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.
I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book. It just so happens that my play area also favors lots of shooting lanes. So that blows everyone's bright of ideas out of the water. I have to weather pretty much their entire payload the entire fight.
It's also kind of pathetic in my mind to have to beg for a building or hill to hide behind. It kind of gives away right there that my list needs an advantage to compete.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/27 14:42:47
Personally I feel that unless its part of a specific scenario , wargaming is always enhanced by terrain and the tactical elements it provides and requires......
Was reading an intersting article in a wargaming mag recently abot hills and all the different aspects of them:
Command and Control: The ability to see an enemies movement and respond without them being able to do the same.
Movement: going up hills is hard work and even harder to charge effectively if HtH is involved , going down is easier and more powerful charges can be made
Firing : This was interesting element I had not heard of - apparently troops shooting firearms uphill tend to overshoot - there is awhole thing called the "Riflemans Rule" to compensate. Plus of course firing from hills have advantages in range and effectivvness - especially in low tech envrionments.
Concelment Most of the time you do no know whats on the other side............
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Fauk wrote: I played Tau myself, with a small army, and played against them, on games from 1,2k to 2,5k on a friendly and hard environment, with more than three armies in the past. The thing I noticed while playing with them and against them is that the main problem seems to be that every weakness the Tau army has can somehow be nullified. Sometimes it is easier to do this, and sometimes it is harder to do it.
For example:
Guy 1: Hm Markerlights are good, let’s make them heavy so that it can be a tough choice if you want to move or not. Guy 2: Yeah but make it 36", no cover saves against them, and give the guys holding them a scout move.These 2 things were in the previous Tau book and nobody complained about them. Pathfinders were also tougher in that book, having a 4+ save rather than 5+ Guy 3: Yeah and also give it to drones too so that they can benefit from JSJ, better toughness and a better armor save and the possibility to fire markerlights with BS5.
Guy 1: The broadsides have BS3 and their weapons are heavy too, should be good for enemies to keep them out of range. Guy 2: Yeah but give the rockets 36" and the other weapon 60" and make everything twinlinked for free to compensate for BS3. This is one thing which, if anything, has gotten better in the new codex. Previously Broadsides could gain Slow and Purposeful (which only lasted on that player turn, meaning they could still overwatch the next) using Advanced Stabilisation Systems then fire S10 AP1 railguns up to a range of 72" at full ballistic skill, no markerlights required. Or you could give them BS4 if you didn't mind them being stationary, again without needing markerlights. Now I think the XV88 railgun was nerfed a bit too much (I think it should be S9 AP1 maybe with a price increase back up to 70pts/model, it shouldn't be lower strength than a marine held lascannon) but that's just my opinion and my love of suits.
Guy 1: CC should be the weakness of the army, as tau are clearly focused on shooting. Guy 2: Lucky us that the shooting phase is way more dominant than the assault phase, but to be sure give them a better overwatch for free, and make it possible for the markerlights to boost the BF when firing snap shots.
Guy 1: Krisis are some cool multifunction units, with many strong weapons, which are somewhat short in range and with T4 and 3+ Armor it shouldn´t be so hard to kill them. Guy 2: Yeah but give them JSJ so that they have the potential to get up to two movement phases for free, so that they are not in any kind of danger after shooting in 9 out of 10 cases. Oh and let’s not forget that every single one can deepstrike to make up for that short range they have and that they can ignore most terrain freely to get that heavy weapons in range.This was also in the previous books and people didn't have a problem beating it then. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Missile Pod Crisis have long range, but the other weapon systems have 24" range at maximum. The way to beat Crisis teams has always been to outmanoeuvre them using fast units to give them no safe place to jump to then either hit them with heavy weapons or bury them in small arms fire. A unit of 3 crisis suits dies exactly the same as 6 marines to normal weapons, but is bigger and so less likely to be out of sight. It is also, when loaded up, much more expensive.
Guy 2: Let´s also find a way to ignore some other rules like night fighting and blind for free or 1 point only, and make it so that they can defend themselves against deep striking units, for 5 points on all the heavy weapon systems. BSF were in the previous codex, too. Tau have always been able to ignore Night Fighting either with BSF or previously with markerlights
So to make a long story short, I don´t think that Tau are far too strong, maybe the riptide with the IA is a problem, but besides him, the Tau simply needs some weaknesses where there isn´t a dirt cheap way to get around it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/27 15:00:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ah yes, yet more generic complaints that the Tau don't play as other armies do.
Irony is that the OP's suggestions are far from absolutely objectionable, but fear not! Here comes the butthurt brigade to complain about everything that makes the Tau a different and interesting army to play.
Yet more complaints about Supporting Fire, with zero consideration for the utter incapability of the Tau to do damage in close combat and that fact having severe consequences for balance if nothing is done about it.
Yet more complaints about markerlights, including some who seem to be exaggerating the actual effect of the mechanic while ignoring the costs in points and opportunities lost of using markerlights in numbers that permit "army-wide ignore cover" etc.
Yet more complaints about the Riptide as if it was a phenomenon of its own and not part of a cross-army trend.
40k meta is worse than politics.
Search & Destroy:
Inquisitor Ferenz Talan and his acolytes follow Colonel Mieza and the 16th Berdam Armoured back to their home system, in the hopes of rallying troops for a crusade against the Tau for their defeat on Falasten. However, upon arrival, they find that others have their eyes on the system.
Sidstyler wrote: 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 [i]anyone[i].
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
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 with only one shot which will miss half the time and due to its short range will almost always get outperformed by pulse rifles, point for point 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.
Fixed that for you
Tau don't need Assault 1 AP3 guns on fragile, expensive jump infantry. We already have AP2 guns with longer range and a more durable platform in the form of Crisis suits. We don't need S5 guns on fragile, expensive jump infantry. We can have S5 in troops with fire warriors or in Elite on crisis teams (a single crisis suit with dual burst cannons puts out the equivalent of over 3 times as many points worth of Vespid in terms of shots) and stealth teams (more durable in ruins than Vespid thanks to stealth shield generators), in fast attack on pirhana, pathfinders, drones.
There is one situation where Vespid will cause more wounds in shooting than an equal amount of points of fire warriors against Space Marines in the open and that is when the range to the target is 15" < range <= 18". In this case 12 Fire warriors will cause 1.3 wounds and 6 vespid will cause 2 wounds. However if the range were over 18" then vespid cause zero wounds and if the range were 15" or less the Fire warriors cause 2.6, on average. If the Marines were in cover the Vespid only get worse as it doesn't affect the Fire Warriors due to their AP5, whereas the Vespid get worse as the points paid for AP3 loses value.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/12/27 16:55:26
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Anyway, I am not trying to start a big Defense of Vespids Fund, so let's just leave it at that.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The riptide with:
Ion accelerator ( St 8 or 9 AP 2 large blast)
Twin plasma
feel no pain
interceptor
comes in at at 225
While my Morkanuaght base is 230 and with a kff, extra armor and got riggers is 310. And the ork naughts are looked at as pretty crappy subpar units.
So cheaper, more durable and can be supported by (markerlighys)or help support its army (overwatch) is a lower point value unit ? Too me that doesn't make sense.
I know have cheap troops and other units can be an argument, but I've seen plenty of 2 or 3 riptide lists. But I hardly see 1 naught or more armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/27 17:03:12
- Neva trust a Deff Skull , gitz just wanna take yur lootz
- Only good Deff Skull iz a Ded one !
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
I know, that's why it's less efficient, but then also gives redundancy -- the enemy cannot "sploosh! there go your markerlights" by targeting 1 or two squads.
It's more triangulation -- two stealth teams, say, targeting one tank. The first fires, but is unlikely to destroy it mathematically, but the marker light gives a boost to the next shooter. Who then gives a bost to the next one, if there is another one.
Again, I'm not going "rah rah!" for this idea -- just saying that it's there.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Anyway, I am not trying to start a big Defense of Vespids Fund, so let's just leave it at that.
Feed an oversized blue killer insect here!
We can't really have a reduction in how many 'Tides you can take, so wouldn't it make sense to move it to Heavy Support, so it can have fun with the Broadsides and Hammerheads instead... Maybe even move the Skyray to, say, Elite or Fast Attack?
Also, am I the only one wanting Pathfinders as Troops, costing around 8 pts standard, but 13 if with a Markerlight? I want Pathfinders as a means of attack, not just sitting still all the time :/
Also also, the regular Railgun could use some kind of boost in points + rules, to make the the obvious choice to go for armour. Armourbane maybe? Is that stretching it?...
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
I know, that's why it's less efficient, but then also gives redundancy -- the enemy cannot "sploosh! there go your markerlights" by targeting 1 or two squads.
It's more triangulation -- two stealth teams, say, targeting one tank. The first fires, but is unlikely to destroy it mathematically, but the marker light gives a boost to the next shooter. Who then gives a bost to the next one, if there is another one.
Again, I'm not going "rah rah!" for this idea -- just saying that it's there.
Mmmm, when I take stealth teams (so when I'm doing Farsight Enclaves lists, love crisis suits too much to not take them) I do often go for 3 minimal units in cover with marker drones and a loaded up shas'vre (Fusion Blaster, Markerlight+Target Lock, Homing Beacon, drone controller).
So opponent has to either:
a) ignore them, in which case I can get some marker light hits, maybe take down some infantry and threaten the rear of light vehicles and pose a potential risk to heavier armour. Then, when my crisis suits drop in I have 3 bubbles of no scatter to drop into which is pretty sweet.
b) try and kill them. Thanks to their cover save this can take quite a bit of firepower (unless they using ignores cover weaponry but then I have 3+ armour on top). Whilst they're doing this they're not focussing on the more dangerous parts of my army, leaving them more intact.
Also also, the regular Railgun could use some kind of boost in points + rules, to make the the obvious choice to go for armour. Armourbane maybe? Is that stretching it?...
The Hammerhead railgun? It needs to be twin-linked. One shot which misses a third of the time, then has to penetrate armour, then roll a 5+ to explode a vehicle is not that good. Making it less likely to miss is the first step to making it good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/27 17:19:22
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The riptide with:
Ion accelerator ( St 8 or 9 AP 2 large blast)
Twin plasma
feel no pain
interceptor
comes in at at 225
While my Morkanuaght base is 230 and with a kff, extra armor and got riggers is 310. And the ork naughts are looked at as pretty crappy subpar units.
So cheaper, more durable and can be supported by (markerlighys)or help support its army (overwatch) is a lower point value unit ? Too me that doesn't make sense.
I know have cheap troops and other units can be an argument, but I've seen plenty of 2 or 3 riptide lists. But I hardly see 1 naught or more armies.
Nauts are a bit overcosted for what they do IMO. On the other hand if you compare Riptide with Wraithknight or NEmesis Dreadknight you will see the disparity is much smaller.
EDIT: for example at 220 points you could get an NDK with
Personal Teleporter
Greatsword
Gatling Psilencer (12 Force shots)
Heavy Incinerator
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/27 18:06:37
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/27 18:54:25
Sidstyler wrote: 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[i].
Stingwings are cool. That some unit exists somewhere that can do bad things to them is not a reaso not to take them. That can be argues about anything in 40K. Lol
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary [i]for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
Not for me, not when that "meta" mostly dictates that your army is too broken to be playable, or that they clash so much with the established aesthetic that they really have no place in the universe anyway, etc.
Trying to reason with those kinds of people is impossible and it's soured me not only on the game but the community itself. I have so much hate and bitter contempt for my fellow gamer at this point it's just really sad.
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
Not for me, not when that "meta" mostly dictates that your army is too broken to be playable, or that they clash so much with the established aesthetic that they really have no place in the universe anyway, etc.
Trying to reason with those kinds of people is impossible and it's soured me not only on the game but the community itself. I have so much hate and bitter contempt for my fellow gamer at this point it's just really sad.
Oh no, I hate it too. I write on forums, follow the news and read reviews, while arguing about how the state of the game is at the moment, but I'm not a part of it myself, and none of my friends are. We are a strictly friendly bunch playing Campaign Kill Team with friendly and fluffy setups - I have never ever seen the shadow of the meta. I once brought a Riptide, but fast put it on the shelf, because it didn't fit in among my opposing players.
The game is most fun between people who agree on how the game works, I find. That's not what I find here on this site, though - I find entertainment, perspective and flow. It lightens up my hobby considerably to have so many angles to approach it from, that being e.g. meta.
Martel732 wrote: They won't honor those passages because it's an old rules set. I understand and agree with you but that's just not my reality.
Well, that's really unfortunate then. I play a shooting army and I can't imagine being so much of a douche that I refuse to play with terrain so that I can shoot everything always. I can't imagine how that's any fun for either player or how it hasn't gotten old yet.
Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
BoomWolf wrote: Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
Except marines don't gun line well. Especially not BA.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/28 04:30:09
BoomWolf wrote: Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
Except marines don't gun line well. Especially not BA.
Yep. Dev Squads and Las Preds are about the only gunline SM have
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Dreadnoughts, Sternguard, LRs all gunline decently well.
Inquisitor Jex wrote: Yeah, telling people how this and that is 'garbage' and they should just throw their minis into the trash as they're not as efficient as XYZ.
Peregrine wrote: So the solution is to lie and pretend that certain options are effective so people will feel better?
Ugh, here's yet another battle report I've stumbled on that just irritates the crap out of me.
I just want to say, for the record, I'm not trying to insult either of these guys or anything...but look at that table. There's practically nothing in the center, except a ring of barricades (that provide practically no cover). All the terrain is on the sides, and since nothing blocks LOS the Tau player basically has clear lanes of fire right from the start, and will for the entire game. On top of that, the Chaos player makes the really odd decision to deploy pretty much his entire army in the center of the table, apparently banking on those barricades to protect him, and then marches across an open field to the Tau line hiding behind an Aegis. You can probably imagine how the game goes.
Like I've said before, Tau have legitimate issues that should be addressed . But I've seen so many battle reports just like this one that I find it really hard to take complaints seriously sometimes. It really does make it hard to see whether it's the Tau codex to blame or the player.
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
The biggest happy for me was when 7th dropped and tau couldn't team buffmanders with riptides anymore.
Though it also meant I couldn't put buffmanders with my centurions anymore.
Maybe go back to the old way of marker lights stripping cover and a price increase for the interceptor add on. Maybe take away jsj from riptides, but that might be going a little far. Maybe change storm of fire as well?
Eh, only minor things need to be done to bring tau in line with the 7th edition codices.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
~1.5k
