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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Here's what I hypothesize: Tau relied on gunning down the enemy with elite, high-efficiency shooting units before they reach their lines. Because of a variety of changes unrelated to the units in the Tau army, namely charging out of deep strike, charging out of transports, and easy turn-1 charges, Tau are unable to do so. In addition, my army, which is functionally similar, has the ability to put a big wall of bodies between my big guns and the turn 1 charge, whereas the Tau equivalent unit is twice the cost.


Hammerheads are the same price as a Leman Russ, and function similarly. Fire Warriors look pretty decent too. Kroot look pretty decent deployed en-masse. Little suits look pretty decent deployed in small numbers. What looks distinctly bad to me are the really big guys.

Oh come on, that's not even true.A Leman Russ isn't even particularly impressive for the IG right now for one. Secondly, they can fit far more firepower on each tank, whereas each hammerhead you basically just get the main gun, maybe some burst cannons or drones.

Fire warriors cost twice what a normal guard soldier costs. Slightly better armor save and a stronger gun with more range aren't worth twice the points. Then we factor in normal guard squads access to heavy and special weapons, access to better force mulipliers thanks to commanders, better morale rules thanks to commissars... nope.

Kroot are even worse. Two conscripts for the same price... nope. Kroot have a lower armor save, only one attack each even at WS 3+ makes it a wash, even with the higher strength they are only barely better at putting out damage in melee and worse at range. Plus again, 1 wound, toughness 3, and a 6+ save for 6 points better have ork boy level offensive power to make them worthwhile, kroot don't come anywhere close to that.

No, T'au are low tier, they don't compare favorable to balanced armies, much less guard.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.

Idea for 9th edition I guess.

/sarcasm

Surprisingly, in PL Crisis are much better costed than in points, as are Broadsides and Remoras. However, we can't get PL games all the time...

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I maintain that we were the best shooting army, always and forever, and Tau was second. But that's besides the point.

Eh, I have (or had?) a different view: while AM was about quantity of shooting, Tau was about quality of shooting.
AM killed stuff by throwing buckets of dice (more or less like a ranged version of Orks) and Tau killed by rolling better with less dice.

I surely agree AM wasn't in a good shape back in 7th and deserved a buff, but that doesn't mean Tau had to get what it got... one of the playtesters (Frankie from FLG, I think) said Tau was the new Guard. Hm... if I wanted to play Guard, I'd play with Guard models and rules, right?

With that in mind, I completely agree with other Tau posters. This 'new' Tau doesn't feel like the Tau of the last 2 editions (not considering broken formations or stupid ally tables, a I used neither). I hope the codex will bring forth interesting tools to help with our situation!

Well there is still hope that s codex will bring back jsj. The suits all still have the jetpack keyword. While it does nothing right now it might in the future.

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.

Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.

If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.

Idea for 9th edition I guess.

/sarcasm

Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm

If only there were a third option...

...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.

Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.

Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.

If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.

Idea for 9th edition I guess.

/sarcasm

Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm

If only there were a third option...

...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.

Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.

Oh, I see what you mean. I guess AoS had it right all along - it's not GW that's the problem, it's the points system itself that's the problem! I guess it's time to just match armies of equal model-counts. Ima place down my 9 Leman Russ tanks and a Baneblade and wait for a response.

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.

Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.

If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.

Idea for 9th edition I guess.

/sarcasm

Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm

If only there were a third option...

...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.

Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.

Oh, I see hwat you mean. I gues AoS had it right all along - it's not GW that's the problem, it's the points system itself that's the problem! I guess it's time to just match armies of equal model-counts. Ima place down my 9 Leman Russ tanks and a Baneblade and wait for a response.

I can respond with exactly the same army! Sounds like a badass battle. Are you in the DC area?

Space Wolves vs Necrons -> SW major victory

SilverAlien wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.

Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.

I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?

It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.


Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.

Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.

I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?

Spoiler:

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons

Find something for the remaining 112 points.

It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.


Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.

No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
18(?) sets of 5 firewarriors or 9 boxes of 10, 60 cad each, so $540 in warriors 4xFireblade at $25 cad each, $100 8xkroot hounds, $30 each, $240
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?

Rockfish wrote:


No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
18(?) sets of 5 firewarriors or 9 boxes of 10, 60 cad each, so $540 in warriors 4xFireblade at $25 cad each, $100 8xkroot hounds, $30 each, $240
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?

"Yes! Isn't it a brilliant idea? And, once we've released the Tau codex, you'll be able to pay that all over again. We will even try to shake up the meta and pricing structure so much that you'll have the fantastic opportunity to pay ~£2,500GBP for the only valid army we will allow you to have! Simply the most wonderfullest the H-H-H-Hobby has ever been!" - GW 2017/18

Rockfish wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.

Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.

I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?

Spoiler:

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons

Find something for the remaining 112 points.

It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.


Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.

No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
18(?) sets of 5 firewarriors or 9 boxes of 10, 60 cad each, so $540 in warriors 4xFireblade at $25 cad each, $100 8xkroot hounds, $30 each, $240
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are still saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?

I easily have a fair amount of stuff for each of my armies to bring them up to meeting the new meta. Let's see: 10x Seraphim at 11/model, 17x Storm Bolters at 9/model, 4x Sister Superiors at 11/model, 2x Repressor conversion at ?/model, 2x Leman Russ Punisher at 50/model, 2x Sabre Searchlight scratchbuild at ?/model, 30x troopers at 2/model, and the list goes on because I haven't even reached units that are good but I'm not in love with their appearance. Asking people to buy a few new units isn't particularly bad, and is pretty much expected.

The Tau players I know who are long time players have 60 or so, and one guy has more fire warriors than I have guardsmen, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for an edition to require a new box or two. I don't think I've ever seen anyone with Kroot Hounds, and didn't actually know they were a thing until I flipped through your index to write that list. And, of course, you can always sub-in Suit Commanders or Ghostkeels in the place of some of the Fire Warrior squads.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.

I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?

Spoiler:

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds

42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons

Find something for the remaining 112 points.

It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay.

I think the first issue I see is you seem to think the viability of guard is tied to that particular unit selection. Which isn't really the case. Guard works like that because guard is really cheap, not because of the merits of the particular composition. For more specific issues



A better idea would be to find the toughest infantry for their points you can with at least some firepower, then try to milk what synergy you can, along with anything that's notably good for it's price. The former might be drones backed up by stealth suits with a drone controller, who combined manage to mostly be worth their price. The latter is even harder, I'm not sure T'au has anything going for it. The vehicles can't mount enough guns to make them a worthwhile investment, battlesuits have low BS considering how expensive all the guns are, and all of the basic infantry are far too expensive to be the core. Deep striking commanders and maybe the bomber (which can remove half a unit of infantry per turn without even shooting) are the only standouts I see, and that's not a lot to work with.

This still isn't good... but at least it plays to the virtually non existent strengths of the T'au. Seriously though, I found a grand total of two units that looked well priced in the entire codex. Even those aren't gamebreakingly cheap, but jus tunits actually reflective of the price other armies pay for similar units. 10 points for a gun that's a marginally better combi bolter on an army with worse BS across the board is borderline insulting.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.

No T'au are more like CSM last edition, where you probably won't going to win because your entire army is notably overpriced for what it does. Guard was never in that bad of shape, they had at least a couple niche builds. But T'au are literally just a worse version of other better armies, which was literally CSM last edition, at least pre traitor legions. With the additional downside of not being able to rely on allies the way imperial or even chaos armies can.

Having to buy a couple new units for the new edition is fine, players should expect that. They should not expect to suddenly have to magically acquire 9 boxes of FW just to build a decent list.

Also aren't you just advocating for the very thing you said was Tau's problem, just going out and buying whatever netlist is good and not actually knowing their army? Is that suddenly ok because you're advocating for it or because they're using models you like?

And finally, the entire purpose of that list you made was to have Tau run a guard style list since we're apparently "the new Guard" or Guard -1 or whatever. If that's the case, we can't just sub in Commanders or Ghostkeels, now can we? Those don't have Guard equivalents so we can't just throw them into a list and say that that list still mirrors Guard style play, now does it?

And that's ignoring the fact that that list is the equivalent of trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. First off Guard would be able to build an equivalent list for much cheaper, no? And guard would be able to get special/heavy weapons in the infantry units, rounding out the firepower while the FW will be stuck with their base guns. Also a Guard equivalent list would have access to orders and potentially psychic powers and whatnot while this list has minimal access to Tau's "equivalent" answer in the form of Markerlights, Support Systems, Invocation, etc.

But this whole conversation is getting off topic, so we should probably move it to another thread instead of clogging up this one.

game from last night

2k SoB vs Necrons = Necron win...

so much shooting from them....

SilverAlien wrote:
I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.

People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.

Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.

Some people just can't accept balance issues.

yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.

Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.

SemperMortis wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.

People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.

Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.

Some people just can't accept balance issues.

yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.

Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.

Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.

 Marmatag wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.

People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.

Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.

Some people just can't accept balance issues.

yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.

Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.

Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.

Yup, and I predict that this trend won't last long. Everyone went from playing their Speed Freak Warbiker heavy lists to playing straight Horde style because Bikes now suck. Give it another couple months and Orkz will be bottom tier just like last edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkz are winning 41.74% of the time based on the numbers on the 1st page.

The only Main armies that come close to that level are

CSM: 41.89%
And
Dark Angels: 44.44%

Armies with bad ratings that are easily explained are
SM: 41.98%: They are the biggest faction by far and the unofficial starting army, so you are going to have a plethora of unskilled players here

And

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

So this army is going through a learning curve much harsher then most other armies are.

So based on the win/loss ratio and having read the codices I feel fairly confident in my prediction that Orkz will be bottom tier for yet another edition unless GW gets off their butts and gives us a good 8th edition codex.

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?

Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?

Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!

Anyone up for Tau-hate bingo? They are getting so predictable we can make a game out of it. I also addressed that point in the thread many times now. From a different angle than that and with some solid reasoning.

As an aside. Someone on dakka once asked me why it feels like it's been forever since 8th dropped and the Tau came out. Imagine every day for your faction is black Friday on the internet and your trying to hold back the tide of canned anti-tau/tau are fine/get good responses. Naturally it makes time feel slow and like its taking forever for any change to happen.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?

Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!

Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.

So yes my argument is that this is why the Tau faction is doing so badly right now. Am I saying every Tau player is like that? Nope, and you knew that from the start you just choose to come in and post that little tidbit.

I have looked over the Tau codex a fair bit and I can say that they got hit with the nerf hammer pretty hard, however they also got some pretty nifty buffs on other units, Commanders now are ridiculous as are a couple of other units. the biggest problem I see right now is that the Riptide and Stormsurge are no longer auto-includes and that is really playing havoc with most players lists, especially since every Tau Player I went against tended to field 3 of the things.

Remember to put me on the card.

SemperMortis wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)

Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?

Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!

Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.

So yes my argument is that this is why the Tau faction is doing so badly right now. Am I saying every Tau player is like that? Nope, and you knew that from the start you just choose to come in and post that little tidbit.

I have looked over the Tau codex a fair bit and I can say that they got hit with the nerf hammer pretty hard, however they also got some pretty nifty buffs on other units, Commanders now are ridiculous as are a couple of other units. the biggest problem I see right now is that the Riptide and Stormsurge are no longer auto-includes and that is really playing havoc with most players lists, especially since every Tau Player I went against tended to field 3 of the things.

Yeah but I said earlier in the thread people are using non 7th edition lists. Thanks you told us what anyone could that riptides and stormsurges aren't going to win any tournament. You know who figured that out before you? Well for one me. And before me the Tau tournament players. In the Caledonian most of the Tau players didn't take any riptides or stormsurges and got wrecked anyways even bringing lots of "cheese" like drones which were swept aside easily. Read the entire thread please odds are if you come in with a big point 99% of the times its been answered. This is not Tau player failing to adapt. We're seeing reports of Tau lists that don't use any of the old 7th staples. The only thing that has made any dent is commander spam which shouldn't be a thing we have to do to be viable army.

SemperMortis wrote:



Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.

Said he, completely ignoring that those players often had other armies that were not so easy. Ignoring, too, the Tau playerbase that played Tau since its inception. Ignoreth he, those who collected solely in 7th, and played for the first time in 8th. Yet further, he ignored the upstart player who only knew 8th, and yet found already the imbalance of the Tau.

Your limited field of experience and understanding of playerbases and statistics, and your lack of a logical framework within which to operate is showing.

I think we should try to get this thread back on its tracks again, shouldn't we?

game today:
CSM vs SW: SW win

Oh yeah I got distracted and forgot to actually post results

Deathguard vs T'au, Deathguard victory
Deathguard vs Ynarri, Ynarri victory
Deathguard vs Sisters of Battle, Deathguard victory (I got lucky with this one)

Thousand Sons vs Tyranids, TS victory

The nids player had no answer to Magnus or my Deimos Vindicators. He hasn't had much opportunity to play 8th yet so I'm not sure if his list wasn't up to snuff or if Tyranids just have a big problem with high toughness high damage models (I don't know anything about nids so I couldn't critique his list personally).

SemperMortis wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.

People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.

Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.

Some people just can't accept balance issues.

yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.

Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.

Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.

Yup, and I predict that this trend won't last long. Everyone went from playing their Speed Freak Warbiker heavy lists to playing straight Horde style because Bikes now suck. Give it another couple months and Orkz will be bottom tier just like last edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkz are winning 41.74% of the time based on the numbers on the 1st page.

The only Main armies that come close to that level are

CSM: 41.89%
And
Dark Angels: 44.44%

Armies with bad ratings that are easily explained are
SM: 41.98%: They are the biggest faction by far and the unofficial starting army, so you are going to have a plethora of unskilled players here

And

Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.

So this army is going through a learning curve much harsher then most other armies are.

So based on the win/loss ratio and having read the codices I feel fairly confident in my prediction that Orkz will be bottom tier for yet another edition unless GW gets off their butts and gives us a good 8th edition codex.

This may be of interest:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/13/wetcoast-gt-2017-recap-lists/

A grand tourney win for Orks.

 Robin5t wrote:
This may be of interest:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/13/wetcoast-gt-2017-recap-lists/

A grand tourney win for Orks.

It isn't really, it was small tourney and we don't even have any idea what the other lists were. I mean, I'm gratified to see the units I thought would work well seem to indeed be the cornerstone of the T'au list, but i'm also aware that plahyer may have just gotten the same impression I did and we could both be wrong in the end. So I don't really think this means much.

Then again, my knowledge of actual tournaments is minimal, so for all I know these could be the best players at the most elite tournament, and I wouldn't have a clue. Doesn't look to be the case at a glance though.

Armies with over 50 games:-

Army W L Total W %
Astra Militarium 76 41 117 64.96%
Dark Eldar 34 20 54 62.96%
Space Wolves 32 21 53 60.38%
Eldar 36 30 66 54.55%
Tyranids 37 36 73 50.68%
Necrons 24 27 51 47.06%
Dark Angels 28 35 63 44.44%
Space Marines 55 76 131 41.98%
Chaos SM 31 43 74 41.89%
Orks 43 62 105 40.95%
Tau 17 40 57 29.82%

 Robin5t wrote:

This may be of interest:

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/13/wetcoast-gt-2017-recap-lists/

A grand tourney win for Orks.

The Tau list isn't legal. A unit of Stealth Suits can buy 1 Homing Beacon, not 2