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.

 tuiman wrote:
Its not the riptides, markerlights, fluff, S7 spam missilsides, unparalled access to skyfire, interceptor, or shutting down assault armies completley with networked overwatch making it impossible to ever get into combat....

Its the fact that tau are so boring to play against and please say Im not the only one.

All tau players that I have played, just deploy on their board edge, don't use the moving or assault phase unless really necessary, and just role bucket loads of dice blowing you off the table piece by piece as you try to get closer to shoot/assault them which by that point half your army is gone in the first two turns.

For the record, I'm undefeated against tau, I dont care how over/underpowered they are now or in 7th/8th/9th edition to come. Its just the playstyle is so easy and bland and boring that I just refuse to play against them because the game is just not fun.

Just my 2 cents.

Could be your player base that you are playing against. Part of it I think has to be that the Cadre Fireblade HQ forces the troops to remain stationary and our Troops are very fragile so they tend to not be staying out in the open. I'm using the Farsight Supplement using Crisis Suits as Troops so i have to constantly be on the move to get suits into position.

BoomWolf wrote:Unknown xenos is just adding additional races to the setting. guesswork should be towards established existing things, not random "might be out there" things.

Why? 40K has dozens of named alien races which aren't represented on the tabletop. The armies for the tabletop are simply those which have been differentiated enough to provide unique playstyles without diluting the product line with too many model ranges.

Like I've always said, never mistake the Warhammer 40K tabletop game for the Warhammer 40K universe. It's just a set of rules designed to let you play "evenly" matched battles on neutral terrain. It's not a simulation, nor is it an accurate depiction of combat in the universe.

 Enigma Crisis wrote:

 tuiman wrote:
Its not the riptides, markerlights, fluff, S7 spam missilsides, unparalled access to skyfire, interceptor, or shutting down assault armies completley with networked overwatch making it impossible to ever get into combat....

Its the fact that tau are so boring to play against and please say Im not the only one.

All tau players that I have played, just deploy on their board edge, don't use the moving or assault phase unless really necessary, and just role bucket loads of dice blowing you off the table piece by piece as you try to get closer to shoot/assault them which by that point half your army is gone in the first two turns.

For the record, I'm undefeated against tau, I dont care how over/underpowered they are now or in 7th/8th/9th edition to come. Its just the playstyle is so easy and bland and boring that I just refuse to play against them because the game is just not fun.

Just my 2 cents.

Could be your player base that you are playing against. Part of it I think has to be that the Cadre Fireblade HQ forces the troops to remain stationary and our Troops are very fragile so they tend to not be staying out in the open. I'm using the Farsight Supplement using Crisis Suits as Troops so i have to constantly be on the move to get suits into position.

Tau do have a very mobile army, it is just not utilized. One of the reasons (in my mind) is the cost of our transport. It cost more than two upgraded crisis suits, or three naked ones. It is a good transport, but that's all it is and is extremely over-costed.

80 point devilfish just makes me cry inside. How much does a chimera cost for guard? How about a wave serpent for Eldar? Could I maybe get something about halfway between those two points costs for our transport?

It's just so ridiculous because everything got points reductions in the new codex...except the transport! Of course, I still remember the days when the transport could move in the assault phase like a crisis suit... so I guess I'm just spoiled.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Not to mention that the hardcore assault lovers seem to find it somehow wrong that somebody is trying to AVOID combat, rather then jump at them with his own assault units.

Assault was nerfed hard, you know why?
Because last edition, a SINGLE squad of the not-too-impressive assault marines, could wipe out an entire shooter army, without the shooter even getting a chance to respond. ("Wiped your squad? great, consolidate into another, fight, you can't shoot me, and got no chance to win combat.")

And still, some of the major dominant lists are assault oriented.
Just showing you that assault itself works perfectly fine, just not dumb "I got a handful of marines running at you" assault, you need to actually support your assault elements.

Sorry, we're in sixth edition, not fourth.

You couldn't consolidate into combat in fifth, fourth you had a three inch consolidation move to try it. Third you got a 2D6 run which meant that assault was a viable tactic for clearing a board.

Assault has not been a dominant force for two whole editions. Daemons are about the only army that can pull it off now. Tyranids may do when their Codex comes out.

Sixth edition is more shooting oriented than fifth, and Tau and Eldar are the undisputed kings of shooting.

 dementedwombat wrote:
80 point devilfish just makes me cry inside. How much does a chimera cost for guard? How about a wave serpent for Eldar? Could I maybe get something about halfway between those two points costs for our transport?

It's just so ridiculous because everything got points reductions in the new codex...except the transport! Of course, I still remember the days when the transport could move in the assault phase like a crisis suit... so I guess I'm just spoiled.

It's really sad when an un-upgraded basic transport cost five points less than an un-upgraded main HQ. or when it costs more than the unit it is transporting. I has always been overpriced, other than when the fish of fury was possible (buts that was just cheese, and everybody (including most tau players) is glad it's gone.

 dementedwombat wrote:
80 point devilfish just makes me cry inside. How much does a chimera cost for guard? How about a wave serpent for Eldar? Could I maybe get something about halfway between those two points costs for our transport?

It's just so ridiculous because everything got points reductions in the new codex...except the transport! Of course, I still remember the days when the transport could move in the assault phase like a crisis suit... so I guess I'm just spoiled.

The Wave Serpent is pretty pricey for a transport clocking in at 6 points less than a 3 man crisis team with dual plasma. The thing that sucks for our transport is it has more of a defensive role than offensive. You pay a pretty penny for being a skimmer.

The problem is, people hate tau for the same reason they hate dwarfs in fantasy. Gunlines suck to play against. There are 3 phases to the game, and games are most interesting when all 3 are important.

Armies which double down on long range shooting or play keep away shooting are incredibly one dimentional and boring to play against. Maybe if the dominant tau strategy wasn't gunline... then people wouldn't hate them

 akaean wrote:
The problem is, people hate tau for the same reason they hate dwarfs in fantasy. Gunlines suck to play against. There are 3 phases to the game, and games are most interesting when all 3 are important.

Armies which double down on long range shooting or play keep away shooting are incredibly one dimentional and boring to play against. Maybe if the dominant tau strategy wasn't gunline... then people wouldn't hate them

See, I always experienced it from the opposite side of the coin in earlier editions. I never really liked how shooting didn't matter because I never could kill enough models to actually stop them from just assaulting me and removing my entire army anyway, and letting people assault out of drop pods or from outflanking (curse those genestealers...they effectively made me deploy on a table 3 ft wide) meant I couldn't even shoot at them before they got to assault into me and destroy my army.

There's a perfectly valid argument for armies that can assault from out of nowhere being as unfun as armies that run a gunline. It all depends on your perspective. And don't say "close combat is more engaging because both sides are fighting". There's a reason I always offer to just remove the squad from the table as soon as it gets in close combat. It's just you rolling dice and killing my models without me being able to do anything about it.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I dislike tau because they look lame and their fluff is stupid. Has nothing to do with how they perform in game, my daemons usually crush them.

Well I think Tau have one of the best miniature ranges GW have ever produced (with a few exceptions, the new kits aren't all that great with the sun shark being the absolute worst, and crisis suits desperately need a redesign, but everything else is good and the FW models are awesome). I also don't think their fluff is any more or less stupid than any other 40k race: really, they all have stupid fluff, even your daemons which can apparently just pop out of the warp anywhere they want to now, and aren't really as big of a threat as they should be because the four gods are all squabbling children who are more interested in screwing with each other than anything else. And the less said about the daemon miniatures the better, really...it's pretty clear that whoever they got to do the vast majority of CSM/Daemon models was their worst sculptor, or some kind of trainee. It's funny to me when the mecha army looks less cartoony than a bunch of fething hell-spawned daemons from a nightmare dimension.

All you need for Tau really is a good paint job and a little weathering. But not even a Golden Demon level painter could make the stock daemon models look good, in my opinion.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Tau do have a very mobile army, it is just not utilized. One of the reasons (in my mind) is the cost of our transport. It cost more than two upgraded crisis suits, or three naked ones. It is a good transport, but that's all it is and is extremely over-costed.

I would love to be able to play a more mobile Tau army and still be competitive, but the rules discourage it. And naturally GW only made things worse with the new codex. The overpriced devilfish is just one of many problems...but yeah, it either needed a 30-40 point drop with no other changes, or to get more weapon options, like maybe the FW hammerhead turrets or an ion cannon, some heavier firepower to make it worth those points.

Good gosh... why!? Why can't they make good daemons? For bloody sake. The old pink horror models had 1 bad model and 1 good model. The big hands was stupid but t he one ripping its mouth open for two pink horrors... YES! Make it eldricht, illogical, change, hope, trickery, sheath them in flames but nooooo they have to make them all into kid buu. ANd of course I had to start playing daemons in the time where daemons get goofy models and so I build them with hopes of making my own custom models someday (or stealing them). Now personally, I don't really care for Tau and honestly even if they weren't the top 3 codex I still doubt they would be liked. It seems like they have always had a large amount of dislike projected to them.. Personally, I like their fluff. Naive, arrogant, abusive, subtle... they are a brave new world. They are Orwellian in tone just creeping beneath the surface. And I bloody love that. Along with that, I enjoy their models. That being said, I don't like their models within 40k if that makes any sense. It's anime and really doesn't mesh much IMO. Anyways, my bigger problem is rules. Personally, I've seen mobile armies of Tau. Those are awesome! They are agressive, mobile, fly around the battlefield in a dance whilst the layer combines some caution with brazen agression. It is glorious to watch... but the rules don't heavily favor that. Instead, the Tau codex almost seems to want you to play by way of castling which is a dull theming. Gun lines are bleh to be honest. Keep in mind, I like close combat and assault (assault = close ranged fire arms so meltas and flamers etc). The only Tau weakness is arguably a joke due to how the rules work. My biggest two gripes are the buffmander and the riptide in combo with markerlights. That's what really puts the final nail. Though I guess I just rage in a giant battlesuit being as tough as my MC and my Deamon Prince only being T5 meaning you can ID him in bloody CC.

Also, in terms of the sword, it could still arguably be chaos. Chaos has been sense centuries ago. At the very least it was in the 1000 long before 40,000 and I would not be surprised if chaos spans even further back so it could be some sort of gift to chaos or something. Heck, there is a daemon weapon that is called Soul Eater (wound the enemy = extra wounds for you! )

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
While it didn't state it really IS necrontyr product, it really makes sense to them.
Who else would make a sword that liturally takes away the natural lifespan of those you kill and adds it to your own? (as revealed in the enclave supplement.) (and on the feth does that even WORK?)
.

Dark Eldar - they would love that blade and have several similar artefacts / weapons, in fact it could just be ancient Eldar blade from before the fall
Chaos - again what Chaos Champion would not want that blade - its also fits with pretty much all the Chaos Gods ideas of a good reward, I know several people who read the description and thought it was a Deamon balde (Stormbringer stylee)

A N Other Xenos race.

nothing syas its Necron, nothing says its not. Although why would the Necrons need to make such a blade for themselves?

Eldar does not need it, they can live forever as it is. why bother extending a lifespan of "infinite +1"?

Chaos, even less relevant to them, demons don't even have the concept of age and "natural lifespan", and its not given to chaos worshippers purely because its way too old, much older then the IoM.

Unknown xenos is just adding additional races to the setting. guesswork should be towards established existing things, not random "might be out there" things.

Necrons might be machines that live forever, but before they were machines, they were Necrontyr.
And Necrontyr are a very, VERY short lived race, they will WANT this, very, very much. even if it wasn't at all useful at combat it would be priceless for them.
Heck, the whole "turning into machines" concept was to escape the pathetically shot natural lifespan they have.

Also, while more apperant on the old model, the blade resembles necron blades in shape.

As far as I am aware eldar grow old and die - always have done?
Dark Eldar - well its exactly the same as their power from pain - give me your life so I can live linger.
Chaos - they have been around a lot longer than the Imperium of Man the warp has always been there - remembrr the Old Ones fought the Necrons with the power of Chaos/Warp - plus the blade could have been made by the Old Ones

it might be Necron - it might not be

 Sidstyler wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I dislike tau because they look lame and their fluff is stupid. Has nothing to do with how they perform in game, my daemons usually crush them.

Well I think Tau have one of the best miniature ranges GW have ever produced (with a few exceptions, the new kits aren't all that great with the sun shark being the absolute worst, and crisis suits desperately need a redesign, but everything else is good and the FW models are awesome).

Forgeworld is more awesome then you think, they even give you the crisis redesign you want.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tau/TAU-BATTLESUITS-AND-DRONES/XV89-CRISIS-BATTLESUIT.html

Officially just another look for a crisis suit these days. (used to be a special system, but it was so god aweful people jused it as alternate crisis anyway )

 dementedwombat wrote:

 akaean wrote:
The problem is, people hate tau for the same reason they hate dwarfs in fantasy. Gunlines suck to play against. There are 3 phases to the game, and games are most interesting when all 3 are important.

Armies which double down on long range shooting or play keep away shooting are incredibly one dimentional and boring to play against. Maybe if the dominant tau strategy wasn't gunline... then people wouldn't hate them

See, I always experienced it from the opposite side of the coin in earlier editions. I never really liked how shooting didn't matter because I never could kill enough models to actually stop them from just assaulting me and removing my entire army anyway, and letting people assault out of drop pods or from outflanking (curse those genestealers...they effectively made me deploy on a table 3 ft wide) meant I couldn't even shoot at them before they got to assault into me and destroy my army.

There's a perfectly valid argument for armies that can assault from out of nowhere being as unfun as armies that run a gunline. It all depends on your perspective. And don't say "close combat is more engaging because both sides are fighting". There's a reason I always offer to just remove the squad from the table as soon as it gets in close combat. It's just you rolling dice and killing my models without me being able to do anything about it.

I have a problem with this argument as a Tyranid player. Say I was running two squads of outflanking Genestealers, say that they could assault from outflank like they could in 5th. Now the worst thing that should happen to you is you lose a squad or two, which is a big hit, but for what Genestealers cost is it out of the question that they COULD be able to do that? Chance are they are going to wipe what ever they charge off the table the turn they charge, which means on my turn, that means you have your turn to wipe an extremely squishy unit off the table with an extremely shooty army.

So while it sucks to lose a squad like that, without being able to fight back, you only have to deal with it twice and I have to deal with it every turn against Tau. Outflanking assault is in a weird position were is extremely powerful but without it some units flat suck, like Genestealers. So what do we do? How do we find a balance where Genestealers can be effective without just being unfun to play against. It is the same reason that Tau are no fun to play against.

Modelwise I hate the anime robots, always did, however their tanks and infantry are pretty nice ('cept Kroot and Vespid which I also hate for differen reasons). The Hammerhead is one of my favourite tank models in this game.

Fluffwise there's just something about them that makes me want to see them suffer. Maybe it's because of how damn sterile and boring they seem. Even Eldar have their own brand of poncy badass, the Tau however are like a really goddamn lame version of the Federation.

Ruleswise, eh, their best lists have always been some of the lamest in the game for both sides. I like their mechanized style list, one that gets a bit more close to shoot, that's completely fine with me but the gunline and long range keepaway style are both lame and I really hate that they have a dreadnought that was made into an MC just so it was cheesier and would sell better, always did hate Wraithlords for the same reason.

A friend plays 2 Railheads, 2-3 devilfish, some pathfinders, crisis suits and some kroot. I think it's a pretty balanced and fun army to play against too, still krumped my foot Orks pretty handily, haven't tried mech Orks against it yet. I'm only guessing but I think if Riptides were walkers with AV people wouldn't be complaining about Tau nearly so much.

I had the dubious pleasure of playing against an entire genestealer army. It wasn't two squads of outflanking genestealers, it was about 4-5. And they all had brood lords (those things take some killing, even for Tau guns. Especially old codex tau guns). The only thing he started on the table was a lonely tyranid prime hiding in a corner somewhere.

Actually this guy still plays the exact same army with infiltrating instead of outflanking and surprisingly does very well with it in local tournaments by very good play and sticking to the scenarios. And by shear meta busting army potential. Nobody expects 5 squads of genestealers.

But at any rate, I agree it can be unfun both ways when a really shooty army goes up against a very stabby army in this game. The determining factor is what style of play is favored by the rules in the current edition. I just don't see the arguments of one being somehow "worse" than another.

I think the majority of people just hate Tau because of their anime look. I mean all the silly head crests, the gem encrusted weapons and armor, the pointless loincloths on robots, guns that shoot shurikens, and high heels on their robots.

Oh. Wait.

Seriously, the whole mecha aspect is not something that's only found in anime. If anything the Tau are very far from an anime and more in line with a Mechwarrior style since they favor function over flair. If you honestly think that Tau are too anime-ish, then you probably aren't too familiar with sci-fi, anime, and/or Tau.

Also I'd have to point out that anime isn't even a genre. It's more of a medium. It's the same as saying "I don't like Flames of War because it's far too live-action looking". I know that it's generally referring to the style, but I really don't like things like Cowboy Bebop, Macross Plus, FLCL, and One Piece falling into the same category as any of the thousands of "Harem" shows, G Gundam, and Naruto.

Rautakanki wrote:The Hammerhead is one of my favourite tank models in this game.

Same here. Probably one of my favorite tank designs ever, honestly. That model alone is probably what eventually convinced me to take the plunge and do Tau in the first place. I was holding out hope that the new codex would allow us to take them in squadrons so I could field even more.

Rautakanki wrote:I like their mechanized style list, one that gets a bit more close to shoot, that's completely fine with me

I like a more "aggressive" mechanized list myself, and really wish the rules allowed me to play a list like that competitively. But in my experience doing that is usually suicide, and while I have no doubt that's more "fun" for the other player it's not exactly fun or fair for me.

Having played Tau for six years and having almost a year to get used to the new codex, and think a lot of the problems with the current Tau have to do with the fact that Vetock did not understand how the Tau worked in the slightest. He took what was a maneuver warfare army, an army for which the movement phase was every bit as important as the shooting phase, and turned them into a castling, gunline style army. There are still ways to construct a mobile Tau army, but now you are almost handicapping yourself by doing so and fighting the underlying construction of the army, while pure gunlines, which used to be suicidal builds used by inexperienced Tau players, can now just crush the opposition.

I think the old Tau army often gave an appearance of a long range gunline army, but it was not. This is probably because of the extra 6" of range on the pulse rifle and the extraordinary range on the railgun, but that was by and large the extent of Tau long range firepower. Both the elite choices, Crisis and Stealth Suits, along with most of the fast attack choices and the kroot operated within 24", and often optimally within 18", 12" or even closer. Virtually all these choices have some sort of enhance mobility. This meant that a huge chunk of the army where mobile, short range shooting based units, very similar to Sisters of Battle units in many respects.

Problem is a lot of things in 5th edition gave the appearance the old Tau army were a gunline army. Tau heavy support, especially broadsides, were arguably the strongest units in the codex which resulted in a lot of heavy support heavy armies with a disproportionate amount of long range fire. Also, the one weapon Tau Crisis Suits had that had a range greater than 24" was the missile pod, which just so happened to be the specialized for taking out light armor. Against the ubiquitous parking lot armies of 5e, Tau players would often eschew other Crisis Suit weapons in favor of all missile pod loadouts because it was all they could do to stop the endless wave of vehicles being sent against them. Hence you got armies that were nothing but firewarriors, Deathrain Crisis Suits and Broadsides which tended to give the mistaken impression the Tau ran gunlines.

When the Tau codex finally got updated, they got enough firepower to make up for two editions worth of codex creep. However, despite armies getting significantly faster and more mobile due to codex changes sense 4e, Tau mobility was severely hampered through the loss of multitrackers and A.S.S. Coupled with rubbish codex flyers, dependence on markerlights which are fielded cheapest if stationary, and a transport that never received a badly needed points discount given out in virtually every other dedicated transport in the game since the old Tau codex, the new Tau codex tends to encourage gunline armies. The Tau army and 40k are poorer for the changes in this particular direction.

You...I like you. You are smart.

But yeah, that's basically it right there. Tau lost some of their mobility with the new update and devilfish remain overpriced and useless. You can't blame the Tau player for playing to their armies strengths, blame GW for pigeonholing us into a single, boring style of play that also happens to be unpopular.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
I honestly think that Eldar, Eldar/Tau, Tau/Eldar & Daemons earn far more hatred than just Tau by their little 'ol selves.

I also think that a bigger issue is that last edition, Loyalist Marines & Guard were the undisputed kings and Xenos armies were laughably outclassed for the most part. Marine players got used to just batting an eyelash at the likes of Tau/Eldar/'Nids/Daemons/Oldcrons and watching them fall over.
Now that we're all mostly updated instead of floundering with 10+ year old rules, (Just Orks & 'Nids left out in the old!), Xenos as a whole kicks arse and can compete with Marines & even table them.

Spoiled, over entitled Marines players are now having to learn a new game where Xenos armies are on an even footing and sometimes slightly above.

Yes. Because somehow it is always the fault of the Space Marines. Seriously? Why all the SM hate? I also think you are wrong. Most players also have a different army next to their SM.

Last edition Imperial players in general had the best of everything and the top tier armies were ALL Loyalist codices... SW's, BA's, IG, GK's, they ruled the roost and playing a Xenos army overall was pretty much like trying to chew on a glass sandwich filled with nails.
Now that most of the Xenos books have been updated though, all of a sudden "Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Taudar/Eltau/Helldrakes" are no fun and are apparently needing to be heavily comped/banned. (Feast of Blades for example is literally telling Daemons to go suck a lemon in their 1st draft comp, while the Riptide is being hinted at being nerfed to a 0-1 choice!)

So yes, part of the problem is Marine players getting whiny again.

Disclaimer: I say this as a Black Templars player, i.e. an army that shared the "glass sandwich" with Xenos in 5th and which doesn't even exist as a standalone army in 6th.

Orks, DE, and Necrons did just fine. Further, if it was unfair that Xenos were weaker in 5th, why is it suddenly OK that they're more powerful in 6th? It cuts both ways you know. Trying to blame Marine players for being "whiny" while ignoring the massive amount of hate that Marines took for all of 5th edition from (primarily) Xenos players is dishonest at best, and outright lying at worst. If there's any faction that's "fair game" for jibes, veiled (or open) insults and belittling comments in the 40k hobby, it's Marines. Whining about Marine players whining is just silly.



EDIT: +1 to Phaniaxis.

And I am chaos! Where do I go on this list!? We haven't had a good codex (a few op lists, several good, why must thousand sons always be bad?) since 3.5! But yeah, Tau suffer from a combination of multiple aspects that amount into the oddly large amount of dislike for them.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think the majority of people just hate Tau because of their anime look. I mean all the silly head crests, the gem encrusted weapons and armor, the pointless loincloths on robots, guns that shoot shurikens, and high heels on their robots.

Oh. Wait.

Seriously, the whole mecha aspect is not something that's only found in anime. If anything the Tau are very far from an anime and more in line with a Mechwarrior style since they favor function over flair. If you honestly think that Tau are too anime-ish, then you probably aren't too familiar with sci-fi, anime, and/or Tau.

Also I'd have to point out that anime isn't even a genre. It's more of a medium. It's the same as saying "I don't like Flames of War because it's far too live-action looking". I know that it's generally referring to the style, but I really don't like things like Cowboy Bebop, Macross Plus, FLCL, and One Piece falling into the same category as any of the thousands of "Harem" shows, G Gundam, and Naruto.

Can you break this down for those of us who have had sex with girls?

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think the majority of people just hate Tau because of their anime look. I mean all the silly head crests, the gem encrusted weapons and armor, the pointless loincloths on robots, guns that shoot shurikens, and high heels on their robots.

Oh. Wait.

Seriously, the whole mecha aspect is not something that's only found in anime. If anything the Tau are very far from an anime and more in line with a Mechwarrior style since they favor function over flair. If you honestly think that Tau are too anime-ish, then you probably aren't too familiar with sci-fi, anime, and/or Tau.

Also I'd have to point out that anime isn't even a genre. It's more of a medium. It's the same as saying "I don't like Flames of War because it's far too live-action looking". I know that it's generally referring to the style, but I really don't like things like Cowboy Bebop, Macross Plus, FLCL, and One Piece falling into the same category as any of the thousands of "Harem" shows, G Gundam, and Naruto.

Can you break this down for those of us who have had sex with girls?

And for us who are girls?

The quick way to look at is like this; there are genres and there are mediums. Mediums are ways the story is told; such as claymation, live-action, puppet, stop motion, animated and such. Genre is sci-fi, western, historical, and so on. Anime encompases many different genres like Cowboy Bebop (sci-fi western), One Piece (Pirate, comedy, steam punk, sci-fi), and Grave of the Fireflies (Historical drama).

When you say they look too anime-like, it's a nonsense phrase. It's like you don't like the look of the ships in Star Wars and you say that it's just too "live-action" for you that you prefer gritty Historical War style, even though there are plenty of live action gritty historical war style settings out there.

My only real problems with the tau are markerlights and the high strength low AP ignores cover. I don't care about lots of high S low AP attacks, but the fact that alot of their attacks are only gonna allow invulns does bother me. Particularly for armies like eldar who rely on cover saves. Shouldn't even have to explain why I dislike marker lights. I don't hate the tau I just think they should have been done differently.

I don't like tau designs that much personally.

Battlesuits are silly - ton for ton, something on treads is better than something on legs in 99% of cases.

Hovertanks are silly - using up engine power just to stay in the air doesn't make sense. And how does one fire a solid-slug weapon at immense velocities without sliding backwards with disturbing rapidity? If it's because the engine is working against the recoil, then why don't they just make the main gun a Directed Energy Weapon that uses not only the same power used to fire the railgun, but also is enhanced with the engine power that would have been spent reducing the recoil as well?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Battlesuits are silly - ton for ton, something on treads is better than something on legs in 99% of cases.

Not really. Remember, Tau battlesuits aren't walkers, they're (book) Starship Troopers-style heavy power armor with jet packs. It makes sense to have them fight like infantry in the kind of difficult terrain/buildings/etc where vehicles aren't a very good idea.

(Of course the Riptide is pretty stupid, but GW never should have released such a fluff-ignoring abomination.)

Hovertanks are silly - using up engine power just to stay in the air doesn't make sense.

Actually it makes a lot of sense. That's a huge difference in mobility compared to a ground vehicle, even ignoring the fluff of Tau tanks being a lot faster than Imperial equivalents. A tracked vehicle is going to be slowed or stopped by things like tank traps, deep mud/water, rubble, etc, that a hover tank can just ignore. And then you have fun abilities like using the lift engines to "jump" above cover, take a shot, and drop back before any return fire can even aim properly. Essentially Tau have managed a ridiculous feat of engineering and made a vehicle that has all of the best parts of a helicopter and a tank, without the drawbacks of either.

And how does one fire a solid-slug weapon at immense velocities without sliding backwards with disturbing rapidity?

Easily. I've done the math on it and unless you assume railguns are far more powerful than any conventional tank gun (in which case a little recoil is a small price to pay) a Hammerhead is pushed back at a slow walking pace at most. The tank's engines would easily be able to correct for it, so the only real effect would be the same need to reset the gun's aim for the next shot that any conventional tank has to deal with.

If it's because the engine is working against the recoil, then why don't they just make the main gun a Directed Energy Weapon that uses not only the same power used to fire the railgun, but also is enhanced with the engine power that would have been spent reducing the recoil as well?

Because the additional engine power required is minimal (well within normal thrust levels), engine power can't necessarily be converted efficiently into electrical power for a laser (look at the efficiency losses in drawing power from a jet engine to drive a generator), the input energy to shot energy ratio for railguns may be better than for energy weapons, and energy weapons and solid shot have entirely different damage mechanics.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Battlesuits are silly - ton for ton, something on treads is better than something on legs in 99% of cases.

Not really. Remember, Tau battlesuits aren't walkers, they're (book) Starship Troopers-style heavy power armor with jet packs. It makes sense to have them fight like infantry in the kind of difficult terrain/buildings/etc where vehicles aren't a very good idea.

(Of course the Riptide is pretty stupid, but GW never should have released such a fluff-ignoring abomination.)

So, you're saying, battlesuits are ok except for the one that isn't ok. Got it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hovertanks are silly - using up engine power just to stay in the air doesn't make sense.

Actually it makes a lot of sense. That's a huge difference in mobility compared to a ground vehicle, even ignoring the fluff of Tau tanks being a lot faster than Imperial equivalents. A tracked vehicle is going to be slowed or stopped by things like tank traps, deep mud/water, rubble, etc, that a hover tank can just ignore. And then you have fun abilities like using the lift engines to "jump" above cover, take a shot, and drop back before any return fire can even aim properly. Essentially Tau have managed a ridiculous feat of engineering and made a vehicle that has all of the best parts of a helicopter and a tank, without the drawbacks of either.

I guess. Depending on the method of hover, of course, but tracked vehicles have other properties that hover vehicles lack, such as the ability to have increased weight (seriously, if you think powered anti-gravity holding up 70 tons isn't wasting a LOT of juice that could go elsewhere, you're silly) without too much wasted power. There's also the ability for the tank to fight after having suffered major engine damage. You also are perturbed less by electrical damage; e.g. an internal combustion engine powering a conventional drive train isn't really worried about power surges as much as a handwavium-powered antigravity drive.

In fact, this illustrates my main problem with the Tau. They're basically the 'handwavium' faction.

 Peregrine wrote:

And how does one fire a solid-slug weapon at immense velocities without sliding backwards with disturbing rapidity?

Easily. I've done the math on it and unless you assume railguns are far more powerful than any conventional tank gun (in which case a little recoil is a small price to pay) a Hammerhead is pushed back at a slow walking pace at most. The tank's engines would easily be able to correct for it, so the only real effect would be the same need to reset the gun's aim for the next shot that any conventional tank has to deal with.

I do assume that railguns are far more powerful than conventional tank guns. The Vanquisher, noted as rare and hard to build, is Str 8 AP 2 (admittedly with armorbane, shrug). This represents, for me, an average high-velocity antitank gun, given 38,000 years of development. Now compare that to the Str 10, AP1 Tau railgun and tell me that there isn't a major power difference.

 Peregrine wrote:

If it's because the engine is working against the recoil, then why don't they just make the main gun a Directed Energy Weapon that uses not only the same power used to fire the railgun, but also is enhanced with the engine power that would have been spent reducing the recoil as well?

Because the additional engine power required is minimal (well within normal thrust levels), engine power can't necessarily be converted efficiently into electrical power for a laser (look at the efficiency losses in drawing power from a jet engine to drive a generator), the input energy to shot energy ratio for railguns may be better than for energy weapons, and energy weapons and solid shot have entirely different damage mechanics.

There must be some way to convert engine power to electrical power efficiently. Railguns are fired by electrical power. I suppose you could power your railgun with some sort of battery - but really? A battery? For a RAILGUN? And as far as the damage mechanics - yes, it's true. I suppose if you like having to store ammunition and deal with recoil, then a railgun is better than a DEW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Eh, my last post was a bit harsh. After reflection, I suppose I should reconsider my position, so I will...

...those damn dirty Eldar and their handwavium. *grumps*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So, you're saying, battlesuits are ok except for the one that isn't ok. Got it.

Yes, except for the one that was a blatant milking of the "large MC kit" cash cow that ignored the existing fluff that the Tau don't use anything that big.

I guess. Depending on the method of hover, of course, but tracked vehicles have other properties that hover vehicles lack, such as the ability to have increased weight (seriously, if you think powered anti-gravity holding up 70 tons isn't wasting a LOT of juice that could go elsewhere, you're silly) without too much wasted power.

Sure, that's the design tradeoff you make. The tracked LRBT carries a lot of tons of armor and gets AV 14, the Hammerhead sacrifices some of that armor for a huge improvement in mobility.

There's also the ability for the tank to fight after having suffered major engine damage.

Of course the value of that depends on the firepower you're facing. If anti-tank weapons are usually a one-shot kill then if you take a hit that damages the engine the rest of the tank is probably a burning wreck. And remember that the tabletop game scales down the effectiveness of those anti-tank weapons to give vehicles a chance to survive past the first turn. In the fluff you have to consider things like a Vulture popping up from behind a hill and one-shotting eight different LRBTs with its anti-tank missiles. In that case the Hammerhead's mobility and ECM are much more valuable since they allow it to avoid suffering the damage entirely.

You also are perturbed less by electrical damage; e.g. an internal combustion engine powering a conventional drive train isn't really worried about power surges as much as a handwavium-powered antigravity drive.

Which is complete speculation. It could be the exact opposite, an internal combustion engine can still have electrical parts while the antigravity drive might have such a high tolerance for things like power surges that it's effectively immune to them.

I do assume that railguns are far more powerful than conventional tank guns. The Vanquisher, noted as rare and hard to build, is Str 8 AP 2 (admittedly with armorbane, shrug). This represents, for me, an average high-velocity antitank gun, given 38,000 years of development. Now compare that to the Str 10, AP1 Tau railgun and tell me that there isn't a major power difference.

I don't mean "kind of better", I mean orders of magnitude better. To get meaningful recoil on a Hammerhead you're talking about a weapon that would go through one tank, through the tank next to it, and flatten the building behind them, without any real difficulty. And we just don't see that in the fluff or in the gameplay.

There must be some way to convert engine power to electrical power efficiently. Railguns are fired by electrical power.

Yes, but every stage of that conversion process has efficiency losses. It may be more efficient to fire the railgun and spend a tiny amount of thrust (and remember, the thrust engines may just be conventional jet engines) to counter the slight recoil than to try to make a laser that does the same amount of damage to an average target. Since neither weapon actually exists it's impossible to say which one requires more total power (weapon power + thrust + anything else) to achieve the same level of firepower. It's an engineering question that depends greatly on the exact system you're talking about, not a fundamental property of railguns or lasers.

I suppose you could power your railgun with some sort of battery - but really? A battery?

Yes, it's called a capacitor. Railguns would use them, and lasers would use them. You aren't firing continuously so you charge capacitors while you're moving to set up your next shot, and dump all of that energy into a single burst that vastly exceeds the maximum continuous power the tank can supply. But, again, this applies equally to both types of weapon.

And as far as the damage mechanics - yes, it's true. I suppose if you like having to store ammunition and deal with recoil, then a railgun is better than a DEW.

I think you missed the point here. Railguns (and other kinetic weapons) kill a target by mechanical deformation of the armor, producing either a penetrating hit that wrecks stuff inside or shattering the inside face of the armor and producing damaging splinters. Lasers kill a target by melting/vaporizing the armor until they hit something important (with a possible secondary effect of radiation or armor cracks/splinters from the shock of suddenly heating and expanding material). It's impossible to tell which of these methods will do more damage to a target (for a given input energy to the weapon) without building each of them and shooting them at the target you want to kill. And that's without even getting into specific countermeasures like ablative ceramic plates to stop lasers, or reactive armor to stop certain types of kinetic shots.

And sure, railguns have ammunition to store, but it's just inert metal spikes that don't take up all that much room. Meanwhile lasers may not use any ammunition directly, but they have appallingly low efficiency so you're probably stuck with expendable coolant to keep your gun from melting itself. So which would you rather have, some metal spikes or some 55 gallon drums of liquid nitrogen?

Finally, don't forget that physical ammunition is sometimes a good thing. A laser is always going to be a laser, but kinetic guns have a lot of interesting tricks available. Submunition rounds to kill whole squads of infantry while the laser can only kill the one person the beam hits, explosive demolition rounds to bring down buildings with a single shot, indirect fire rounds to kill a target without ever exposing yourself to return fire from the LOS-only laser, guided rounds to ensure a kill even at long range, etc.