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.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Ok a challenge to make the point one way or another. Tau players know the weaknesess of their army better than anyone. So here's the challenge:
1) Find a mate who has a 4/5k plus army that isn't tau, eldar, or whitescars (new element and probably the best build overall of the new dex).
2) Give each other a list of everything you own in said army (doesnt have to be wysiwyg) and swap dex's.
3) Make a 2k army from their list to counter your tau army.
4) Carry on insisting that you win so many more games because you are a better general and not because Tau are underpriced and can cover their own weaknesses effectively or that it has anything to do with being a shootyvarmy in the shootiest edition.
5) Play against the 2k list your mate has made with your army, best out of 3/5.
6) Repeat with different friends varying armies.
7) If successful, and still win many games, come back on this thread and tell the naysayers 'I told you so'.
8) If unsuccessful, admit tau are undercosted.

I realise a lot of people would not like others using their models btw. But it would be an effective experiment otherwise.

Or swap armies for games and show them how they can beat your army with their stuff or even offer post game advice so they can improve. This doesn't need to be complex you know.

As an experiment you would need multiple trials to come to a correct conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes shorthand that would also work :-p. Then it blatently has nothing to do with the list building stage and all to do with the strategy and tactics used on the board when it comes to the tau builds... obviously.

Poly Ranger wrote:
As an experiment you would need multiple trials to come to a correct conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes shorthand that would also work :-p. Then it blatently has nothing to do with the list building stage and all to do with the strategy and tactics used on the board when it comes to the tau builds... obviously.

Which was the point. Watching someone use your army to effectively take down the army you typically have issues with is a great way to learn new things.

And if you still win then it might be they don't know how to counter their army and it's just a netlist, or your army doesn't have the tools in it.

Ahhhh not the total point because if you can pick from a wide variety of units as well as the opponent, it will demonstrate which codex is easier to build powerful lists with, and demonstrate to what extent the game is won/not won at the list building stage. Thus also demonstating if one codex hold advantage over the others from the get go.
Otherwise the Tau player could say 'I beat you with my tau because I am the better general but I lost to you with your army because you built a poor list', they may even have a legitimate point, but it takes what I suggested to prove it.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Ahhhh not the total point because if you can pick from a wide variety of units as well as the opponent, it will demonstrate which codex is easier to build powerful lists with, and demonstrate to what extent the game is won/not won at the list building stage. Thus also demonstating if one codex hold advantage over the others from the get go.
Otherwise the Tau player could say 'I beat you with my tau because I am the better general but I lost to you with your army because you built a poor list', they may even have a legitimate point, but it takes what I suggested to prove it.

Not every player has a huge berth of models though, which was the point that some players may lack the proper tools or not be built to handle the Tau list. That said, if that's the case then the Tau player getting a good curb-stomping might help them understand what the opposing side is feeling and be more sympathetic about it in the future. Not everyone can drop a couple hundred bucks just to get some stuff to handle an opponent's army after all.

No game is won at the list-building stage, some just have better handicaps than others.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


No game is won at the list-building stage, some just have better handicaps than others.

I agree! But it definitely does contribute towards a victory!

 ClockworkZion wrote:


No game is won at the list-building stage, some just have better handicaps than others.

However it can be lost at the list building stage.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


No game is won at the list-building stage, some just have better handicaps than others.

No. Not quite.. There actually is one game that is. It's called Warhammer 40.000.

I've done army swaps. But I've given them BA, and, unsurprisingly, I've won every time. But that doesn't say much.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


No game is won at the list-building stage, some just have better handicaps than others.

No. Not quite.. There actually is one game that is. It's called Warhammer 40.000.

No worse than any Wargame where you can take the worst possible choices and then lose easily.

I've played armies I knew I couldn't beat with the list I had simply to learn new things. Both about my army, and the opponents.

It's all about attitude. Taking a crap list against a tooled up tourney list can still be an enjoyable game. For me it boils down to willingness to try things you've never done before. Yes, I love winning and I certainly try to win every game I play. But I love learning things more.

The IG player in the OP wussed out. Instead of just backing out, maybe he could have tried a new deployment style. Or maybe changing his tactics, or maybe used a few units in ways he's never considered before - like sending guardsmen into close combat.

I play DE. This army requires a tremendous amount of patience and time to figure out how to use. A new DE player might lose 100 games before light bulbs start going off and they learn the real strengths of the army.

A couple months ago I played against a very good tournament player who not only used necrons, but was using FW models as well. I watched him wipe the floor with another good player then I asked him for a game. Most people shied away from his list. The following week I purposely sought him out to get another game in. Yes, I was creamed both times. But yes, I learned a lot and therefore totally enjoyed the games.

I guess I take a longer view of this. The only games I don't like are if the opponent is a dick or if I simply don't learn anything ( win or lose ). Take what you will from that.

clively wrote:
Take what you will from that.

I take from that that different people enjoy different things about the game.

I hope you do too.

I have no problems with fighting Tau.
Its allies that is the problem. Tau allying with Tau for 5 Riptides....or Allying with Eldar for psychic rerolling ignore covering shenanigans.

Allies are a plague on this game.
I think without them, Tau are just a good army, with allies, they become omgwtfbbqbacon broken

 iGuy91 wrote:
I have no problems with fighting Tau.
Its allies that is the problem. Tau allying with Tau for 5 Riptides....or Allying with Eldar for psychic rerolling ignore covering shenanigans.

Allies are a plague on this game.
I think without them, Tau are just a good army, with allies, they become omgwtfbbqbacon broken

Somehow I get the feeling allies will only be a 6e thing, when seventh drops you will have so many people with half an army, that GW will accidentally forget about allies forcing people to buy their 'Fine, Cheap models'

Swapping armies is certainly a thing to try too. A couple people did after our 2012 summer tournament where quite a few players had complaints about the Necrons. (Which I incidentally managed a draw against with SoB and would have won if I remembered to measure for Linebreaker.) The Orks which were decisively crushed in the tournament were a good enough list that the Necron player could smash his own army with them. Thing is, he really is a good player.

No, not just good players will have bought the "newest most OP army" - but many that start calculating combos from the first leaked pages will certainly feel drawn to it. We have a couple that can spend a lot of time calculating which unit type most likely gets to do things and which is best at that on average vs the armies others own.

 Skriker wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
Don't have a problem playing Tau here, there are the 'meta crew' that runs whatever is hot in tourneys so naturally there's the Eldar-Tau and Tau-Tau. It's annoying sometimes but I like the challenge, feels good to beat a Triple Riptide with a Foot-Guard list.

Exactly! I don't remember anyone giving tau players a break when the tau codex sucked so badly, and now those same people are trying to keep tau from using and enjoying their first decent codex ever.

Skriker

Just throwing this out there; The argument that "NOBODY GAVE ME A BREAK SO EF-EM" is a child's cry.

For starters, I don't think anyone out there has played every single gamer in the world. So the certainty can be dropped. And I can say this with certainty because I'm a terrible player and will play just about anything, if for any reason so I can get better and no never to charge 20 cultists at a monolith. XD

That aside though, I will outright refuse a game if it looks like the other player is just in it to win it, because chances are they will win. And they know that. And they plan that. So that they and only they can win and be winners. And if that is you, then you deserve to be ousted until you go to tournament and pay to play the way you want.

I play for fun and want games in accordance. If a tourny player says "Hey I need to tool this, will you help?" then the first thing I'm going to do is laugh and say "There wasn't anyone better?" and then the next thing I'll do is probably sit down and play a game thanks to communication and honesty.

As a Chaos player in 6th ed and just starting out, I KNOW I'm at the bottom of the barrel, so cutting players some slack isn't impossible for me or many others I'm sure. But that needs to come from the Tau and 'Crons as well. Even if a Tau player said "Sorry, I'm going to be drawing firing lines," I'd say, "Really? Can you at least TRY something different?" and then he charges one squad of pathfinders? FINE. Good enough. At least you tried and could try harder next time.

Turning into a rant. Leaving my two cents on the table.

I think 40K demonstrates very well how snowball effects happen. Seemingly minor changes in the 6th edition CRB combine with improves codices for lists that are shooting heavy and we get this mess.

TheRedWingArmada wrote:
Just throwing this out there; The argument that "NOBODY GAVE ME A BREAK SO EF-EM" is a child's cry.

As a Chaos player in 6th ed and just starting out, I KNOW I'm at the bottom of the barrel, so cutting players some slack isn't impossible for me or many others I'm sure. But that needs to come from the Tau and 'Crons as well. Even if a Tau player said "Sorry, I'm going to be drawing firing lines," I'd say, "Really? Can you at least TRY something different?" and then he charges one squad of pathfinders? FINE. Good enough. At least you tried and could try harder next time.

Turning into a rant. Leaving my two cents on the table.

It isn't a child's cry it is a fact. Tau have sucked since their inception. Their first codex was overpriced, underpowered and the only thing it had going for it was some minis with a cool new look. Their second codex was worse. They made everything even more overpriced, and turned the only HQ slot into a liability that in order to use its special abilities had to be visible by other units in the army and that made it vulnerable to enemy targeting. Its death could easily see almost the entire tau army run off the table. Yeah great books. Now they finally have a decent book that makes the Tau play as they have been described as being from the beginning and everyone is whining that they are actually capable now. It is just pathetic. Tau are the only army in 40k I have never built one of, but I can respect fairness to allow them to have their day. People will figure it out and eventually no one will freak out about it anymore. Besides if Tau generals are all playing the same boring gunlines it shouldn't be too hard for people to figure them out now should it. Of course a version of the rules that shifts the power level towards shooting is going to benefit and army that is 90% shooting focused. The real child's cry is people expecting Tau to nerf their own armies because their opponents don't want to have to do the leg work to learn how to defeat them.

Not every Tau or Necron player is a TFG and don't just run their army to be dicks to people. One of my regular opponents plays Tau and he is just thrilled to have a codex that is actually finally *capable* on the table and where most of the units in it have a decent role to play finally. My primary armies have been chaos marines from the get go back in the late 80s and when the two realm of chaos hardbacks came out. I still play them regularly and I don't complain or whine that the CSM codex is weak or at the bottom of the heap. I just play and I let my opponents play their armies as well.

Pretty much every edition of the game has one stand out "This army is impossible to beat!" codex out there and invariably that statement always proves to be wrong in the end.

Skriker

TheRedWingArmada wrote:


That aside though, I will outright refuse a game if it looks like the other player is just in it to win it, because chances are they will win. And they know that. And they plan that. So that they and only they can win and be winners. And if that is you, then you deserve to be ousted until you go to tournament and pay to play the way you want.

Let me get this straight, if I play to win, you would refuse to play a game. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to play against you, your opponents should play to lose? and that the only way you will play someone is if you are guaranteed to win?
Both players have a vested interest in winning, whether its a competitive game, or a fluffy hello kitty game, you want to win. your attitude before during and after a game is what makes you a good, or bad, opponent, not what units you bring to the table. I know some cut-throat generals, who are a blast to play against. I also know some fluffy bunny not cometitive types who are just asking to be strangled.

I've played Tau since their inception, i've attended tournaments with a Tau army, ranked highly in quite a few of them with an underpowered codex. seen grins from opponents expecting an easy game only to wipe the floor with their army.

In my Mind, what defines a good player, from a bad one, isn't that you cry cheese every time your opponent uses a unit you don't like, or a combination of units you don't like, but that he finds a way to defeat that army. it sounds almost like you think just playing Tau ensures victory, and that's so far from the truth you wouldn't believe.

If you don't play to win, you won't, and if you don't even try to play against the current top dog codex, you won't beat them, ever.

I don't think he was being quite that literal madtankbloke, as I think what he meant was that he didn't want to play against the WAAC guy, regardless of which army they were playing.

I have guys at my club that refuse to take Wave Serpents etc in Eldar lists and other such examples and play so called 'fluffy' lists. But they are damned good players, that will give you a good game, because they play fluff but still field a balanced list. Outright refusing to play someone because they field a certain army is bs in my opinion. if you want to play a TAC list that is fluffy, fine, but don't take a fluffy list and then complain when it has gaping holes in it's structure.

But then, I come from an MTG background and have met guys that hate netdecks and only play their own decks and have fun and other guys that do the same, are arrogant about it and say that you suck because you play a card that is in a winning list. There will always be eejits like that in every LGS/hobby and those are the ones I try to avoid.

Eldar don't need wave serpents to be a very effective list. They need them to be the undisputed #1 list. I'm pretty certain that Eldar could field a list with 0 wave serpents and still have an advantage over any meq list.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar don't need wave serpents to be a very effective list. They need them to be the undisputed #1 list. I'm pretty certain that Eldar could field a list with 0 wave serpents and still have an advantage over any meq list.

And Tau don't need Riptides and Necrons don't need flyers, etc for them to win. My point was that balanced lists will always perform well, if you take time to consider your options and are willing to change. People who play 5 year old lists and still expect to win are being unrealistic!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Naw wrote:
^^^ You still don't get it. Tau are not fun to play against. First they do millimetre moves forever, then shoot forever and finally make the millimetre moves back, taking forever.

Of course there are some variations to this, but the majority seem to play that way.

Is it really the army then or the players who choose to play this way? An army is only a collection of models, rules and fluff. It's up to a player to choose how to express that on the table and people who play Tripleriptide or build lists that can be described as "unfun" are more the issue for choosing that form of expression over any other options.

I'm going to say other players aren't free of blame. I've seen one complaint on /tg/ that they should have to hide their army (use LOS blocking terrain) to close in against Tau, and they ignored advice about prioritizing Pathfinders first. That isn't the Tau player's fault, that's the fault of the opponent for refusing to adapt, learn and use terrain properly. Like wise asking if they're willing to tone it down because your tired of getting curbstomped, or asking them to give you feedback afterwards on things you did are valid ways to either seek the kind of game you want (and at this point I bet there are Tau players who are willing to oblige just so they can actually play), or learn how to beat Tau.

Regardless of how you choose to go about it, blaming a collection of models, rules and fluff won't solve things. Better communication, adaptation and learning how they really work instead of mashing the "OP" button will.

way too true

i've always pointed out that going for the pathfinders was a good way to casue 'problems' for Tau- after many massacres of space marines the players have begun to adapt. However I always set them up so they can be protected by the rest of my army so that is me countering their tactics

As I have said before Riptides maybe awesomsauce, but they don't really kill that much unless your markerlights are rather lucky and you do not scatter, then you get the whines of OP - with the pathfinder caveat i mentioned above... crisis suits on the other hand give way more bang-for-buck but are far more squishy.

That does not hide the fact that the assault phase jump move is very very useful, and is another cause for whines....

I am really looking forward to the impending January/February thread regarding Tyranids 'OP dominance' in the assault phase, and how people will be refusing games with tyranid players. Tau will soon be another standard gunline army, nothing to write home about. Or perhaps next year, Blood Angels will be the army that everyone complains about!

clively wrote:
I've played armies I knew I couldn't beat with the list I had simply to learn new things. Both about my army, and the opponents.

It's all about attitude. Taking a crap list against a tooled up tourney list can still be an enjoyable game. For me it boils down to willingness to try things you've never done before. Yes, I love winning and I certainly try to win every game I play. But I love learning things more.

The IG player in the OP wussed out. Instead of just backing out, maybe he could have tried a new deployment style. Or maybe changing his tactics, or maybe used a few units in ways he's never considered before - like sending guardsmen into close combat.

I play DE. This army requires a tremendous amount of patience and time to figure out how to use. A new DE player might lose 100 games before light bulbs start going off and they learn the real strengths of the army.

A couple months ago I played against a very good tournament player who not only used necrons, but was using FW models as well. I watched him wipe the floor with another good player then I asked him for a game. Most people shied away from his list. The following week I purposely sought him out to get another game in. Yes, I was creamed both times. But yes, I learned a lot and therefore totally enjoyed the games.

I guess I take a longer view of this. The only games I don't like are if the opponent is a dick or if I simply don't learn anything ( win or lose ). Take what you will from that.

No offense dude but I wouldn't want to play in a game where I would know that I would get my teeth kicked in so I don't blame him for that. Besides, this Tau player is a A-Grade Power Gamer who only has fun if he totally demolishes his opponents, and he even told me that he prefers Apocalypse size games so he can get even more shenanigans to his advantage. He got mad once when he drew against my IG in a small point game and wouldn't shut up about it, and it was even worse when he lost to Tyranids due to poor rolling. Currently, here are 2x other Tau players at my store, both are also running the competitive, Riptide spam, and that gets old really quick.

That makes me think hes the typical band-wagon tau player, and trying to not pass off as one because he has 2 riptides instead of 3/4.

I play tau, and i usually feel the opposite when i completely crush my opponent with them. Same with orks but it doesnt happen as often with them lol. Bad rolls galore, or just a paper to rock matchup it doesnt matter either way i feel like a dick because he didnt stand a chance. But its a dice game so that happens sometimes.
The only time i have ever gotten heated was when i went an entire game of rolling nothing but 1s and 2s (that is of course, after my 4/5th game and actually knew the rules i was being conned for. My first few games i didnt accomplish anything and i found out it was a rule mixup between 5th and 6th rules that was the reason, not me).

I'll never understand why people insist on outright destroying their opponent. No challenge no fun to me. Same goes for any game not just 40k. Yes i field 2 riptides but i also have an HBC on one of them and i also field Piranhas. Threw off my last opponent because hes never even SEEN piranhas lol.

Tau players fail to get games at my store simply because they always show up when everyone has to leave. Otherwise I'd always fight the blue skinned bastards.

Eldar are stronger?

Taudar is broken
Daemons are pretty strong..

I always play aginst Tau and the issue I run into is a Tau competitive list can be balanced and strong without spam

In order for my list to compete with that it needs to be a spam list like flying circus or screamerstar. But since its a friendly game its looked down upon. /endrant

 Mr Morden wrote:


I think thats all good - but it can in fact lead to some players not getting games at all.............its a difficult one to call really.

Gamer 1: "Oh hey, do you want to play a game?"
Gamer 2: "Sure, I have my Tau list I'm fine tuning for a tourney with me"
G1: "Ah, my list is a sort of silly World Eaters list that isn't very strong from a competitive viewpoint, neither of us will likely get very much out of such an unbalanced game, Jeff is usually up for a comp game but is away and Dave and Max are just here for a bit of a laugh - playing a scenario game. Sorry mate, maybe Jeff will be up next week and you can try him"

The guy can arrange a game for next week, get to know people, figure out the kind of lists people like to play. A gaming group is a community like any other, the more you put in the more you get out. Maybe he finds someone willing to play later in the night, maybe he just gets to know his fellow gamers, chats about the hobby, gives tips to newer players. Then next week he comes back because he's arranged games with Jeff and his regular opponent.

It's a social hobby, it's not like an online shooter lobby where you drop in, play, leave. You can approach a group like that but you're never gonna get full potential from it. For some people going to a club or FLGS is a huge investment of time, maybe they can make Vassal contacts at the club to get more games in.

Tau are currently a very strong dex and people know it. They can get a lot from a very simple point and click playstyle that counters many "casual" lists in a very hard and unengaging way for your opponent that is only made worse if the tables are a bit sparse terrain wise. As such people who want to run that kind of list need to make more effort to get to know their opponents as many folks wont want to play. Same as a silly weak themed list, just flipped, "competitive" players aren't gonna want to play such a weak list so they too must invest in their community more.

Invest in your 40k community, it'll pay dividends in the long run.