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.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Theyre the ones that got a bunch of new stuff so thats what got acted on. That rules interpretations were wildly divergent didnt help.

If Eldar get a grip of new stuff any time soon with much disagreed upon rules, expect it to get hammered as well.

The raw in the tau codex was pretty clear with only a few bad wordings. Most of the "confusing" wordings were people trying to find ways to argue that the raw wasn't rules as intended. Regardless, there were quite a few rulings they did that were obviously against Raw.

Doesn't matter how crystal clear the rules are, if its strong and xenos, it gets nerfed by ITC, regardless of RAW. It's the reason why I keep correcting people who, for whatever reason, think the ITC is an FAQ, it's not an FAQ when they make up their own rules against the raw, its house ruling.

ITC goes out of their way to FAQs, people complain about their rulings. ITC lets others vote on the ruling, people complain. Everything checks out here.

The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.

The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.

The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

But, the ITC is intentionally witch hunting Tau players!!

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

The ITC FAQ is the FAQ for their tournament series, not for the greater 40k community. If you think they are biased and full of hatred for Tau and Tau players, then don't use their FAQ. Don't play people that insist you use it. Don't go to their events or engage them and work to change it. Going on Dakka and libeling them isn't helping your cause.

The purpose of the ITC FAQ is to make tournament games for the mid tier players enjoyable. Its all about keeping attendance up so the tournament can survive and hopefully thrive. The inherent problem the Tau have is their style of play is not fun for a lot mid and lower tier players. Hence the resentment. Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

But, the ITC is intentionally witch hunting Tau players!!

Read that as internationally, which may be even better as they're being adopted for tournaments around here too now.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).

 carldooley wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).

Even before the ITC rulings, most Tau players refused to admit their codex was near broken and on par with Necrons and SM. I believe that's the 'chip' he's referring to. Tau are crying that their codex is too weak, but they still beat most other codices hand over fist.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Add in the chip a lot of Tau players have on their shoulders the situation just gets worse.

What, in your mind is the 'chip' on Tau player's shoulders? I play Tau, I agree that the RaW for Combined Firepower is more than a bit game breaking, but my biggest problem with the ITC was the bias for that particular question in the ITC's Tau Poll (How do you want to play CFP?)(Not; What is RaW?).

Even before the ITC rulings, most Tau players refused to admit their codex was near broken and on par with Necrons and SM. I believe that's the 'chip' he's referring to. Tau are crying that their codex is too weak, but they still beat most other codices hand over fist.

I'm a Tau player and I wouldent mind if the Tau got a bit weaker. I dont want my favorite army to be in the top tier because it makes people hate the already hated Tau even more.. I want them to be a solid mid tier army, Then it will be easier to get matches.

Because Reece and others from ITC don't have ATSKNF.

While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.

My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.

My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.

Jax, it breaks down to this.

Option #1; The ITC was actually clarifying rules and the Tau came out on the butt end.
Option #2; The ITC have it out for the Tau specifically.

I'm more likely to believe #1, otherwise you're asking the ITC to come up with equally arbitrary buffs to Tau even though there are other armies out there who could ACTUALLY use said buffs. Seriously it is pretentious, all you have to do is not participate in a ITC tourney; you don't see Martel saying ITC should give BA scouts and dreads the same statline as Codex: Space Marine.

I don't usually get a 3rd movement phase against Tau. So yeah...

Martel732 wrote:
I don't usually get a 3rd movement phase against Tau. So yeah...

I know how you feel. Sorry about bringing you up as an example.

 Quickjager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't usually get a 3rd movement phase against Tau. So yeah...

I know how you feel. Sorry about bringing you up as an example.

No, that's fine. I'm just showing why there is Tau hate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I have issues with a lot of the ITC stuff, and their rules tend to promote deathstar heavy armies I think, the idea that Reece has it in specifically for Tau is a wee bit silly, there's no hidden well of Tau hate or overwhelming pandering to Space Marine players (otherwise youd see a lot more Eldar nerfs too). It's just what happens to cause waves gets addressed, for good or ill.

My point isn't that they hate tau, it's that it's unfair that tau get nerfed to mid tier whilst other armies are left pretty much untouched.

Jax, it breaks down to this.

Option #1; The ITC was actually clarifying rules and the Tau came out on the butt end.
Option #2; The ITC have it out for the Tau specifically.

I'm more likely to believe #1, otherwise you're asking the ITC to come up with equally arbitrary buffs to Tau even though there are other armies out there who could ACTUALLY use said buffs. Seriously it is pretentious, all you have to do is not participate in a ITC tourney; you don't see Martel saying ITC should give BA scouts and dreads the same statline as Codex: Space Marine.

It wouldn't help anyway. That's not what's really wrong with BA. I'm actually sick of people proposing that changing those will fix BA. Assault power armor is dead because of lists like Tau. You need TWC or Wraiths to assault now. I honestly have no fething clue what to do with BA or DE (after the jink ruling) in 7th. They are both fethed conceptually.

On a meta level a paradigm shift away from shooting is probably the only option.

For us on the ground a new paint job if we want to continue playing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because they wanted to kick a hornet's nest.

Seriously. How many time has thread been covered?

-They nerfed them, get over it
-Despite the nerfs, Tau are still a top tier army
-Gak happens, the ITC isn't neutral, they don't write rules, they just interpret them

The real question is, why do the Tau players in particular complain so much! After these nerfs I swear more than 10 threads pop up specifically for tau players complaining, I have to this day seen no other army complain as much as this about their respective nerfs, from what I read they weren't even game breaking nerfs, just par for the course when it comes to such high tier armies.

I was lulled into a false sense of security... for weeks I hadn't seen one of these threads and BAM they are at it again. Its like a god damned daemonic incursion, one minute there is silence, next minute dozens of tau players swarm the forums and comment as if they poppee out of thin air

 Jaxler wrote:
Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.

Nerfing Eldar is hard because it isn't the formations that make them so good its the individual units and what they do that make them so good. With out redesigning the entire codex TO's (in this case ITC) really can't do much. As a long term Elder player I do agree GW went overboard on the elder.

As for nerfing Tau, I assuming you are referring to the formation that the wording implied that your entire army gain the benefits from the formation. I cant remember the name of it or the benefit. Tau are still hot fire without that, you may not be top dog to Eldar but you still wreck face against most of the other codices.

And I wouldn't worry too much the new FAQ (rough Draft I know) is putting a stop to that formation mixing and sharing with every army. If I read some of those FAQ's right.

I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...

Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.

Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.

Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.

Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.

 Kriswall wrote:
I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...

Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.

Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.

Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.

Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.

The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.

Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM

Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.

Nothing the ITC did made Riptides any less immortal. I wish I could field immortal gun robots.

are tau players just so buthurt that they cant see that the top itc player rankings right now are mostly tau players? i mean cmon eldar had more nerfs than u. flicker jump, pale host and the nerf to range d to which extent eldar field the most of. sure they get psychic powers but thats what a culuxus is for, if you guys refuse to play tau in the most optimized way then not are fault

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...

Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.

Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.

Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.

Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.

The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.

Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM

Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.

I didn't even mention CSM. CSM are currently in a bad place. I'll give you that. Not sure why you brought it up.

The only thing worse than a CSM player from a 'woe is me, nerf them all' standpoint is a Sisters player. I've played tons of games against tons of players. I have yet to table anyone on turn 1 through shooting. Try not to be melodramatic or hyperbolic and people will take you more seriously.

I fully support making balance changes if one or two specific lists are constantly winning tournaments. I don't support making arbitrary balance changes to nerf armies that aren't constantly winning. I would also support balance changes to give benefit to some of the weaker units in armies that consistently rank towards the bottom.

In a best case scenario, every army should have between 1-3 army builds that could win a tournament with a good player.

 Kriswall wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I find the arguments that the ITC only interprets ambiguous rules to be somewhat comical. They flat out change unambiguous rules for balance reasons. Call a duck a duck. It's not an FAQ. It's an Errata, or a House Rule Pack. In essence, the ITC FAQ is...

Q: The rules tell me do X. Should I do X?
A: No, do Y instead. We asked a bunch of people who don't like your army and they said X is potentially overpowered.

Are the Tau strong? Sure... if you let me sit there and shoot you. Are they top tier? Measurably not. As has been mentioned, Tau lists simply don't win tournaments. They don't even place in the top 10. Allowing the community to make arbitrary rules changes to weaken an army that ISN'T winning consistently (or even occasionally) is hard to take... especially when the actual winning lists to get to pull the same tricks event after event.

Balance will always be a problem with 40k. An arbitrary rules change... especially when the rule in question is either untested in a tournament environment OR is in use but not actually causing wins, is a hard pill to swallow. It may be that Tau players are more vocal because we're tired of being told that our army is OP... our army doesn't fit the 40k aesthetic... our army looks stupid... our army should never have been created... etc, etc.

Do we have a chip on our shoulders? Maybe... but you put it there. I for one try to ignore that chip, but it's definitely there.

The ITC FAQ has always been house rules. They tell you to feel free to ignore/change/use them however you like, they're just trying to provide a starting point for tournaments.

Second, yeah, the Tau didn't place in the Top 10, but they placed pretty well in the Top 20, the two top Tau players only losing out due to some bad rolls/draws. Don't act like Tau are as bad off as CSM

Come off your high horse, admit you have a strong army, and most people will give you a chance. Stop acting like you can't blow me off the table Turn 1.

I didn't even mention CSM. CSM are currently in a bad place. I'll give you that. Not sure why you brought it up.

The only thing worse than a CSM player from a 'woe is me, nerf them all' standpoint is a Sisters player. I've played tons of games against tons of players. I have yet to table anyone on turn 1 through shooting. Try not to be melodramatic or hyperbolic and people will take you more seriously.

I fully support making balance changes if one or two specific lists are constantly winning tournaments. I don't support making arbitrary balance changes to nerf armies that aren't constantly winning. I would also support balance changes to give benefit to some of the weaker units in armies that consistently rank towards the bottom.

In a best case scenario, every army should have between 1-3 army builds that could win a tournament with a good player.

I fully support a more balanced game. However, I've had several games where Tau (only slightly tied with Eldar and Drop Pod SM) have crippled me enough Turn 1 to make it impossible for me to come back. I'm talking 50%-75% of my points just gone. I could even handle Tau if they didn't have the Ignores Cover on 2 Markerlights and no LoS needed on Missiles. That right there will kill 2/3 armies I have and hurt the last (DA).

 jreilly89 wrote:
I fully support a more balanced game. However, I've had several games where Tau (only slightly tied with Eldar and Drop Pod SM) have crippled me enough Turn 1 to make it impossible for me to come back. I'm talking 50%-75% of my points just gone. I could even handle Tau if they didn't have the Ignores Cover on 2 Markerlights and no LoS needed on Missiles. That right there will kill 2/3 armies I have and hurt the last (DA).

If you're playing against Tau and you're deploying within line of sight of the majority of his/her army, you probably need to adjust your deployment strategy. Seeker missiles don't need line of sight, but it's not like Tau armies are loaded down with them... at least no Tau army I've seen. Few units can take them, they're relatively expensive (for an upgrade that's one and done) and are single use. I'd be curious to see what your list is like that an average Tau player can consistently kill 75% of it in one round of shooting. You should be using plenty of line of sight blocking terrain. Tau will always dominate an open or limited terrain battlefield. They suffer in terrain heavy scenarios as the opponent can advance while keeping most of their army out of line of sight.

So... possibly reevaluate your deployment strategy as well as what sort of terrain you're using? It's not necessarily a Tau issue. Could be a tactical/strategic game play issue.

So here is my thoughts, ITC should make rulings were the intent is murky, they should not make rulings to try to balance the game. Here are my reasons why:

1.) There is so much broken gak in the game, they would spend all of their time writing these erratas, and we the players would need to read said encyclopedic erratas.

2.) Game balance put to a vote is a generally a bad idea, everybody has a dog in the fight, and rarely do cooler heads prevail.

3.) GW is litigious and willing to take a crap on it's fans at any moment. If they thought ITC rules were hurting the sales of a new unit, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't feel bad about slapping ITC with a cease and desist.

If ITC wants to get into the balance game, they should use ELO and handicapping based on army, and touch the rules as little as they can. They certainly have a large enough data set to get elo ratings for the armies, and then it's just figuring out victory point handicap values. Imagine a glorious new future where chaos marines can win a match against eldar by playing to the objectives and fighting smart. This has the advantage of not touching army composition at all, is mathematically fair, and adjust automatically to changes in the rule set. I wonder if I could get access to ITCs results and create elo brackets for the armies, because it would be interesting to see how big of a handicap Orks would need to be able to beat tau.

For what it's worth, looks like they released a mechanicus FAQ. They may well be giving each army a FAQ, and if so, I'm certain CP will be addressed in the tau one.

I'm curious as to whether or not ITC/ETC/NOVA/ETC. are going to amend their own FAQs to include GW's rulings.

 Jaxler wrote:
Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.

Another fun fact:

There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.

I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.

People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.

I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.

Another fun fact:

There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.

I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.

People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.

I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.

And now we come full circle to the "Learn 2 play". Cheers!

 Jancoran wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Regardless of your opinion how strong tsu are, it still seems rather biased to be that they chose to nerf tau. Even if people think tau are second best behind eldar, it seems to me that nerfing the second most powerful army does little to balance anything if you only nerf them. The bar set by eldar still stands regardless. Picking on tau arbitrarily instead of tau, necrons, eldar, and space marines seems rather unfair. If the reason why they did this was to balance the game, then it seems like they should of also hit every other competitive army with the nerf bat. Seeing as they didn't do that though, it makes me feel like they were Picking on tau to a certain extent.

Another fun fact:

There will always BE a "strongest" and a second "strongest". So it doesn't matter who nerfs who. Which makes the nerfing even more useless. Ultimately, the goal is a global balance not just a specific matchup balance. having armies that are kind of good or suited to knocking certain other ones off doesnt guarantee a thing. Still gotta execute. But if there is no specific counter to the "Strongest" then the strongest will remain so.

I think the Tau empire suffers two problems: first that they sucked for so long that established players just can't cope with them not just falling over dead in front of them and second, the Tau Empire forces enemies to invest in a commodity they really would RATHER not even though they are perfectly capable of doing so: melee.

People can be lazy. Gamers can be twice as lazy. They dont wanna change and they rage on every board about their cheese moving. and eventually the answer right in front of them becomes more real to them and eventually they change...but not quietly, oh no.

I am not one who sees no value in moderating things. I absolutely am in the camp for moderation. But there is some truth to the idea that the knee jerking has been somewhat silly and unfounded in a few cases. I dont find Tau hard to play even with those so called "nerfs" sdo it really is just amatter of degree, for me, more than any actual strong outrage. I find it academically curious but honestly, I'll beat my opponent with or without the nerf. So nerf away. I'll figure it out and adjust. Game on.

Third problem: can table lower tier lists without trying hard. Without even moving in some cases. Just line up and shoot. Melee is not that useful against Tau, because you can't live long enough to use it. I guess Wraiths and TWC can. There's very few units that can actually beat a Riptide in melee now that I think of it even if they do live. Tau are losing to the top of the heap because they can field units survivable enough to take the abuse. Most lists can't.