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.
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Like who? I can only think of Eldar with that. Even then it's just the WK doing non shooting.
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Like who? I can only think of Eldar with that. Even then it's just the WK doing non shooting.
Don't waste your breath. Tau are sooooo weak this edition.
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Like who? I can only think of Eldar with that. Even then it's just the WK doing non shooting.
So space marines and necrons don't have okay shooting as well as assault infantry?
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Like who? I can only think of Eldar with that. Even then it's just the WK doing non shooting.
So space marines and necrons don't have okay shooting as well as assault infantry?
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Hrm, its an issue with power bloat, I'd argue that Orks, IG, DE, and CSM's are at a power level the rest of the game should be at. Tau, like other upper tier armies, benefit from unit power levels unheard of in previous editions (ghostkeels, riptides, stormsurges, etc) and freebies from formations, both fundamental failures of game design that enhance power at the expense of balance which is largely (though not totally) absent from these older armies.
I'd disagree, but before I get into the reasons, may I suggest a few you tube videos:
and
They are pretty light watching, and informative.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Hrm, its an issue with power bloat, I'd argue that Orks, IG, DE, and CSM's are at a power level the rest of the game should be at. Tau, like other upper tier armies, benefit from unit power levels unheard of in previous editions (ghostkeels, riptides, stormsurges, etc) and freebies from formations, both fundamental failures of game design that enhance power at the expense of balance which is largely (though not totally) absent from these older armies.
I'd disagree, but before I get into the reasons, may I suggest a few you tube videos:
and
They are pretty light watching, and informative.
7 and 6 minutes respectively? Er, that's not lightwatching. Sorry, but I got gak to do, not watch those videos.
I know 13 minutes, that could be a montage of Chloe Kardashian trying on new clothes, or that third rub out of the day, maybe both at the same time. Or you could watch a couple of videos about topics you are obviously interested in, that have the possibility of making you better informed about said topics, it's all sixes right.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Sure, it works in a MOBA where you can swap a hero like that. But building an army takes months and hundreds of dollars, and there is a lot more at stake than just gaming power. You can't just swap armies as the meta changes.
Warmachine uses the perfect imbalance to great effect, in similar genre and at similar price point. Their rules are tight, and competitively balanced. The idea of perfect imbalance is so deeply ingrained that you bring two lists for the faction your playing, and can freely change based on what list/faction the opponent brought. Warmachine has it's own issues but not like the issues 40k has with Eldar being the unkillable demon king army.
I thought the examples from M:tG were also very relevant, with the jedi curve and the intentional deviations from it. Imagine if 40k actually had a formula used to determine a units point cost based on it's abilities rather than the current system of GW throwing a dart at a board.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Is that because Tau are weak or because people houserule nerf them?
It's because they're weaker than sw, demons, space marines and eldar. Necrons are roughly at their power level. People always go "tau shooting is op!" But tau only have that and that alone, coupled with no warp defense, or melee, and you quickly realize that tau aren't all they're cracked up to be. They're good, but most other competetive armies have power builds that trump anything tau can put down even if the average level of tau codex trumps their book's average level.
Also I'm sick of the people going "tau op, my orks/dark eldar/chaos marines can't beat them!" Frankly that's those books being crap, not tau being too good.
Ah, yes, Tau only have shooting, THE STRONGEST PHASE IN THE GAME. Next excuse?
The fact that other top armies have shooting, and good shooting, as well as two other phases?
Like who? I can only think of Eldar with that. Even then it's just the WK doing non shooting.
So space marines and necrons don't have okay shooting as well as assault infantry?
And Tau have okay melee.
I can say stuff that isn't true and pretend like it is. Tau commanders with 2 builds can be decent in CQB, and riptides and storm surges and ghost keals have half decent combat. That's 4 units in the entire codex which don't flat out lose combat 100% of the time and only a single HQ option that's good at combat.
Also aun'shi is horrible. Same with farsight. The commander can be decent IMO as a close combat bloke And tying down any of our GM and
GMCs in close combat is good for you.
Now, excluding HQs and 150+ point models which Shockingly don't get 1 shot by pink horrors in cqb, and you'll see that most our models aren't amazing in close combat.
^ lets not forget about the stromsurge close combat, and the second movement phase. the only reason why tau does not place top 10 is because people dont playem right. look at the top itc players and tell me how many of them are tau. god. maybe ill play tau and show people how easy it is. And no space marines are not better than eldar.
Space Marines are easily the second best faction in the game and are, but the new angels of death psychic power shenanigans might finally put them beyond Eldar.
Also when people say Space Marines we typically lump all marines under that not the default marines codex only since White Scars are tearing up tournament lists and then there's the infamous deathstar lists that are taking the top 5 consistently.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 03:48:30
-v10mega wrote: ^ lets not forget about the stromsurge close combat, and the second movement phase. the only reason why tau does not place top 10 is because people dont playem right. look at the top itc players and tell me how many of them are tau. god. maybe ill play tau and show people how easy it is. And no space marines are not better than eldar.
Give it a go I like to see a Tau in top 8 as for are SM better than eldar we will see how the new powers shake it up the next big event
On paper they look super strong but then so did the Tau to many yet they turned out to be a paper tiger
2000 6000 with Reaver Titan guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
TS 30k at 5k points
Yes I have a problem
-v10mega wrote: ^ lets not forget about the stromsurge close combat, and the second movement phase. the only reason why tau does not place top 10 is because people dont playem right. look at the top itc players and tell me how many of them are tau. god. maybe ill play tau and show people how easy it is. And no space marines are not better than eldar.
Give it a go I like to see a Tau in top 8 as for are SM better than eldar we will see how the new powers shake it up the next big event
On paper they look super strong but then so did the Tau to many yet they turned out to be a paper tiger
It doesn't help the ITC nerfed the Tau left right and center when it wasn't needed.
Bravado aside, Tau aren't in the top 10 because they are a one trick pony, and that trick isn't an invincible death star (Cough cough space wolves). Anyone tough enough to take two rounds of shots is going to wreck them. That's a fundamental problem with how they are built, which makes them not fun opponents. Your win is either predestined, or you'll get shot off the board before turn 5. This is also why you see a lot of frustration among tau players, there are just certain armies they can't handle at all, and baring a hot streak, the battle was decided as soon as their opponent picked his army. Of course given the current meta, it's hard to feel bad for tau, since so many armies have it much worse.
Since the question might come up, The most fun fights I've seen are lower tier armies duking it out, they might be on the short school bus, but it looks like they are having a good time.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
I can't believe this many people don't understand Coordinated Firepower.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
Vector Strike wrote: Eldar is stronger than Tau by a wide margin, but Space Marines are more powerful than both.
wow, what are you smoking? If it can get you this high, I want some of it.
I play nids, and would infinitely prefer marines over tau or elves. eldar are easily 2-3 tiers higher than marines
I see SM getting top 8 all the time with eldar
This is usually do to the mission formats, i.e. Maelstrom or other scoring, where having Objective Secured out the wazoo is great. Straight up kill points, it'd be close, but I think Tau and Eldar would edge out SM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimgold wrote: I know 13 minutes, that could be a montage of Chloe Kardashian trying on new clothes, or that third rub out of the day, maybe both at the same time. Or you could watch a couple of videos about topics you are obviously interested in, that have the possibility of making you better informed about said topics, it's all sixes right.
Gotcha, glad to know that you think I have so much free time and what to do with it. Here's a tip: insulting someone to get them to watch your crappy video generally doesn't work.
Also, the perfect imbalance theory is crap. Consider this: the Shooting and Psychic phases are the strongest in the game. If you have an army that inherently favors Assault, they will never be strong in this edition because of how this phase shakes out.
WarmaHordes is different due to the phases and overall game structure. Even then, their "balance" only works so well. I have seen plenty of games where the right units just table the other person.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 13:25:58
- Grav
- Librarius Conclave
- Skyhammer Annihilation Force
- Drop Pods
- Most support from both GW and FW - New and exclusive psychic powers, including one of the best in the game (re-roll saves, previously only available to Eldar)
- Gladius Strike Force
The only 2 things SM miss are D weaponry (which only Eldar has in spades) and MCs (which will tremble before Grav, so not a big miss).
Weaker than Tau? Not at all. Probably on par with Eldar, but much more flexible and with more options, which make them better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/12 13:54:40
Gotcha, glad to know that you think I have so much free time and what to do with it. Here's a tip: insulting someone to get them to watch your crappy video generally doesn't work.
Also, the perfect imbalance theory is crap. Consider this: the Shooting and Psychic phases are the strongest in the game. If you have an army that inherently favors Assault, they will never be strong in this edition because of how this phase shakes out.
WarmaHordes is different due to the phases and overall game structure. Even then, their "balance" only works so well. I have seen plenty of games where the right units just table the other person.
How would you know if they are crappy if you didn't actually watch them? Also that last part shows you completely missed the point of perfect imbalance, the name is actually a hint as to why that is.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
- Grav
- Librarius Conclave
- Skyhammer Annihilation Force
- Drop Pods
- Most support from both GW and FW - New and exclusive psychic powers, including one of the best in the game (re-roll saves, previously only available to Eldar)
- Gladius Strike Force
The only 2 things SM miss are D weaponry (which only Eldar has in spades) and MCs (which will tremble before Grav, so not a big miss).
Weaker than Tau? Not at all. Probably on par with Eldar, but much more flexible and with more options, which make them better.
And what do Tau have, other than a victim complex? I mean, I have to congratulate you, as nerfed as you guys are, you still make the best out of it and place well in tournaments. How do you poor guys do it?
Gotcha, glad to know that you think I have so much free time and what to do with it. Here's a tip: insulting someone to get them to watch your crappy video generally doesn't work.
Also, the perfect imbalance theory is crap. Consider this: the Shooting and Psychic phases are the strongest in the game. If you have an army that inherently favors Assault, they will never be strong in this edition because of how this phase shakes out.
WarmaHordes is different due to the phases and overall game structure. Even then, their "balance" only works so well. I have seen plenty of games where the right units just table the other person.
How would you know if they are crappy if you didn't actually watch them? Also that last part shows you completely missed the point of perfect imbalance, the name is actually a hint as to why that is.
I watched your crappy videos.
In regards to "The trouble with expansions and time": no gak. He didn't cover any new points, he only rehashed things I already know. Companies are monetizing games, new stuff is better than the old, yada yada.
Also, he is COMPLETELY wrong about League. Minus some outliers, every hero was arguably better at release than the old ones. A perfect example is Caitlyn versus Ashe. Ashe and Cait are both attack damage carries. When Cait came out, she was and still is arguably better than Ashe in every way. She does everything Ashe can, only better, and consequently she costs more. I played League for 2 1/2 years and almost no one uses the original heroes other than for fun factor. Every new hero is better than the original, and Ryze/Mundo/Ashe/TF have all faded to the way side.
I liked some of his ideas about trying to fight power creep, but it's much harder to do with tabletop games than Magic or digital games, where you don't have to assemble/paint your figures.
In regards to "Perfect Imbalance":
I stole some of these responses from another viewer who expressed it better than myself, but who's reasonings and sentiments I agree with.
A) They argue that imbalance causes more strategies to be viable. This is completely wrong because perfect balance ensures that the most strategies as is possible are viable.
B) Cyclical imbalance doesn't exist in League of Legends due to the afore mentioned Power Creep. Some characters just don't have hard counters. They're so good they don't have a "bad" matchup.
C) Games will stagnate no matter what, but perfectly balanced games will stagnate far less. Their example of chess becoming stale because of its perfect balance (it isn't, white has an advantage to the best of our knowledge) is a falsehood: ALL GAMES BECOME STALE! Perfectly balanced games become stale slower than all others by definition: if as many strategies are viable as is possible, then as many possible variations in potential gameplay are also viable.
D) Chess has been around for at over 1400 years, you think it wouldn't eventually become stale? Instead of proving their point, chess is the counterpoint to their argument: look how goddamn long chess has managed to keep people interested with such a simple set of rules!
D) Imbalanced games will ALWAYS become stale before balanced games because the singular or small group of strategies that will become viable will necessarily be smaller than the potential of strategies that could be made viable. If a game is imbalanced, you will discover what is broken and use that and only that the fastest.
E) Their example of balance becoming stale in Starcraft has nothing to do with balance being the culprit and everything to do with active patching coming to an end. Do they really think that an imbalanced game that received no new patches would continue to be popular and drive new and creative gameplay? Warcraft 3: TFT is the perfect example of why that ISN'T the case. The game is not balanced at the moment and it will never be patched again. Once patching of the game stopped, it died a lot faster than Starcraft did because there was no point in playing with the imbalances present.
F) A balanced game can be made exciting by continuously patching ANYWAYS. Once you have a balanced game, keep it that way for some time and then start changing the numbers around to obtain a new type of balance. We can modify the numbers around so that a different style of play is encouraged while maintaining balance. Additionally, new maps and features can continue to be released that constantly add to the number of play options available.
Seriously, I think rubbing one out or watching another Kardashian video would have been a better use of my time. They didn't tell me anything any seasoned gamer wouldn't know. This video is only helpful to 10 year olds.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 15:00:34
one line answer Eldar are more powerful but more enjoyable to play against. Tau are toward the bottom of the top tier in power but insist they are in the bottom with Orks and CSM because reasons, and nobody wants to play against a boring gun line. so they prefer playing elder because at least there is more than one phase to play against.
one line answer Eldar are more powerful but more enjoyable to play against. Tau are toward the bottom of the top tier in power but insist they are in the bottom with Orks and CSM because reasons, and nobody wants to play against a boring gun line. so they prefer playing elder because at least there is more than one phase to play against.
Said it better than I could.
I'd also like to note to anyone who think Marines sit on top of these two that Grav is a double edged sword. God forbid you end up playing against Admech or Necrons (or a horde list if they weren't non-existant ). And anything wearing power armor generally sucks ass. The only thing that sets marines apart are the psychic powers, their toys and their formations (the lack of any of the latter two are why the Red marines are bottom tier). As an IF player Im not bitching at all, nor am I denying that they are potent as hell, but it's only because of supplements and a few toys in the armory.
Why even try? The eldar are waay better if the two of there regular infantry just fought each other. I think a blue fish weeabo person won't beat a tall pointy eared space elf.
"We're not just going to shoot the bastards. We're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks."
-The most imperial guard thing ever said.
The one rule I have in my threads: DONT TALK ABOUT THE ABRAMS.
That is it
They're both great... but you almost cannot make a non-OP list with the Eldar codex, and the WraithKnight is the most OP for the cost unit in 40K right now.
Gunzhard wrote: They're both great... but you almost cannot make a non-OP list with the Eldar codex, and the WraithKnight is the most OP for the cost unit in 40K right now.
~1.5k
2000 
6000 with Reaver Titan 
guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
7000 
