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.

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

IK codex is written proof that armies that invalidate entire comps and playstyles will be part of the game for the foreseeable future.

Martel732 wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Stormravens are rather overcosted for the actual effect they have on the game in my experience. They shouldn't be scaring anyone, especially Tau. There won't be many pts left for Furiosos after paying the formation tax and HQ tax.

That formation won't be able to hold Riptides' jock straps once everything shakes out.

The main reason I stated this line of discussion is inane is because of IK's. IK's invalidate entire play styles and the entire Tau codex, but I don't the the vile hatred toward them that I see toward the Tau. The IA needs to be brought down in power a bit and the broadside options need to be re-tooled a bit as well and the Tau book will be fine. Supporting fire can be mean, but only if you're planning on charging with one unit. It gets no worse than normal overwatch once multiple charges start getting called in a single turn.

Also, terrain. I've seen a lot of **** terrain people play against Tau on. Line of sight blocking is a godsend when playing against Tau.

You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

Yes, counting that something the rulebook state should be there to actually be there is simply insane!

/sarcasm

I can see supportive fire being the command benefit for Tau's FoC thing.

The IA will likely become 20-30 points and HYMP probably 10-15 points.

The Tau "WILL" get nerfed at some point. Eventually every army gets the nerf-stick, this time around it was the tyranids.

I know that the subject is Tau Nerfs, but I do in fact believe that the most important thing to remember about the Tau Codex is that only some units in the Codex are really, really solid, while others are lacking. It's not that any unit is bad per say, but they aren't exactly stellar either, and don't bring anything meaningful and worthwhile to the table, that other choices (Riptide and Crisis Suits) can't.

Examples: Vespid aren't bad. They are flying anti-Meq Meqs. Problem is, that's what Crisis Suits are. Nothing Vespid does is unmanagable to Crisis... So they need some kind of help, if they need to be made into a stand alone unit, alongside new Models. Am I the only one thinking a dual Flying Vespid/Burrowing Assault Vespid pack? '

Stealth Suits have all they need to have, but again, their raw power is far below the Crisis Suits, and they are the same slot as well. Moving them to Fast Attack would be helpful, or giving them options for other, more supportive stuff. Oh, and Move through Cover. Maybe even add an Invisibility buff, that allows the unit to only be shot at with Snap Shots or Templates until the unit has revealed itself by shooting or being too close to the enemy?...

The fliers. Oh god the fliers. I don't even know what could help them... Again, not bad, but vastly outclassed by other choices (Riptide and Stealth Suits).

I'm not trying to change the subject here (altough I realise I'm doing just that right now). My point is that the Codex isn't internally balanced either. It has a lot of somewhat mediocre choices, who are okay when compared to other choices from other books, and then two swiss hobby-knife units, who can do anything well if equipped to do so. I'd rather have the Crisis Suits and Riptide nerfed, and the rest... Not buffed, but altered, to give me a reason to grab them.

Tau stealth teams were awesome but got nerfed when the night fighting rules changed in the 6th ed

Vespids are faster than Crisis Suits (Fleet + MtC) and have Hit and Run + very high I, making them good harrassment units. Stealth Suits can infiltrate.

Alcibiades wrote:
Vespids are faster than Crisis Suits (Fleet + MtC) and have Hit and Run + very high I, making them good harrassment units. Stealth Suits can infiltrate.

True, but are you really gonna pay 18 points per vespid with their crappy leadership,ok BS, T and armour. basically, would you rather have a squad of 4 vespids, or 8 fire warriors, it'll be the fire warriors any day.

FA has another issue for Tau: everything you put in there compwtes for a spot with Markerlights.

LordBlades wrote:
FA has another issue for Tau: everything you put in there compwtes for a spot with Markerlights.

Though now you can take multiple combined arms detachments, so this is less of an issue.

I've always seen these threads pop up, tau are a shooting army and if you are trying to out shoot them and don't manage to, that's not the tau's problem. If anything tau can't kill heavy armor very well anymore without getting up close, and no, hammerheads are not good at killing vehicles, they are good at being disappointments.

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

Reality =/= gameplay.

 Blacksails wrote:
Reality =/= gameplay.

Perhaps armies should be balanced such that one list doesn't need the crutch of a specific board set up to compete.

Its not a specific board set up.

Its called the rules.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its not a specific board set up.

Its called the rules.

Funny, I don't see any requirement for LOS blocking terrain in 7th ed. In fact, 6th ed didn't LOS blocking terrain, just terrain. I think most players play in their own little bubbles, including myself. I'm never going to get to play with as much LOS blocking terrain as everyone thinks there should be. Despite the fact that there is no guidance at all as to what there "should be".

Martel732 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

A Tau Commader without Orbital/Air supperiority and facing Titans would def not want to fight on the open plains - they woud be slaughtered in very short order as shown in the Taros Campaign

Often A Imperial is likely to want to fight in a built up area as it plays to the Imperium's strengths - same with Chaos.

Many commanders don;t get to choose their battlefield in reality.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

A Tau Commader without Orbital/Air supperiority and facing Titans would def not want to fight on the open plains - they woud be slaughtered in very short order as shown in the Taros Campaign

Often A Imperial is likely to want to fight in a built up area as it plays to the Imperium's strengths - same with Chaos.

Many commanders don;t get to choose their battlefield in reality.

But there's no effort at all shown in 40K. And in the 30-years war era, armies would march for months trying to get the perfect engagement.

Martel732 wrote:
95% of my problem with the Tau gets tied back to the Riptide. The rest is competitive and manageable for even BA, who are marines -1.

Im pretty sure most people who dont like Tau say the same.

I go through each codex and find a Riptide though. and thats kinda why I dont have sympathy for the point of view. I won't list them all because I know no one woul give that list the weighty and thoughtful answer it would require but every codex has this kind of thing in it.

If the PLAYER wants to spam, he can definitely do it. I really think this is a player thing. I also think that anyone whose faced a Triple Riptide list knows what they have to do to stop it. Like all things powerful (and expensive) it only catches you with pants down a couple times and then you adjust.

Which makes it even MORE a player and not codex isue because what I think, drilling even further, is that HAVING to adjust and change a prsons list is what they REALLY don't like. We've been on shifting sand for a bit because of the torrent of codex's (we asked for this for decades by the way) and so the equilibrium has been a little harder to find and purchasing more models isnt a popular thin to HAVE to do. But in the end, many players just have their collection and don't want to have to change in order to handle the new realities.

My own Chos Space marine list changed dramatically to adjust. Im fortunate that I own a lot of stuff and could adjust. Some dont have the fundage immediately. So they struggle and dont like it. I understand. But for all these codex's to be brought back to current, as GW has never done before, there were going to be these pains. about a year after the last of the new codex drops, I think the smoke will clear, and people will maybe have adjusted more thoroughly.

I also think 6E was to blame somewhat. I'm not a GW hater like some, but I can clearly see how much of an improvement 7E is and how abused the allies matrix had grown. Certain items in codex's and in the BRB just had to go to balance things and I love the direction of the newer codex'.

I hope it all works out in the end but these threads have cropped up for every codex Ive everr seen. This one will pass into history like all the others I imagine.

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps armies should be balanced such that one list doesn't need the crutch of a specific board set up to compete.

It's not a crutch, it's how the game should be played. The table should have a mix of open space, LOS blocking terrain, ruins, "area" terrain, etc. If you're playing on an open table with a small tree in the center as your only "terrain" of course the game is going to favor long-range shooting armies like Tau and IG. But that's not a problem with long-range shooting armies, it's a problem with your bad setup.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
The fliers. Oh god the fliers. I don't even know what could help them... Again, not bad, but vastly outclassed by other choices (Riptide and Stealth Suits).

Actually the Tau flyers are pretty good. The Barracuda is a decent AA fighter with a STR 8 AP 3 pie plate as an alternate shot, while the Remora is a cheap BC platform with some extra markerlight/seeker missile support. Sure, the codex flyers suck, but just pretend those pages say "buy IA3 and give us an extra $75" and the balance problem goes away.

", it's how the game should be played. "

Where does it say this?

Martel732 wrote:
", it's how the game should be played. "

Where does it say this?

In older editions they used to recommend enough terrain to at least cover 25% of the board, and to have a mix of various types (which would include LOS-blocking terrain, impassable terrain, hills, trees, etc.). Now on page 130 it literally just says to set up the table however the hell you want, and that they personally like using lots and lots of terrain (that they also happen to sell...coincidentally).

Everyone's been using LOS-blocking terrain ever since TLOS became a thing in 5th edition, and I'm not sure but I think the rulebook used to recommend using some LOS-blocking terrain as well. I'd go as far as saying that not having any, or even being opposed to using it at all, is kind of strange, but GW clearly doesn't care so long as you're playing the way you want to.

 Sidstyler wrote:
but GW clearly doesn't care so long as you're playing the way you want to buying Games™ Workshop™ Products™.

Fixed.

Martel732 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

No historical battle had two armies of equal strength stand across the battlerfield from each other and then start fighting

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

No historical battle had two armies of equal strength stand across the battlerfield from each other and then start fighting

Well, back in the era of the musket, this was how Europeian battles were fought. Two groups of guys would line up, and open fire at each other, until one group broke. However, while this is great in the large fields of Europe, when the Brithish tried to put down the American revolution, they found that the whole place was not a bunch of fields, and didn't adapt. Skip to 1812, and after adapting they nearly beat the Americans (the war was called off). Skip forward to 1939 and WWII, it's a whole new story. No one is fighting in the open, and troops hug whatever cover they can find. This has been the case ever since, and with new 40k tech, why the hell would anyone stand in the open with bucket loads of super guns pointing everywhere. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, yes, many battles were in fact fought in the open, and no, a tau commander would not do so.

(Minor grammar and spelling edit)

Also, "A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain"

...Commander Farsight, quite possibly the most successful and (in)famous Tau commander second only to Puretide himself, earned his name by taking advantage of the terrain and fighting mostly at close range to defeat the Orks at Arkunasha while being massively outnumbered. So no, a Tau commander wouldn't necessarily be any more capable of choosing where to fight than any other commander, and would be just as likely to use terrain to their advantage. Hell, that's exactly why crisis suits are so effective, moving from cover to cover to apply firepower while avoiding retaliation, which is a tactic that would be far easier to employ in an urban environment or a rocky canyon than a flat desert plain where there's nowhere to hide. Obviously Tau are better at range but they don't always get to play by their own rules, and the best Tau commanders adapt.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Vespids are faster than Crisis Suits (Fleet + MtC) and have Hit and Run + very high I, making them good harrassment units. Stealth Suits can infiltrate.

True, but are you really gonna pay 18 points per vespid with their crappy leadership,ok BS, T and armour. basically, would you rather have a squad of 4 vespids, or 8 fire warriors, it'll be the fire warriors any day.

Well they have the same BS and armour as firewarriors and higher T, and unlike the fire warriors they have AP3 assault weapons and can drop over obstacles and move through cover and generally zip around fast (+stealth in ruins). And don't they have higher Ld with a strain leader than firewarriors do?

Depends on playstyle I suppose.

Is someone seriously arguing (for all intents and purposes), "I should be able to beat Tau without any cover or LoS blocking terrain; if I can't they're clearly too OP."?

There are 2 things to come out of this.
A) this should not be a legitimate tactic for any army, and if you can't beat an army without terrain, it has very little representation of the army's power.
B) do people believe Tau should be able to be beaten by walking across the field? This suggest either that was how things were (because the army was awfully underpowered for a time) and we don't like it now Tau can fight back, or Tau should be one of those armies that everyone can steamroll all the time.

People arguing about the use of terrain clearly have no idea how to win a battle.

I still don't disagree that Tau might need some minor tweaks, but I don't think they're insanely OP.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You cant' count on it and I shouldn't need special terrain to be able to compete against any army.

LOS blocking terrain isn't "special", it's a normal part of the game that most (if not all) tables should have.

Why? Many battles historically were fought out in the open. A Tau commander would always choose to fight where this is minimal terrain.

No historical battle had two armies of equal strength stand across the battlerfield from each other and then start fighting

Err actually they did - check out the hsitory books! - some battles were fought in open terrain, some with terrain of one sides choice, some simply as a case of where they ahppened to meet ach other, Some battles were deffinately arranged and the armies drawn upto face each other - some are defensive actions = there has always been quite a bit of variability in hw battles are fought. 40 warfare tends to be somewhat like WW1, WW2 or modern day and all of these would normally be fought in a vairety of terrain - rarely just in flat open fields

Ld6 is fething pitiful, and even if you pay the points for a strain leader to mitigate it, Precision Shots are in the game now and it wouldn't take much effort for someone to just kill the leader.

In any case, it doesn't matter how good or bad they are, they will never see play as long as they're competing with markerlights for a place. You just lose way too much and gain practically nothing by giving up markerlights for them. Honestly, even if you moved them to Troops they would still lose out to fire warriors because they can put out more firepower, especially with ethereal or fireblade buffs; why bother with AP3 when you can kill Marines by just pouring tons of shots into them? Make them roll enough dice and they're bound to fail saves eventually. And AP3 isn't that big a deal when you have a spammable unit dropping AP2 templates every turn anyway, which isn't a much more significant investment of points and is also more mobile and more durable.

I don't know what it would take to really fix them, honestly, but make no mistake they do need to be fixed. They're a pile of crap compared to just about every other unit in the Tau army and they don't really scare anyone.