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.

 carldooley wrote:

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .

Fire warriors have always had the option to take pulse carbines, and GW has always pushed them as the closer, more mobile counterpart to the more static pulse rifle, different but definitely worth taking. I've never, ever seen a more neglected wargear choice, Tau players don't even acknowledge it - to the point I'm surprised GW bothered to include them in the new fire warrior kit.

 Korinov wrote:
I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

I agree with you, in part. Since the 6th codex they are Xenos Astra Militarum. Castle up, kill everything. I once played like that to test and found it to be horribly boring. I'd like to see GW trying to re-do the book and try to approach a M.O. closer to our actual military forces.
Game-wise, I rather have some units on table to kill stuff and deep strike (god, I love this rule) behind the enemy, creating a 'Polish Corridor' and using fast units (generally Tetras or Piranhas) to grab objectives. The only thing that doesn't move at all in my games are Pathfinders (which I rarely use) and Broadsides.

However, I love the suits. Please don't hate them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .

Fire warriors have always had the option to take pulse carbines, and GW has always pushed them as the closer, more mobile counterpart to the more static pulse rifle, different but definitely worth taking. I've never, ever seen a more neglected wargear choice, Tau players don't even acknowledge it - to the point I'm surprised GW bothered to include them in the new fire warrior kit.

- Strikers can tap Rifles twice at 15", while Carbines only get such benefit for 3" more. That's not much of a advantage. Pinning is good, but killing from afar is even better.
- Drones already have the same weapon, and BS2 twin-linked in a T4, jet pack model is way better than BS3 T3 normal infantry.
- Breachers, if taken near to the enemy, will do a better job than Strikers with Carbines
- As per the new FAQ, jinking transports make people inside all shakey and firing snap shots. This kills both Carbine-Strikers and Breachers riding a Devilfish to kill the enemy upclose, unless you have boatloads of markerlights (reducing your overall firepower).

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

I agree with you, in part. Since the 6th codex they are Xenos Astra Militarum. Castle up, kill everything. I once played like that to test and found it to be horribly boring. I'd like to see GW trying to re-do the book and try to approach a M.O. closer to our actual military forces.
Game-wise, I rather have some units on table to kill stuff and deep strike (god, I love this rule) behind the enemy, creating a 'Polish Corridor' and using fast units (generally Tetras or Piranhas) to grab objectives. The only thing that doesn't move at all in my games are Pathfinders (which I rarely use) and Broadsides.

However, I love the suits. Please don't hate them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .

Fire warriors have always had the option to take pulse carbines, and GW has always pushed them as the closer, more mobile counterpart to the more static pulse rifle, different but definitely worth taking. I've never, ever seen a more neglected wargear choice, Tau players don't even acknowledge it - to the point I'm surprised GW bothered to include them in the new fire warrior kit.

- Strikers can tap Rifles twice at 15", while Carbines only get such benefit for 3" more. That's not much of a advantage. Pinning is good, but killing from afar is even better.
- Drones already have the same weapon, and BS2 twin-linked in a T4, jet pack model is way better than BS3 T3 normal infantry.
- Breachers, if taken near to the enemy, will do a better job than Strikers with Carbines
- As per the new FAQ, jinking transports make people inside all shakey and firing snap shots. This kills both Carbine-Strikers and Breachers riding a Devilfish to kill the enemy upclose, unless you have boatloads of markerlights (reducing your overall firepower).

Actually, pulse carbines had a place when the rapid fire range was 12", and not half range. Then GW changed it, I got a bunch of pathfinder markerlights and turned em all into pathfinders. (But I can and still do use em as firewarriors occassionally)

 Vector Strike wrote:

Many things.

Don't misunderstand me, carbines are terrible and no one would ever take them. The fact that many tau players actually forget about them is not the silly part, it's that GW thinks someone somewhere wants to take them.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

Personally I don't like space wolves. A bunch of assorted chedder. Which is sad. Because I lost over 300 guardsmen.
So I have a grudge towards them.

Be glad I don't play Eldar. That number would at least triple. Ooooh, I can already hear the D-scythes calling.

Go to bed you xeno

CSM by far.

I'd like to see a CSM exodite codex in which I'm able to field Chaos Knights, Chaos Warriors, Marauders, and monsters from AoS. Somebody interested to write a codex?

StevetheDestroyeOfWorlds wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
Tau, and not because aesthetics nor background. I simply believe GW has never truly got them right in terms of rules. When I first read their fluff many years ago I saw them as a "futuristic" version of a current day elite army: well geared infantry that put a heavy emphasis on squad coordination, with hi-tech artillery support. Everything would have been ok if they had got small-range weapons that forced them to actually move around the battlefield in a strategic way, taking advantage of cover while making clever use of markerlights in order to mitigate the enemy's use of it, etc. But then they got basic, small weapons with S5 and a 30'' range. And thus a gunline was born. As of today any pretense of "realism", "practicality" and restraint has long been dropped, and I witness them unleashing tons of dice over their enemies and shooting everything to death with their giant mecha robots. Sigh.

A question: when did firewarriors NOT have a 30" rapidfire gun? As far as I can tell, they had it since their creation. . . which means that you are blowing smoke. .
and mobility games, since when? did you ever play against fish of fury?
And the small range guns? the breachers are a NEW thing, not the oldest. . .




So, what is the weakest faction (if played by themselves)?
Orks?
CSM?
IG?

Dark Eldar. No Coven allowed.

Dark Eldar are quite weak, but they still have decent shooting. They are definitely above Orks and CSM in terms of power, even with the nerfs from the FAQ. Scourges and Reavers are still untouched and are pretty decent

Reavers actually got slightly better no? Now that you can jink overwatch fire?

I personally dislike Tau the most both in lore and the table top.

The way they play is so bland, I hate how they can shoot and hide. Maybe that's just me idk, I don't have an issue beating them for the MOST part.

I know people gonna hate, but absolutely love the SW. Idgaf if they got cheddar on cheddar cause I like em.

Anyway, my main army is DE and they always will be, and although they have been nerfed from the FAQ, all good. Gamesworkshop will learn. I love a challenge.

Onto the important topic,

I feel CSM is the worst. I look at the book and feel things are way too overcosted, and units do not do enough.

Khorne Daemonkin is wonderful, and I hope they add unique flavor to the new CSM book, I hope its so good it makes me into a heretic.

Also..I still feel DE will out due a lot of armies when played right, despite recent FAQs.

the_scotsman wrote:

StevetheDestroyeOfWorlds wrote:

Dark Eldar are quite weak, but they still have decent shooting. They are definitely above Orks and CSM in terms of power, even with the nerfs from the FAQ. Scourges and Reavers are still untouched and are pretty decent

Reavers actually got slightly better no? Now that you can jink overwatch fire?

Ah, good point. I forgot about that. Reavers are even better now!

I dislike the Space Marines in general. The ultra-awesome-always-the-best-and-perfect-warrior who gets the best stuff and every second guy plays them. Also they get a bazillion updates a year and other factions are left behind.
But I understand, they are iconic for 40k.

Out of Space Marines, I dislike the Grey Knights the most. The Mary Suest out of the Mary Sues. And their fluff is just utterly stupid.

StevetheDestroyeOfWorlds wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

StevetheDestroyeOfWorlds wrote:

Dark Eldar are quite weak, but they still have decent shooting. They are definitely above Orks and CSM in terms of power, even with the nerfs from the FAQ. Scourges and Reavers are still untouched and are pretty decent

Reavers actually got slightly better no? Now that you can jink overwatch fire?

Ah, good point. I forgot about that. Reavers are even better now!

Even before the faq you could jink, pretty straightforward. The reavers would be targeted by a shooting attack, but the attackers must fire overwatch at BS1. Still a target, therefore can jink.

In general, I hate tau. They are to me the antithesis of Warhammer. They are clean, Technology driven, and won't fight in close combat. I like some of their new models admittedly, but I wish they would have gone full samurai when developing that army and given those cowards a sword instead of a gun. I also hate that they are a powerful army now, I could accept their existance if they were a niche army at the bottom of the barrel, but now it seems everyone is playing them. It bothers me that people would look at a Tau model and be interested in getting into 40K because of one of those models and not something like a daemon prince or Haemonculus. This game is dirty, bloody and gothic. Lets keep it that way.

Models wise, I think Chaos Daemons are the worst army out there. They used to look cool back in 3rd ed. with their metal sculpts. The new one's look like disney cartoons. The only ones that are passable are Khorne Daemons, and some Nurgle ones.

Rules wise I'm tossed up between Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar. Chaos obviously just plain sucks, their method of warfare is 3 editions old. They have almost nothing to make up that ground, and no one at GW seems to care. Dark Eldar had a good go for a while in 5th ed. but their new codex might well be the single worst codex in GW history. Even worse than the last two Chaos Marine Codexes. When the best option for HQ is a single 10 point lhamaean so you can spam more stuff, then its a serious sign that it's a bad codex. I honestly don't know what they were thinking.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
In general, I hate tau. They are to me the antithesis of Warhammer. They are clean, Technology driven, and won't fight in close combat. I like some of their new models admittedly, but I wish they would have gone full samurai when developing that army and given those cowards a sword instead of a gun. I also hate that they are a powerful army now, I could accept their existance if they were a niche army at the bottom of the barrel, but now it seems everyone is playing them. It bothers me that people would look at a Tau model and be interested in getting into 40K because of one of those models and not something like a daemon prince or Haemonculus. This game is dirty, bloody and gothic. Lets keep it that way.

Models wise, I think Chaos Daemons are the worst army out there. They used to look cool back in 3rd ed. with their metal sculpts. The new one's look like disney cartoons. The only ones that are passable are Khorne Daemons, and some Nurgle ones.

Rules wise I'm tossed up between Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar. Chaos obviously just plain sucks, their method of warfare is 3 editions old. They have almost nothing to make up that ground, and no one at GW seems to care. Dark Eldar had a good go for a while in 5th ed. but their new codex might well be the single worst codex in GW history. Even worse than the last two Chaos Marine Codexes. When the best option for HQ is a single 10 point lhamaean so you can spam more stuff, then its a serious sign that it's a bad codex. I honestly don't know what they were thinking.

You know that the current plastic daemons were made to look like updated versions of their older, more OOP versions, right? The 3.5 daemon models were the outliers and didn't fit. Okay, I'll totally agree that the daemonettes of that edition were the best, as well as the fleshhounds. But things like that edition's plaguebearers were awful. Truly terrible. Wouldn't even buy them til the plastic kit hit. The horrors were pretty awesome too. But trying to combine models from multiple editions, those recently OOP ones don't fit in with their predecessors or the modern ones. Meanwhile those two groups will fit in together (except the obvious age of the older ones).

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
In general, I hate tau. They are to me the antithesis of Warhammer. They are clean, Technology driven, and won't fight in close combat. I like some of their new models admittedly, but I wish they would have gone full samurai when developing that army and given those cowards a sword instead of a gun. I also hate that they are a powerful army now, I could accept their existance if they were a niche army at the bottom of the barrel, but now it seems everyone is playing them. It bothers me that people would look at a Tau model and be interested in getting into 40K because of one of those models and not something like a daemon prince or Haemonculus. This game is dirty, bloody and gothic. Lets keep it that way.

Models wise, I think Chaos Daemons are the worst army out there. They used to look cool back in 3rd ed. with their metal sculpts. The new one's look like disney cartoons. The only ones that are passable are Khorne Daemons, and some Nurgle ones.

Rules wise I'm tossed up between Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar. Chaos obviously just plain sucks, their method of warfare is 3 editions old. They have almost nothing to make up that ground, and no one at GW seems to care. Dark Eldar had a good go for a while in 5th ed. but their new codex might well be the single worst codex in GW history. Even worse than the last two Chaos Marine Codexes. When the best option for HQ is a single 10 point lhamaean so you can spam more stuff, then its a serious sign that it's a bad codex. I honestly don't know what they were thinking.

Tau might be the only smart faction in the game, then. Gothic is so 90s.

Fluff-wise, Tau do fill a niche. I like the Orweillian "subtle scary" of the Tau in contrast to the "BLURGHLERGULHE MAIM KILL BLOOD" of most of the other factions. And I will always respect and love them for the amount of rage they bring to SM factions.

That said, there has only ever been one Tau army I've ever wanted to play against. Basically a guy built his Tau around the theme of "as close to close combat as possible" basically using tons of melta crisis suits, stealth suits, piranhas, Devilfish, and now breacher teams. Playing against a Tau army that actually moves around the map achieving objectives, uses actual micromanagement tactics like drone screens and smart JSJ moves to keep you away from melee instead of just "my guns have a squillion range, and I'm waaaaaaaaaay over here" is massively refreshing.

The army basically becomes what Kabal Dark Eldar should be: a close ranged super glass cannon.

Sadly, I think only one person in the entire universe plays Tau that way. For everyone else, there's Riptide spam.

the_scotsman wrote:
Fluff-wise, Tau do fill a niche. I like the Orweillian "subtle scary" of the Tau in contrast to the "BLURGHLERGULHE MAIM KILL BLOOD" of most of the other factions. And I will always respect and love them for the amount of rage they bring to SM factions.

That said, there has only ever been one Tau army I've ever wanted to play against. Basically a guy built his Tau around the theme of "as close to close combat as possible" basically using tons of melta crisis suits, stealth suits, piranhas, Devilfish, and now breacher teams. Playing against a Tau army that actually moves around the map achieving objectives, uses actual micromanagement tactics like drone screens and smart JSJ moves to keep you away from melee instead of just "my guns have a squillion range, and I'm waaaaaaaaaay over here" is massively refreshing.

The army basically becomes what Kabal Dark Eldar should be: a close ranged super glass cannon.

Sadly, I think only one person in the entire universe plays Tau that way. For everyone else, there's Riptide spam.

I've got a friend who plays Tau like that, at least on occaison since with 20 000pts of models he has the freedom to run any list he wants and regularly experiments, it's actually a lot of fun to go up against.

Ruleswise? Tyranids. They have gotten the shaft for a long time now. Imagine if they got even half of what Tau and Eldar got in terms of rules.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Ruleswise? Tyranids. They have gotten the shaft for a long time now. Imagine if they got even half of what Tau and Eldar got in terms of rules.

Wouldnt be much better if they got tau rules since the huge nerfs imposed on them, but giving them similar rules to spess mureens would be outstanding. amazing phy powers paired with hundreds of points of free models all while being cheap and tough? That would make them ridiculous!

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Ruleswise? Tyranids. They have gotten the shaft for a long time now. Imagine if they got even half of what Tau and Eldar got in terms of rules.

Wouldnt be much better if they got tau rules since the huge nerfs imposed on them, but giving them similar rules to spess mureens would be outstanding. amazing phy powers paired with hundreds of points of free models all while being cheap and tough? That would make them ridiculous!

Hey, that axe you've been grinding must be pretty sharp now

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Ruleswise? Tyranids. They have gotten the shaft for a long time now. Imagine if they got even half of what Tau and Eldar got in terms of rules.

Wouldnt be much better if they got tau rules since the huge nerfs imposed on them, but giving them similar rules to spess mureens would be outstanding. amazing phy powers paired with hundreds of points of free models all while being cheap and tough? That would make them ridiculous!

Hey, that axe you've been grinding must be pretty sharp now

It's just pretty amazing to me to see the hypocrisy thanks to the herd mentality.

I'd much rather play against marines than Tau or Eldar. Gladius won't table me like Eldar or Tau, leaving superfriends as the only build that is as aggravating as the standard Tau or Eldar list.

Always disliked playing against Tyranids mostly
2nd would be Necrons
Then Tau and certain space marine chapters

You know that the current plastic daemons were made to look like updated versions of their older, more OOP versions, right? The 3.5 daemon models were the outliers and didn't fit

Right, and the even older ones are beyond terrible. The 3.5 daemons looked serious, and genuinely scary. Especially the old pink and blue horrors. Now we're back to cartoons again.

Tau might be the only smart faction in the game, then. Gothic is so 90s.

Which is exactly the reason why they don't belong in 40K. When has Warhammer ever made sense? And Black never goes out of style.

I love Tau's exactly because they shoot their guns instead of using them as clubs.

Sisters of Battle.

Because the metal miniatures are old and a pain in the ass to modify, and their rules were never truly updated to the actual edition.

My whole army is sleeping in boxes at my home, waiting for the slim hope they could be played again when GW remembers they still exist. It's such a waste, truly.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I do'nt hate any, as I like the variety they bring.
But there are 2 things about Tyranids I don't like.
1. They're insect-like, flesh-eating Aliens®. I don't like stuff from beyond that eats people, and even less if they're bugs. Every time a Tyranid dies, I feel happy inside.
2. Their fluff is bizarre. I just don't like unstoppable enemies. Also, the theory they've eaten 12 galaxies before is so stupid I can't even.

Merchandise-wise, Space Wolves. What's with all the wolf this, fang that? Phl Kelly, pls.

2 where is this galaxy number bit of fluff from?
My hate burns strong for the current dark Elder. The new codex saw me selling my army off due to the changes wrought my builds were made unplayable. Was not going to by whole new army to be able to compete. Feth heads

Eldar are bland and boring Mary Sue's as are Marines. Both factions fluff is literally 'we are great, elegant and impossibly graceful beings and we are much better than everything else'

Game play wise both are overpowered and boring.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Eldar are bland and boring Mary Sue's as are Marines. Both factions fluff is literally 'we are great, elegant and impossibly graceful beings and we are much better than everything else'

Game play wise both are overpowered and boring.

fluff side both elder and marines have some really interesting books really no faction if what I would clal boring (you are of course entitled to your opinion) I would elder series and of course the horus herasey series as a good start.

table wise I like both armies to play as or against. both armies can produce fun to play varied lists but the issue is the power gamer waac builds that break the game.. librarian conclave with Tiberius and gladius comes to mind as does Eldar running 6 units of 3 scatter laser bikes with three WK. Both are incredibly OP builds and not really fun to play against (woohoo I get to remove my models in buckets while you lose a few guys woo)

that said my least fav to play is tau I own some and try to make them work as mobile warriors like the fluff describes, but sadly they just only work as a gunline army and a boring to face or use.

Tau are what you play when you want to ensure that everyone, yourself included, ends up miserable!

Experiment 626 wrote:
Tau are what you play when you want to ensure that everyone, yourself included, ends up miserable!

Tau Eldar Space Marines Necrons 40k armies are what you play when you want to ensure that everyone, yourself included, ends up miserable!