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.

There aren't too many of the fliers that worry me honestly. Against DE, I might bring a Crone and/or a Harpy but I think there is enough mortal wounds in the Nid army to deal with a flier here and there.

Interesting though, if you look at what Tyranid players are trying:

Diverse lists based around previously unused characters and models. Often melee based, either horde, or Nidzilla, or a mix.

Some have backfield shooting, some have deep strike, some do turn 1 charges, etc.

Lots of diversity and plenty of different playstyles/strategies/models being used.

Tau players are simply spamming drones and commanders.
That may not be the full majority but the kind of player attracted to Tau seems to be a WAAC spammy cheese, uninteractive gunline type of person. Bummer for all the normal Tau players that just want to play a decent game against their opponent :(

I also played two games against Tau yesterday and it was very grim dark on my end. Tau player had a super nasty list and quickly we didn't come up with any sensible solution how Nidz could deal with it. List had 2 stormsurges and commander shadownsun giving them rerolls to hit for two turns. Stormsurges had anti deepstrike system and the one that gives them one more AP to all their weapons. Then he had 5 commanders with various weapons, plasma, missile and fusion. My friend said that commander loadouts may not be optimal as we always try to play wysiwyg Commanders had lots of marker drones to enable destroyer missiles on the stormsurges.

In both games he presumably went first (dont like that rule tbh) as he had less deployments. And by first turn shot most of my important stuff off the field, it was super hard to try and hide from all the shooting he had. Also Nidz shooting is so lackluster that getting through that stormsurge 4+ invul is very hard. I had 6 shock cannons on hive guard that took a big chunk on the second game (15 wounds) but then they all died on the next turn.

What can I say, Tau seems super nasty and I hope Nidz come up with some solution to play against such filth.

TurboPenetrator wrote:
I also played two games against Tau yesterday and it was very grim dark on my end. Tau player had a super nasty list and quickly we didn't come up with any sensible solution how Nidz could deal with it. List had 2 stormsurges and commander shadownsun giving them rerolls to hit for two turns. Stormsurges had anti deepstrike system and the one that gives them one more AP to all their weapons. Then he had 5 commanders with various weapons, plasma, missile and fusion. My friend said that commander loadouts may not be optimal as we always try to play wysiwyg Commanders had lots of marker drones to enable destroyer missiles on the stormsurges.

In both games he presumably went first (dont like that rule tbh) as he had less deployments. And by first turn shot most of my important stuff off the field, it was super hard to try and hide from all the shooting he had. Also Nidz shooting is so lackluster that getting through that stormsurge 4+ invul is very hard. I had 6 shock cannons on hive guard that took a big chunk on the second game (15 wounds) but then they all died on the next turn.

What can I say, Tau seems super nasty and I hope Nidz come up with some solution to play against such filth.

What did you have in comparison?

GodDamUser wrote:

TurboPenetrator wrote:
I also played two games against Tau yesterday and it was very grim dark on my end. Tau player had a super nasty list and quickly we didn't come up with any sensible solution how Nidz could deal with it. List had 2 stormsurges and commander shadownsun giving them rerolls to hit for two turns. Stormsurges had anti deepstrike system and the one that gives them one more AP to all their weapons. Then he had 5 commanders with various weapons, plasma, missile and fusion. My friend said that commander loadouts may not be optimal as we always try to play wysiwyg Commanders had lots of marker drones to enable destroyer missiles on the stormsurges.

In both games he presumably went first (dont like that rule tbh) as he had less deployments. And by first turn shot most of my important stuff off the field, it was super hard to try and hide from all the shooting he had. Also Nidz shooting is so lackluster that getting through that stormsurge 4+ invul is very hard. I had 6 shock cannons on hive guard that took a big chunk on the second game (15 wounds) but then they all died on the next turn.

What can I say, Tau seems super nasty and I hope Nidz come up with some solution to play against such filth.

What did you have in comparison?

I had swarmy, broodlord, 20 genestealers, venomthropes, 6 hive guard shock cannons, 3 warriors for synapse, 30 gaunts with devilgants and tervigon, trygon, tyrannocyte and a magus.

First game I tried to pod 6 hive guard near him with trygon and warriors for synapse...I failed horribly on hive guard shots and he made good saves. I was at over 12" so charge was impossible then. Genestealers did charge on first turn but go pretty badly gunned down by overwatch with rerolls (I failed mass hypnosis on magus) Tervigon died on first turn when fusion gun commander blasted her away.

2n game Again he was going first and deleted swarmlord and 15 genestealers even with -1 to hit to them... I tried to pod in my gaunts, trygon, tyrannocyte and tervigon again at longer range bacause Tau. I did manage to kill two of his commanders with some smite and bad saves on his part. Hive guard were foot sloggin with venomthropes but again he made some good saves with 4+ invul and only got under 10 mortal wounds through to stormsurge because I had to run and was hitting on 4+.

One thing that we discussed was our terrain. We mainly have GW ruins and some Los blocking terrain but I think not nearly enough. Also Some of the ruins are so high that commanders can easily just go on top of them and be "immune" to charging. I really felt like a shooting gallery because hiding is so hard with large units and monsters.

TurboPenetrator wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

TurboPenetrator wrote:
I also played two games against Tau yesterday and it was very grim dark on my end. Tau player had a super nasty list and quickly we didn't come up with any sensible solution how Nidz could deal with it. List had 2 stormsurges and commander shadownsun giving them rerolls to hit for two turns. Stormsurges had anti deepstrike system and the one that gives them one more AP to all their weapons. Then he had 5 commanders with various weapons, plasma, missile and fusion. My friend said that commander loadouts may not be optimal as we always try to play wysiwyg Commanders had lots of marker drones to enable destroyer missiles on the stormsurges.

In both games he presumably went first (dont like that rule tbh) as he had less deployments. And by first turn shot most of my important stuff off the field, it was super hard to try and hide from all the shooting he had. Also Nidz shooting is so lackluster that getting through that stormsurge 4+ invul is very hard. I had 6 shock cannons on hive guard that took a big chunk on the second game (15 wounds) but then they all died on the next turn.

What can I say, Tau seems super nasty and I hope Nidz come up with some solution to play against such filth.

What did you have in comparison?

I had swarmy, broodlord, 20 genestealers, venomthropes, 6 hive guard shock cannons, 3 warriors for synapse, 30 gaunts with devilgants and tervigon, trygon, tyrannocyte and a magus.

First game I tried to pod 6 hive guard near him with trygon and warriors for synapse...I failed horribly on hive guard shots and he made good saves. I was at over 12" so charge was impossible then. Genestealers did charge on first turn but go pretty badly gunned down by overwatch with rerolls (I failed mass hypnosis on magus) Tervigon died on first turn when fusion gun commander blasted her away.

2n game Again he was going first and deleted swarmlord and 15 genestealers even with -1 to hit to them... I tried to pod in my gaunts, trygon, tyrannocyte and tervigon again at longer range bacause Tau. I did manage to kill two of his commanders with some smite and bad saves on his part. Hive guard were foot sloggin with venomthropes but again he made some good saves with 4+ invul and only got under 10 mortal wounds through to stormsurge because I had to run and was hitting on 4+.

One thing that we discussed was our terrain. We mainly have GW ruins and some Los blocking terrain but I think not nearly enough. Also Some of the ruins are so high that commanders can easily just go on top of them and be "immune" to charging. I really felt like a shooting gallery because hiding is so hard with large units and monsters.

I think you need to ether imbrace the 2nd turn and take units accordingly (ie ether swarm a huge number of separate units or have very few larger units with the rest in reserve/deepstrike) or you need to change up the list a bit. We have access to a gakton of mortal wound sources. Biovores alone can now decimate armies. Harpies,mucilids, sporocites, Psyker shanagins. Screw his invulns. Also Lictors make great disruption units. I think we have the tools to deal with a pair of stormsurges some drones and a blob of suites.

I agree, you gave him a lot of optimum targets for his type of army. Don't underestimate the gaunt swarms with the -1 rend guns. They can dish out some damage in numbers. Also, mortal wounds are something we can saturate our army with which hurts armies that rely on things like that, if they can survive to get range.

I tend to run less monstrous creatures and rely on gaunts to pull a lot of weight as well as hiding characters from attacks. Also, I use mortal wounds to my advantage since vehicles are such tough nuts to crack.

Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:
Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Your reading is correct. Many however, are arguing that GW made a mistake with the wording and say you only get +1 attack regardless of the number of pairs of scything talons... basicly, it's 40k as usual, You have to convince you local group to let you use the rules as written.

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:
Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Your reading is correct. Many however, are arguing that GW made a mistake with the wording and say you only get +1 attack regardless of the number of pairs of scything talons... basicly, it's 40k as usual, You have to convince you local group to let you use the rules as written.

Jesus people, are we really going to trow common sense out the window and try to use the rules like that? You know perfectly well that it is not how it is meant to be. Also, if you got wargear that say's 'you must use one attack when you fight' then you MUST use one attack with this weapon. There is no reason to use the tail if you got the talons apart from the fact that you MUST use an attack for this.

OMG...

DoggieDoo wrote:
Interesting though, if you look at what Tyranid players are trying:

Diverse lists based around previously unused characters and models. Often melee based, either horde, or Nidzilla, or a mix.

Some have backfield shooting, some have deep strike, some do turn 1 charges, etc.

Lots of diversity and plenty of different playstyles/strategies/models being used.

Tau players are simply spamming drones and commanders.
That may not be the full majority but the kind of player attracted to Tau seems to be a WAAC spammy cheese, uninteractive gunline type of person. Bummer for all the normal Tau players that just want to play a decent game against their opponent :(

Couldn't disagree more.

In 7th ed. Nid players only played flyrant spam, because nothing else worked.
Tau players spammed Riptides because they were able to.
This is not an issue with the "player", but with the ruleset.

I would love to be able to field every unit in my Codex.
I hated how people abused riptide spam and made me look bad when I played 1. This is also the reason Riptides got so extremeley costly.
Us players who just wanted to have an even match with awesome models always suffer because of that.
in 7th we never saw the awesome nids models (exceptions here and there) and nids mostly got stomped hard against tau.
in 8th we will see Commander spam because 3 crisis are not worth 300 points, if a commander can deal more damage for 1/2 the points.

What I'm trying to say is:
Don't blame the players for making the best out of their codex and not bringing certain units.
I am happy for you nids players to be able to play diverse lists and many different strategies. This was able with tau in 7th ed, if you limited yourself (some kroot, some costy transports etc. etc.) and makes the game more fun for both players.

shogun wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:
Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Your reading is correct. Many however, are arguing that GW made a mistake with the wording and say you only get +1 attack regardless of the number of pairs of scything talons... basicly, it's 40k as usual, You have to convince you local group to let you use the rules as written.

Jesus people, are we really going to trow common sense out the window and try to use the rules like that? You know perfectly well that it is not how it is meant to be. Also, if you got wargear that say's 'you must use one attack when you fight' then you MUST use one attack with this weapon. There is no reason to use the tail if you got the talons apart from the fact that you MUST use an attack for this.

OMG...

The rattle doesn't has the "must use one attack when you fight" restriction, so as far as RAW is concerned, his interpretation is correct.

shogun wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:
Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Your reading is correct. Many however, are arguing that GW made a mistake with the wording and say you only get +1 attack regardless of the number of pairs of scything talons... basicly, it's 40k as usual, You have to convince you local group to let you use the rules as written.

Jesus people, are we really going to trow common sense out the window and try to use the rules like that? You know perfectly well that it is not how it is meant to be. Also, if you got wargear that say's 'you must use one attack when you fight' then you MUST use one attack with this weapon. There is no reason to use the tail if you got the talons apart from the fact that you MUST use an attack for this.

OMG...

So... are you saying 9 attacks or 7?

Honestly from the rules as written I cannot tell what GWs intent was. The Trygons are the only creatures that they specify three sets of Talons for (Raveners would have been a candidate too).

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:

shogun wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Patriarch Phyrx wrote:
Apologies fin this has been brought up already, but I don't think it has. How many attacks does a Trygon Prime really make in close combat?

It has 6 attacks, a Biostatic Rattle and 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons. It doesn't have to use the rattle, so is free to use all 6 base attacks on the Talons. Now, my question is that the wording on each of those Talons is that if it is armed with two or more sets of these Talons (which it is) then it can make "an extra attack with this weapon".

I read that as 3 extra attacks (all three sets of Talons have that wording). I can simply declare that I am using at least one attack on each set of Talons, and trigger the wording on each set?

That would be a total of 9 attacks with the Talons? If so, that's terrifying!

Your reading is correct. Many however, are arguing that GW made a mistake with the wording and say you only get +1 attack regardless of the number of pairs of scything talons... basicly, it's 40k as usual, You have to convince you local group to let you use the rules as written.

Jesus people, are we really going to trow common sense out the window and try to use the rules like that? You know perfectly well that it is not how it is meant to be. Also, if you got wargear that say's 'you must use one attack when you fight' then you MUST use one attack with this weapon. There is no reason to use the tail if you got the talons apart from the fact that you MUST use an attack for this.

OMG...

So... are you saying 9 attacks or 7?

Honestly from the rules as written I cannot tell what GWs intent was. The Trygons are the only creatures that they specify three sets of Talons for (Raveners would have been a candidate too).

Let's follow the interpretation of both parties in this argument to conclusion and see what that looks like:
The "Tyranid Points Values" page that lists melee weapons (pg139) lists "Massive Scything Talons (two or more pairs)" with a "points per weapon" cost of 60pts. This seems to indicate that either:

A.) All 3 weapons are considered a 'set', and the set gives a bonus of +1A as indicated on page 141, so you pay 60pts for the set.
B.) Each pair of talons is a separate weapon, and the Trygon has 3 pairs providing +3A. In this case, you need to pay the "Points per weapon" cost of this entry 3 times for a total of 180pts.

I personally think interpretation A. is clearly the intended ruling, and I wouldn't refuse a game against an opponent in the B. column of thought, but by no stretch of logic can you assume you pay one cost for the set of scything talons and somehow it counts as 3 separate pairs of weapons. GW went out of their way to create a separate weapon entry for pairs and sets of talons for the Trygon, Hive Tyrant, and Carnifex for a reason; They give you multiple sets of scything talons at a discounted price for a reason.

That interpretation falls because if the talons weren't separate weapons then you couldn't use the +1 bonus.

RAI i think that we have no doubt that you can't, otherwise:

1) Trygons would be crazy.
2) Demon princes would be crazy.
3) 3 sets of scytals would cost more than 2 sets.

RAW can be discussed, but when you already know which is the intended intepretation, playing lawyer on the RAW is bad sportmanship.

Spoletta wrote:
RAI i think that we have no doubt that you can't, otherwise:

1) Trygons would be crazy.
2) Demon princes would be crazy.
3) 3 sets of scytals would cost more than 2 sets.

RAW can be discussed, but when you already know which is the intended intepretation, playing lawyer on the RAW is bad sportmanship.

Playing RaW is never bad sportsmanship. Getting on someones case for playing RaW is. Any complaints about doing so should be directed to GW who promised to release erratta so that wouldn't happen anymore.

I'm going to discuss it with my gaming group and will happily go with the majority consensus, not interested in turning my hobby into an argument. Will be very interesting to see which way it is FAQ'd though.

Been checking out Nids lately (not feeling 100% with my current army). What's the consensus been on this edition? From my looking, swarms of Gaunts/Gaunts backed by some Synapse from Tervigons, and then Exocrines and Biovores (and maybe Tyrannocites?) could be a lot of fun, solid shooting with a massive screen.

What's the word from the Hive Mind on 8th?

My group has had no issues with the RAW interpretation. Everyone agrees that there is no reason to give trygons 3 pairs if there were not +3 attacks. We see the price difference because lots of models have unique costs for their special weapons. The trygon cannot choose anything else.

I think RAW is RAI. I will happily change my mind when it gets FAQed.

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
RAI i think that we have no doubt that you can't, otherwise:

1) Trygons would be crazy.
2) Demon princes would be crazy.
3) 3 sets of scytals would cost more than 2 sets.

RAW can be discussed, but when you already know which is the intended intepretation, playing lawyer on the RAW is bad sportmanship.

Playing RaW is never bad sportsmanship. Getting on someones case for playing RaW is. Any complaints about doing so should be directed to GW who promised to release erratta so that wouldn't happen anymore.

It's good sportsmanship to NOT play the rules in your favour if the interpretation isn't clear.

Best thing about this, is the fact that everybody can choose to play or not play someone. That's why I don't do rule discussions anymore and just ask the TO to provide a good FAQ. No reason to discuss 'lack of common sense'.

shogun wrote:

 GreaterGood? wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
RAI i think that we have no doubt that you can't, otherwise:

1) Trygons would be crazy.
2) Demon princes would be crazy.
3) 3 sets of scytals would cost more than 2 sets.

RAW can be discussed, but when you already know which is the intended intepretation, playing lawyer on the RAW is bad sportmanship.

Playing RaW is never bad sportsmanship. Getting on someones case for playing RaW is. Any complaints about doing so should be directed to GW who promised to release erratta so that wouldn't happen anymore.

It's good sportsmanship to NOT play the rules in your favour if the interpretation isn't clear.

Best thing about this, is the fact that everybody can choose to play or not play someone. That's why I don't do rule discussions anymore and just ask the TO to provide a good FAQ. No reason to discuss 'lack of common sense'.

Exactly, so I don't have to play people that think they can make up rules in their head, to change what's written on paper.

DoggieDoo wrote:
Interesting though, if you look at what Tyranid players are trying:

Diverse lists based around previously unused characters and models. Often melee based, either horde, or Nidzilla, or a mix.

Some have backfield shooting, some have deep strike, some do turn 1 charges, etc.

Lots of diversity and plenty of different playstyles/strategies/models being used.

Tau players are simply spamming drones and commanders.
That may not be the full majority but the kind of player attracted to Tau seems to be a WAAC spammy cheese, uninteractive gunline type of person. Bummer for all the normal Tau players that just want to play a decent game against their opponent :(

It has nothing to do with WAAC vs. whatever player styles. Tyranid players are trying lots of different builds because the new rules made lots of different builds appear viable/potentially strong. The Tau rules have a clearly apparent strongest build, so lots of people are running it.

In a few months people will have a better understanding of what works, what's commonly seen, and what's needed to counter the common builds. Lists will stabilize around a handful of strong builds, with some factions having more strong builds than others. Fluff players will keep playing the things they like, most players will shift builds towards what works best, and strongly competitive players will min/max as best they can. Same as with every edition change and codec release.

If Tau had as many units go from useless to looking good as 'nids did, we would see the same variety in Tau builds as we see in 'nids.

Aeri wrote:

DoggieDoo wrote:
Interesting though, if you look at what Tyranid players are trying:

Diverse lists based around previously unused characters and models. Often melee based, either horde, or Nidzilla, or a mix.

Some have backfield shooting, some have deep strike, some do turn 1 charges, etc.

Lots of diversity and plenty of different playstyles/strategies/models being used.

Tau players are simply spamming drones and commanders.
That may not be the full majority but the kind of player attracted to Tau seems to be a WAAC spammy cheese, uninteractive gunline type of person. Bummer for all the normal Tau players that just want to play a decent game against their opponent :(

Couldn't disagree more.

In 7th ed. Nid players only played flyrant spam, because nothing else worked.
Tau players spammed Riptides because they were able to.
This is not an issue with the "player", but with the ruleset.

I would love to be able to field every unit in my Codex.
I hated how people abused riptide spam and made me look bad when I played 1. This is also the reason Riptides got so extremeley costly.
Us players who just wanted to have an even match with awesome models always suffer because of that.
in 7th we never saw the awesome nids models (exceptions here and there) and nids mostly got stomped hard against tau.
in 8th we will see Commander spam because 3 crisis are not worth 300 points, if a commander can deal more damage for 1/2 the points.

What I'm trying to say is:
Don't blame the players for making the best out of their codex and not bringing certain units.
I am happy for you nids players to be able to play diverse lists and many different strategies. This was able with tau in 7th ed, if you limited yourself (some kroot, some costy transports etc. etc.) and makes the game more fun for both players.

The Tau index has very poor internal point balance and inter-codex point balance. Weapons choices have too much redundancy with most guns dealing Strength 5 no rend or Str 7 -1 rend. The point to damage ratio for most Tau units is pretty bad with just a few gems. Riptides cost 400 points and come with only 3 guns -- two of which are only Strength 5 no rend, making them an ignore option for most opponents. Hammerheads cost 171 points for a gun that isn't much better than a laz cannon and two drones.

Glad I have nids too as right now Tau is a pretty one-dimensional codex.

The problem with Tau is that most of its suits, specially the Riptide, are basically unkillable, so they pay a lot of points for that survivability.

They cannot have cost efficient firepower because then they simply would be broken.

Tyran wrote:
The problem with Tau is that most of its suits, specially the Riptide, are basically unkillable, so they pay a lot of points for that survivability.

They cannot have cost efficient firepower because then they simply would be broken.

The riptide that nova's a 3++ may be "unkillable", but its fire power output is so poor that it can be effectively ignored. I found that the tanks, broadsides, and crisis suits die just fine to anti tank weapons once drones are removed with one's anti-infantry.

 wyomingfox wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The problem with Tau is that most of its suits, specially the Riptide, are basically unkillable, so they pay a lot of points for that survivability.

They cannot have cost efficient firepower because then they simply would be broken.

The riptide that nova's a 3++ may be "unkillable", but its fire power output is so poor that it can be effectively ignored. I found that the tanks, broadsides, and crisis suits die just fine to anti tank weapons once drones are removed with one's anti-infantry.

True, although they did get a considerable increase in survivability, and thus in points.

Aeri wrote:

DoggieDoo wrote:
Interesting though, if you look at what Tyranid players are trying:

Diverse lists based around previously unused characters and models. Often melee based, either horde, or Nidzilla, or a mix.

Some have backfield shooting, some have deep strike, some do turn 1 charges, etc.

Lots of diversity and plenty of different playstyles/strategies/models being used.

Tau players are simply spamming drones and commanders.
That may not be the full majority but the kind of player attracted to Tau seems to be a WAAC spammy cheese, uninteractive gunline type of person. Bummer for all the normal Tau players that just want to play a decent game against their opponent :(

Couldn't disagree more.

In 7th ed. Nid players only played flyrant spam, because nothing else worked.
Tau players spammed Riptides because they were able to.
This is not an issue with the "player", but with the ruleset.

I would love to be able to field every unit in my Codex.
I hated how people abused riptide spam and made me look bad when I played 1. This is also the reason Riptides got so extremeley costly.
Us players who just wanted to have an even match with awesome models always suffer because of that.
in 7th we never saw the awesome nids models (exceptions here and there) and nids mostly got stomped hard against tau.
in 8th we will see Commander spam because 3 crisis are not worth 300 points, if a commander can deal more damage for 1/2 the points.

What I'm trying to say is:
Don't blame the players for making the best out of their codex and not bringing certain units.
I am happy for you nids players to be able to play diverse lists and many different strategies. This was able with tau in 7th ed, if you limited yourself (some kroot, some costy transports etc. etc.) and makes the game more fun for both players.

As someone who plays both armies I strongly disagree with Tau players generally being WAAC spammy cheese style. I'm finding it very hard to get excited to play my Tau army this edition because of how expensive they've made all of the suits now. They've gotten marginally more survivable but the firepower they put out is piddling for the massive point increase they got. We're seeing Commander and Gun Drone armies because that's the only efficient units that are left in the codex.

I feel like that attitude is the pot calling the kettle black, Tau is finding themselves where Tyranids were last year where the only unit in the codex worth a damn was Flyrants, and those players weren't doing it because they were WAAC cheesy scumbags, they were trying to make their army work with the little tools they were provided. It's not an issue with the players themselves, people will play what is effective out of a codex.

I got my first few games in over the weekend. I didn't follow the main rules leaks as closely as I did the 'nid leaks, so there were a number of rules errors, but it all worked out.

First impressions of 8th: faster, smoother gameplay, not perfect but significantly improved from 7th.

First impressions of various Tyranids:

Exocrines are absurd. I can see exocrine + Biovore firebases being a solid core to a number of builds.

Impaler Cannon Hive Guard are surprisingly decent at killing non horde infantry. I spent the weekend shooting at various Elves, and I got better use thinning out heavy weapons and the like than I did shooting vehicles. Ignoring cover and -2 AP matters a lot in this edition.

Trygons and Hive Tyrants are frail, but it doesn't matter as much as I thought it would because they only need two turns to make an impact on the game.

Scytals are unclear. Need a FAQ. Shogun is right that the most sportsmanly thing to do is to play the route that benefits you the least until they clear things up. While I tend to think that they actually do confer more than just 1 bonus attack, I don't think anyone can truly claim that it is clear beyond confusion.

Tau does need to find some new ways to be Tau. Yeah drone spam (or any kind of spam) is frustrating to play against, and drone spam is especially frustrating for Tyranids, but Tau have generally always been a tough matchup for us. Doesn't mean that Tau players are WAAC any more than Tyranid players - just that their lists have always given us fits.

Maybe the Dimachaeron will solve some problems for us