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.

Certain armies/formations are hated more than others, I believe it is because we as players do not take the time to learn everything about the game. We focus on 1 phase of the game and that is the shooting phase. We as players do not put in the effort to learn the rules thus we end up hating things we dont understand. There are 4 phases to this game and we pay attention to just one.

Perfect example of this is Tau. Players who do not know the rules get blown off the table by Tau because they only know the shooting phase and, they try to out shoot Tau. Tau has a better shooting phase than most armies and because of this strength in the quote on quote most important phase Tau gets a bad rep. Great players know exactly how to handle every army because they use every phase of the game and with Tau having such a obvious weakness that can be exploited which is why no top 8 at LVO for Tau despite a new codex.


Am I right about this, the armies with the best shooting phase is hated on the most?

One) Tau not making Top 8 at LVO is not proof they aren't good or have a crippling weakness. The fact is two Tau armies had no loses going into the final round only to lose it at the last second. They had the win-loss record to make Top 8 but only didn't because the armies in Top 8 had higher points. Considering all the random aspects there in tournaments (match-up pairings, Maelstrom objectives, dice rolls) Its clear Tau are a top competitive army.

Two) This has nothing to do with Tactics. You're just trying to get accuse people for hating on shooting armies or for not being good at the game.

The problem lays in the fact the shooting phase is the easiest. There are so many hurdle for an assault unit to get to the Tau sublime while on the other hand the Tau only has to be within their range. Random charge distances, overwatch, too many armies getting easy access to ignores cover and jump-shoot-jump or similar rules make assault a risky and hard thing to achieve.

This makes armies that are primarily assault based by fluff or design such as orks or daemons find tau very frustrating. High strength, moderate to good ap or rate of fire and easy access to ignores cover and bs modifiers makes them seem like they are breaking all the rules. That is we're the hate comes from

 CrownAxe wrote:
One) Tau not making Top 8 at LVO is not proof they aren't good or have a crippling weakness. The fact is two Tau armies had no loses going into the final round only to lose it at the last second. They had the win-loss record to make Top 8 but only didn't because the armies in Top 8 had higher points. Considering all the random aspects there in tournaments (match-up pairings, Maelstrom objectives, dice rolls) Its clear Tau are a top competitive army.

Two) This has nothing to do with Tactics. You're just trying to get accuse people for hating on shooting armies

You make alot of assumptions that do not make sense. I said that Tau has a better shooting phase than most armies and you consider that as me putting them down. Yes, Tau came close to top 8 and probably would have made Top 8 if it wasnt for people fearing Tau a shooty army and nerfing it via ITC voting system.

Which is why I want to get others opinion on why shooty armies are feared. If a discussion on the shooting phase is not tactical, what would you call it crownaxe?

It's because in this edition Shooting > Assault.

In previous editions Assault > Shooting. Rhino Rush was a thing which everyone hated.

As to why certain armies are hated more than others, it's because of different reasons but usually because they ignore game mechanics. Tau? Ignore Cover, don't often miss. Necrons? Don't die no matter what you shoot at them. Eldar? Super fast, can never seem to be in range, favouritism, D weapons. SM? Grav ignores armour saves and basically is a point and click weapon, while they can ally with a hell of a lot despite the fluff saying otherwise.

When you've got armies that can ignore not just lines, but pages and sometimes even sections of the mainrule book as well as the background, you've got a problem.

This is an over simplification. 4 phases include Movement Psychic, Shooting and Assault. The movement phase is harmless...the psychic phase for any army will never be as deadly as the shooting phase. and for units that are geared to preform in the assault phase they must endure at least one shooting phase, and are allowed to be attacked back even in their assault phase where they are meant to shine.

I rarely agree with CrownAxe but this is one of those times.

He's right since accusing other players of not knowing how to play the game when an army is clearly strong is condescending at best. Not to mention blaming people for only focusing on the Shooting Phase is a flawed assumption in of itself.

Let's take another example; the Scatterlaser Jetbike. On the surface it seems like this unit's primary reason for being strong is because of it's shooting, as a ton of S6 shots isn't something to laugh at. But that's not the perk of this unit.

No, the perk is just as much in the other phases of the game as it is in the shooting phase. A Jetbike moves fast in both the Movement Phase and the Assault Phase, making them exceedingly hard to catch. This is where their shooting weapon actually compliments their other attributes in other phases as well; the long range of the gun means that a Jetbike can comfortably sit outside of enemy range at all phases of the game while still doing damage, giving them significant buffer room against even other comparatively-fast units.

It is all of these factors that come together that makes a unit "broken" or extremely powerful. The Tau's power is actually something similar, in that their special rules allow them to either neglect or negate a phase or a game mechanic entirely. Markerlights takes away cover, Support Fire turns the enemy's assault phase into their shooting phase, and the Battlesuit's Jetpack status effectively turns their assault phase into an extra movement phase. This is on top of really powerful guns they already have. Like the Jetbike example above, any one of these would be a good benefit to an army, but combine it all at once and it results in something that feels like it broke the game (or is playing a completely different game than the one you are in this case).

 Frozocrone wrote:
As to why certain armies are hated more than others, it's because of different reasons but usually because they ignore game mechanics. Tau? Ignore Cover, don't often miss. Necrons? Don't die no matter what you shoot at them. Eldar? Super fast, can never seem to be in range, favouritism, D weapons. SM? Grav ignores armour saves and basically is a point and click weapon, while they can ally with a hell of a lot despite the fluff saying otherwise.

This. Or, more specifically, the perceptions this causes. Because an army has special rules A and B, people hate on it because they seem unfair, even though their army has different - and even equally good - special rules C and D. I've heard people compare two miles-apart units from two different armies (like wraithlords and scout marines) and complain that one is unfair, but without context it's an apples-to-oranges situation.

While there may be a few genuinely imbalanced things out there, far more impactful is player perception about balance.

Part of the problem is the frustration of feeling like your choices and actions have no meaning. Using Tau as an example, giving how easily they can gain ignores cover and boost their ballistic skill combined with an abundance of mid to high strength shots. Unless you play with a lot of LOS blocking terrain suddenly many of my phases don't matter. There are examples of this in several other armies but this problem is why many players dislike playing certain lists/factions.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Part of the problem is the frustration of feeling like your choices and actions have no meaning. Using Tau as an example, giving how easily they can gain ignores cover and boost their ballistic skill combined with an abundance of mid to high strength shots. Unless you play with a lot of LOS blocking terrain suddenly many of my phases don't matter. There are examples of this in several other armies but this problem is why many players dislike playing certain lists/factions.

To add to this, SMS add to the situation.
"okay, I'm against a shooty army, I'll try to assault them" " They get to shoot you again then"
"damn, okay I'll grab some cover" "they ignore cover"
"feth, Alright, can't shoot what you can't see" "Actually, they can"


There are 2 problems with Tau from a gameplay perspective.
1. They are powerful, they are definitely more powerful than necrons competitively. On par with eldar.
2. They are frustrating, for the reasons above, there is no opponent interaction, seemingly no counterplay after list building, either you can take it, or you can't.

Necrons have the same issues.
1. Powerful, making it really hard to play anyone who isn't Marines/Eldar/Tau against them, without a really solid list.
2. Frustrating, they don't die, again, seemingly no counterplay. Either you brought a list with enough Dakka, or you didn't. You don't feel like you can tactically beat them, if they just stand on every objective and dont move.

Power Creep is a thing, and when it creeps on top tier armies like Eldar/Tau , it upsets people because those armies go above top tier.

The Eldar/Tau boost wasn't power creep so much as a power leap.

Overwatch is a serious issue. Have you ever been subject to Tau overwatch when you have an assault army? For them to use markerlights in overwatch, then their entire army gets to shoot an extra turn, mostly with twin-linked weapons, you might see why they are hated.

BTW, do we really need another "Tau aren't that bad" thread, when people get their opinions of Tau by playing Tau, not by listening to apologists?

 JimOnMars wrote:
Overwatch is a serious issue. Have you ever been subject to Tau overwatch when you have an assault army? For them to use markerlights in overwatch, then their entire army gets to shoot an extra turn, mostly with twin-linked weapons, you might see why they are hated.

BTW, do we really need another "Tau aren't that bad" thread, when people get their opinions of Tau by playing Tau, not by listening to apologists?

Its an army-wide ability like any other army has. I don't know why you are so bent out of shape about it. How is that any worse than Necrons getting army wide FnP? Or elder being able to run and shoot every turn?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I rarely agree with CrownAxe but this is one of those times.

He's right since accusing other players of not knowing how to play the game when an army is clearly strong is condescending at best. Not to mention blaming people for only focusing on the Shooting Phase is a flawed assumption in of itself.

If you are unable to identify the weakness of a unit is that not considered a lack of game knowledge? Well, I stand by that statement the typical player looks at the size of the gun and how much noise it can make more than anything else.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Let's take another example; the Scatterlaser Jetbike. On the surface it seems like this unit's primary reason for being strong is because of it's shooting, as a ton of S6 shots isn't something to laugh at. But that's not the perk of this unit.

What was the first example!!!

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
No, the perk is just as much in the other phases of the game as it is in the shooting phase. A Jetbike moves fast in both the Movement Phase and the Assault Phase, making them exceedingly hard to catch. This is where their shooting weapon actually compliments their other attributes in other phases as well; the long range of the gun means that a Jetbike can comfortably sit outside of enemy range at all phases of the game while still doing damage, giving them significant buffer room against even other comparatively-fast units.

You are proving my point here by explaining why people fear shooty units. It starts off with "wow these guys can put out a lot of shots" than its "they are really fast to". However it always start with the shooting first if they did not have 3 scatter lasers they would not be used as much as proven by the previous Eldar Codex where they only had 1 scatter laser per 3. The movement is nice but without the shooting this unit would not be feared.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
It is all of these factors that come together that makes a unit "broken" or extremely powerful. The Tau's power is actually something similar, in that their special rules allow them to either neglect or negate a phase or a game mechanic entirely. Markerlights takes away cover, Support Fire turns the enemy's assault phase into their shooting phase, and the Battlesuit's Jetpack status effectively turns their assault phase into an extra movement phase. This is on top of really powerful guns they already have. Like the Jetbike example above, any one of these would be a good benefit to an army, but combine it all at once and it results in something that feels like it broke the game (or is playing a completely different game than the one you are in this case).

Tau requires you to systematically take out the appropriate targets at the right time without proper target priority you will lose to players of lesser skill. If you keep shooting at riptides and not killing them while the marker light source remains unmolested you are doing it wrong, has nothing to do with Tau or any other shooty army being strong.

That makes no sense...tau requires skill to systematically take out targets but players of less skill can just shoot tau dead....if the tau player of higher skill doesn't shoot things? Shoot shoot shoot. Shooting phase....? You are disproving your own premise while failing to acknowledge other peoples responses.

Tau is the most shooty army in 40k batr none. But people shouldn't be concerned about their guns or supporting fire?

jeez this guy is still making threads complaining about the Tau nerf

I don't Tau. I hate Stormsurges and Riptides and Ghostkeels. MCs and GMCs OP.

 Tenzilla wrote:
The movement phase is harmless...

Spoken like a true Guard player

Shooty armies are 'hated' the most because as the non-shooty player, you're entirely passive. You're pretty much hoping that you roll well enough on your saves to make it across the table. Or cripple their shooting enough. Tau usually get this hate because of the quantity and quality of their shooting. The ability to markerlight things, tank hunter things etc makes their shooting the most potent. They get this hate because most tournament level Tau lists are 'one trick ponies'. They aim to dominate the first two shooting phases and then mop up the remainder to win the game.

A proper quality army should dominate a minimum of two of the four phases. Eldar consistently place well because they win in the movement and shooting phases, and can still bring enough psychic power to contest the psychic phase (against anything but Tzeentch). Against an army like Tau, they can dominate in the assault phase too.

Tau however, should always be the shootiest army on the table. Similarly, they will always be the least assault and psychic focused army on the table, the matchup is irrelevant. If you get into combat with Tau, and the game starts moving your way. Even if you don't win the combat, keeping a riptide/ghostkeel in combat for a game turn is a win. Tau's movement is on average, they have some mobility based units, but it's not a huge strength.

 Tenzilla wrote:
That makes no sense...?

People complaining about Tau makes no sense to me!

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
jeez this guy is still making threads complaining about the Tau nerf

This thread was meant to be about how over valued the shooting phase is but, it became about Tau because I used Tau as an example.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't Tau. I hate Stormsurges and Riptides and Ghostkeels. MCs and GMCs OP.

I think you listed every MC Tau has do you hate other armies MC also? If so could you list those also?

Again the problem for most armies and to the Tau's benefit is that the shooting phase this editions is the phase that wins the game. Assault is in bad shape outside deathstars, the Psychic phase is limited to a few builds to be decisive and Movement is mostly avoiding assault and setting up shooting. If you have an army that can pump out shots your in good shape. The only time movement really matters is maelstrom missions.

"do you hate other armies MC also?"

Pretty much. MC USR is way OP imo.

And yes, it's super frustrating to be shot to death while doing very little in return.

So the consensus is that shooty armies deserve the hate?

I don't know. Not much has to go right for shooting lists to win and a lot has to go right for assault lists to win. Lists that try to mix the two like traditional marine lists are also at a disadvantage I think.

I think a lot of the problem is MCs\GMCs, as Martel mentions.

Guard, for an example, are a shoot army but they bring tanks instead of MCs.

Tanks cannot:
Fire Overwatch
Fight back in combat
Move and shoot effectively (in most cases)

Tanks can:
Be easily killed with a single AP2 or 1 shot
Be disabled and forced to snapfire with almost every wound they take
Be hit always in combat in certain situations

notredameguy10 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Overwatch is a serious issue. Have you ever been subject to Tau overwatch when you have an assault army? For them to use markerlights in overwatch, then their entire army gets to shoot an extra turn, mostly with twin-linked weapons, you might see why they are hated.

BTW, do we really need another "Tau aren't that bad" thread, when people get their opinions of Tau by playing Tau, not by listening to apologists?

Its an army-wide ability like any other army has. I don't know why you are so bent out of shape about it. How is that any worse than Necrons getting army wide FnP? Or elder being able to run and shoot every turn?

You realise identifying the 3 more powerful armies in the game and saying "look tau isnt so bad compared to these guys" falls on deaf ears

Because Necrons having FNP doesn't table me. And the Riptide is ironically tougher than anything the Necrons have.

At this point since there's so much complaining on this site lately I'm just chalking it up to people taking the easy way out. It's always easier to cry and complain and claim something is overpowered then trying to find suitable ways to counter it. Seriously Martel? I get it you're biased towards the Riptide but claiming it's tougher than anything the Necrons have? Lol and you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

 gmaleron wrote:
At this point since there's so much complaining on this site lately I'm just chalking it up to people taking the easy way out. It's always easier to cry and complain and claim something is overpowered then trying to find suitable ways to counter it. Seriously Martel? I get it you're biased towards the Riptide but claiming it's tougher than anything the Necrons have? Lol and you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

I really don't care if you take me seriously. Name a Necron unit that is tougher than a Riptide, then.

A unit of 6 Wraiths for one (equal in points cost to a riptide kitted out) and that's not even taking the Decurian Formation shenanigans that can make them even tougher.

I was thinking single unit, like a Monolith or something.

But even Wraiths put themselves in more harm's way than the Riptide, so the Riptide might still end up being more durable in practice. I've certainly killed WAY more Wraiths than Riptides in my games.

At the end of the day, the games against Necrons are more interactive. With Tau, I'm just picking up the models the opponent points to, and I don't get to anything meaningful in return.