New Tau are so far pretty excellent

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.

**BoomWolf**

Not as much of a problem as you'd think.

Pathfinders are a solid pick, especially now that moving walls are a thing, piranhas are dirt cheap and useful, and drones make an integral part of many people's markerlight base.
Vespid are a joke though, yes.

**Naw**

I play FE, so only have drones and suits. Maybe I will do with marker drones then? Now to get some FW

**Wayniac**

How are Breachers? They look very interesting with the old Fish of Fury tactic backed up by the static team with the missile turret

**BoomWolf**

Hard to tell by mere stats and no tests, but they seem solid enough to be worth giving a try in the hunter cadre.

The possibility to runNgun increases threat range, and the "3 unit combine shots=+1BS" actually means that if a fish has drone, the fish, drone and warriors are technically 3 units by themselves, netting your +1BS.

**asorel**

Jancoran wrote:
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.

We enjoy games because they, unlike life, are fair. Tabletop is a way to step away from the unpleasantness of reality, into something more enjoyable. If games end up the same bitter mess as life, why bother?

**Tank_Dweller**

asorel wrote:
Jancoran wrote:
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.

We enjoy games because they, unlike life, are fair. Tabletop is a way to step away from the unpleasantness of reality, into something more enjoyable. If games end up the same bitter mess as life, why bother?

Art imitates life.

**asorel**

Tank_Dweller wrote:
asorel wrote:
Jancoran wrote:
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.

We enjoy games because they, unlike life, are fair. Tabletop is a way to step away from the unpleasantness of reality, into something more enjoyable. If games end up the same bitter mess as life, why bother?

Art imitates life.

And to imitate, one need not replicate.

Edit: What's more, a book of rules is not necessarily art.

**rowboatjellyfanxiii**

A book by GW is probably a sack of crap.

Moving on.

**Tank_Dweller**

asorel wrote:
Tank_Dweller wrote:
asorel wrote:
Jancoran wrote:
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.

We enjoy games because they, unlike life, are fair. Tabletop is a way to step away from the unpleasantness of reality, into something more enjoyable. If games end up the same bitter mess as life, why bother?

Art imitates life.

And to imitate, one need not replicate.

Edit: What's more, a book of rules is not necessarily art.

You missed the point... Accounting for the lack of balance we can deduce that people continue to bother for the art.. the spectacle if you will.

**Jancoran**

asorel wrote:
Jancoran wrote:
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.

We enjoy games because they, unlike life, are fair. Tabletop is a way to step away from the unpleasantness of reality, into something more enjoyable. If games end up the same bitter mess as life, why bother?

Then don't? But in the meantime, im not going to get too hung up on it. No point. Theres advantages to dreads over mc's and vice versa. Theyre different and thats that. Dont get wrapped up in what you dont control. Just have fun. Or don't

**Backfire**

Jancoran wrote:

Then don't? But in the meantime, im not going to get too hung up on it. No point. Theres advantages to dreads over mc's and vice versa. Theyre different and thats that. Dont get wrapped up in what you dont control. Just have fun. Or don't

Yeah, I've heard that argument before. "Vehicles are just as good, they're immune to poison, that is a major advantage over MC's!" But it is really hard to hear those arguments with so many Riptide reactors whizzing around...

**Jancoran**

Abort all shooting and chaaaaaaarge

**nosferatu1001**

Jancoran wrote:
Abort all shooting and chaaaaaaarge

Exalted!

Agree x 10000

**Naw**

Backfire wrote:
Jancoran wrote:

Then don't? But in the meantime, im not going to get too hung up on it. No point. Theres advantages to dreads over mc's and vice versa. Theyre different and thats that. Dont get wrapped up in what you dont control. Just have fun. Or don't

Yeah, I've heard that argument before. "Vehicles are just as good, they're immune to poison, that is a major advantage over MC's!" But it is really hard to hear those arguments with so many Riptide reactors whizzing around...

Exactly! To Jancoran, when was the last time you had your MC oneshotted? Or even killed by poison?

I can count numerous times when my Dreadnought, Predator or Vindicator was destroyed Turn 1 before I was able to use it at all.

It's ridiculuos to even try to say that the advantages (huh) even things out.

**krodarklorr**

Must say, I'm disappointed with the Tau rumors. Squadable Riptides and GCs, still easily spammable S7, and Markerlights didn't change. Yes, you're making me want to play again, GW.

Even my Tau friend has stopped playing. And I'm right there with him.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Naw wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Jancoran wrote:

Then don't? But in the meantime, im not going to get too hung up on it. No point. Theres advantages to dreads over mc's and vice versa. Theyre different and thats that. Dont get wrapped up in what you dont control. Just have fun. Or don't

Yeah, I've heard that argument before. "Vehicles are just as good, they're immune to poison, that is a major advantage over MC's!" But it is really hard to hear those arguments with so many Riptide reactors whizzing around...

Exactly! To Jancoran, when was the last time you had your MC oneshotted? Or even killed by poison?

I can count numerous times when my Dreadnought, Predator or Vindicator was destroyed Turn 1 before I was able to use it at all.

It's ridiculuos to even try to say that the advantages (huh) even things out.

The moment he says "Just have fun." it means he's on a completely different mindset and I don't think anything you'll say will have any effect (this is not meant as an insult to Jancoran, merely stating a fact) .

**Naw**

krodarklorr wrote:
Must say, I'm disappointed with the Tau rumors. Squadable Riptides and GCs, still easily spammable S7, and Markerlights didn't change. Yes, you're making me want to play again, GW.

Even my Tau friend has stopped playing. And I'm right there with him.

..because your Tau friend MUST SPAM the units, right?

**krodarklorr**

Naw wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Must say, I'm disappointed with the Tau rumors. Squadable Riptides and GCs, still easily spammable S7, and Markerlights didn't change. Yes, you're making me want to play again, GW.

Even my Tau friend has stopped playing. And I'm right there with him.

..because your Tau friend MUST SPAM the units, right?

No. It's just the route the game is taking.

**asorel**

Naw wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Must say, I'm disappointed with the Tau rumors. Squadable Riptides and GCs, still easily spammable S7, and Markerlights didn't change. Yes, you're making me want to play again, GW.

Even my Tau friend has stopped playing. And I'm right there with him.

..because your Tau friend MUST SPAM the units, right?

I don't know about you, but I expect a set of rules to be workable without player conspiracy. The fact that a thing is fixable does nothing to the fact that it was initially broken.

**Naw**

asorel wrote:
Naw wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Must say, I'm disappointed with the Tau rumors. Squadable Riptides and GCs, still easily spammable S7, and Markerlights didn't change. Yes, you're making me want to play again, GW.

Even my Tau friend has stopped playing. And I'm right there with him.

..because your Tau friend MUST SPAM the units, right?

I don't know about you, but I expect a set of rules to be workable without player conspiracy. The fact that a thing is fixable does nothing to the fact that it was initially broken.

Fine, you can be a sad donkey about it if you want. In the meanwhile the rest of us can choose to not be donkeys about it. OP wrote of spamming S7, I commented by asking if that's really what his friend must do. Do I want to play with friends and stay friends? Answer is easy: Yes to both. Solution is even more easy: I do not spam the units that can be OP.

Now that said, this game will never be in a position where taking 1000 pts with one faction would be equal to 1000 pts efficiency with another faction. We know the track record of GW since the very beginning of this game, why do you keep expecting otherwise?

**Backfire**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

The moment he says "Just have fun." it means he's on a completely different mindset and I don't think anything you'll say will have any effect (this is not meant as an insult to Jancoran, merely stating a fact) .

That's the thing, it's almost impossible to have fun with these things. To quote my recent post from parallel thread:

When you shoot a vehicle, number of things can happen: it may lose a weapon or get immobilized. When it is destroyed, it may blow up, or very least leave its burnt-out wreck behind, possibly hindering your other units. These are all believable options based on real life incidents. Similarly, when you shoot an infantry unit, lots of stuff may happen: the unit probably suffers casualties, gradually whittling down its fighting power. You may lose some special weapon or piece of wargear and you now have to do without. The unit might even panic and retreat. Again, all this is intriguing, realistic and provides many tactical dilemmas.

But when you shoot a monstrous creature, what happens? Nothing much. If it fails a save, it suffers a wound. There is no other damage or effect. The monster never panics, it is never stunned and never loses one bit of combat efficiency. It can never blow up, no matter how much flammable fuel or ammunition the 'monster' was carrying according to lore. When it loses its last wound, it is simply removed from play. It doesn't leave a smoking crater, or even a corpse, no matter how gigantic the creature was. It just vanishes without any ado or ceremony. Not only this is very unintuitive and illogical, it is so damn BORING.

It's one thing that units like Riptide are powerful, but they are just no fun to play, with or against. I don't want to spend ages slowly grinding down a nearly indestructable unit. I want to blow stuff up. I want my stuff blow up. It's the difference between your average crappy RTS game, and Total Annihilation.

**BoomWolf**

High-risk-high-reward units are fun and all.

But I love having a riptide that can assure at least some level of lasting presence. (though had the ghost been released when I have gotten my tide, I'd probably go for the ghost.)

**Resin Glazed Guardsman**

At least you get the comfort of knowing your riptide will stick around for at least a few turns, try having that reassurance when your hard hitters are labeled vehicles or walkers and can explode with one lucky shot.

**Backfire**

That's the idea: you should not have such assurances. You should have means to reduce the risk, like more armour or defensive systems for your vehicle or equivalent heavy hitter, but complete safety just leads to boringness.

**Jancoran**

The general should matter more than the list. If it does not, you're doing it wrong. Just my opinion.

But in the end its a dice game and there's always a chance of catastrophic failure. where would the drama be otherwise?

**War Kitten**

Jancoran wrote:
The general should matter more than the list. If it does not, you're doing it wrong. Just my opinion.

But in the end its a dice game and there's always a chance of catastrophic failure. where would the drama be otherwise?

Gotta agree with you on this.

**jreilly89**

Jancoran wrote:
The general should matter more than the list. If it does not, you're doing it wrong. Just my opinion.

But in the end its a dice game and there's always a chance of catastrophic failure. where would the drama be otherwise?

An all flyer list vs no anti air. Trust me, there are unwinnable match ups, but they are few and far between.

**Jancoran**

jreilly89 wrote:
Jancoran wrote:
The general should matter more than the list. If it does not, you're doing it wrong. Just my opinion.

But in the end its a dice game and there's always a chance of catastrophic failure. where would the drama be otherwise?

An all flyer list vs no anti air. Trust me, there are unwinnable match ups, but they are few and far between.

Sure. i guess? Although most all flyer lists would auto-lose and not be able to take objectives. hehehe.

**Natalya**

sigh... should I even bother unpacking my models when playing Dark Eldar against these guys? And I thought Necron Wraithwing was bad.

**Jancoran**

Natalya wrote:
sigh... should I even bother unpacking my models when playing Dark Eldar against these guys? And I thought Necron Wraithwing was bad.

Asault vehicles. Definitely bring the Dark Eldar.