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.

When I was in my LGS last week there were 3 40k tables and all three had Tau on them (me who played some unconventional tyranids a friend brings out, somebody else I can't remember but I think Space Marines were involved, and someone who got annihilated by Eldar with lots of nightspinners ) so I have to answer "no" to this one.

Although to be honest I played Tau since the original codex and muddled through 5th edition the best I could, also I've fielded Vespid and thought they did well for me. Seeing so many "new kids on the block" is kind of annoying...*grumble grumble grumble bittervet*

I guess I'd describe my playstyle as "the best list I can field with the models I have". 40k is a game, I'm not buying 3 riptides, that's a lot of cash I bought one because it looks cool and I like having a big impressive centerpiece to display my army around. You all can say what you'd like on that subject, but I mostly play 40k with my friends for fun anyway.

Makumba wrote:
There is no way for a IG list , unless he tailors , to beat a dual or triple tide list . No wonder the IG man didn't want to play. Waste of time

Seriously?

My standard Guard list has two squads of meltagunners who can deal with that. Admittedly, I play Elysians, so my melta is almost always in range when it arrives, but a standard guard list just replaces melta with plasma.

Heck, most standard "competitive" guard lists will just Vendetta the riptides out of existence.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Heck, most standard "competitive" guard lists will just Vendetta the riptides out of existence.

A Vendetta will only deal 1.25 wounds / turn to a Riptide. That's if the Riptide doesn't use its Nova reactor to upgrade it's invulnerable save to 3++...

Thud wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
So, basically, Nym... you're saying that you failed to build an all-comers army list, so your opponent's specialist army was cheesy?

It's always the other guy's fault.

I don't wanna up my game, I don't wanna buy the models for an army that can actually deal with an opponent, but I demand the other guy plays down to my level and that he buys new, crappier units so I can win.

And then, for good measure, I make sure to call him the WAAC guy. Not me! Noooooo! Telling other people how to play their armies to improve my own chances at winning is not WAAC at all!

Bingo.

Look over at the "why do people not like playing against unpainted models thread". Its amazing the level of laziness and unwillingness that some people have. Its this defense mechanism people have developed over the years, "If you don't like it, quit" "I can do whatever I want with my hobby" etc etc. Its the anthem of an entitled generation to expect everyone to accept their lazy gak attitudes and bad behaviour as either some sort of life choice or disease.

The warhammer community is packed with Goobs, the guys that never learn, don't want to learn, and are incredibly vocal when it comes to you telling them to up their game.

Just a nit pick but I find it really annoying when people talk about "marker light spam" like it's something new. The effectiveness of a Tau army has always been based around marker lights, it's how they're designed to work, it's what makes them different and everyone and their mum can kill Pathfinders with their new, lower, save.

/rant

Sorry, but I slogged all the way through 5th edition with Tau, because I loved the design and the army philosophy, even though they sucked hard and it annoys me that a lot of people seem to think they don't deserve to be good.

Yes. The only local Tau player doesn't even bring his Tau to the GW anymore because he won't get games.

Lucarikx

And I concede that they are open to shenanigans, but so are a lot of other armies #glares at his friends three Vendettas#. What we are talking about here is sportsmanship (or lack thereof) not the inevitable imbalances between the various armies.

 Jadenim wrote:
Just a nit pick but I find it really annoying when people talk about "marker light spam" like it's something new. The effectiveness of a Tau army has always been based around marker lights, it's how they're designed to work, it's what makes them different and everyone and their mum can kill Pathfinders with their new, lower, save.

/rant

Sorry, but I slogged all the way through 5th edition with Tau, because I loved the design and the army philosophy, even though they sucked hard and it annoys me that a lot of people seem to think they don't deserve to be good.

See this is what I don't understand with people. Pathfinders are t3 5+ save models. If they give you a hard time heres a brainwave, kill them first. Its not like they are immune to wounds. Its the first thing I do against tau, kill his marker lights and his army is much more manageable.

Even marker drones aren't hard to deal with (short of the utility 2+ save commander tanking the wounds).

In my LGS I've found out which players want to play competitively and which players simply want to roll dice and move models (Not saying that's bad, but their definition of fun is different to mine). I will usually only try to game with the people who want to play competitive like me, but even we are only semi-competitive. When your income is pocket money, there is simply no way to keep up with the current trend above a unit a month. Every so often a 'real' competitive player comes in and we always try to get a game, because even though chances are we will lose, its my definition of fun. That's how it should be, people should play with people they know they will have their version of fun with, and no one should play a game they wont enjoy.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
In my LGS I've found out which players want to play competitively and which players simply want to play casually (Not saying that's bad, but their definition of fun is different to mine). I will usually only try to game with the people who want to play competitive like me, but even we are only semi-competitive. When your income is pocket money, there is simply no way to keep up with the current trend above a unit a month. Every so often a 'real' competitive player comes in and we always try to get a game, because even though chances are we will lose, its my definition of fun. That's how it should be, people should play with people they know they will have their version of fun with, and no one should play a game they wont enjoy.

Nope, sorry but I had to correct you, as it showed way too much bias in your reply, after all at the end of the day both types of players move plastic soldiers and roll dice.

On topic: I don't hold it against my opponent what they bring (yeah I may have my little nags here and there but, I wont be berating them and hurling insults there way) if I accept a game then I play that game..

Any fluff army versus a tuned army is going to get crushed generally. Every codex on the other hand has the means to put together a solid and balanced army, which in turn will either win or lose based on rock, paper, scissors, good or bad dice rolling, deployment, table type, mission type.

If your army list isn't built with the means to handle flyers, monstrous creatures, blob squads, av 14, or any of the other various codex rules that might arise, I'm not sure how that's the other players issue.

I've seen at least 5 different variations of a nicely built Tau army play, none of them are undefeated, and nobody ever turns down a game with any of the players.

So, anchorbine... my Elysian Drop Troops fluff army is going to get crushed every time, with its two Vendettas, three punisher Vultures, two Avenger Strike Fighters and four Valkyries?

My Order of the Bloody Rose esque Sisters army with two squads of outflanking melta-dominions is going to get crushed generally by a 'tuned' army?

I can understand someones frustration. Now, I play IG, and I hear, "they have so much shooting, long range". However, since the new tau codex, havn't heard that as much.

I don't mind playing against a certain army, however, there is a guy at the FLGS, where I go, who always has the newest OP army list out there. Grey knights Paladin/henchmen list, Necron flying circus, I'm sure he has new SM grav gun spam list with a ton of bikes. It is just what he does, and in any game system. I don't mind playing against certain armies, just certain players.

I don't like it in a tournament where I play the same army, if not the same build, round after round. Has happened, when dark angels were new, had to go two rounds then, fought against Nids in the final. It is boring and, well, just boring to play the same army time and time again.

I went on an undefeated string with my Orks back in 5th edition that was probably around 30 games long. I had my share of draws, but no outright losses. So I understand competitive play and I'm down with it.

That being said, I never net-listed, and I avoided things that most people wouldn't want to face (I didn't run biker nobz or lootas at all).

The fact of the matter is that unless you are in a tournament setting, some players will not want to play against ultra-competitive forces, and sometimes you won't get games. You can moan about other players moaning about your army, but that's just how it works. Most people play semi-competitively, and won't field three vendettas, or three heldrakes, or three riptides, or three land raiders. Those people don't want to play against people who do. They're entitled to screen their opponents.

To those of you crying about players who refuse to play your WAAC list, consider applying your logic to any other voluntary social setting. It's directly analogous to being upset because someone won't go on a date with you, or won't include you in their group of friends. Maybe they just don't like you.

I think the game is more fun if players do not just spam the most powerful units over and over. Varied lists with mix of different types of units produce more interesting games. And if both people play like that, it is not a problem. The Tau player can bring some stealth suits instead of just spamming Riptides and IG player can bring some sentinels instead of three Vendettas. And this doesn't even mean that the game itself cannot be competitive and hard fought, merely that it is won or lost at the table, instead of the list building phase. But as always, the important thing is to talk with the people you play with, and agree on what sort of game you want to play.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Makumba wrote:
There is no way for a IG list , unless he tailors , to beat a dual or triple tide list . No wonder the IG man didn't want to play. Waste of time

Seriously?

My standard Guard list has two squads of meltagunners who can deal with that. Admittedly, I play Elysians, so my melta is almost always in range when it arrives, but a standard guard list just replaces melta with plasma.

Heck, most standard "competitive" guard lists will just Vendetta the riptides out of existence.

3-4 of them including possible interceptor/skyfire on missides ? I have seen marine drop pod armies get mauled on turn 1 and they know that they can get 3-4 pods turn one , I can never be sure to see 3 vendetta on turn 2.

The Tau player can bring some stealth suits instead of just spamming Riptides and IG player can bring some sentinels instead of three Vendettas

But both of those are bad units. why take stealth suits when you can self all crissis and have them as troops and for IG taking sentinals means you give up free first blood to any army with shoting in 6th , which more or less is every army .giving up first blood and then losing because you don't have enough valks to get through the opposing armies AA seems a stupid thing to do . It as if your opponent wanted you to play a bad army , so he can win easier . Because to shot down a single vendetta one unit of sides and a riptide are enough , but to make vendettas effective you need 2+.

Seems like the problems lies with GW and making so many imbalances in the book to where these power gamers can make the most insane lists and suck all of the fun out of a game when they do it, and to be fair, this TAU player has a a server arrogance problem and honestly, I feel like that's all he has going for him as he is a manager a a grocery store of all things and he tries to talk big to me, but Im an Army Vet who was medically discharged so he is fully entitled to keep on trying that because he is the only one who thinks he is so amazing lol. Besides that, I can understand the issues that resolve around this edition and its a big reason why I am getting bored with 40k, as its all about shooting and Tau at the moment stand out because they are one of the strongest shooting armies, as do a few others. It's a shame but its has gotten pretty dull for me right now.

As for the marker-light spam, the reason I feel it is ridiculous at times is not the amount they can get, but the fact that they can use it for over-watch and skyfire as well, which many times I have seen it make assaulting armies (like BA and Orks) not even get close to them, which is too good in my opinion. Oh and the Tau also apparently can get free shots at infiltrators and Deep-Striking units when the come in (didn't even know about that) so basically they have all there bases covered. Reason I think so many people don't like playing Tau is the fact that not only are they an easy army to play, but that they just have so much firepower and rules to make them hit you easier just makes it frustrating for many people to play against, plus this players attitude doesn't help him much as he only wants to play Apocalypse with his list of 9x riptides and numerous pathfinder squads, and broadside teams. Made the mistake of playing him when I was roped into playing a game with him and now I don't even want to go against that again, as it was no fun for the imperial side and he was all frustrated that no one had any fun except him and his partner. There is a reason my friend.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If Tau players are finding it hard to get games when they bring four Riptides, they might like to consider bringing fewer.

This is really the core of the issue.

40K is a game, and both sides want to have fun. There's no obligation for anybody to play against anyone else.

If you show up with an army nobody wants to play against, don't be shocked when nobody wants to play against you. Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. Tournament play is one thing, but even the most bored of people have other stuff to do than play your Tau+Tau Riptide spam, lol.

Makumba wrote:

But both of those are bad units. why take stealth suits when you can self all crissis and have them as troops and for IG taking sentinals means you give up free first blood to any army with shoting in 6th , which more or less is every army .giving up first blood and then losing because you don't have enough valks to get through the opposing armies AA seems a stupid thing to do . It as if your opponent wanted you to play a bad army , so he can win easier . Because to shot down a single vendetta one unit of sides and a riptide are enough , but to make vendettas effective you need 2+.

You don't get it. I know they're bad units; everyone does. Just like everyone knows Riptides are good. Stealth suits look really nice and Sentinels are cool; yes there are much better units, but if both players bring some not-so-optimal units, it's okay, and you get more varied games.

And I really hate this idea that only way to play competitively is to bring some spammy no-brainer net-list, and if you don't, you're either a moron or a casual player that doesn't take the game seriously. Spamming most OP unit takes no skill, every idiot can do that, knowing how to use your units well (whether they were optimal or not) is what takes some skill. It is perfectly possible to show some restraint at the list building stage, and still play competitively.

 Crimson wrote:

Makumba wrote:

But both of those are bad units. why take stealth suits when you can self all crissis and have them as troops and for IG taking sentinals means you give up free first blood to any army with shoting in 6th , which more or less is every army .giving up first blood and then losing because you don't have enough valks to get through the opposing armies AA seems a stupid thing to do . It as if your opponent wanted you to play a bad army , so he can win easier . Because to shot down a single vendetta one unit of sides and a riptide are enough , but to make vendettas effective you need 2+.

You don't get it. I know they're bad units; everyone does. Just like everyone knows Riptides are good. Stealth suits look really nice and Sentinels are cool; yes there are much better units, but if both players bring some not-so-optimal units, it's okay, and you get more varied games.

And I really hate this idea that only way to play competitively is to bring some spammy no-brainer net-list, and if you don't, you're either a moron or a casual player that doesn't take the game seriously. Spamming most OP unit takes no skill, every idiot can do that, knowing how to use your units well (whether they were optimal or not) is what takes some skill. It is perfectly possible to show some restraint at the list building stage, and still play competitively.

QFT Crimson, you have said everything I try to say about the whole issue in a better way

I am leaving my current place because no one wants to play me anymore. Everyone says "I know Im going to loose to you rgiht away" And it gets ANNOYING really. I even stopped taking my good lists.

Well, what army(s) do you play?

You don't get it. I know they're bad units; everyone does. Just like everyone knows Riptides are good. Stealth suits look really nice and Sentinels are cool; yes there are much better units, but if both players bring some not-so-optimal units, it's okay, and you get more varied games.

And I really hate this idea that only way to play competitively is to bring some spammy no-brainer net-list, and if you don't, you're either a moron or a casual player that doesn't take the game seriously. Spamming most OP unit takes no skill, every idiot can do that, knowing how to use your units well (whether they were optimal or not) is what takes some skill. It is perfectly possible to show some restraint at the list building stage, and still play competitively.

Now If a w40k army was like a candy bar , then maybe people could play it like that . Do I want to check how fruits and almonds taste , even when I hate the taste of almonds? well it is less then an euro so why not . But when we are talking about something that costs 100or 1000 times more one can't base oneselfs idea of having fun , be it casual or not , on other people buying crapy stuff and playing wih it . The disposable income for them would have to be huge .

If I take lets say one riptide , one vendetta or one of anything , it won't be just a bit less effective . It is going to be dead . My opponent can take a single riptide , not optimal but let us say he does . One units of broadsides, there are no tau lists without 1 of those and an aegis , I willhave to be very lucky for my 2 vendetta to survive entering the table . What fun will I get out of sentinals , every army even if it takes crappy units will kill them with range and gain first blood . keeping them hidden or at the back makes no sense , because then I have arm them with las and make them cost more and still hope my opponent doesn't have something fast or long range which can't blow them up .If I take them am playing with a points handicap . You don't see Bolt runing around with a ball and chain , because he is better then others and him dominating doesn't make his wins less awesome or less fun to watch.

Makumba wrote:

You don't get it. I know they're bad units; everyone does. Just like everyone knows Riptides are good. Stealth suits look really nice and Sentinels are cool; yes there are much better units, but if both players bring some not-so-optimal units, it's okay, and you get more varied games.

And I really hate this idea that only way to play competitively is to bring some spammy no-brainer net-list, and if you don't, you're either a moron or a casual player that doesn't take the game seriously. Spamming most OP unit takes no skill, every idiot can do that, knowing how to use your units well (whether they were optimal or not) is what takes some skill. It is perfectly possible to show some restraint at the list building stage, and still play competitively.

one can't base oneselfs idea of having fun , be it casual or not , on other people buying crapy stuff and playing wih it . The disposable income for them would have to be huge .

What you might call a crappy unit, someone else may like, for example I like Hellbrutes and Sentinels, now they are under assumed "Crap" but to me I couldn't give a feth if I want to use them then I will use them because I like what they are. As I have said earlier if your not gonna buy "mediocre" units then why should I have to buy "competitive" units so only you can have fun (and vice versa)?

Understand this: 40k is clogged up in deep imbalance, this is fact. Another fact: most people who play 40k like to play with stuff they want to use instead of buying "Netlist X, Y and Z". Another fact: because of the way the rules are designed 40k is aimed as a casual game they even say 9/10 times that if there is ever a rules disagreement then you 4+ it, and because there is so much "grey area" in the wording of the rules for 40k your going to be using that 4+ a lot unlike different rule sets where it will tell you the correct way of going things.

Yes there are competitive gamers, but if competitive gamers think they can lord it over thinking that "competitive" 40k players are somehow better than us "Casual" players (as seen in multiple threads on Dakka) then in all honesty 40k is not the game for you, and I would even go so far as to say that if people who play "Netlist X, Y and Z" should really just drop 40k and start WM/H why? because that's a game where competitive play is advertised, aimed at and supported buy their fanbase and company.

Of course you shouldn't buy stuff you don't like, but there are other considerations for liking models than how they perform in the game. My friend told me recently that he'll get a box of Sentinels, because he really likes them. He was not talking out their game effectiveness.

My friend is running a very similar list and thats not a suprise as these are some competitive lists. Ive won against him with my nids using outflank and a large blob of hormagaunts but its not easy to do. Im willing to play tau players but playing the same type of list with them gets borring quick as they do hold the advantage.

 happygolucky wrote:
Well, what army(s) do you play?

......I play Tau with one unit on braodsides and one riptide. Then I play White Scars Grav gun Spam

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Well, what army(s) do you play?

......I play Tau with one unit on braodsides and one riptide. Then I play White Scars Grav gun Spam

Ok well what exact units do you put into both army's like for troops and elites? etc, etc?

atm it just sounds like your opponents are just whining..

My biggest grief towards an opponent is if they have abused me with a unit or combo for a few games, and then every time we play afterward, they KEEP taking it, even though they know it makes for a lopsided game, and I have nothing to counter it (and its not like its a core part of his army). It makes for a boring and frustrating experience, and yes, I let him know about it every game.

People need to realise that it isn't always about winning or losing, if you have fun then you have 'won' really.