balanced, varied, enjoyable 2-3 hours of throwing dice and watching things explode/kill each other is. I don't know how many times I, or anyone else that is experiencing the same issue, has to re-explain. Tau can basically take whatever they want to a game and proceed to just shoot you off the table.

I mentioned this before, but some of my more memorable games were losses. The difference is, the games were extremely close, with both armies barely having anything left. These games incorporated a large variety of unit types and saw each phase of the game played out equally. Tau? Deploy, shoot, run away. Rinse and repeat until your opponent is dead.

This is where the 40k playerbase is divided. The competitive-minded people never see anything as a problem or detriment, because there will always be a solution, or optimized list that can 'counter' something effectively. That's great for you, but from a small casual group perspective, this literally throws the 'meta' out the window.

Not even our Tau player enjoys playing them anymore.

If thats the case the guy playing tau should try something else or dig out his 4th ed codex again.

maybe you guys should also dig your codexes out and have fun building a list to try and rip the tau a new one.

another explanation is that your tau player may just be a better general than you and may be needing a new level of opponent.......

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If thats the case the guy playing tau should try something else or dig out his 4th ed codex again.

maybe you guys should also dig your codexes out and have fun building a list to try and rip the tau a new one.

another explanation is that your tau player may just be a better general than you and may be needing a new level of opponent.......

Most tau I know would never go back to being completely stomped like they were with that 4th edition codex.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If thats the case the guy playing tau should try something else or dig out his 4th ed codex again.
maybe you guys should also dig your codexes out and have fun building a list to try and rip the tau a new one.
another explanation is that your tau player may just be a better general than you and may be needing a new level of opponent.......

So he shouldn't play with new rules or take another army?
We CAN build a list that beats an average Tau-list. The only problem with that is that we end up copy-pasting the tournament list instead of using models we like.

Wait.. You did NOT just make that argument?
I can give a two-year old a Tau army and he would probably win with it.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Theres talking and then theres talking...

Just like there is replying and going "There is nothing wrong with Tau, they are perfectly balanced. You are the problem!"

Kangodo wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If thats the case the guy playing tau should try something else or dig out his 4th ed codex again.
maybe you guys should also dig your codexes out and have fun building a list to try and rip the tau a new one.
another explanation is that your tau player may just be a better general than you and may be needing a new level of opponent.......

So he shouldn't play with new rules or take another army?
We CAN build a list that beats an average Tau-list. The only problem with that is that we end up copy-pasting the tournament list instead of using models we like.

Wait.. You did NOT just make that argument?
I can give a two-year old a Tau army and he would probably win with it.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Theres talking and then theres talking...

Just like there is replying and going "There is nothing wrong with Tau, they are perfectly balanced. You are the problem!"

Exactly. I can build a list to crush Tau with models I own. I don't want to, though. With general casual play/lists, it's not uncommon to encounter things that you can't counter effectively since you did not plan for it. That's fine, since it is generally only a unit or two- a good player can work around and it play for the mission.

Tau? They have the tools to deal with literally anything in the game (except an abundance of AV14, but lets be honest.. nobody does this)

Next game I will bring 4 Landraiders... that should fix everything.

Kangodo wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If thats the case the guy playing tau should try something else or dig out his 4th ed codex again.
maybe you guys should also dig your codexes out and have fun building a list to try and rip the tau a new one.
another explanation is that your tau player may just be a better general than you and may be needing a new level of opponent.......

So he shouldn't play with new rules or take another army?
We CAN build a list that beats an average Tau-list. The only problem with that is that we end up copy-pasting the tournament list instead of using models we like.

Wait.. You did NOT just make that argument?
I can give a two-year old a Tau army and he would probably win with it.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Theres talking and then theres talking...

Just like there is replying and going "There is nothing wrong with Tau, they are perfectly balanced. You are the problem!"

I have no opinion either way on tau being balance/not balanced.

There are options out there, If these options are not taken then theres nothing anyone can say that will change someones mind about Tau being roflstomp OP or not.

Give tau to an incompenetent user and they definitely will not be able to win.

And yes if a user is not happy with an army, then changing tactics/units or army/game are some of the only choices available. Harsh but true.

If the option is to field a highly competitive list and ignore the units you like than it's not really an option.
And that is what he, and I, are saying: We can beat Tau, but that means I would leave the models at home that actually made me want to play this codex.
I don't play to win and I don't mind if I lose a game, but there is 'losing' and 'getting your ass kicked starting in T1'.

So what you are saying sounds like: "If you want to enjoy the game, you have to stop playing the things that makes you enjoy the game."
If my 'fun-list' loses because he took a tournament-list, I wouldn't mind.
It's the part where his 'fun-list' annihilates our 'fun-lists' without any effort.

Kangodo wrote:
If the option is to field a highly competitive list and ignore the units you like than it's not really an option.
And that is what he, and I, are saying: We can beat Tau, but that means I would leave the models at home that actually made me want to play this codex.
I don't play to win and I don't mind if I lose a game, but there is 'losing' and 'getting your ass kicked starting in T1'.

So what you are saying sounds like: "If you want to enjoy the game, you have to stop playing the things that makes you enjoy the game."
If my 'fun-list' loses because he took a tournament-list, I wouldn't mind.
It's the part where his 'fun-list' annihilates our 'fun-lists' without any effort.

If a player isn't having fun then some options that may reinvigorate a players appetite for play may include changing lists, changing group or taking a break and coming back.

Isn't part of the fun changing and tinkering with your lists to see what possibilities there are?

edited for reconsideration.
The Tau codex is what is it, having faced 6th ed tau lists it a few times I am aware of its power. I am also aware that in the hands of different generals the same(ish) list has wildly differing results. This is why I advocate a change of scene/ or theme.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
If the option is to field a highly competitive list and ignore the units you like than it's not really an option.
And that is what he, and I, are saying: We can beat Tau, but that means I would leave the models at home that actually made me want to play this codex.
I don't play to win and I don't mind if I lose a game, but there is 'losing' and 'getting your ass kicked starting in T1'.

So what you are saying sounds like: "If you want to enjoy the game, you have to stop playing the things that makes you enjoy the game."
If my 'fun-list' loses because he took a tournament-list, I wouldn't mind.
It's the part where his 'fun-list' annihilates our 'fun-lists' without any effort.

If a player isn't having fun then some options that may reinvigorate a players appetite for play may include changing lists, changing group or taking a break and coming back.
If the player doe not want to change yet continues not having fun, then what is the point of continuing?

Isn't part of the fun changing and tinkering with your lists to see what possibilities there are?

For some people this may be the case, but you are missing the point we are trying to make here.

Beating a dead horse.

Our entire group within reason enjoys the game for the same principle reasons, even the Tau player. Up until the new codex, we were able to bring basically whatever list we wanted (which does touch on your point of list design- this is included). We all had a decent chance to win, or even just actually be able to play/interact with the game, regardless of the outcome.

Tau lists, unless PURPOSELY made to be bad, have the tools to do well against any army, even when played by sub-optimal players. Can you deploy units in reasonably decent locations? Good.

Can you pick a target and shoot it until it is dead? Good.

Can you run away when/if things get close? Good.

That's Tau in a nutshell. Do some people enjoy this? Yes.

It's pretty telling to me, however, that this release has generated the largest outcry from the playerbase since Gray Knights.

Just curious, but from what you could remember on the Tau player before the new dex, did he run Crisis and Broadside heavy armies with minimal troops? Because Tau had very little deviation in the last army, so while you think that he could have ran anything, you may be surprised as to what he was actually forced to run. Same thing happened to a friend and I when we started playing Tau. We tried running other units, but just couldn't. The lists we used for "fun" were the monobuild list because anything else would pretty much end the game quicker than it'd be worth to bother unpacking.

As to the issue at hand, the issue isn't with Tau. Yeah, it's easy to build lists, but because the codex basically spells out that Fireblades go with Firewarriors with Pulse rifles and not with Broadsides. You should take a look at the CSM codex. If you tried to bring a little bit of each with that book, you'd have a garbled mess.

It does suck that you can't just field any unit you want, but it's one part of tactics. Check out the Tactics page and you can see that one of the most crucial aspects to the game is understanding how to do master effective list building.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Our entire group within reason enjoys the game for the same principle reasons, even the Tau player. Up until the new codex, we were able to bring basically whatever list we wanted (which does touch on your point of list design- this is included). We all had a decent chance to win, or even just actually be able to play/interact with the game, regardless of the outcome.

And, again, this is not GW's fault. It's your fault for playing bad lists. You happened to all play terrible un-focused lists so it "worked" for a while, but eventually it was going to come to an end as soon as someone figured out a list that avoids those mistakes. It's just coincidence that it happened to be the Tau that did it.

Tau lists, unless PURPOSELY made to be bad, have the tools to do well against any army, even when played by sub-optimal players.

Every army has those tools. The Tau codex just makes it easier to avoid basic newbie mistakes and reach a minimal level of list quality. But once everyone reaches that very basic level of list quality the Tau "advantage" no longer exists.

That's Tau in a nutshell. Do some people enjoy this?

And you could over-simplify ANY army and say the same thing about it.

It's pretty telling to me, however, that this release has generated the largest outcry from the playerbase since Gray Knights.

Yeah, if we just pretend that Necrons didn't happen...

 Peregrine wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Our entire group within reason enjoys the game for the same principle reasons, even the Tau player. Up until the new codex, we were able to bring basically whatever list we wanted (which does touch on your point of list design- this is included). We all had a decent chance to win, or even just actually be able to play/interact with the game, regardless of the outcome.

And, again, this is not GW's fault. It's your fault for playing bad lists. You happened to all play terrible un-focused lists so it "worked" for a while, but eventually it was going to come to an end as soon as someone figured out a list that avoids those mistakes. It's just coincidence that it happened to be the Tau that did it.

Tau lists, unless PURPOSELY made to be bad, have the tools to do well against any army, even when played by sub-optimal players.

Every army has those tools. The Tau codex just makes it easier to avoid basic newbie mistakes and reach a minimal level of list quality. But once everyone reaches that very basic level of list quality the Tau "advantage" no longer exists.

That's Tau in a nutshell. Do some people enjoy this?

And you could over-simplify ANY army and say the same thing about it.

It's pretty telling to me, however, that this release has generated the largest outcry from the playerbase since Gray Knights.

Yeah, if we just pretend that Necrons didn't happen...

No, you are mistaken. It is GW's fault for horrendous internal and external balance. Do you honestly think that GW purposely makes probably 75% of a codex 'bad'? No. They do not cater this game to the competitive crowd. They are a model company first and foremost, and fully expect their average customer to buy cool models. Isn't that why people still play 40k (unless they only care about winning)? The lore? The story? The narrative? So they can build, paint, and play with miniature representation of things that exist in this narrative.

Their lack of apparent rules testing and balance is simply abused by the overly competitive player who scours the codexes for what IS the best, balance be damned. That's the way it is. You can point at the majority of the units in the DA codex, for example, and call them crap unless equipped a very specific way, spammed, etc. This is normally not an issue for casual gamers, because they rarely min/max, spam, or bring the absolute best units or craft what you incessantly call 'good lists'. Then, naturally, opinionated players who literally cannot fathom that anyone would simply want to bring a wide variety of models in a game to have fun and just throw down, are upset that a book basically prevents this from being feasible. I mentioned the Tau player is upset about this too.

It's pretty obvious what kind of player you are. The problem is you literally have nothing to offer to this discussion than 'your lists are bad', 'bring better units', or 'you have to be more competitive to have fun'. This is clearly not the point, and you clearly cannot comprehend the underlying issue here as you are strictly of a single mindset.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's pretty telling to me, however, that this release has generated the largest outcry from the playerbase since Gray Knights.

Yeah, if we just pretend that Necrons didn't happen...

Does this mean that you acknowledge the Tau codex being there on the cheesy side with dexes such as GK and Necrons?

XenosTerminus wrote:
No, you are mistaken. It is GW's fault for horrendous internal and external balance. Do you honestly think that GW purposely makes probably 75% of a codex 'bad'? No. They do not cater this game to the competitive crowd. They are a model company first and foremost, and fully expect their average customer to buy cool models. Isn't that why people still play 40k (unless they only care about winning)? The lore? The story? The narrative? So they can build, paint, and play with miniature representation of things that exist in this narrative.

Their lack of apparent rules testing and balance is simply abused by the overly competitive player who scours the codexes for what IS the best, balance be damned. That's the way it is. You can point at the majority of the units in the DA codex, for example, and call them crap unless equipped a very specific way, spammed, etc. This is normally not an issue for casual gamers, because they rarely min/max, spam, or bring the absolute best units or craft what you incessantly call 'good lists'. Then, naturally, opinionated players who literally cannot fathom that anyone would simply want to bring a wide variety of models in a game to have fun and just throw down, are upset that a book basically prevents this from being feasible. I mentioned the Tau player is upset about this too.

And what does this have to do with the Tau? This has been happening since long before the Tau codex. People who bring a pile of random units lose to anyone who makes a basic attempt at building a good list, no matter what codices are involved. The Tau codex just makes it a little easier to avoid the biggest newbie mistakes.

It's pretty obvious what kind of player you are. The problem is you literally have nothing to offer to this discussion than 'your lists are bad', 'bring better units', or 'you have to be more competitive to have fun'. This is clearly not the point, and you clearly cannot comprehend the underlying issue here as you are strictly of a single mindset.

I'm not saying that you need to be more competitive to have fun. I'm saying that your opinions about game balance have no value because your problem is entirely caused by your bad list, not by the Tau codex. You can't bring a hopelessly weak list and then complain that your opponent's army is overpowered when you inevitably lose.

Naw wrote:
Does this mean that you acknowledge the Tau codex being there on the cheesy side with dexes such as GK and Necrons?

No, I'm saying that the outrage over Necrons (especially once 6th introduced flyerspam) was far worse than any "outrage" over the new Tau codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
No, you are mistaken. It is GW's fault for horrendous internal and external balance. Do you honestly think that GW purposely makes probably 75% of a codex 'bad'? No. They do not cater this game to the competitive crowd. They are a model company first and foremost, and fully expect their average customer to buy cool models. Isn't that why people still play 40k (unless they only care about winning)? The lore? The story? The narrative? So they can build, paint, and play with miniature representation of things that exist in this narrative.

Their lack of apparent rules testing and balance is simply abused by the overly competitive player who scours the codexes for what IS the best, balance be damned. That's the way it is. You can point at the majority of the units in the DA codex, for example, and call them crap unless equipped a very specific way, spammed, etc. This is normally not an issue for casual gamers, because they rarely min/max, spam, or bring the absolute best units or craft what you incessantly call 'good lists'. Then, naturally, opinionated players who literally cannot fathom that anyone would simply want to bring a wide variety of models in a game to have fun and just throw down, are upset that a book basically prevents this from being feasible. I mentioned the Tau player is upset about this too.

And what does this have to do with the Tau? This has been happening since long before the Tau codex. People who bring a pile of random units lose to anyone who makes a basic attempt at building a good list, no matter what codices are involved. The Tau codex just makes it a little easier to avoid the biggest newbie mistakes.

It's pretty obvious what kind of player you are. The problem is you literally have nothing to offer to this discussion than 'your lists are bad', 'bring better units', or 'you have to be more competitive to have fun'. This is clearly not the point, and you clearly cannot comprehend the underlying issue here as you are strictly of a single mindset.

I'm not saying that you need to be more competitive to have fun. I'm saying that your opinions about game balance have no value because your problem is entirely caused by your bad list, not by the Tau codex. You can't bring a hopelessly weak list and then complain that your opponent's army is overpowered when you inevitably lose.

Naw wrote:
Does this mean that you acknowledge the Tau codex being there on the cheesy side with dexes such as GK and Necrons?

No, I'm saying that the outrage over Necrons (especially once 6th introduced flyerspam) was far worse than any "outrage" over the new Tau codex.

I posted one list, and hesitated to do so for this very reason. How do you know I haven't brought 'good' lists? Because of one list I posted? Are you assuming I can't build a 'good' list simply because I brought one, with anecdotal evidence? And actually, it's funny. because you called the list a 'pile of random units'. It had duplicates, so really your only definition of a list that does not meet this criteria would be.. you guess it... a list that spams units, likely ones you would classify as 'good'.

The purpose of this thread was from the beginning Tau from a casual perspective, not competitive. Tau is not fun to play against, and ruins games from a strictly casual perspective. If an entire player base has to adjust their lists to specifically combat one army there is a problem.

You constantly reply with the same formula- calling lists bad, saying things aren't optimized, list building, etc. All things a tournament/competitive person cares about. You keep arguing this point to death, and it is tiring to read/reply to someone who literally cannot see what is being argued here.

Well if you brought a good list last time, it wouldn't have mattered because of the rule confusion for markerlights let your opponent effectively buff his entire army to BS5 for 44 points, or BS5 Ignore cover for 88.

But I think you're making this more personal than it really needs to be, and understand your frustration. It's not you and it's not about you, so let that anger go.

Now there is plenty to learn in this thread. Most of that is to understand that things can't be your way sometimes and the the game isn't balanced fairly. It's a tough lesson.

Again, list building is a critical point to the game. It's the first thing you should do before purchasing models to me. When you have a list that is tuned right it works for you, and you don't have to work with it or have it work against you. It will help your deployment and tactics through out the game. I'm not familiar with DA, but several players have commented on your list and I'd listen to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And personally the comments that "Tau aren't fun to play against" and "Ruins games" is kinda messed up. I play Tau and I have had several very hard fought and balanced games. I play a competitive list too. So all my work and games were hours of someone forced to play against me? That they didn't have fun? Or by me picking an army that was monobuild through 5th and the start of 6th is somehow ruining the game all together? A lot of people have made that comment and I think it's BS.

XenosTerminus wrote:
How do you know I haven't brought 'good' lists? Because of one list I posted?

Because of that, and because you defended it as a "balanced" list instead of just admitting it was weak, and said that you want to continue bringing lists like that. It's pretty clear that this is a typical list for you.

And actually, it's funny. because you called the list a 'pile of random units'. It had duplicates, so really your only definition of a list that does not meet this criteria would be.. you guess it... a list that spams units, likely ones you would classify as 'good'.

Having duplicates doesn't make it less of a random pile of units. It's a random pile of units because it has a couple assault units, a couple shooting units, a drop pod, a couple scoring units, etc. It may have two copies of something, but the list as a whole has no focus.

The purpose of this thread was from the beginning Tau from a casual perspective, not competitive. Tau is not fun to play against, and ruins games from a strictly casual perspective. If an entire player base has to adjust their lists to specifically combat one army there is a problem.

The problem is you're narrowly defining "casual" to mean "I only play with weak battleforce-style lists and refuse to bring better ones". That isn't the same definition of "casual" that other people use.

I think the main problem with tau is that a casual tau list will smash most other fluffy or fun lists from what I've seen, I only know one tau player and he seems to play a pretty optimised list so I wouldn't play him as that isn't what I'm about. I know my own list would bite the dirt hard against tau and I'd most likely be tabled by turn 2, I just don't find getting shot off the board before you do anything much fun.

Edit: I understand that casual varies depending on the person, to me it means playing relatively infrequently (maybe once a month), possibly having a limited collection to pick from, playing models that you like the look of over effectiveness or any combination of the above. Also the fluff list player is probably going to suffer a bit harder against them too. I know that a shooty army is going to do well in a shooty edition but however you look at it tau aren't much fun to play against for someone unable/unwilling to change their list.

Ugly Green Trog wrote:
I think the main problem with tau is that a casual tau list will smash most other fluffy or fun lists from what I've seen, I only know one tau player and he seems to play a pretty optimised list so I wouldn't play him as that isn't what I'm about. I know my own list would bite the dirt hard against tau and I'd most likely be tabled by turn 2, I just don't find getting shot off the board before you do anything much fun.

This is only because you (apparently) define "fun" and "fluffy" as "weak" instead of "I enjoy playing this" and "represents an aspect of the fictional universe of 40k".

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Well if you brought a good list last time, it wouldn't have mattered because of the rule confusion for markerlights let your opponent effectively buff his entire army to BS5 for 44 points, or BS5 Ignore cover for 88.

But I think you're making this more personal than it really needs to be, and understand your frustration. It's not you and it's not about you, so let that anger go.

Now there is plenty to learn in this thread. Most of that is to understand that things can't be your way sometimes and the the game isn't balanced fairly. It's a tough lesson.

Again, list building is a critical point to the game. It's the first thing you should do before purchasing models to me. When you have a list that is tuned right it works for you, and you don't have to work with it or have it work against you. It will help your deployment and tactics through out the game. I'm not familiar with DA, but several players have commented on your list and I'd listen to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And personally the comments that "Tau aren't fun to play against" and "Ruins games" is kinda messed up. I play Tau and I have had several very hard fought and balanced games. I play a competitive list too. So all my work and games were hours of someone forced to play against me? That they didn't have fun? Or by me picking an army that was monobuild through 5th and the start of 6th is somehow ruining the game all together? A lot of people have made that comment and I think it's BS.

Ditto. I've been playing a Gunline Tau army since the end of 4th/start of 5th. I learned real quick to go to Crisis Spam in 5th and dealt with it until 6th dropped when I could play my gunline again. Now we even have HQs for Gunline Tau and I can do my army like I wanted from the beginning, A Gunline with Mobile support, But everyone else who just steamrolled over Tau in 5th now have a problem that A Shooty army in a Shooty edition has the tools to Shoot.

So you're just going to refuse to play someone who might play an overpowered list that might table you, but really don't have experience against that kind of army? Kinda quiting before the race even starts with that attitude. So what would you play then?

And a "casual" Tau list won't stomp anything automatically. Suit, Firewarrior, drones, and Broadsides are just as vulnerable as they ever were while tanks took a bit of a dive in surviability. Riptides are the only real exception, but it's like adding the Heldrake to CSM. One unit and suddenly nobody wants to play it.

Yay Shooting!!!

 Peregrine wrote:

Ugly Green Trog wrote:
I think the main problem with tau is that a casual tau list will smash most other fluffy or fun lists from what I've seen, I only know one tau player and he seems to play a pretty optimised list so I wouldn't play him as that isn't what I'm about. I know my own list would bite the dirt hard against tau and I'd most likely be tabled by turn 2, I just don't find getting shot off the board before you do anything much fun.

This is only because you (apparently) define "fun" and "fluffy" as "weak" instead of "I enjoy playing this" and "represents an aspect of the fictional universe of 40k".

Most certainly not! I play with the models I have in my army that I like the look of and fit my armies theme, if you read my edit you will see my view of the casual player, I like my lists to reflect the background and be consistent with the fluff. I do however realise that because of the way I like to play my armies I will most likely suffer when I play a newer dex or an optimised list. Just for the record my armies are orks trukk rush, and pre heresy BA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So you're just going to refuse to play someone who might play an overpowered list that might table you, but really don't have experience against that kind of army? Kinda quiting before the race even starts with that attitude. So what would you play then?

And a "casual" Tau list won't stomp anything automatically. Suit, Firewarrior, drones, and Broadsides are just as vulnerable as they ever were while tanks took a bit of a dive in surviability. Riptides are the only real exception, but it's like adding the Heldrake to CSM. One unit and suddenly nobody wants to play it.

No I won't refuse an opponent but I tend to organise my games in advance and as a player who likes to play themed armies I tend to look for similar opponents, I play infrequently (not by choice but through other commitments) and play a heavily un optimised list from a 4th edition book, I wouldn't turn down tau generally but I'm not gonna play against a tau player who I know plays an optimised list. I play what I have in my collection and what I like the look of, I have played against optimised lists before and for me it's often not an enjoyable experience as I like the fluffy, fun side of games, not facing some guy who has done some sums and worked out the nastiest list he can take.

Maybe that's why my games are close and I don't really understand the whining about tau. I don't castle, and I don't like riptides, oh and I like stealthsuits!

However, close or not I have yet to lose with my new dex but I'm also mainly playing noobs.....I should provably play them with my wolves....oh well I don't mind winning lol

Ugly green trog, I understand your point of view with mister optimised tau.

As for the rest of the whiners, either accept the challenge or quit bitchin. My main opponent is necrons (only played him once since the new dex dropped) and I know I'm happy with the upgrades because I got tired of getting my ass handed to me on a regular basis. TAU SHOULD THRIVE in the atmosphere that is 40k whether melee or shooting is the beesknees or not. Focus your list a little more if you want to win. Look at real militarys, they don't take a bunch of random ass units, toss em into a meat grinder n expect them to live. Why are you doin the same thing with your troops?

I have not read this whole thread... However my 2 cents is this. Tau do have a ton of game breaking things in their codex. Marker lights allow you to raise your BS for snapshots being one of my biggest peeves just because it is. However as broken as people on the net seem to think the tau are, In my gameing group our tau player seems to lose an awful lot... He has only won about 2 or 3 games since the new dex has dropped. he has a riptide, has a bomber, has pathfinders, brings the farsight bomb from time to time, but he just never wins games. I don't really think that they are that over powered despite the fact that they seem to break every rule in the game.

I think another issue is that some people here that complain about tau have never SEEN casual tau armies.

Seriusly, I see riptide spam with ethreal buffed gunline and missilesides being considered "casual tau" when they compare it to their own "casual lists"

Really people? you take the MOST optimized tau possible as an example of "casual"? you might as well call the flying bakery "casual"

When did you last see stealth suits in game? krootox? vespids? the pope? darkstrider? piranhas? sniper drones? railgun broadsides? the sharks? fish of fury? EMP commandos?
They hardly show up, if at all, right?

BECAUSE THE TAU YOU PLAY AGAINST ARE NOT PLAYING CASUAL LISTS.
Lots of fun to be had with these guys, but they are honestly just not quite as good. if you see several these hit the field-you know you are facing a casual "fun" list. its like seeing 1k sons, rough riders, MoTF, assault dreads, sniper scouts, etc...
You both know it would probably not work, but you like having them around.

Stop complaining about tau just because you send out casual lists against fully optimized competitive ones and get crushed. either optimize your own lists, or play against non-optimized tau. you can't have both ways.

I just don't understand Casual players that well at all, though that's probably because there isn't an active casual gaming community or club for a long way where I live.

The only time I ever played casual lists and took what I wanted on a 'rule of cool' perspective I came home from a campaign weekend of 5 games with 5 losses. The 4th and 5th games were against basically tournament armies. A Tervigon spam list with Swarmlord and a guy playing Nurgle CSM at 3k, with loads of flyers, a FW Great Unclean One, Zombies, Typhus, the lot. There was no contest. I couldn't kill a single Tervigon and we got completely overrun, and the Nurgle guy ended up losing just a couple of CSM Marines and zombies, as well as a Hell Talon or something I managed to luckily snap shot.

The second and third games were against competitive lists. Game 2 was a complete disaster. I moved my mechanized marines forward, they died. He had 40 Marines holed up in buildings, Havoc Squads that shot down my Storm Eagle with Terminators inside, and just to top it off his CSM Lord killed a 14 point Sergeant of mine and turned into a Daemon Prince. Jeez, thanks.

The third game was against some guy who brought a Super Heavy Tank with a massive cannon, spammed Trygons and took a Warrior+ Tyranid Prime mycetic spore deathstar, as well as a crap ton of Genestealers. Wow, a load of fun that was. If it hadn't been for the fact that my Contemptor managed to roll a 6 on one dice like 3 or 4 times in a row with his Assault Cannon causing multiple chain reaction results I'd have been tabled a turn earlier. My tooled up Terminators met his Genestealers and Trygon in close combat and subsequently died.

Now while I'm no WAAC guy,losing 5 times in a row sucked a lot of the fun out of the entire thing. Bringing a casual list is like participating in a lottery, was basically the biggest conclusion I drew. Well, aside from the fact that I think Monstrous Creatures in 6th are the epitome of 40k's no logic fun leech moments.

A Vanquisher shell can easily penetrate and decimate a Land Raider yet it would take minimum 6 shells to even have a chance of killing your average MC? How the hell does that work? And yes I know Beast Hunter shells exist.

If your list doesn't have a reliable MC killer then you will get smashed (sometimes literally) when you come up against them. Riptides are the worst example of this. If you can't tie them up and your list can't kill one in two shooting phases you'll probably lose. The only real way to reliably deal with MC's is to play competitively. You can take a single melta gun in your Command Squad for character purposes and still stand a chance against vehicles. You'd need 4 plasma guns to stand a chance against an MC.

I know one guy on another forum who's a friend of mine who goes to a club where they play competitively but ban the scummy and overpowered strategies like Farsight bombs, and they get along fine.