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:
"Why are all Riptides IA or HBC? With the effectiveness of a HBC tide against air, doesn't it make sense to run 1+ IA tides and 1 Burst tide? "

This is how I would use Tau, but I keep seeing triple IA. All the players quit using CSM, and so there is no air that Tau care about. Stormravens are too overcosted to threaten a tight Tau list.

So no FMC builds in your area?

It changes things if you list tailor for the Tau, I'll admit. However, it goes back to my problem with the Tau. It's hard to game for Tau AND SW AND grav cents AND Tyranids, etc. It's not that I can't deal with Riptides ever, it's that my TAC lists can't handle them, because they have to deal with things other than Riptides and the Tau scheme in general.

That BA formation is the ultimate hail mary. It will crush some lists, but against lists the BA don't want to close with, it is worse than useless.

SO - I've been reading aaaaaall of this, been making some posts and nothing really happens beside discussing the Riptide which, to be fair, is completely valid and very important, but now we have up to 25 pages of discussion, and that gotta do. Only Go- I mean Games Workshop can help it now.

Let's shift focus then, to other nerfable stuff that might, might not need it.

The High Yield Missile Pod, then. Oh dear, this thing. Aside from the Riptide w/ IA, this is the most polarizing thing ever. For those of us who don't remember what it does, it's S 7, AP 4 Heavy 4 36'', Twinlinked from being doubled, which doesn't sound so bad on paper, but is filthy destruction against anything that looks even remotely like a light tank, or, Tau'va forbid, a transport. On top of that, compared to the S 8 AP 1 Heavy 1 60'', Twinlinked of the standard Heavy Rail Rifle, it costs almost nothing to switch for, outclassing it rather dramatically.

What I think would be best to do is to give it a simple price jack. It's on a 2+ T4 W 1 model, so it's not all that resistant to enemy fire, so pooling points in a squad of three of these would be rather expensive. You could also reduce the range to 24'', which I honestly feel the Missile Pod should be as well... I mean, in the codex it's described as being a "close quarter firefight weapon"

Broadsides have two wounds.

The HYMP is double the amount of shots of a standard MP, so how's that bad? If it were any less shots then it would be stupid.

Why do you want to nerf the Tau equivalent to the autocannon to 24"? If you want to nerf our range then we need to nerf the Imperial one first! 48" is too much for them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, just because you want to move on it doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

S7 missile spam is a thing as well. But broadsides are far more mortal than Riptides.

SGTPozy wrote:
The HYMP is double the amount of shots of a standard MP, so how's that bad?

It's the cost that's the issue really. Currently 2 twin-linked missile pods run about 40 points. The rest of the Broadside's cost would go into paying for a 2+ 2W model with SMS.
The decision to give Broadsides a single shot Railgun at S8 was idiotic when they gave it an alternate weapon at -1S but 4x the shot output. Of course they did though, so everyone would buy the new Broadsides.

I don't know a suggestion for the HYMP other than raising it's cost and maybe forcing it to purchase VT along with it.
HRR could be made Rapid Fire 48" with same stats. Makes it more mobile and increases number of shots when moving down range.

SGTPozy wrote:
The HYMP is double the amount of shots of a standard MP, so how's that bad? If it were any less shots then it would be stupid.

High Yield doesn't have to mean double. It could be 3 and still fulfill the name.

Why do you want to nerf the Tau equivalent to the autocannon to 24"? If you want to nerf our range then we need to nerf the Imperial one first! 48" is too much for them!

When the IoM can field 6 TL autocannons per heavy support slot, we'll talk.
It's not "the Tau equivalent to the autocannon". It's a Heavy 4 (double an autocannon) weapon for 65 points. Plus the SMS.

rigeld2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Why are all Riptides IA or HBC? With the effectiveness of a HBC tide against air, doesn't it make sense to run 1+ IA tides and 1 Burst tide? "

This is how I would use Tau, but I keep seeing triple IA. All the players quit using CSM, and so there is no air that Tau care about. Stormravens are too overcosted to threaten a tight Tau list.

So no FMC builds in your area?

I think there is only one Tyranid guy, and maybe two demon players. But the demons have to land to assault now, which is doom against Tau.

rigeld2 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
The HYMP is double the amount of shots of a standard MP, so how's that bad? If it were any less shots then it would be stupid.

High Yield doesn't have to mean double. It could be 3 and still fulfill the name.

Why do you want to nerf the Tau equivalent to the autocannon to 24"? If you want to nerf our range then we need to nerf the Imperial one first! 48" is too much for them!

When the IoM can field 6 TL autocannons per heavy support slot, we'll talk.
It's not "the Tau equivalent to the autocannon". It's a Heavy 4 (double an autocannon) weapon for 65 points. Plus the SMS.

You misunderstood, when I said that it was the Tau autocannon I was talking about the standard missile pod (as it was suggested that that should also be needed for some reason).

Yes, but 1 more isn't exactly a big difference so it doesn't deserve the word 'high yield'.

You can do that with your elites slot (3 rifleman dreads) and IG heavy weapons teams (but these would mean prescience is needed for the twin linked, but you can have 15 autocannons per troop choice; that's pretty cheesy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

It's the cost that's the issue really. Currently 2 twin-linked missile pods run about 40 points.

Yes, they do cost 40 points but do you know what else costs 40 points? The grav cannon with grav amp. The grav cannon is far superior so nerf that and then we'll talk about nerfing Tau (other than the IA).

SGTPozy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
The HYMP is double the amount of shots of a standard MP, so how's that bad? If it were any less shots then it would be stupid.

High Yield doesn't have to mean double. It could be 3 and still fulfill the name.

Why do you want to nerf the Tau equivalent to the autocannon to 24"? If you want to nerf our range then we need to nerf the Imperial one first! 48" is too much for them!

When the IoM can field 6 TL autocannons per heavy support slot, we'll talk.
It's not "the Tau equivalent to the autocannon". It's a Heavy 4 (double an autocannon) weapon for 65 points. Plus the SMS.

You misunderstood, when I said that it was the Tau autocannon I was talking about the standard missile pod (as it was suggested that that should also be needed for some reason).

Yes, but 1 more isn't exactly a big difference so it doesn't deserve the word 'high yield'.

You can do that with your elites slot (3 rifleman dreads) and IG heavy weapons teams (but these would mean prescience is needed for the twin linked, but you can have 15 autocannons per troop choice; that's pretty cheesy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

It's the cost that's the issue really. Currently 2 twin-linked missile pods run about 40 points.

Yes, they do cost 40 points but do you know what else costs 40 points? The grav cannon with grav amp. The grav cannon is far superior so nerf that and then we'll talk about nerfing Tau (other than the IA).

Just to clear up, I mentioned that I'd like the range reduced, but that that was a personal opinion - I don't think it'll happen, and I'll be good if it don't

Now, I see what your point it here, but the problem that this way of arguming presents is that you compare units that aren''t completely similar. Yes, most SM armies can have 3 Riflemen in an Elite slot, which yields 12 twinlinked shots at 48'' a turn with BS 4, but, first of all, these things can move and fire, and they are also vehicles, and secondly, you can only ever take three in one Detatchment. Tau Empire armies can take 3x3 Broadsides w/ HYMPS per Detatchments - That's 36 twinlinked missiles at 36'' and BS 3... And sure, this is fething expensive, but so are a lot of things - What makes them game-breaking is that, combined with Markerlights and the like, they can easily hit with every single shot every time. That's a whole load of diddly.

When I say "reduce range", that wasn't meant as an attack. You are really on the barricades here, defending anything and everything Tau, which is fine, but problem is that you defend things that other people feel should be nerfed - Nerf doesn't mean that we want to reduce it to nought, but that we want it balanced, so it will be as effective as it's supposed to be, while being balanced with the rest of the codex. We're not trying to rob you of anything, we are trying to help you here. Think of my idea of reducing range: Instead of defending it by comparing it to other armies and keeping everything as-is, you could think about the possibilities of that nerf - If that happened, the Broadsides could, e.g. be made Relentless again, to make them more mobile, as is the Tau way, which means that the unit will now not just be "sit here and shoot" but "advance under cover, so you can fire your deadly HYMPs at some sucker".

Possibilities, man. Not limitations.

Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

 The Wise Dane wrote:


Now, I see what your point it here, but the problem that this way of arguming presents is that you compare units that aren''t completely similar. Yes, most SM armies can have 3 Riflemen in an Elite slot, which yields 12 twinlinked shots at 48'' a turn with BS 4, but, first of all, these things can move and fire, and they are also vehicles, and secondly, you can only ever take three in one Detatchment. Tau Empire armies can take 3x3 Broadsides w/ HYMPS per Detatchments - That's 36 twinlinked missiles at 36'' and BS 3... And sure, this is fething expensive, but so are a lot of things - What makes them game-breaking is that, combined with Markerlights and the like, they can easily hit with every single shot every time. That's a whole load of diddly.

What about something more similar then: Centurions.

Also 2W, 2+ armor save, 1 more T than Broadsides (T5 vs. T4).

How would Grav-cannon Centurions (80 points) stack vs HYMP Broadsides (65 points base cost without any support systems)?

EDIT: I can't really comment on it since none of the SM players in my local meta use them, so I've never seen one in actions. I do know grav-guns in general hurt though

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save

Yeah. Remove one of the staples and iconic features of Tau. This is a terrible idea. It wasn't a problem in the past codex, but apparently it's bad now.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save

Yeah. Remove one of the staples and iconic features of Tau. This is a terrible idea. It wasn't a problem in the past codex, but apparently it's bad now.

Yeah, because literally nothing changed between the two codexes. At all.

I don't think it should be removed, but 2 markerlights for Ignores Cover is too cheap. It should be 1 ML for -1 cover save like it used to be.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save

Yeah. Remove one of the staples and iconic features of Tau. This is a terrible idea. It wasn't a problem in the past codex, but apparently it's bad now.

Yeah, because literally nothing changed between the two codexes. At all.

I don't think it should be removed, but 2 markerlights for Ignores Cover is too cheap. It should be 1 ML for -1 cover save like it used to be.

In all honesty, how hard is it to kill Pathfinders?

Tau Marker-lights are on exceedingly fragile platforms, unlike other races' Ignore Cover' which is on the unit itself.

1 Token per -1 cover save IS bad vs Jinking skimmers or ruin hugging anything; it's a 50% increase in needed tokens vs. the most common cover situations in the game. If something is too good you don't nerf it by 50% in a single sweep.

The markerlights were 1 Token per -1 Cover in the last codex, and how bad was Tau with the last codex? I wasn't playing back then but either my google-fu is failing me or there really have been very few good things said about the previous Tau codex.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

That's what I said pages ago, but no one wants to hear this.

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

That's what I said pages ago, but no one wants to hear this.

If these changes came through, what exactly would Tau have that couldn't be replicated in a strictly better version by IoM (mainly AM with Knights) ?

LordBlades wrote:
In all honesty, how hard is it to kill Pathfinders?

It depends. They have a 4+ cover save any time I shoot at them so...

Tau Marker-lights are on exceedingly fragile platforms, unlike other races' Ignore Cover' which is on the unit itself.

That's only relevant if the "other races'" Ignore Cover is worth taking. For Tau everything can Ignore Cover.

If Tau's Ignore Cover was both fragile and bad (1 Token per -1 cover save IS bad vs Jinking skimmers or ruin hugging anything; it's a 50% increase in needed tokens vs. the most common cover situations in the game) that would be an overnerf IMO.

I'm sorry, how is picking any unit in your codex and giving it Ignores Cover bad again? Even at 3 markerlights for a 4+ save (which is far from the "most common" cover situation) it's good. 2 ignores a 5+ which is the actual most common cover save - and would be no different to current.
The main difference is that Shroud is still a useful SR, and Jink would, I dunno, mean something.

If something is too good you don't nerf it by 50% in a single sweep.

Um. You do if it's twice as powerful as it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlades wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

That's what I said pages ago, but no one wants to hear this.

If these changes came through, what exactly would Tau have that couldn't be replicated in a strictly better version by IoM (mainly AM with Knights) ?

The ability to pick which units ignore cover on a turn by turn basis.

rigeld2 wrote:

It depends. They have a 4+ cover save any time I shoot at them so...

Even so, it's a 1W T3 unit with a 4+ save. If you can't kill that kind of unit reliably, maybe it's time to rethink your list a bit (if the PF go to ground it's still a win since they can't effectively use Markerlights).

rigeld2 wrote:
That's only relevant if the "other races'" Ignore Cover is worth taking. For Tau everything can Ignore Cover.

True, but most other races that have Ignore Cover worth taking have it on way more durable platforms than Pathfinders.

rigeld2 wrote:
2 ignores a 5+ which is the actual most common cover save - and would be no different to current..

So somehow the Pathfinders you play against have above average cover at any time?

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. You do if it's twice as powerful as it should be.

This still needs to be proven in any meaningful way.

rigeld2 wrote:
The ability to pick which units ignore cover on a turn by turn basis.

The guy I was replying to said 'remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save' (not reduce, but remove).

LordBlades wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

That's what I said pages ago, but no one wants to hear this.

If these changes came through, what exactly would Tau have that couldn't be replicated in a strictly better version by IoM (mainly AM with Knights) ?

Humm...I think they have way better suicide squads...sometimes a farsight bomb kills EVERYTHING it shoots at and it's not longer a suicide squad...it's a game winner. Fire warriors are probably the best troop in the game ill go as far as to say they are the best troops in the game point for point. Fusion guns on stealth units. Super over watch. Better overall firepower. Shooting units while remaining out of line of site JSJ.

LordBlades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It depends. They have a 4+ cover save any time I shoot at them so...

Even so, it's a 1W T3 unit with a 4+ save. If you can't kill that kind of unit reliably, maybe it's time to rethink your list a bit (if the PF go to ground it's still a win since they can't effectively use Markerlights).

T3 vs S6 means 84% chance to wound. I have a (66% chance, twin linked) 88% chance to hit. So I need just over two shots per model for a Flyrant. Against a 6 man pathfinder squad, to make sure I kill it, it takes 2 Flyrants (480 points of firepower).
You have 2 Pathfinder units? Oops. It's unlikely I can kill both on my turn.

Tetras? Those are actually harder to kill, but easier to make Jink.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's only relevant if the "other races'" Ignore Cover is worth taking. For Tau everything can Ignore Cover.

True, but most other races that have Ignore Cover worth taking have it on way more durable platforms than Pathfinders.

That's the sacrifice you make for the flexibility that comes from having Ignores Cover on literally every unit in your codex.

rigeld2 wrote:
2 ignores a 5+ which is the actual most common cover save - and would be no different to current..

So somehow the Pathfinders you play against have above average cover at any time?

Yes. It's common to have a Ruin in each deployment zone, it's not common for Ruins to be scattered all over the battlefield.

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. You do if it's twice as powerful as it should be.

This still needs to be proven in any meaningful way.

It needs to be proven that the ability to have Ignores Cover on literally any unit in your codex, your decision, isn't that powerful.

I think the best way to need Tau is to make psychic powers not random. Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness. If other armies could pick their powers I bet things would seem more level.

Still get sick of all the Tau hate.
Broadsides need a nerf at 65 points each but centurions that are 80 points each with T+1 and salvo 3/5 Ap2 weapons and can move with no loss in effectiveness are alright? They also have another weapon.

I said it before I'll say it again. Double standards.

Boniface wrote:
I think the best way to need Tau is to make psychic powers not random. Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness. If other armies could pick their powers I bet things would seem more level.

Still get sick of all the Tau hate.
Broadsides need a nerf at 65 points each but centurions that are 80 points each with T+1 and salvo 3/5 Ap2 weapons and can move with no loss in effectiveness are alright? They also have another weapon.

I said it before I'll say it again. Double standards.

Broadsides have 2 weapons as well. Broadsides and Centurions compare very well to one another - but Broadsides are significantly cheaper. It's not a double standard.

 Xenomancers wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just remove marker lights ability to reduce cover save and increase the base cost of the riptide to reflect it's durability, increase a few weapons cost as well...namely HYMP and IA...there...balanced.

That's what I said pages ago, but no one wants to hear this.

If these changes came through, what exactly would Tau have that couldn't be replicated in a strictly better version by IoM (mainly AM with Knights) ?

Humm...I think they have way better suicide squads...sometimes a farsight bomb kills EVERYTHING it shoots at and it's not longer a suicide squad...it's a game winner. Fire warriors are probably the best troop in the game ill go as far as to say they are the best troops in the game point for point. Fusion guns on stealth units. Super over watch. Better overall firepower. Shooting units while remaining out of line of site JSJ.

Small point, it's only one fusion for every three suits (a maximum of 2, so only one will hit), and stealthsuits are outrageously over-costed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Boniface wrote:
I think the best way to need Tau is to make psychic powers not random. Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness. If other armies could pick their powers I bet things would seem more level.

Still get sick of all the Tau hate.
Broadsides need a nerf at 65 points each but centurions that are 80 points each with T+1 and salvo 3/5 Ap2 weapons and can move with no loss in effectiveness are alright? They also have another weapon.

I said it before I'll say it again. Double standards.

Broadsides have 2 weapons as well. Broadsides and Centurions compare very well to one another - but Broadsides are significantly cheaper. It's not a double standard.

15 points is significant when one gets 15 ap2 and shots and can move?

I'm more referring to the people suggesting the broadside be nerfed.

Boniface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Boniface wrote:
I think the best way to need Tau is to make psychic powers not random. Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness. If other armies could pick their powers I bet things would seem more level.

Still get sick of all the Tau hate.
Broadsides need a nerf at 65 points each but centurions that are 80 points each with T+1 and salvo 3/5 Ap2 weapons and can move with no loss in effectiveness are alright? They also have another weapon.

I said it before I'll say it again. Double standards.

Broadsides have 2 weapons as well. Broadsides and Centurions compare very well to one another - but Broadsides are significantly cheaper. It's not a double standard.

15 points is significant when one gets 15 ap2 and shots and can move?

I'm more referring to the people suggesting the broadside be nerfed.

Yes, 15 points is significant. 15 points is 18.75% of the cost of the Centurion.
Centurions can't Overwatch. Broadsides get special Overwatch (their buddies can help, and they can help buddies).
Broadsides get 4 S7 shots and 4 S5 shots each. Centurions get 5 S* shots and 3 S5 shots each.
For the price difference I can add a Missile Drone and a Bonding Knife so that's 6 S7 shots and 4 S5 (homing, ignores cover) shots.

As I said, they compare favorably.

Here is the problem with Tau and in general with the current state of 40k. The importance of an alpha strike in combination with the way fire power has been scaling in conjunction with the last three editions swinging further and further towards shooting has left us in a place where high strength, low AP, high range shooting is the king of the game. Now what does Tau have in spades? High strength, low AP, high range shooting. People keep saying, "How hard is it to kill a group of pathfinders?" Well, usually it is two groups of pathfinders that are going to be sitting in some kind of cover. On top of that most armies are going to have a couple of long range weapons that might put the hurt on the pathfinders, but they might not, it is rather hit or miss. If the Tau player has first turn though...well it is likely that they will eliminate anything first turn that can threaten those pathfinders because they almost always have the means with their long range, ability to ignore cover, and all of their other little tricks. There are ways to balance this out but it is usually by means of building the proper table as opposed to the proper list.

It is wrong that against certain armies I have to rely more on the table than I do my list, that is not the fault of Tau but it is the game that we play and the reality we deal with when playing it. This is not okay and can lead to resentment towards people who play Tau. Tau players, you have to accept that for what ever reason you chose, you are playing an army that excels in the current edition and has an answer for almost everything. The Tau codex has so many exceedingly good choices that some Tau players claim that their worst units are "unusable." We have a Tau player who claims that Stealth Suits, Vespids, Kroot, Hammerheads, etc. are all useless and that they are some of the worst units in the game. If you agree with this sentiment I implore you to go look at some other codices to see what TRULY awful units look like. The worst thing the Tau codex has to offer is still on par with some other codices best units, that is extremely irritating for people who play those other races and see all of the amazing toys that Tau have when they get scraps comparably.

I could go on and on but I know that anyone who doesn't agree with what I said isn't likely to be changed by anything I have to say, that's fine, that is their prerogative and they have every right to disagree. I am not out to change anyone's mind. I just want some people to maybe realize that their disdain for Tau could better be directed towards the game of 40k itself, which doesn't excuse the imbalance but it's not the fault of Tau players for playing their army. Tau players, you need to realize that you chose a powerful army that isn't very fun to play against for a lot of people. Of course there is going to be a feeling of hostility towards you when you are playing one of the most powerful armies out there that can effectively win a game without the opponent getting a chance to even respond. This is partial your codices fault, partial the games fault, and more than likely a misunderstanding of the expectations you and your opponent went into the game with.

I had a Tau army, started it in 4th because I loved the look of Fire Warriors. I hated the battle suits except the stealth suits, so I built an army of almost all infantry and tanks, was great fun but I never went to far into the competitive territory so I just played with what ever models I liked at the time. Played them a little in 5th but mostly fixated on my Tyranids because I had fun playing them more than I did Tau. When Tau got their 6th update I pulled out my old army and played a grand total of THREE games before I decided I wanted nothing to do with them. My games went from fun and casual with friends to me just stomping all over them with superior range and fire power. The best thing I ever did with Tau was trade them for a Sisters army that is now one of my favorite armies to play.

Do I think Tau need some nerfs? Yes. The Riptide is a monstrosity for how many points it is. Most units are built around the trinity of speed, power, and defense, and they are typically weak in one area while strong in others or they are strong in all but cost a lot of points, like a Land Raider. The Riptide is a front runner in each and every category while still being a bargain for how many points it cost. It is silly with the IA and even with the HBC it is still a steal, all it loses is a bit of its offensive power but it is still fast and hard as hell to kill. I strongly believe a rather stiff point increase or a 0-1 restriction would help the game out immensely as a whole. Marker lights give to much of a bonus for how easy they are to field. HYMP on broadsides are just so damn shooty for what range they have and how much hurt they can put out, plus they can be buffed up with marker lights.

Tau aren't the strongest army out there but outside of a couple of unique list and Eldar they are probably the least fun to play because of their ability to alpha strike from across the board with almost everything in their army. Taking such heavy loses in the first turn can just cripple and army while at the same time making your opponent just feel like giving up and that is why Tau get so much hate.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
You are really on the barricades here, defending anything and everything Tau, .

I do not defend "anything and everything Tau", I have often said (not here though) that the IA should be ap3 and nova charge should make it ap2 since why is it ap2 when the ion cannon is ap3? That doesn't make sense to me.

I have also said that the nova shield should be a 4++.

HYMP should cost 10 points.

Markerlights should reduce 1 point of cover for each token.


What I do not like though is when Tau haters come along and demand that everything that makes Tau different should be removed/nerfed into the ground just because they dislike something about them. Finally, Tau haters always create massive double standards.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boniface wrote:
Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness.

Not true, IG have orders and psykers but are they considers to be cheesy? Nope. Even with the abomination that is the Wyvern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Boniface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Boniface wrote:
I think the best way to need Tau is to make psychic powers not random. Let's be honest Tau are the odd one out in this edition. We're the only army that gets psychic effects without the random psychicness. If other armies could pick their powers I bet things would seem more level.

Still get sick of all the Tau hate.
Broadsides need a nerf at 65 points each but centurions that are 80 points each with T+1 and salvo 3/5 Ap2 weapons and can move with no loss in effectiveness are alright? They also have another weapon.


I said it before I'll say it again. Double standards.

Broadsides have 2 weapons as well. Broadsides and Centurions compare very well to one another - but Broadsides are significantly cheaper. It's not a double standard.

15 points is significant when one gets 15 ap2 and shots and can move?

I'm more referring to the people suggesting the broadside be nerfed.

Yes, 15 points is significant. 15 points is 18.75% of the cost of the Centurion.
Centurions can't Overwatch. Broadsides get special Overwatch (their buddies can help, and they can help buddies).
Broadsides get 4 S7 shots and 4 S5 shots each. Centurions get 5 S* shots and 3 S5 shots each.
For the price difference I can add a Missile Drone and a Bonding Knife so that's 6 S7 shots and 4 S5 (homing, ignores cover) shots.

As I said, they compare favorably.

I'd happily pay 15 points to give my broadsides +1T and slow and purposeful.

SGTPozy wrote:

Yes, 15 points is significant. 15 points is 18.75% of the cost of the Centurion.
Centurions can't Overwatch. Broadsides get special Overwatch (their buddies can help, and they can help buddies).
Broadsides get 4 S7 shots and 4 S5 shots each. Centurions get 5 S* shots and 3 S5 shots each.
For the price difference I can add a Missile Drone and a Bonding Knife so that's 6 S7 shots and 4 S5 (homing, ignores cover) shots.

As I said, they compare favorably.

I'd happily pay 15 points to give my broadsides +1T and slow and purposeful.

Sure - and then they'd be strictly better.