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:

And if you don't have the LOS blocking terrain? What then? An army should be fair on any table. Remember that there is no terrain standard in 7th.

That's literally impossible. Games are won and lost with terrain, it's impossible to make armies balanced on all terrain unless you make all the armies the same as well. To give you an example from another game, In competitive starcraft, maps would be imbalanced toward one race or another with a small change in position of one vespene geyser and would be outright banned or modified to accomodate for competitive play.

Tau will be easy with all the new Eldar rules. S-D all over the board? 100+ s6 shots on jetbikes? Where is your "Greater Good" now?

pickled_heretic wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

And if you don't have the LOS blocking terrain? What then? An army should be fair on any table. Remember that there is no terrain standard in 7th.

That's literally impossible. Games are won and lost with terrain, it's impossible to make armies balanced on all terrain unless you make all the armies the same as well. To give you an example from another game, In competitive starcraft, maps would be imbalanced toward one race or another with a small change in position of one vespene geyser and would be outright banned or modified to accomodate for competitive play.

So that's an argument for totally standardized maps, which is the OPPOSITE of what GW has.

Martel732 wrote:

pickled_heretic wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

And if you don't have the LOS blocking terrain? What then? An army should be fair on any table. Remember that there is no terrain standard in 7th.

That's literally impossible. Games are won and lost with terrain, it's impossible to make armies balanced on all terrain unless you make all the armies the same as well. To give you an example from another game, In competitive starcraft, maps would be imbalanced toward one race or another with a small change in position of one vespene geyser and would be outright banned or modified to accomodate for competitive play.

So that's an argument for totally standardized maps, which is the OPPOSITE of what GW has.

It's not an argument for anything. It is what it is. Starcraft and Warhammer are both vastly different games but positioning is crucial in both cases and by extension so is the map and terrain. Without standard terrain, the best you can do in terms of balance is get a good approximation for what people commonly play on. I am not trying to prescribe anything, I am trying to say that what you prescribe is impossible.

Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

Torrent flamers. Ignore riptides - kill everything else.

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

If LOS blocking terrain wouldn't be expected to be encountered in a typical game, there wouldn't be rules for it in the core rulebook.

You can beat Tau in the the terrain setup phase. It sounds really cheesy but following the rulebook for table setup and bringing terrain that benefits you and hinders your opponent is completely legal. If you and your opponent ever disagree about anything, just go to the rulebook. There are rules to set up terrain in a fair way. If your opponent doesn't bring or use terrain because he doesn't like it, then it's his loss that you'll be able to set up the table the way you want to.

pickled_heretic wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

If LOS blocking terrain wouldn't be expected to be encountered in a typical game, there wouldn't be rules for it in the core rulebook.

You can beat Tau in the the terrain setup phase. It sounds really cheesy but following the rulebook for table setup and bringing terrain that benefits you and hinders your opponent is completely legal. If you and your opponent ever disagree about anything, just go to the rulebook. There are rules to set up terrain in a fair way. If your opponent doesn't bring or use terrain because he doesn't like it, then it's his loss that you'll be able to set up the table the way you want to.

I never cared enough to make my own terrain. LOS blocking terrain can actually be a hindrance against JSJ units anyway. It's an unfair uphill battle for non-tailored lists no matter what the board looks like.

Martel732 wrote:
I never cared enough to make my own terrain. LOS blocking terrain can actually be a hindrance against JSJ units anyway. It's an unfair uphill battle for non-tailored lists no matter what the board looks like.

I can definitely agree that terrain doesn't always work the way that you want it to.

Back to topic, Tau is a very bad matchup against a newer player. They are extremely punishing to play against. The thing is, for a tau army, there is really no such thing as a close game. They often completely table you while only losing a few models. Compared to playing against an ork player - even if you lose badly, you probably will have killed a good chunk of boys in the process.

The only thing I would recommend is to keep playing instead of giving up. For how much people complain about the rules, Warhammer 40000 is still a strategy game and the better strategist & tactician will usually win.

Martel732 wrote:

I never cared enough to make my own terrain. LOS blocking terrain can actually be a hindrance against JSJ units anyway. It's an unfair uphill battle for non-tailored lists no matter what the board looks like.

Less Crying, more listening.

-Matt

Hey all! First, an apology. I was a whiny ass bitch for several hours there. I did take a look at the match, and identified a few factors (failing 3 3++ saves in a row, failing a ld10 test at a critical moment, and failing a couple critical jinks as well as having initiative stolen) that contributed significantly to the loss, as well as the issue with terrain. With that in mind, I played a rematch with the same lists and same opponent and got very different results.

First thing, during terrain deployment I put a big friggin mountain in the middle of the board. Less than 6" radius and roughly round, but it massively improved things when it came to counterplay. I wound up going second this time and had much better options for deployment, and I was able to force him between targeting the (mostly useless) dark Eldar transports or moving out of protective cover to engage the real cc threats. Both marker light sources moved turn one out of cover, and on my turn I forced jinks on both of them. The dark Eldar succeeded in being massacred in the Harlequins' place, and I was able to get a troupe and the Solitaire into combat turn two.

I still lost (mostly due to Harlequins not getting obsec and those dang Devilfish being hard to catch and kill. I wasted all my good melee momentum killing the tanks) but at the very least the game continued long enough for it to end rather than just being an effortless tabling.

So despite plenty of complaining from my opponent about the mountain (he REEEEEAALLY didn't like the mountain) I think it was a much more balanced and interesting match.

Thank you, everyone who dealt with my bs earlier and have advice, and I sincerely apologize for the S: D fullisade of whining that occurred.

It's great to hear that you got better results! Nasty losses can definitely get anyone in a bad mood. Good identification of the reasons for losses is a key part of becoming a better player.

I used to play in a store that used 4x4 boards to get more players playing, and we often put large terrain pieces in the direct center. Like in your case, it made gun-lines have to do significant work to position correctly and actually get their shots off.

IIRC NOVA puts a giant LoS Blocker in the center of all their tables to help achieve the same effect.

Good to hear you had a better game. I personally love terrain heavy boards with a lot of LoS blocking pieces.

the_scotsman wrote:
Hey all! First, an apology. I was a whiny ass bitch for several hours there. I did take a look at the match, and identified a few factors (failing 3 3++ saves in a row, failing a ld10 test at a critical moment, and failing a couple critical jinks as well as having initiative stolen) that contributed significantly to the loss, as well as the issue with terrain. With that in mind, I played a rematch with the same lists and same opponent and got very different results.

First thing, during terrain deployment I put a big friggin mountain in the middle of the board. Less than 6" radius and roughly round, but it massively improved things when it came to counterplay. I wound up going second this time and had much better options for deployment, and I was able to force him between targeting the (mostly useless) dark Eldar transports or moving out of protective cover to engage the real cc threats. Both marker light sources moved turn one out of cover, and on my turn I forced jinks on both of them. The dark Eldar succeeded in being massacred in the Harlequins' place, and I was able to get a troupe and the Solitaire into combat turn two.

I still lost (mostly due to Harlequins not getting obsec and those dang Devilfish being hard to catch and kill. I wasted all my good melee momentum killing the tanks) but at the very least the game continued long enough for it to end rather than just being an effortless tabling.

So despite plenty of complaining from my opponent about the mountain (he REEEEEAALLY didn't like the mountain) I think it was a much more balanced and interesting match.

Thank you, everyone who dealt with my bs earlier and have advice, and I sincerely apologize for the S: D fullisade of whining that occurred.

Well, this is unexpected. usually people in your former stance don't man up and start doing stuff right.

Guess its my turn to try to help you out as far as I can than.

Mountain-nice move there. I guess he isn't used for terrain and used for shooting galleries, though luck for him. a tau army in an open plain is no challenge to play.
Taking out the skyrays was also a good call.


I would advise you to try round out your forces with some reavers with cluster calntrops, these things hit brutally in CC, ruining the day for most tanks with ease-and they are quite hard to catch (thrust moves to get more movement around, jinx for 3+ cover all day long)
They would have a rather easy time opening up devilfish and their likes, and massacuring the contents.

I have my doubts about the solitaire. did he really stand up for his cost there? it seems like a "cool yet impractical" pick.
Getting into melee is nice and all-but did he really do enough there to justify the orbital pricetag?


A full list of what you brought will make it easier to pick at it and discover the weaknesses of the list, and as such how to adress them.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, this is unexpected. usually people in your former stance don't man up and start doing stuff right.

Guess its my turn to try to help you out as far as I can than.

Mountain-nice move there. I guess he isn't used for terrain and used for shooting galleries, though luck for him. a tau army in an open plain is no challenge to play.
Taking out the skyrays was also a good call.


I would advise you to try round out your forces with some reavers with cluster calntrops, these things hit brutally in CC, ruining the day for most tanks with ease-and they are quite hard to catch (thrust moves to get more movement around, jinx for 3+ cover all day long)
They would have a rather easy time opening up devilfish and their likes, and massacuring the contents.

I have my doubts about the solitaire. did he really stand up for his cost there? it seems like a "cool yet impractical" pick.
Getting into melee is nice and all-but did he really do enough there to justify the orbital pricetag?


A full list of what you brought will make it easier to pick at it and discover the weaknesses of the list, and as such how to adress them.

Having played against it once, I can say that the solitaire has the potential to be really scary in melee. (and I play orks, so I know what is scary in melee). He gets more lethal and more mobile as the game progresses, which is usually when you need lethal, mobile stuff.

At his core he is a t3 model with a 3++ and ew so he is pretty flimsy to volume shooting and/or melee. But he has the mobility to stay completely concealed, strike in melee with 10 or more attacks with instant death & precision strike, and ap2 on a 6, and still hit and run out and find a hiding spot. All the special rules make him scary against riptides and crisis teams.

the_scotsman wrote:
Hey all! First, an apology. I was a whiny ass bitch for several hours there. I did take a look at the match, and identified a few factors (failing 3 3++ saves in a row, failing a ld10 test at a critical moment, and failing a couple critical jinks as well as having initiative stolen) that contributed significantly to the loss, as well as the issue with terrain. With that in mind, I played a rematch with the same lists and same opponent and got very different results.

First thing, during terrain deployment I put a big friggin mountain in the middle of the board. Less than 6" radius and roughly round, but it massively improved things when it came to counterplay. I wound up going second this time and had much better options for deployment, and I was able to force him between targeting the (mostly useless) dark Eldar transports or moving out of protective cover to engage the real cc threats. Both marker light sources moved turn one out of cover, and on my turn I forced jinks on both of them. The dark Eldar succeeded in being massacred in the Harlequins' place, and I was able to get a troupe and the Solitaire into combat turn two.

I still lost (mostly due to Harlequins not getting obsec and those dang Devilfish being hard to catch and kill. I wasted all my good melee momentum killing the tanks) but at the very least the game continued long enough for it to end rather than just being an effortless tabling.

So despite plenty of complaining from my opponent about the mountain (he REEEEEAALLY didn't like the mountain) I think it was a much more balanced and interesting match.

Thank you, everyone who dealt with my bs earlier and have advice, and I sincerely apologize for the S: D fullisade of whining that occurred.

Good to hear. Seriously, keep playing with more LoS terrain. It shouldn't be totally full, but 1/3 is a pretty decent rule to use. If he keeps whining, say "Hey, I don't like playing Tau on an open field. It's not fair." If he keeps whining, then I'd just not play him.

The biggest intangible strength of the solitaire is the combination of his ignoring terrain and being an itty bitty single 28mm model. He hides out of LOS like a mofo and he fights like almost a full Harlequin Troupe. With WS10 even though most people wound him on 2-3 they're hitting him on 5s mostly.

He's probably the most pressing reason to take Harlequins TBH. The rest of the army is basically a mildly useful cc unit, a good cheap spammable psyker and a terrible gunboat tax.

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

Why not? The existence of LOS blocking terrain is assumed in the points costs and design of the units to begin with. If you don't want to use it, either increase the cost of shooting units or decrease the cost of melee units.

I use the solitaire to keep people away from objectives. I run him in the path of heroes formation, and place him near a couple midfield objectives. Your opponent doesn't want to be near that, and wants the option for those objectives if they come up for maelstrom.

So, they attempt to compensate. He sometimes gets killed, but more often than not he absorbs double his points in shooting and is still scaring them out of he area. If I get lucky, the opponent does it again, and I get to slam him with the harlis afterwards

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't end up playing much tau (thank god) because all but two people in my club have quit playing them out of sheer embarrassment, but every time I do I leave with a disgusted taste in my mouth and I can't figure out what I could have done differently.

This last game I did as well as I ever have and it still felt like I was playing a guy who had a 4000+ point list. I was playing Harlequins against full mech Tau and I had no scatter drop melta, drop haywire, and two units of haywire bikes and the only thing I managed to kill were the two Riptides (aka the only models in his entire list I could hurt with psychic powers) and spent the rest of the time stuck in hour-long shooting phases removing my models from the board.

So what are you supposed to do against a list that just parks in cover on their board edge for infinite 3+ cover saves on their AV13 tanks and fires at you from 30" away until you're tabled?

Make sure you have enough terrain. And play (modified) Maelstrom.

Alcibiades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

Why not? The existence of LOS blocking terrain is assumed in the points costs and design of the units to begin with. If you don't want to use it, either increase the cost of shooting units or decrease the cost of melee units.

How do you know that? I don't think GW takes anything into account in the design of anything.

Martel732 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps it is impossible, but it could certainly be better balanced than it is. I shouldn't NEED LOS blocking terrain to have a chance against Tau.

Why not? The existence of LOS blocking terrain is assumed in the points costs and design of the units to begin with. If you don't want to use it, either increase the cost of shooting units or decrease the cost of melee units.

How do you know that? I don't think GW takes anything into account in the design of anything.

Well if you check out those photos of the boards they play on, or re-read the sections of the rulebooks about terrain density and placement, it seems that in the GW office the vast majority of play includes a lot of terrain with some of the line of sight blocking type being on almost every table.

Seeing as they design the game, assign point values and similar based on their gaming experience, and that experience includes lots of line of sight blocking (and cover granting) terrain, then yes, the default set of assumptions they are going with include lone of sight blocking terrain.

That doesn't mean they are consciously aware of it, just that it is a part of their understanding of the game.

"Seeing as they design the game, assign point values and similar based on their gaming experience"

ROTFL...

I think this process more likely involves a dartboard and a blindfold?

zerosignal wrote:
"Seeing as they design the game, assign point values and similar based on their gaming experience"

ROTFL...

I think this process more likely involves a dartboard and a blindfold?

Ahem. You mean "accounts ledger and inventory backlog" right?

shadowfinder wrote:
I am sorry but I don't see how the tau list is scary in the lest. It has 4 marker lights that will miss half the time and one unit that gets Ignore cover.

Can sky rays split fire the missiles? I am not sure of the rules on them. They only have 6 missiles. Can shot what up to 2 or is it 4 a turn? Can fire at one target a turn.

Last time I cheeked black sun filters only work vs. Night fight. So stealth and shrouded work fine for most of the army?

Having terrain would help. but you should be right up in his grill by turn 2 easy.

As for his army getting 3+ cover saves... How?
Even if he is in terrain he has to be 25% obscured. otherwise he is jinxing. Hitting you on 6'.

How far away are you deep striking in on him?
I thought Dark Eldar didn't scatter when the came in that way? Getting a inch away from his tanks will stop him from dropping the Large blast from the riptides on you.

How do the Riptides ignore cover?? if the sky rays are using the ignore cover for their missiles???

This...

That list isn't even that scary. Apart from SMS he won't really be ignoring very much. And if the Riptides died T1/2 like you said, the rest of his list looks easy to dismantle once his missiles are gone. I don't get it.

DaPino wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:


It's not about "having X or Y", it's about being able to put X on every unit you own and being able to give Y to any weapon.
Yes I might have A weapon with ignores cover but I sure as hell don't have the possibility to give every single weapon in my army ignores cover, especially not Str 7/8 AP2 large blasts.

They might not be OP but they sure as hell are boring to play against and require very little skill to actually command. A Tau player once let me play his army to 'truely show me that Tau weren't as easy as I made them out to be'. Let's just say it didn't turn out as he had planned.

Space Marines are the only army who can have AP2 in every single unit they field

If only that meant something. It's not about AP 2 wounds usually, it's about quantity of forced saves. And in that arena, marines SUCK.

I'm a Tau player myself & what I generally have trouble dealing with is FMC's & massed AV14 (Leman Russ heavy IG armies for example).

I have to admit that my local meta is very non-competitive & most games are played between close friends for fun alone. So I'm probably don't fit the stereotype of the "Tau powergamer".

Martel732 wrote:
If only that meant something. It's not about AP 2 wounds usually, it's about quantity of forced saves. And in that arena, marines SUCK.

Not really if you cause 20 wounds with no saves it's a lot better than forcing 40 saves with a 4 up. Rhinos are 35 pts... if you can't find value in tacticals or scouts you're insane. I would say half the games I play are against a marine variant or something with marine allies. Their troops can be played well.

jakejackjake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If only that meant something. It's not about AP 2 wounds usually, it's about quantity of forced saves. And in that arena, marines SUCK.

Not really if you cause 20 wounds with no saves it's a lot better than forcing 40 saves with a 4 up

No it's statistically identical.