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.

Powerful? Yes. As good as top three? No

I love everything about the new Tau models... Except that there isn't a AoS style game to play them with. Q_Q.

I want Age of Calgar to be a thing.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Powerful? Yes. As good as top three? No

I would not be quick to judge that. We got some powerful options there, and the full effect has yet to be seen.

The stealth cadre is rather nasty, and counters eldar and necron vehicles (and IG ones), and puts a threat to IK and ravenwing, all the while being a bitch to shoot down by anything.
"Farsight bomb " is cheaper, much cheaper, as you don't actually need Farsight. (and 10 points less per suit as you don't have to take bodyguards for huge teams) and can be easily fit into a hunter cadre. This used to be a competitive combo in 6th. Under price reduction and taucurion buffs, it might be 7th competitive.
Fish of Fury is possibly back, between breachers and that combined fire of warriors, fish and fish drones means they are all BS4.
Camping warriors are so much more of a threat with the new drone torrents.
The induction cadre is brutal with T2 deepstriking relentless broadsides (and many other suits)
Stormsurge has insane potential if you can protect it, and between it and stealth cadre, you give Knights a "no good option" scenario for shield placement without even flanking it.

Overall, there are quite a few powerful choices, and until we see them on the field, we can't really say just how good our new codex is.
We are back to top tier, time will tell if top 3, and we have a slight chance to dethrone eldar.

We could dethrone Eldar indeed. Only once Admech came out and there was those insane Aadmech/Skitaarii/Knight armies running around that we finally seen no Tau make the top 5 players in tournaments.

Our dex was up to then placing 4-5 regularly. With all these new buffs I would be extremely surprised to think anyone would not consider us top tier once again.

Personally I think we'll be second best dex around with a chance to be better than Eldar.

I got a feeling we'll see Crisis rain make a comeback. With some Stormsurge/Riptide support. Maybe the Optimized Stealth formation could also see use.

This update has been excellent. I haven't really looked at my Tau in awhile. Now I'm looking to buy stuff again and come up with army lists. I think that Breachers and the Ghostkeel give Tau a little more reason to play aggressively which makes for a more tactically interesting game.

 kronk wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lukash_ wrote:

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:


-Lack of walker vehicle

But Tau walkers aren't vehicles, they're MC's.

The distinction between Walker and MC is bizarre

It's bs.

We should all email GW every day to get rid of the Walker Vehicle and make Dreads, Sentinels, etc MCs.

If they say no, email them twice a day.

Way to remove last bits of tactical play in 40k and push it towards Age of Sigmar with guns. If anything, Tau mcs dreadknight and daemon engines should become walkers and get vulnerable sides and rear.

What's good for the goose is good for the Space Marines.

I still think it will hold 4th place to the big three

Heh, with that new formation my Leman Russ might as well be Ork Trukks for all the good that heavy armour does them. No formation, hell no army, should have access to something that essentially negates an entire armies play style to this extent.
Pulse Rifles glancing on 5's, penning on 6's? Oh wow, so much for all that heavy armour I just paid for and traded my speed for.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Heh, with that new formation my Leman Russ might as well be Ork Trukks for all the good that heavy armour does them. No formation, hell no army, should have access to something that essentially negates an entire armies play style to this extent.
Pulse Rifles glancing on 5's, penning on 6's? Oh wow, so much for all that heavy armour I just paid for and traded my speed for.

The formation doesn't include Fire Warriors.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Heh, with that new formation my Leman Russ might as well be Ork Trukks for all the good that heavy armour does them. No formation, hell no army, should have access to something that essentially negates an entire armies play style to this extent.
Pulse Rifles glancing on 5's, penning on 6's? Oh wow, so much for all that heavy armour I just paid for and traded my speed for.

Dont forget anyone assaulting you also hits on rear armor too. So yeah, its a bad day for all vehicles everywhere now.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Heh, with that new formation my Leman Russ might as well be Ork Trukks for all the good that heavy armour does them. No formation, hell no army, should have access to something that essentially negates an entire armies play style to this extent.
Pulse Rifles glancing on 5's, penning on 6's? Oh wow, so much for all that heavy armour I just paid for and traded my speed for.

Its a sad day more mech armies for sure.

 Lukash_ wrote:

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:


-Lack of walker vehicle

But Tau walkers aren't vehicles, they're MC's. It's like you want to run the risk of your unit being crippled or one-shotted by enemy anti-tank.

But they are vehicles. They have a crew, chassis, armour, propulsion, magazines, the whole works. They don't have circulation, organs etc.
It's just silly to model them as MC's.

MC is just a rules designator. It shouldnt be taken literally.

No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

Backfire wrote:
No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

Basically. But hey, rules are for losers, says GW.

Backfire wrote:
No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

I dunno, but the Knights are selling pretty well.

Also, as an interesting side-note, I can't recall a single unit in the 40k system that could be categorized as a 'creature' in the strictest sense. The Tyranid MCs are bio-engineered warmachines so are the Ork gargantuan squiggoths. Maybe the Kroot knarlocs?

Backfire wrote:
No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

I dont find it arbitrary. Its intentional. they are jut making the unit NOT suck like Dreadnoughts did for so long. They basically ARE Dreadnoughts but they are just a little tougher to kill, better arc of fire. that's really what they did here. It's not arbitrary at all.

This latest was, for me, the final straw. It indicates that GW are in no way, shape or form interested in actually having a balanced game so... I'm done. Models packed away in boxes, books handed to my FLGS as store-copies. I know enough of the setting to run FFG's RPGs, and that will more than suffice for me.

 Jancoran wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

I dont find it arbitrary. Its intentional. they are jut making the unit NOT suck like Dreadnoughts did for so long. They basically ARE Dreadnoughts but they are just a little tougher to kill, better arc of fire. that's really what they did here. It's not arbitrary at all.

So why they didn't make Dreadnoughts suck less too? Hey, why don't they make ALL vehicles Monstrous creatures since that seems to be almost only way making them viable?

Backfire wrote:
So why they didn't make Dreadnoughts suck less too? Hey, why don't they make ALL vehicles Monstrous creatures since that seems to be almost only way making them viable?

Why on earth would they do that? So people can buy second-hand Dreadnoughts instead of fronting up to GW stores like good little peons for new kits? Pssh.

EDIT: You'd better believe I'm bitter and twisted.

Or just go back to 5th edition vehicle rules with some tweaks maybe, instead of dumbing down the game further. Only clear monsters like daemons or large tyranids should be mcs.

DaPino wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
People are overreacting. The Hunter Cadre is devastating against death stars and decent against everything else.

No people are obviously not overreacting. Tau was just about the only 6th edition book that did not need an update. Sure, they are currently bottom top-tier/ higher mid-tier and not "OMG-Eldar-OP". However, I currently play 4 armies: Skitarii (played as Dark mechanicum), Chaos space marines, Tyranids and Necrons. Unless I'm playing necrons, I know I'm unpacking most of my models just to put them back where they came from.

Whether I move my bikers (for example) or not, it matters not, they're not going to reach their intended target, and neither is the other 1/2 of my army.

Indeed, Tau would have been able to live well with old codex.
But GW wants to sell shiny new models like the Ghostkeel and the Stormsurge, and of course some nasty formations.

Marketing comes first, after all.

 Psienesis wrote:
This latest was, for me, the final straw. It indicates that GW are in no way, shape or form interested in actually having a balanced game so... I'm done. Models packed away in boxes, books handed to my FLGS as store-copies. I know enough of the setting to run FFG's RPGs, and that will more than suffice for me.

Rock on. Play Age of Sigmar. Or start an email campaign to get GW to hand the rule writing over to FFG. That would be nice.

 Psienesis wrote:
This latest was, for me, the final straw. It indicates that GW are in no way, shape or form interested in actually having a balanced game so... I'm done. Models packed away in boxes, books handed to my FLGS as store-copies. I know enough of the setting to run FFG's RPGs, and that will more than suffice for me.

I would gladly take those models off your hands for you

No sense in leaving them in boxes just to sit there and gather dust when someone like me could be enjoying them despite the inherent lack of balance in the game.

Backfire wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, but you should designate 'like for like'. At present, what qualifies for a "monster" and which is a "walker" is completely arbitrary and seems to be based mostly on vehicles being so bad in present edition that people wouldn't buy unit like Riptide if it was a Walker.

I dont find it arbitrary. Its intentional. they are jut making the unit NOT suck like Dreadnoughts did for so long. They basically ARE Dreadnoughts but they are just a little tougher to kill, better arc of fire. that's really what they did here. It's not arbitrary at all.

So why they didn't make Dreadnoughts suck less too? Hey, why don't they make ALL vehicles Monstrous creatures since that seems to be almost only way making them viable?

Because variety man. Lifes not fair. Lol.

 Psienesis wrote:
This latest was, for me, the final straw. It indicates that GW are in no way, shape or form interested in actually having a balanced game so... I'm done. Models packed away in boxes, books handed to my FLGS as store-copies. I know enough of the setting to run FFG's RPGs, and that will more than suffice for me.

If you want to play a balanced game then the FFG 40k RPGs are a strange choice. They are pretty much plagued by the same issues as the 40k tabletop game plus some. And FFG cares about game balance just as much as GW .

Who cares. if someone wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, Let 'em.

It seems to me that 2 Riptides and 1 SS make for a good firebase for Tau. Add a buffmander with 3-4 crisis suits with missile pods and 6-8 marker drones, 3 fw teams with markerlight support and you can pretty much erase whatever the commander looks at, plus SS and/or riptides can target additional marked units elsewhere.

This is my problem, though: 1-3 Pathfinders, Piranhas, Vespid, Drones

Maybe a minimum nr of gun drones, or pathfinders? I hope FW "fixes" this and allows me to use Tetras here

For the auxiliary maybe the retaliation cadre?

Too bad I have 0 Firewarriors and am not really interested in buying any, but now I have to.