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.

If you look in other threads, there is a huge faction of people who take the stance that Forgeworld is "official" and just as balanced as standard units for use in 40k in spite of there being zero mention of it in the 6th edition rulebook.

They don't state FAQs, supplements, and white dwarf is legal either, but people still use those, also not a good idea to bring it to other threads.

If they don't tweak the Forgeworld Riptide rules much, a Tau player utilizing Forgeworld would now be able to bring 6 Riptides to the table in a standard FOC army

Yeah, those are experimental rules though, not really balanced yet.

anchorbine wrote:
The most interesting part of this thread to me, is that there is a huge faction of people stating that Riptides are overpowered. It is stated that running three or more Riptides is a blatant power move. If you look in other threads, there is a huge faction of people who take the stance that Forgeworld is "official" and just as balanced as standard units for use in 40k in spite of there being zero mention of it in the 6th edition rulebook.

If they don't tweak the Forgeworld Riptide rules much, a Tau player utilizing Forgeworld would now be able to bring 6 Riptides to the table in a standard FOC army.

Ouch.

Always boils down to the same thing. There are many different options in the game and for this game. But that doesn't mean all options should be used at all times. There are specific games where it's ok to use 3 Riptides. There are specific games where it is ok to use Forge World. In 90% of all 40K games you play, most likely neither will be ok.

Just because and option exists "legally" doesn't give you any right to use it unconditionally at all times, especially if it is to the detriment of your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

anchorbine wrote:
The most interesting part of this thread to me, is that there is a huge faction of people stating that Riptides are overpowered. It is stated that running three or more Riptides is a blatant power move. If you look in other threads, there is a huge faction of people who take the stance that Forgeworld is "official" and just as balanced as standard units for use in 40k in spite of there being zero mention of it in the 6th edition rulebook.

If they don't tweak the Forgeworld Riptide rules much, a Tau player utilizing Forgeworld would now be able to bring 6 Riptides to the table in a standard FOC army.

Ouch.

Always boils down to the same thing. There are many different options in the game and for this game. But that doesn't mean all options should be used at all times. There are specific games where it's ok to use 3 Riptides. There are specific games where it is ok to use Forge World. In 90% of all 40K games you play, most likely neither will be ok.

Just because and option exists "legally" doesn't give you any right to use it unconditionally at all times, especially if it is to the detriment of your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Yep, saw this coming, even though forgeworld is to the betterment of the game rather then a detriment, where 90%+ games I play involve forgeworld.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

anchorbine wrote:
The most interesting part of this thread to me, is that there is a huge faction of people stating that Riptides are overpowered. It is stated that running three or more Riptides is a blatant power move. If you look in other threads, there is a huge faction of people who take the stance that Forgeworld is "official" and just as balanced as standard units for use in 40k in spite of there being zero mention of it in the 6th edition rulebook.

If they don't tweak the Forgeworld Riptide rules much, a Tau player utilizing Forgeworld would now be able to bring 6 Riptides to the table in a standard FOC army.

Ouch.

Always boils down to the same thing. There are many different options in the game and for this game. But that doesn't mean all options should be used at all times. There are specific games where it's ok to use 3 Riptides. There are specific games where it is ok to use Forge World. In 90% of all 40K games you play, most likely neither will be ok.

Just because and option exists "legally" doesn't give you any right to use it unconditionally at all times, especially if it is to the detriment of your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Yep, saw this coming, even though forgeworld is to the betterment of the game rather then a detriment, where 90%+ games I play involve forgeworld.

If that is how your group plays and they are ok with it, why not?

Hell, I play 90% of my games with whacky house-rules of some kind or another, and that is most definitely to the betterment of the game

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO Necrons were probably the bottom army.

Nah, Daemons were definitely the bottom of the list for a long while.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO Necrons were probably the bottom army.

Nah, Daemons were definitely the bottom of the list for a long while.

Actually Daemons had a good list for a while with Crusher/Fiend/Fateweaver, if just very, very specific..And then GK came and they dropped to the bottom.

anchorbine wrote:
The most interesting part of this thread to me, is that there is a huge faction of people stating that Riptides are overpowered. It is stated that running three or more Riptides is a blatant power move. If you look in other threads, there is a huge faction of people who take the stance that Forgeworld is "official" and just as balanced as standard units for use in 40k in spite of there being zero mention of it in the 6th edition rulebook.

If they don't tweak the Forgeworld Riptide rules much, a Tau player utilizing Forgeworld would now be able to bring 6 Riptides to the table in a standard FOC army.

Ouch.

"Official" is frankly bad word choice. Of course Forge World is "official", it's a Games Workshop brand. The argument is if it's "legal" for play outside of house rules making it so which some of us believe so as it operates off of Page 108's permission to alter the army list, which is also what Codex Supplements use to be legal options for play.

Either way, if you're playing a game for fun (not for tournament) and your opponent wants to plonk down 3+ Riptides it might be time to take them aside and explain that it's not fun to play against that and maybe point out that under the Spirit of the Game it's not really what the game is meant for either.

And honestly I don't really get the purpose of the spam. Tau have a lot of neat stuff and only plopping Riptides down seems rather silly when they have a wide list of options to choose from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO Necrons were probably the bottom army.

Nah, Daemons were definitely the bottom of the list for a long while.

Actually Daemons had a good list for a while with Crusher/Fiend/Fateweaver, if just very, very specific..And then GK came and they dropped to the bottom.

Oh I know of that list, but it was unreliable (could end up rolling and getting the wrong half of your army early one), you had to deep strike (hope you don't mishap!) and everytime Weaver takes a wound you have to test to see if he'll flee making him a rather weak lynchpin for the army.

And one good list doesn't save a codex as we all know.

And one good list doesn't save a codex as we all know.

True enough, plenty of dex's have been that way sadly enough.

CSM 4th edition: Plague Marines/Dp's/Oblits
CSM 6th edition: Cultists/Nurgle/Oblits

CD 4th: Crusher/Weaver

Tau 4th: Crisis suits/Broadsides

Dark Angels 4th+: Terminators

Space Wolves 5+: GH/Long fangs/Thunderwolves

Plenty more as well. It's just something that happens when GW doesn't try and balance at all once they see things happening.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Returning to 6th edition, though, if your local Tau player is a cheat that is a reflection on him, not on the codex.

He definitely is not a cheat. Playing both 5th and 6th can cause confusion.

We usually play at 1000 or 1250, only lately have we gone to 1500. I want 1850, but real life gets in the way.

He is very thoughtful when it comes to his movement or assault moves. If he can space his models 2" apart he will do exactly that. Like I said, we need a chess clock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
About Riptides, if they were not "that good", then why are all Tau players trying to fit as many of them as possible to their lists?

In my own opinion it all comes down to the skill of the player. Ive played people who riptide spam whatever you call it and won using nids blood angels and even chaos space marines. I've played vendetta lists n people who have played since rouge trader and won. Ive beat necrons new space marines space wolves and all that and I have found that its my skill against their skill that comes down to it... I don't get why people are so upset I guess they really hate loosing. I mean come on I lost my first year of playing 40k almost and it's because I used op units but no strategy that all it is. Man up people please if you don't want to lose then 40k isn't for you because you can't always win

I feel sorry for the older tau players. To go through the ruff seasons, finally get your moment in the sun and then have people get after you for being the new cream of the crop.

 Rotary wrote:
I feel sorry for the older tau players. To go through the ruff seasons, finally get your moment in the sun and then have people get after you for being the new cream of the crop.

BoLS actually summed up that kind of thing well (for once):

I expect Riptides are one of the best units in the codex. That doesn't in itself make the codex as a whole over-powered.

Lots of players spam the best units out of whatever army they use.

If it were merely a matter of people being annoyed at people spamming their best units, then there wouldn't be a problem here. Some people have been choosing to do this since 40k began. It's nothing new. The fact that tau players are having problems getting games is a sign of something much different and worse from the ordinary.

And tau were definitely not at the bottom of the heap, and now have moved up to the middle of the pack. That's just as bizarre as the idea that 5th ed was the great edition of assault, and in 6th ed, it's now balanced. Tau was certainly not top tier, but it definitely wasn't the worst army - only tau players ever thought that. Everyone else pretty consistently put SoB, BT, oldcrons, nids and, before their 5th ed codex, orks or DE at the bottom. Arguments based on nothing but historical revisionism aren't that convincing.

In 5th ed, the problem with the tau codex was that there was more or less exactly one build for them. That one build had the best small arm in the game, mass special weapons drops on tough, MSM units (including non-gets-hot plasma), and they were the only army in the game that could spam S10 Ap1. They may have only had one build, but it wasn't a bad build.

They were a mid-tier one-trick army before. Now they have a codex that's so bad and that has changed (or, more, completed the change) of the game towards gunlines so much that people aren't playing them anymore.

People have cried cheese, and on the other side have been reassured by that army's players in the past. What's going on now is different, and for good reasons.

Massive crisis suit deathstar that telports 24" with allies, doesnt scatter with farsight, gets stealth and shrouded because farsight is banging shadowsun (wtf?) Oh yeah, also ignores cover and twin linked with everything. And probably ignores your armour save as well. Have fun pulling models because i play codex win. Lolol

Rant over. Sorry i just had to play against this and all i can say is i wish i kept my tau army from 5 years ago.

.

In 5th ed, the problem with the tau codex was that there was more or less exactly one build for them. That one build had the best small arm in the game, mass special weapons drops on tough, MSM units (including non-gets-hot plasma), and they were the only army in the game that could spam S10 Ap1. They may have only had one build, but it wasn't a bad build.

The problem was that outflanking armies practically ruined that build so hard that rankings didn't matter.

Ork Kommando with SC kommando? Tied up Broadsides or crisis suits.

Genestealer List? Yeah good luck with that.

Drop Pods? Sternguard made a mockery of your vehicles and broadsides.

Then you had lists that could actually outfight and outshoot tau at times, like Space Wolves, Necrons, IG, and Grey Knights, and even Dark Eldar.

The build was at best, okay, at worst it dropped to the bot.

As a side thought, what does it say about a person who says "I can't get a game. What's wrong with everyone?"

Perhaps this is one of those super-ambiguous statements that anyone can make about anything, especially when I start comparing examples taken from my own life and times where I thought everyone was ganging up on me. However, before I even begin to act on that impulse, I typically have to hyper-analyze the situation first to make sure it really isn't just me being stupid and not realizing the pink elephant in the middle of the room everyone else sees. And this does a lot to a persons psychology after a while, especially if you find yourself on the losing end all the time.

We can put this to real world examples and come up with staggering revelations, however keeping this to WH40K and Human Behavior, I'd say it's a lot more likely that a Tau player is doing something to piss off the players that don't want to play with them at that point. Even if we're talking displacement from a player who actually is a jerk with Tau and the average player who is still strategizing their army for maximum (personal) effectiveness.

So for example, you play Tau and can't get a game. Why? Probably something to do with your line up. So then at that point, if you really wanted to play that badly, wouldn't you come up with a compromise of some kind to ensure that you could play?

I don't know why this doesn't seem second nature or common sense for a lot of people.

Ex: I play Chaos and I know players don't want to see 3 Heldrakes eating up their troop choices. So maybe I play 1 Heldrake instead? Or no Heldrake if it's really that much of a problem? I know it's not because the rest of my army is pretty useless, but at least I'm willing to meet my players half-way there.

TheRedWingArmada wrote:

We can put this to real world examples and come up with staggering revelations, however keeping this to WH40K and Human Behavior, I'd say it's a lot more likely that a Tau player is doing something to piss off the players that don't want to play with them at that point. Even if we're talking displacement from a player who actually is a jerk with Tau and the average player who is still strategizing their army for maximum (personal) effectiveness.

So for example, you play Tau and can't get a game. Why? Probably something to do with your line up. So then at that point, if you really wanted to play that badly, wouldn't you come up with a compromise of some kind to ensure that you could play?

I don't know why this doesn't seem second nature or common sense for a lot of people.

Ex: I play Chaos and I know players don't want to see 3 Heldrakes eating up their troop choices. So maybe I play 1 Heldrake instead? Or no Heldrake if it's really that much of a problem? I know it's not because the rest of my army is pretty useless, but at least I'm willing to meet my players half-way there.

This particular issue is where the incessant whining comes from but that being said....

From my personal experience there are several key points that keep on turning up:

1. gunlines are boring

2. riptides are OP

3. players trying to impose 'their version' of Tau on the users of the army without think that a) their army list might not be the best to take them on, and b) making a huge assumption that the Tau players has headed for cheese.

4. Tau players 'should tone it down' in some cases

Warning personal opinion alert

Points 3 & 4 are highly subjective and to be frank I find it disgusting that someone would try and force someone to play an army in the fashion that they do not want to for their own egotistical reasons. At my club at least it is unheard of, folks get abused for using cheese but we all accept that we all have a right to use whatever list we like with the caveat of being trolled if things whiff a bit.... that is not to say in any way my club is full of WAAC players we are no way near that . We all like a good game regardless of the result or the trolling that happens in between, especially when particular sets of dice are used

'Bent dice' is a regular accusation especially when I fire Tau overwatch

On point 2:

Riptides are nowhere near broke really, they are highly survivable indeed but their firepower is mediocre at best, unless Mr markerlight is involved then they become 'OP' in their own way. I suspect they are overused (guilty your honour ) when really one would be sufficient to give support to the crisis suits which, in my games have killed far more units than I would care to mention. Yet again no one complains until markerlights ensure a dead squad per turn if you are lucky, oh and then you bugger off out of range until next turn leading to more whining

On point 1:

lots of armies do it these days, but as Tau are good at it, it becomes the main culprit for that reason. Notwithstanding the commonality of space marine armies which can get rather badly splattered by Tau firepower but I digress...

feel free to disagree these are again my honest humble opinions....

peace out

I play Chaos and I know players don't want to see 3 Heldrakes eating up their troop choices. So maybe I play 1 Heldrake instead? Or no Heldrake if it's really that much of a problem? I know it's not because the rest of my army is pretty useless, but at least I'm willing to meet my players half-way there.

But then you can play only 1160pts games , or do you buy extra units you wouldn't normaly want just so that other people can pick the army you should play in a way they like ? And considering different people may find different things bad , you would have to buy a lot of models just to keep them happy and even then they may just not want to play , because they don't like you , don't have time or don't like to play against your army no matter what you bought. Few people can start with a 3k points army , just so that other may pick 1500 armies they want to play against. And knowing human nature they will pick stuff they can own the easiest .

On a side note, if you cant beat tau, take Iron Clads. Most people struggle against av13 these days. Riptides have a hard time with them, and with interceptor they could easily waste the fusion gun shot (you shouldn't be dumb enough to deploy it within 9").

 Rotary wrote:
I feel sorry for the older tau players. To go through the ruff seasons, finally get your moment in the sun and then have people get after you for being the new cream of the crop.

Of course nobody feels sorry for marine players who have always been bad and get hate for no reason throughout the entire history of the game.

Marines have never been actually bad, though. Just not super mega awesome shiny, either.

Loyalist marines were, by far, the worst list in 2nd. They were actually completely unplayable compared to Eldar, Tyranids and Chaos.

TheRedWingArmada wrote:
So then at that point, if you really wanted to play that badly, wouldn't you come up with a compromise of some kind to ensure that you could play?

Because I'd rather go do something else than give my opponent veto power over my army. If the local TFGs are so terrified of losing or having to improve their lists that they refuse to play, well, there are plenty of other things to do that don't involve interacting with people like that.

In my local meta most people realize that Tau isnt that crazy strong..


The codex isnt much stronger/weaker than eldar/daemons/necrons and presumably when nids and orks come out there will be 4-5 top codex's which in my mind is pretty decent balance.

Seer council, flying circus, riptide spam, cron air...everyone has spamming cheesy lists that SUCK to play against without a tournament list and mindset.

jakl277 wrote:
In my local meta most people realize that Tau isnt that crazy strong..


The codex isnt much stronger/weaker than eldar/daemons/necrons and presumably when nids and orks come out there will be 4-5 top codex's which in my mind is pretty decent balance.

Seer council, flying circus, riptide spam, cron air...everyone has spamming cheesy lists that SUCK to play against without a tournament list and mindset.

The potential issue there is that the list is not strong against certain lists - but presumably is still crazy strong against those not listed? I am not sure its a pretty decent balance to have 4-5 codexes that are equal and the rest are not?

There is a wider discussion about play styles and opponents and fitting it with each other - Tournament play should be fairly clear and same with "friendly games" - its the grey area in the middle that cause issue I think - one persons generic "fun" list being horrible XXXX Spam list to another.

The Tau *are* crazy strong. But the Eldar are just a step more insanely undercosted for their firepower and resiliency.

Yesterday, I went to my gaming club and out of the 4 40k games I saw, there was 4 Tau vs Tau. Okay, one of them was a Farsight vs Tau .

So yeah, from my part: if I decided that I would never play against Tau, I wouldn't have any opponents left. Out of the 24 active 40k players, we have ~19 Tau (plus 3 Eldar, 1 Greycron and 1 SoB)...

Marines can get five ASM in a pod with two flamers for 80 pts I think for anti-pathfinder duty, but I'm not sure how good this unit is for general usage. Marines can't escape the truth that 3+ armor and T4 are their cornerstones, and 3+ armor and T4 sucks now. Okay, paying what GW charges for 3+ and T4 armor sucks.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Lol looks exactly like a copy of my response to another tau moan threads that I posted 3 days ago:

"If I were an ork player against a tau gunline, I'd go for battlewagons holding burnaboys (for the firewarriors) or nobs (for the riptides). Have trucks filled with boys following the battlewagons so that they are out of LoS.

Not a copy. I did see your "if it was me" post in the other thread, but also had actually seen something similar to it in practice once already. Tau player thought he had an easy win because it was against orks, but it wasn't. Lost and painfully too, especially after the smug pregame attitude of why the opponent was bothering with orks since the Tau were just going to own them. That ork player definitely did their homework. Also the kind of ork army that laughed at the usual anti-ork flamer spam as well. That ork player had a good day that day and showed that orks are still viable as an army in 6th. Sure the orks could have lost big time if they had just done the usual walk the hordes up under withering fire regardless approach on the Tau. Sadly I get to see other people play 40k a lot more often than I get to play it myself these days. :(

My usual opponent who plays Tau doesn't consider them unbeatable by any means. He knows how perfectly everything has to work for them to succeed. What makes Tau so scary is that people are just walking in and letting the Tau dictate how the battle plays out and giving the Tau that control pretty much is what let's them win handily.

Skriker