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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Im pretty sure opinions are whats happening on forums. Just saying.

And yeah. Its a myth I've proven false again and again and I have a bunch of battle reports to prove it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Erm, actually, it is a myth, for example, dark eldar moving across the board turn one to disgorge some incubi into my left flank and kill all 24 of the fire warriors there (edit) in close combat. Believe me, it's a myth.

 Jancoran wrote:
Not gonna' "tone it down". If you cant handle words used for emphasis, try another forum.

I can handle it, but I don't see what a rant about people's height and how you now boss them around serves your argument at all.
But freedom of speech and all that, so carry on

 Jancoran wrote:

You used "arguably" a lot in these sentences and that's exactly right. It is and I do argue it.

Good. Different opinions and rational debate is how we discover these things. I don't travel to play, work forbids it really, so my sample size is somewhat limited.

 Jancoran wrote:

I can get my guys into close combat and I dont whine about it when a few die on the way in. My Night Lords, my Coven, My Dark eldar, my Grey Knights, my Ravenguard and so on all get their just fine.

I can see how Dark eldar and Coven manage it (I think their problem against most armies is that they aren't very good at close combat outside of a few units, not that they can't reach it...unless they don't go first), but how are you managing this with Chaos, Ravenguard, and Greyknights? They don't have good options for reaching CC against the tau.

 Jancoran wrote:

Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

I wasn't crying, I don't play armies for power levels. I played them because I liked the society and mobile firepower, so I continued to play them. They did need a buff then, and most of my group was willing to admit it (except this one Necron player. He's a bit of an ass though, thinks Cryx is underpowered against Skorne for example).
And I am not claiming it is impossible. I claimed it was exceedingly difficult for units that aren't extremely tough or fast, which is, for most dexes, 1 maybe 2 units. For an army that has a weakness that is close combat, that seems a bit extreme, but that is only my opinion. It's not like either of us work at GW, so ultimately this is just speculation and opinion swapping.

 Jancoran wrote:

You know, sometimes I lose. and sometimes when I lose, Tau happened to be the opponent. I think that had a little to do with the General. I own like 11 Codex armies now and so i think I have a pretty decent view of whether or not the CODEX beat me.

I own every army nearly as well, so I think I have a decent view of the codexes (I do not own Sisters or DE. We only have 1 sister player and 2 De players, so my knowledge of them is more limited then I would care for). I lose games, everyone does in a dice game. Sometimes it's the general, although there isn't a lot a general can do against a pod list like what I play outside deployment, but often in 40k it's the codex and army list. The game isn't very complicated after all, despite the rules, and the large online community allows most people access to the better lists and strategies.

 Jancoran wrote:

The Codex doesn't win my games for me. doesnt lose them either. At some point the General needs to adjust and the codex needs to fad from your mind because honestly, the bitching and complaining on this particular forum is crazy.

Earlier you mentioned the Tau codex being weak in prior editions. I played with that codex at that time, and my lose rate did go up. I didn't lose all my games, I've been playing for a very long time after all, and know some tricks, but the lose rate still did go up despite me loving the army and playstyle. Me being a halfway decent general did allow me to win, but the codex certainly held me back from winning some match ups (like against Crons, or GK at the time). Sometimes it felt that there wasn't a lot I could do, especially if the other top 2 generals at my store were on the other end of the table.
When we both play marines, it's a pretty even game. Give us different codexes, and it changes.
Part of this is particular styles working better with people (I never like the top tier characters in most fighting games, for example, because I do not like rush down, but I still do alright). Part of this is the fact that the codexes are not balanced. Most of us who have been playing can name iconic lists or codexes that dominated stores from older editions.
Siren bomb, Iron Warriors, Rhino Rush, so on and so forth...this wasn't the case of good generals always picking the same armies (though I imagine that happened...used to be a lot of jumpers back in the day), some codexes are just easier to play and result in higher win rates.
It sucks if your codex is one of these and you DON'T run one of those lists. Jackasses will claim you only won because you play X, even if you're running banshees and falcons for example.
It's why I haven't played my Tau in a while.

 Jancoran wrote:

Even I, with my blog dedicated to unusual solutions to difficult 40K problems sometimes give in to the want to be critical. I for example hate Tzeentch Flying Monstrous Creature Circus's. I feel of all the army forms, it alone stands tall as one that you can beat but the entire game feels like a loss even when you pull it out. I admit to an open hatred of that list because its absolutely just not fun. It doesnt feel like an epic battle and thats what i like about 40K's scale of fights.

That's how a lot of people feel about Tau though. Sure, it can be beaten, nobody is claiming they are better than eldar for example, but they seem to have easy access to solutions for all of the problems a force like them should have.
I agree with you on how 40k battles should feel epic. If I'm playing it instead of warmachine, it's for the fluff and epic battle feeling you get that warmachine lacks.
Would you mind linking your blog? If it has battle reports I'd like to check it out.

 Jancoran wrote:

But the "not fun" factor plays a lot bigger with me than the cries for game designers heads.

Agreed.

 Jancoran wrote:

I don't play these Triple Tide power lists and most of my blog speaks to that. So i dont GET the hairy eyeball near as often from opponents. Im a breathe of fresh air when my weird armies show up just because they are different. But Im only able to play those types of lists if they ALSO provide answers to these key issues I outlined.

If you don't play those lists, that's fine. I don't either. But sometimes the...stink....rubs off on those that don't.
I played Chaos back in 3.5, an alpha legion list. I got a massive amount of hate because we had 2 iron warrior players and 1 siren bomb player (the latter was one of the best generals at our store and has an amazing emperor's children list).

 Jancoran wrote:

I dunno. It seems like a lot to do about nothing. Allies rules scrwed some things up for Tau Generals because of some of the craziness it allowed. I can see hate for allies. I can see hate for abusive players.

It is a lot to do about essentially nothing to be frank. It's not going to accomplish something, my store doesn't allow house rules so even if we came up with a good one I couldn't use it.
It's just venting.

 Jancoran wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Im pretty sure opinions are whats happening on forums. Just saying.

Reread your posts. You weren't stating opinions. You were attempting to disprove by presenting anecdotes as fact.
I really love the "opinion" that the Codex never loses the game for you, but the Tau Codex was a "constantly hapless victim".

And yeah. Its a myth I've proven false again and again and I have a bunch of battle reports to prove it.

Anecdotal evidence isn't.
And who cares that you're assaulting Fire Warriors. Woo freaking Hoo. Congrats?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Erm, actually, it is a myth, for example, dark eldar moving across the board turn one to disgorge some incubi into my left flank and kill all 24 of the fire warriors there (edit) in close combat. Believe me, it's a myth.

Wow - Fire Warriors. That's a challenge.

Why'd you move forward? Him getting a turn 1 assault is either you deploying poorly or you moving poorly.

Akiasura wrote:


how are you managing this with Chaos, Ravenguard, and Greyknights? They don't have good options for reaching CC against the tau.

Would you mind linking your blog? If it has battle reports I'd like to check it out.
.

Well my Night Lord List is well chronicled on the blog if you read backwards in time. It works awesome and is pretty much a melee based army. Death raining from above and in front of you. GRAR.

Ravenguard get up there just fine. I don't know what unit combos others use but the Ravenguard idea has always been fun to me and it's kind of why I made a Chaos Space Marines "version". That and I don't play Space Marines really. I have a lot of it but its not a passion for me.

Grey Knights are close combat monsters. they were obviously better before 7E. The changes were dramatic for Grey Knights. Despite those issues, they are very very fast. DreadKnights and jumpers can putthe pain on ya' and the Psyker phase with those is pretty epically cool. I havent got as many Grey Knight games in for 7E, but I just got two DreadKnights and fully intend to make that happen. =)

As a link to fins info on my thoughts and yes, definitely battle reports:

http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Im pretty sure opinions are whats happening on forums. Just saying.

Reread your posts. You weren't stating opinions. You were attempting to disprove by presenting anecdotes as fact.
I really love the "opinion" that the Codex never loses the game for you, but the Tau Codex was a "constantly hapless victim".

And yeah. Its a myth I've proven false again and again and I have a bunch of battle reports to prove it.

Anecdotal evidence isn't.
And who cares that you're assaulting Fire Warriors. Woo freaking Hoo. Congrats?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Erm, actually, it is a myth, for example, dark eldar moving across the board turn one to disgorge some incubi into my left flank and kill all 24 of the fire warriors there (edit) in close combat. Believe me, it's a myth.

Wow - Fire Warriors. That's a challenge.

Why'd you move forward? Him getting a turn 1 assault is either you deploying poorly or you moving poorly.

You love that opinion? Weird. Seems like you dont.

I was referring to the IMpRESSION most people had of the Tau and what they would do to them. And that thought has now been largely erased from their mind, and replaced with sour grapes over their IMpRESSION that they can no longer do it.

It just occurred to me: The arguments for nerfing Tau wouldn't exist if someone didn't feel like they were losing to it. Now would they? So my thought on this is, Tau Generals have had to play an unorthodox style of Warfare in order to win consistently, yes because the Codex was challenged a little. Most people dont even remember how the codex timing made certain gear almost immediately useless, and points costs almost immediately high. But the changed to 5E and later 6E and their timing with the Tau codex's that came before this one made it a challenge to play.

But I liked that about them. They could be devastating when played to their strengths. I won a lot of tournaments in 5E with Tau, and I suppose a few Best generals in the time 6E was around. But the new codex finally was a 'caught up" version that reflected the current and COMING realities of the other codex's and it probably did seem ridiculous when people showed up with 5 Riptides. but then... Those are player issues that were borne of the Allies matrix.

A bit of context helps when looking at this issue. But whatevs.

I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

And what's sad is that if you propose that maybe - just maybe - it's silly for a codex to be written like that, you get all kinds of rage saying things like "WE EARNED IT" or "GENERAL > CODEX LAWLZ" without someone actually trying to understand the issues.

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

I'd trade ATSKNF for assault jump moves any day. Same for Ignores Cover. Only things that really Ignore Cover in SM are a Libby power on chance roll, TF Cannon, and some Whirlwinds. Also, SM can't just give Ignores Cover to any unit. Also, would trade ATSKNF for targeting other units, although IIRC Tau have some of that, but not a ludicrous amount.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

I'd trade ATSKNF for assault jump moves any day. Same for Ignores Cover. Only things that really Ignore Cover in SM are a Libby power on chance roll, TF Cannon, and some Whirlwinds. Also, SM can't just give Ignores Cover to any unit. Also, would trade ATSKNF for targeting other units, although IIRC Tau have some of that, but not a ludicrous amount.

You know all those Firewarriors that crumple in combat? If they had ATSKNF, they could stay in combat to the last man and just laugh. They might even win some that way. ATSKNF is nothing to take for granted, it's amazing. Ignores cover savers for marines? And giving out rerolls and ignores coversaves is fairly easy with access to cheap librarians. Try flamers across every unit in the army, BA now have troop heavy Flamers. Orbital Strikes. Marines even have access to splitfire on some of their important units (centurions). I think with the rediculous access to allies that armies of IoM have. they have no right to complain about Tau. I might cut Nids a breaks and perhaps DE. That is about it.

Librarians can't take Div. Oh how I wish they could.

Certain CTs can.

I play orks.

So at range : no melta, no lance, no ignore cover, no access to anti armor grenades expect in tank bustas, no poison . Some one on the first page mentioned that every army has access to above mentioned things. So wanted to get that off my chest =p

Now as for tau. I think even as an ork, they are fine. I've lost to them plenty. Bit now I realized the loses were more due to my army that theirs.

Just had a game were I faced 3 riptides. Killed 2 with my shooting and finished the third off in cc.

Tau have a few weakness. First high armor if you screen it right from meltas. Armor 13 and 14 is rough for them. Second the mission. If they have to get and hold objectives , make sure you place objectives to where they have to advance. Again as an ork in place as many objectives as I can mid field. Third they rely on key units. Take them out first. Example if I can hurt the missile sides or kil a few quickly, it's a lot easier. If you can take out their marker lights do it.

My in game experience says they are rough , but can be handled.

 Coyote81 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

I'd trade ATSKNF for assault jump moves any day. Same for Ignores Cover. Only things that really Ignore Cover in SM are a Libby power on chance roll, TF Cannon, and some Whirlwinds. Also, SM can't just give Ignores Cover to any unit. Also, would trade ATSKNF for targeting other units, although IIRC Tau have some of that, but not a ludicrous amount.

You know all those Firewarriors that crumple in combat? If they that ATSKNF, they could stay in combat to the last man and just laugh. They might even win some that way. ATSKNF is nothing to take for granted, it's amazing. Ignores cover savers for marines? And giving out rerolls and ignores coversaves is fairly easy with access to cheap librarians. Try flamers across every unit in the army, BA now have troop heavy Flamers. Orbital Strikes. Marines even have access to splitfire on some of their important units (centurions). I think with the rediculous access to allies that armies of IoM have. they have no right to complain about Tau. I might cut Nids a breaks and perhaps DE. That is about it.

How many Librarians are you gonna take to try and get an Ignores Cover? Depending on your ML, you have a 1/3 shot, plus it takes up an HQ slot. I will agree with you on the Centurions and the Orbital Strikes. However, I play DA and have none of that.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

Skyrays don't have to Snap Shot at Flyers. Really want one dead but out of missiles or don't want to use them there? 2 lights gives that Pathfinder unit BS3 Snap Shots, which ramps up to let some other unit blow the Flyer out of the sky. Or Supporting Fire - because why not toss Markerlights at a unit charging something else?

The "can't ally with your own codex" is mostly irrelevant now with multiple detachments. It's one more troop than an allied detachment. Zomgtehbennies. And you listed things that are mostly irrelevant (combat squads can be "duplicated" by taking multiple 5 man teams... They just can't share a transport). ATSKNF is a rule I likewise hate, and Drop Pod Assault is fluffy but also stupid. You listed 4 things for C: SM and 2 were stretches. I listed 6 for Tau (and there's more) and 2 were stretches (really 1, but I'll give you Snap Shots for the sake of argument).

Pretending other codexes do it to the same extent is just that.

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
I play orks.

So at range : no melta, no lance, no ignore cover, no access to anti armor grenades expect in tank bustas, no poison . Some one on the first page mentioned that every army has access to above mentioned things. So wanted to get that off my chest =p

Now as for tau. I think even as an ork, they are fine. I've lost to them plenty. Bit now I realized the loses were more due to my army that theirs.

Just had a game were I faced 3 riptides. Killed 2 with my shooting and finished the third off in cc.

Tau have a few weakness. First high armor if you screen it right from meltas. Armor 13 and 14 is rough for them. Second the mission. If they have to get and hold objectives , make sure you place objectives to where they have to advance. Again as an ork in place as many objectives as I can mid field. Third they rely on key units. Take them out first. Example if I can hurt the missile sides or kil a few quickly, it's a lot easier. If you can take out their marker lights do it.

My in game experience says they are rough , but can be handled.

Do you own a gorkaught or morknaught named mom? I literally just watched a game where an ork player played against 3 riptide tau with farsighted and won. He brought 60 boys. Weird.

what are the arguments for why the tau army isn't cheesy again? I honestly don't know. Also it would be nice if they weren't immune to blind I mean ist a rule specifically designed against shorting armies but tau get to ignore it. It would be nice if the riptide would be fixed also maybe they can go a little easy on the strength 7 spam you know I so running rhinos aren't useless.

If Tau get nerfed then so should SM. They should:

Lose Chapter Tactics (way too good).

Lose ATSKNF (ignoring morale and not being able to be over ran is extremely cheesy).

Lose the Drop Pod Assault rules (they should have to come in earliest turn 2 like Tyranids' drop pods).

Combat squads should be scrapped (too cheesy).

Grav weapons should go die (extremely cheesy) or make them like 40points for a grab gun.

Bikes should be made FA only (but it wouldn't surprise me if they were the only codex to keep FO swaps, 'cuz you know... SPEEESHHH MUREEEENZZZZ)

No special or heavy weapons on tactical squads (gives them too much versatility to overcome any opponent, so if Tau aren't allowed to do it then neither should SM)

Sternguard should lose their ammo (no other army has that much access to different ammo types, so why should SM?)


These changes will nerf SM into the ground as they're too versatile and too powerful!

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

I'd trade ATSKNF for assault jump moves any day. Same for Ignores Cover. Only things that really Ignore Cover in SM are a Libby power on chance roll, TF Cannon, and some Whirlwinds. Also, SM can't just give Ignores Cover to any unit. Also, would trade ATSKNF for targeting other units, although IIRC Tau have some of that, but not a ludicrous amount.

You know all those Firewarriors that crumple in combat? If they that ATSKNF, they could stay in combat to the last man and just laugh. They might even win some that way. ATSKNF is nothing to take for granted, it's amazing. Ignores cover savers for marines? And giving out rerolls and ignores coversaves is fairly easy with access to cheap librarians. Try flamers across every unit in the army, BA now have troop heavy Flamers. Orbital Strikes. Marines even have access to splitfire on some of their important units (centurions). I think with the rediculous access to allies that armies of IoM have. they have no right to complain about Tau. I might cut Nids a breaks and perhaps DE. That is about it.

How many Librarians are you gonna take to try and get an Ignores Cover? Depending on your ML, you have a 1/3 shot, plus it takes up an HQ slot. I will agree with you on the Centurions and the Orbital Strikes. However, I play DA and have none of that.

Playing any IoM army gives you plenty of options. Bring some Inquisitors. They're great for Div casters and cheap. Bring other space marine librarians. BA get Div, so do space wolves. Just saying you have lots of options, and yes they take FoC slots and costs points. I don't remember pathfinders/markerdrones and other markerlight sources being free/FoC slotless and comparing how easy to kill they are......

Maybe we should discuss shooting priorities when playing against Tau?

SGTPozy wrote:


Grav weapons should go die (extremely cheesy) or make them like 40points for a grab gun.

This grab gun, is it similar to the Mek gun that if you roll a 8 (I think) you automatically are teleported to it and count as being in assault? If so this is a very interesting piece of equipment, I would gladly pay 40 points for it in fact it seems like a steal for that price actually, essentially a reusable drop pod, but even better because it avoids overwatch!

 Coyote81 wrote:

Playing any IoM army gives you plenty of options. Bring some Inquisitors. They're great for Div casters and cheap. Bring other space marine librarians. BA get Div, so do space wolves. Just saying you have lots of options, and yes they take FoC slots and costs points.

Because no one playing IoM could possibly want to just play their own army.

In the same way that every Dark Eldar player must also want to take Eldar allies.

 vipoid wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:

Playing any IoM army gives you plenty of options. Bring some Inquisitors. They're great for Div casters and cheap. Bring other space marine librarians. BA get Div, so do space wolves. Just saying you have lots of options, and yes they take FoC slots and costs points.

Because no one playing IoM could possibly want to just play their own army.

In the same way that every Dark Eldar player must also want to take Eldar allies.

By the same line of thinking a Tau player could want to play withot Riptides or Markerlights.

Options exist (or don't) independently of one's willingness to use them.

Comparing a Tau army that uses all the best options it has atit's duspisal with an IoM army that doesn't because the hypothetical player might not want to is neither fair nor relevant

LordBlades wrote:

By the same line of thinking a Tau player could want to play withot Riptides or Markerlights.

Options exist (or don't) independently of one's willingness to use them.

You really see no difference between having options in your own book and having them in an entirely different book?

LordBlades wrote:

Comparing a Tau army that uses all the best options it has atit's duspisal with an IoM army that doesn't because the hypothetical player might not want to is neither fair nor relevant

So, you'd be happy with Tau having their options stripped so long as you could ally with other races to pick up the slack?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I have about a 50/50 won/loss vs Tau with Tyranids, so it's not sour grapes that I'm losing all the time. It's just frustration that the codex is literally designed to ignore all the normal rules of 40k. Cover? Don't care. Night time? Don't care. Snapshots? Don't care. Can only target one unit? Don't care. Low BS? Don't care. LoS? Don't care. Only one movement phase? Don't care.

This would be a much more convincing argument if other armies didn't do their share of ignoring the "normal" rules. For example, C:SM: morale? ATSKNF. Units have to stay together? Combat squads. Can't do all-reserve armies anymore? Drop pods. Can't ally with your own codex? Just pick two different chapters. Plus, some of those ways that Tau ignore the "normal" rules don't really mean much. Who cares if Tau ignore night fighting when it's just a +1 cover bonus for one turn. And sure, you can fire snap shots at higher BS, but only if you have a ton of marketlights available (and those markerlights will often be firing snap shots).

Skyrays don't have to Snap Shot at Flyers. Really want one dead but out of missiles or don't want to use them there? 2 lights gives that Pathfinder unit BS3 Snap Shots, which ramps up to let some other unit blow the Flyer out of the sky. Or Supporting Fire - because why not toss Markerlights at a unit charging something else?

The "can't ally with your own codex" is mostly irrelevant now with multiple detachments. It's one more troop than an allied detachment. Zomgtehbennies. And you listed things that are mostly irrelevant (combat squads can be "duplicated" by taking multiple 5 man teams... They just can't share a transport). ATSKNF is a rule I likewise hate, and Drop Pod Assault is fluffy but also stupid. You listed 4 things for C: SM and 2 were stretches. I listed 6 for Tau (and there's more) and 2 were stretches (really 1, but I'll give you Snap Shots for the sake of argument).

Pretending other codexes do it to the same extent is just that.

You DO understand how laughable that "markerlight chain" that you described is, right?
You have your 120ish point skyray stand still (and didn't jink last turn) just to fire 2 marks on the flyer, HOPING for two hits on two BS4 shots (hint-your average is 1.33 hits), than you give it to yet ANOTHER unit in range that is about as durable as cultists that for itself cost a fair deal (assuming 8 pathfinders so it will be meaningful, for an average of 3 marker hits after the pathfinders shot- that's 88 more points)
You just spend north of 200 points in order to have a single THIRD unit gain the ability to shoot down the enemy flyer. a unit that in itself was probably an investment of 150 points at the very least for it to be a legit threat with its firepower.
So about 350 points, minimum, to take out a flyer. correction-to have a decent chance.
And all it took is for your target to be in range of two different immobile marker units who are rather fragile to begin with, and a third unit that packs guns who are enough to be a legit threat to said flyer who is also in range of it.
This strategy is simply WONDERFUL, when I am already in a massive lead.
And it depends on the fact the flyer itself did not target the skyray, the pathfinder OR the unit that can threaten it to begin with. and entered the range of all three willingly.
So in short, its practically as bad as you can get. even just spamming snap shots with actual guns to begin with is more effective.


Or, on the other hand most armies can just pack a dedicated AA unit for less than 100 points derictly or through allies, have multipurpose AA units to begin with (every FMC), or host their own powerful aircraft anyway.
Tau themselves could have just acquired themselves real AA too! "markerlights against airplanes" only works as a gimmik last resort, and I know it full well as I employed it alot when I lacked actual AA in my lists, its NOT reliable, NOT efficient and NOT a decent plan.

As for combat squads being irrelevant-you must have zero forsight to not notice the power of being able to choose if you rather have one 10 man squad or 2 5 man squads AFTER seeing if the mission awards killpoints.

 vipoid wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

By the same line of thinking a Tau player could want to play withot Riptides or Markerlights.

Options exist (or don't) independently of one's willingness to use them.

You really see no difference between having options in your own book and having them in an entirely different book?

LordBlades wrote:

Comparing a Tau army that uses all the best options it has atit's duspisal with an IoM army that doesn't because the hypothetical player might not want to is neither fair nor relevant

So, you'd be happy with Tau having their options stripped so long as you could ally with other races to pick up the slack?

Let me rephrase my point:
In
Battle-brothers are a thing and IoM is one big happy family, whether you or anyone else like it or not.

Balancing Tau or any other 'stand-alone' (no Battle Brothers) codex vs. lan average IoM codex will most likely result in Tau being weak as the IoM army can then use Battle Brothers to minimize their weaknesses or increase their strengths.

The possibility to ally with other codexes is a factor that shouldn't be discounted in a balance discussion IMO.

 BoomWolf wrote:


How many armies do NOT have cover ignoring guns to begin with? sure tau are in the unique position of "every gun MIGHT ignore cover", but unlike most they don't have much noteworthy guns that comes with in built-in. or with its likely counterpart of indirect fire, that tau got NONE. I'm not sure any other codex is in that spot.
.

Necrons. Who have almost nothing in the way of low-AP fire either. They are a volume of fire army.

LordBlades wrote:
Let me rephrase my point:
In
Battle-brothers are a thing and IoM is one big happy family, whether you or anyone else like it or not.

Balancing Tau or any other 'stand-alone' (no Battle Brothers) codex vs. lan average IoM codex will most likely result in Tau being weak as the IoM army can then use Battle Brothers to minimize their weaknesses or increase their strengths.

Sorry, but that is bad game design - no codex should require allies to cover necessities.

e.g. If Tau need the ability to deal with fliers, invisible units, melee etc,. then *every* codex should have they ability without allies.

Otherwise you're just tipping the balance the other way - with Tau being really strong on their own, and other armies needing the right ally combinations just to compete.

LordBlades wrote:
The possibility to ally with other codexes is a factor that shouldn't be discounted in a balance discussion IMO.

You're right, it shouldn't. But nor should it be an excuse to leave some books without answers to basic threats.


Personally though, I'd be infinitely happier if the 'Battle Brothers' rules died in a fire.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Its a MYTH, this "impossibility" of getting into melee with them

It's not a MYTH.

and no one was crying for Tau when they were constantly hapless victims, now did they? Now they can fight back a bit and people dont like it. The worst part of human nature, I swear. the crab pot effect.

Actually, people were. I was.

But that doesn't agree with your assertions of fact so you'll ignore it.

Erm, actually, it is a myth, for example, dark eldar moving across the board turn one to disgorge some incubi into my left flank and kill all 24 of the fire warriors there (edit) in close combat. Believe me, it's a myth.

Wow - Fire Warriors. That's a challenge.

Why'd you move forward? Him getting a turn 1 assault is either you deploying poorly or you moving poorly.

We were playing on a 4X4 board with 1000 points, so there wasn't masses of space, but I'll admit I could have placed them better.

 vipoid wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
Let me rephrase my point:
In
Battle-brothers are a thing and IoM is one big happy family, whether you or anyone else like it or not.

Balancing Tau or any other 'stand-alone' (no Battle Brothers) codex vs. lan average IoM codex will most likely result in Tau being weak as the IoM army can then use Battle Brothers to minimize their weaknesses or increase their strengths.

Sorry, but that is bad game design - no codex should require allies to cover necessities.

e.g. If Tau need the ability to deal with fliers, invisible units, melee etc,. then *every* codex should have they ability without allies.

Otherwise you're just tipping the balance the other way - with Tau being really strong on their own, and other armies needing the right ally combinations just to compete.

I agree 100%. Sadly GW and good game design rarely intersect.
Although, between 2 hyopthetical flawed situations:
A: Tau is as strong/versatile as IoM with allies and stronger/more versatile than any one IoM army.
B: Tau is as strong/versatile as an average IoM army, gets outclassed by IoM with allies
I find situation A slightly better.

Also, at the most academic level of discussion the allies rules are right there in the core rulebook, making them just as valid as any other rule in there.
An army should be competitive without allies. Subjectively I kind of agree, but objectively where you draw the line for the sake of a discussion:
No dataslates? No supplements? (they're separate books after all, much like allies), No ForgeWorld? No LoW? No fliers? No heavy support?

rigeld2 wrote:
Why'd you move forward?

Because if you don't people piss and moan about how "boring" it is to play against Tau because they're so "static".

LordBlades wrote:
An army should be competitive without allies. Subjectively I kind of agree, but objectively where you draw the line for the sake of a discussion:
No dataslates? No supplements? (they're separate books after all, much like allies), No ForgeWorld? No LoW? No fliers? No heavy support?

It does get tricky, you're right. Though, frankly, I don't think LoW should even be in standard games. Nor fliers, for that matter.

In terms of fliers, I think all armies should have ways to bring them down reliably without using fliers themselves. Otherwise it would be like only allowing tanks to carry anti-tank weapons.

With regard to supplements, no, an army certainly shouldn't need them to be competitive. They should be a different way to play an army, or a shift in focus - not just the army +1. Same with Dataslates.

No Heavy Support is an interesting one. It seems like it's something that should depend on the style of army.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 vipoid wrote:

LordBlades wrote:
An army should be competitive without allies. Subjectively I kind of agree, but objectively where you draw the line for the sake of a discussion:
No dataslates? No supplements? (they're separate books after all, much like allies), No ForgeWorld? No LoW? No fliers? No heavy support?

It does get tricky, you're right. Though, frankly, I don't think LoW should even be in standard games. Nor fliers, for that matter.

In terms of fliers, I think all armies should have ways to bring them down reliably without using fliers themselves. Otherwise it would be like only allowing tanks to carry anti-tank weapons.

With regard to supplements, no, an army certainly shouldn't need them to be competitive. They should be a different way to play an army, or a shift in focus - not just the army +1. Same with Dataslates.

No Heavy Support is an interesting one. It seems like it's something that should depend on the style of army.

That's how I see it, anyway.

If only GW saw it that way...
A few armies need dataslates and formations to work, and my store discourages them. Imo, the BA codex is somewhat weak, but with formations it is very good, maybe top tier.

LoW we are....a bit better about depending. Some special characters that people play became LoW so that we allow, but outside of that not really.

Despite owning fliers I agree. If they Hovered only, and suffered from maybe a -1 to hit instead of snapping all day, I'd be fine with them.