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.

But GK don't have non elite units. A GK player can not choose to buy 15 scouts and spam the living hell out of HQ, because their cheapest troop costs 20pts.

Balance should come from army rules, You can have 2 units costing the same points, and still be valid if they do two different things good. The problem with w40k is that there is a ton of point ranges, but there is no way 10 SB armed paladins are equal in power to a castellan.

For example Kroot could be an ok melee option. But if the synergy between Tau shoting units are good, and kroots lack them, then taking kroot would be an actual choice. Do I take kroot and have some sort of defense vs other armies melee, or do I go full synergy and have a better shoting army, but if someone reachs me in melee I am dead.

Same could be done with tacs and scouts. CSM and cultists etc. Not with points, or not just with points, but with actual rules. Right now a tac marine is an overcosted scout or understated primaris. But if tac had some cool rule people may think about them, maybe even not msu. For example give them some sort of cross fire rule. The more tac units shot at the same target, the better the shoting gets. This way we wouldn't have to worry about bolter stats, being unbalanced for SoB and marines. Lets say 2 squads shoting would be some sort of re-roll, but have enough units shoting and the bolters would get +1 to damage or even do MW on 6+.

Karol wrote:
For example Kroot could be an ok melee option. But if the synergy between Tau shoting units are good, and kroots lack them, then taking kroot would be an actual choice. Do I take kroot and have some sort of defense vs other armies melee, or do I go full synergy and have a better shoting army, but if someone reachs me in melee I am dead.

Oh no, you misunderstand, I actually agree with that. Having no synergy or being limited in number is a good way to enforce an army's "theme".

My problem was with people insisting that kroot be as good as melee specialists from other armies, and then allowed to be spammed as much as you want while being fully synergized with the rest of the Tau army. My point was that would simply mean that Tau (as an army) aren't bad in melee any more.

I think we all want kroot to be good, the problem is doing so in a way that preserves the Tau army's identity as a "shooting faction".

They could be even better, then most other army melee units. But if you can't build an army around them, it should still be a tough choice to not get the tau synergy in your army. Maybe leave some back door for a mostly kroot army with shapers, kroot, krotox etc FW could come in here and give more options to such armies. Maybe even give them a special kroot only detachment that makes the list interesting, but drasticly limits the number of units they can take.

This could be done with other sub factions or units too. A normal army shouldn't run only sternguard, but a special detachment for sterguard or sternguard and termintors could be fun.
As long of course as GW doesn't go over the top, and suddenly they make an Army of Reapers detachment that blasts other armies off the table turn 1.

w1zard wrote:
Agreed... But, when an army's stated weakness is to be poor in melee, how do you force a faction to conform to that weakness if they are allowed to take unlimited amounts of viable melee troops?

One (well, one-plus-three if we want to be honest) viable melee unit hardly makes a summer. Especially if it is a GEQ tier ambusher/glass cannon.

 AtoMaki wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Agreed... But, when an army's stated weakness is to be poor in melee, how do you force a faction to conform to that weakness if they are allowed to take unlimited amounts of viable melee troops?

One (well, one-plus-three if we want to be honest) viable melee unit hardly makes a summer. Especially if it is a GEQ tier ambusher/glass cannon.

Exactly, Kroot simply lack the heavy hitting options of other melee factions. Limiting them further is unnecessary since Kroot melee is extremely one-dimensional already. Being good at what they do doesn't suddenly mean they can take on Nobz, Termies, Custodes and especially not tanks/monsters because that's not their role. A bunch of S4 attacks only gets you so far. Especially with how fragile they are. Making them worthwhile (at their one job) would never make them actually be able to compete with the full roster of options that melee factions have.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...but it is borderline impossible (without a huge overhaul) to balance a game where it is possible for one player to take an army of all tanks, and someone else to take all chaff...

I've been trying to make this point since the beginning of the "take as many detachments as you want" epoch, but there's always some twit pouncing on me saying "but I have a fundamental right to play all Russes/all Knights/all Terminators if I want to!"

And they do have a right to play all that, just as you have a right to refuse playing a one-sided game. Any game where you take on the task of creating a list with only the partial guidelines, you're going to run in to that issue...

Why?

I can go out and buy five Gandalfs for LotR. They don't make a legal list because Gandalf is a named character and I can't have five of him. Should I be allowed to play five Gandalfs just because I feel like it?

Why is "but I want to ignore any army composition rules and play whatever models I feel like!" an unassailable argument that the game must be designed around?

Because it is a game, that's why. The point of a game is to have fun.

You seemed to miss the other part of the caveat. They have the right to bring such a force, but that doesn't guarantee them a game, since the opponent wants to have fun, too. Some would look at that as a fun challenge, and others a waste of time. That's why any game is organized by agreements between the organizers/players before it begins, and it can be as limited or unlimited as you want. Tabletop games are easy to modify since they only require agreement with someone else.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Not quite, there is a third option, and that while Kroot may be decent in melee, it still takes some investment, such as number of models, in order to accomplish the same action that other armies generally do with fewer models and/or units.

That isn't really a third option because the difference between a good unit and a bad unit is points efficiency in terms of damage output and durability. Either kroot can hang (point per point) with the melee heavy hitters of the other melee focused armies, which means they are a viable choice (and still spammable) thus making Tau (as a faction) not have melee combat as a weakness any more. Or they can't hang (point per point) with the melee heavy hitters of the other melee focused armies, at which point they become useless as you would be better off taking more fire warriors. There is no middle ground because having a melee unit in your army is not a requirement for winning the game... and since kroot and fire warriors are both troops they will constantly be compared against each other. Why take a troop option that can't even perform its stated role efficiently?

Not really. You're rather missing the point of what I was saying. Fire Warriors suck at melee. Kroot are better at melee than Fire Warriors and Guardsmen. The Kroot don't have to roflstomp a horde of Berzerkers, but they can make a small squad of Berzerkers hesitate before going in to action, or it may be in the clean up role allowing those Fire Warriors to train their guns at a different target..

w1zard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think there is a point value for every unit where it is neither an autorake nor an autopsy. That's close enough to balanced.

Agreed... But, when an army's stated weakness is to be poor in melee, how do you force a faction to conform to that weakness if they are allowed to take unlimited amounts of viable melee troops?

You either make the melee troops so bad that nobody takes them and they become a trap option, which is how 40k is balanced now.

Or you make them viable but limit the numbers in which they can be fielded.

You can apply this to any army's weakness not just Tau in melee. IE Khorne in shooting, grey knights in only fielding elite units, space marines with poor vehicles etc.

Why should Kroot be limited though? There are dozens of justifications of maybe a lot of Kroot but Tau scouting units perhaps keeping an eye on them.

 Charistoph wrote:
Not really. You're rather missing the point of what I was saying. Fire Warriors suck at melee. Kroot are better at melee than Fire Warriors and Guardsmen. The Kroot don't have to roflstomp a horde of Berzerkers, but they can make a small squad of Berzerkers hesitate before going in to action, or it may be in the clean up role allowing those Fire Warriors to train their guns at a different target..

If it more points efficient to sacrifice a small squad of fire warriors to achieve the same effect then why bother with kroot? You don't need a melee unit to do anything you described because it can all be equally accomplished through shooting, So you either have a unit that is worse in every way than fire warriors, or you have a viable melee unit that can be spammed, which breaks the stated army theme of Tau, even if said unit only covers one role...

Replacing berzerkers in a khorne army makes it no longer a khorne army. Replacing shooty elements in a Tau army with melee units makes it no longer a Tau army. Kroot are supposed to be specialist auxiliaries to support shooty Tau forces, not line infantry. Now I personally wouldn't mind options for an army of kroot so long as they lost access to some Tau shooting units, but Tau thematically aren't supposed to be an army that does melee well at all (as a whole).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why should Kroot be limited though?

Balance, and to keep to Tau's theme. The same reason why Ogryn are limited in an IG army.

Or they can just keep sucking... I personally don't play Tau so I don't really have a preference one way or another, but I'd personally like to see a unit that is capable of performing its role effectively even if it means they can only be taken in limited numbers rather than another trap option.

Your fears of Kroot spam are unfounded. Consider that though Kroot may replace Fire Warriors in some lists, they can never replace the battlesuits or tanks. Kroot have no durability, 2 weak multi-damage weapons, no deep strike, no sept traits, no HQs, no transports, only 2 weapons with AP-1 etc... It doesn't matter how good the standard Kroot is, you'll just never see them make up the bulk of any serious list. Limiting them further is unnecessary and betrays a lack of familiarity with how Kroot actually play.

w1zard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think there is a point value for every unit where it is neither an autorake nor an autopsy. That's close enough to balanced.

Agreed... But, when an army's stated weakness is to be poor in melee, how do you force a faction to conform to that weakness if they are allowed to take unlimited amounts of viable melee troops?

You either make the melee troops so bad that nobody takes them and they become a trap option, which is how 40k is balanced now.

Or you make them viable but limit the numbers in which they can be fielded.

You can apply this to any army's weakness not just Tau in melee. IE Khorne in shooting, grey knights in only fielding elite units, space marines with poor vehicles etc.

Make kroot crappy and cheap. Done. Also add no melee synergy to the list. That way kroot are not autopass.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Not really. You're rather missing the point of what I was saying. Fire Warriors suck at melee. Kroot are better at melee than Fire Warriors and Guardsmen. The Kroot don't have to roflstomp a horde of Berzerkers, but they can make a small squad of Berzerkers hesitate before going in to action, or it may be in the clean up role allowing those Fire Warriors to train their guns at a different target..

If it more points efficient to sacrifice a small squad of fire warriors to achieve the same effect then why bother with kroot? You don't need a melee unit to do anything you described because it can all be equally accomplished through shooting, So you either have a unit that is worse in every way than fire warriors, or you have a viable melee unit that can be spammed, which breaks the stated army theme of Tau, even if said unit only covers one role...

Melee gets to attack twice in a round, Shooting is limited to once, unless Overwatch is employed. Melee is done at close range, shooting can be much farther out, like outside of Charge Range. Once upon a time, it was actually easier and faster to get rid of Necrons with Melee because of their totally crap Initiative.

w1zard wrote:Replacing berzerkers in a khorne army makes it no longer a khorne army. Replacing shooty elements in a Tau army with melee units makes it no longer a Tau army. Kroot are supposed to be specialist auxiliaries to support shooty Tau forces, not line infantry. Now I personally wouldn't mind options for an army of kroot so long as they lost access to some Tau shooting units, but Tau thematically aren't supposed to be an army that does melee well at all (as a whole).

I can run a Khorne army without taking one single Berzerker. You see, there are things called "Daemons", and a good portion of them are more Khorne than the Berzerkers.

While Kroot are better at melee than the normal Tau Infantry unit, no one is going to confuse them with Bloodletters much less a Bloodthirster, and I don't think anyone here is going to ask them to. Simply put, they are fragile and unskilled enough that their threat level isn't high. Because of that, they should be cheaper than most melee units. They are barely strong enough to hit as hard as a Berzerker or Bloodletter, but not as much, due to their Rifle's bonus compensating for their lost STR instead of their minimal Attacks. They 're numbers are also a bit limited for how fragile they are. All these are balancing factors for the Kroot. And while I don't think they should be priced at Hormagaunt or Boyz levels, they really shouldn't be priced at Fire Warrior levels, either.

w1zard wrote:
If it more points efficient to sacrifice a small squad of fire warriors to achieve the same effect then why bother with kroot?

The balanced way to do this is to have the Fire Warriors equally points efficient as the Kroot. So you want shooty campers in your army with good synergy? Fire Warriors. Or you want choppy ambushers that offer a high degree of tactical choices? Kroot Carnivores. The question shouldn't be "What is the bestests?" but "What do I want?" because every unit is equally efficient just in different ways.

The same reason why Ogryn are limited in an IG army.

Ogryns are not limited at all for the IG. You can have a Vanguard Detachment and an entire army of nothing but Ogryns with a token HQ.

If soup didn't exist then you would base it army to army (codex vs codex).

If army composition was static you could do Faction vs Faction.

Since neither of these is the case it has to be on a unit by unit type thing (which is hard considering auras/psychic powers/stratagems).


There really should be a limit on buffs/strats you can play on a single unit in a battle round. Would make things much easier to balance.

Melee gets to attack twice in a round, Shooting is limited to once, unless Overwatch is employed. Melee is done at close range, shooting can be much farther out, like outside of Charge Range. Once upon a time, it was actually easier and faster to get rid of Necrons with Melee because of their totally crap Initiative.

Well that is the potential. Not many armies aka eldar of different types, can charge and do melee every turn starting from turn 1. On the other hand not being able to shot at anything turn 1 does not happen that often. Because either the army has huge models that cant be LoSed or it has 200 models, and something always sticks out. And that is normal shoting non of the crazy LoSless stuff or being able to move 12" plus with 30" guns on the unit.

Karol wrote:

Melee gets to attack twice in a round, Shooting is limited to once, unless Overwatch is employed. Melee is done at close range, shooting can be much farther out, like outside of Charge Range. Once upon a time, it was actually easier and faster to get rid of Necrons with Melee because of their totally crap Initiative.

Well that is the potential. Not many armies aka eldar of different types, can charge and do melee every turn starting from turn 1. On the other hand not being able to shot at anything turn 1 does not happen that often. Because either the army has huge models that cant be LoSed or it has 200 models, and something always sticks out. And that is normal shoting non of the crazy LoSless stuff or being able to move 12" plus with 30" guns on the unit.

I don't see why a melee unit has to be turn 1 effective in order to be considered powerful? Berzerkers don't fall under that, nor do a significant portion of the Daemons fall in to that category.

Yet, those are reasons to choose Kroot over Fire Warriors, and that was primarily the point of the response. Just because there is good shooting in the army doesn't mean they have to be over-priced because they do more damage in melee than a Fire Warrior, especially when they can't take hits like a Fire Warrior model.

Still don't see why making Kroot vaguely worth their points undermines Tau. You can't spend points twice. If Kroot were not crap you might see them on the table. If a wide variety of Tau units were good, you might not see riptides+fire warriors+HQs and drones in just about every competitive list.

If magically "kroot+riptides=breaks the game" then you might have a problem. If you don't - and its not obvious why they would synergise better than firewarriors - then you don't.

Indeed. It's not like Dawn of War where the Kroot leap in to combat so the Fire Warriors can pound them safely at range.

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed. It's not like Dawn of War where the Kroot leap in to combat so the Fire Warriors can pound them safely at range.

Which was visually fantastic I might add.

Bloody Necron Lord though gets in the way

Back when Kroot were like 5ppm and Fire Warriors were 10ppm Kroot had a role they could fill. A very cheap unit you can toss on an objective and you didn't care if they died. You could use them to deny deep strike cause you could afford a bunch. Their shooting and melee was acceptable for their low cost. I want to say back in the 4th edition codex they were BS 3 with a bolter and in melee they were 2 attacks, S4, WS4.

Now that they're 6ppm and FWs are 7ppm there's absolutely no reason to ever include Kroot. If you need a unit to vanguard move and take some territory then Pathfinders are only 8ppm. They also have carbines and markerlights so they can actually fill the scout role decently if you want them to.

 Charistoph wrote:

Karol wrote:

Melee gets to attack twice in a round, Shooting is limited to once, unless Overwatch is employed. Melee is done at close range, shooting can be much farther out, like outside of Charge Range. Once upon a time, it was actually easier and faster to get rid of Necrons with Melee because of their totally crap Initiative.

Well that is the potential. Not many armies aka eldar of different types, can charge and do melee every turn starting from turn 1. On the other hand not being able to shot at anything turn 1 does not happen that often. Because either the army has huge models that cant be LoSed or it has 200 models, and something always sticks out. And that is normal shoting non of the crazy LoSless stuff or being able to move 12" plus with 30" guns on the unit.

I don't see why a melee unit has to be turn 1 effective in order to be considered powerful? Berzerkers don't fall under that, nor do a significant portion of the Daemons fall in to that category.

Yet, those are reasons to choose Kroot over Fire Warriors, and that was primarily the point of the response. Just because there is good shooting in the army doesn't mean they have to be over-priced because they do more damage in melee than a Fire Warrior, especially when they can't take hits like a Fire Warrior model.

because if he isn't turn 1-2 in melee vs good shoting models he is dead before he reachs melee or sunk in chaff.

Karol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Karol wrote:

Melee gets to attack twice in a round, Shooting is limited to once, unless Overwatch is employed. Melee is done at close range, shooting can be much farther out, like outside of Charge Range. Once upon a time, it was actually easier and faster to get rid of Necrons with Melee because of their totally crap Initiative.

Well that is the potential. Not many armies aka eldar of different types, can charge and do melee every turn starting from turn 1. On the other hand not being able to shot at anything turn 1 does not happen that often. Because either the army has huge models that cant be LoSed or it has 200 models, and something always sticks out. And that is normal shoting non of the crazy LoSless stuff or being able to move 12" plus with 30" guns on the unit.

I don't see why a melee unit has to be turn 1 effective in order to be considered powerful? Berzerkers don't fall under that, nor do a significant portion of the Daemons fall in to that category.

Yet, those are reasons to choose Kroot over Fire Warriors, and that was primarily the point of the response. Just because there is good shooting in the army doesn't mean they have to be over-priced because they do more damage in melee than a Fire Warrior, especially when they can't take hits like a Fire Warrior model.

because if he isn't turn 1-2 in melee vs good shoting models he is dead before he reachs melee or sunk in chaff.

Considering their fragility, I don't think anyone expect Kroot to be more than chaff or flankers anway, even if priced properly. They should be priced to the point that you can take a batch that takes a bit to burn through (their unit size is proper for that, and even more so before), but makes people just charge them like they were nothing like a Guard Infantry Squad.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Ogryns are not limited at all for the IG. You can have a Vanguard Detachment and an entire army of nothing but Ogryns with a token HQ.

Rule of 3 makes it impossible, as it should. You cannot have an entire army of Ogryn unless you consider 3 units an army.

Tyel wrote:
Still don't see why making Kroot vaguely worth their points undermines Tau

Because Tau aren't supposed to be a melee army... the ability to make all of your infantry be melee focus (and have them actually be good) means you have a melee army. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Kroot can and should be worth their points, but in order to keep them from being able to be spammed and allow a Tau force to do something it thematically shouldn't be capable of doing (melee) they should be limited. Or they can just suck and be worse then fire warriors in every situation and nobody takes them because they suck... like how they are now. Your choice.

 Charistoph wrote:
Considering their fragility, I don't think anyone expect Kroot to be more than chaff or flankers anway, even if priced properly. They should be priced to the point that you can take a batch that takes a bit to burn through (their unit size is proper for that, and even more so before), but makes people just charge them like they were nothing like a Guard Infantry Squad.

I disagree with that, kroot are shown to be as tough as orks in the lore... and they should certainly be more cost effective than guardsmen in melee.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Considering their fragility, I don't think anyone expect Kroot to be more than chaff or flankers anway, even if priced properly. They should be priced to the point that you can take a batch that takes a bit to burn through (their unit size is proper for that, and even more so before), but makes people just charge them like they were nothing like a Guard Infantry Squad.

I disagree with that, kroot are shown to be as tough as orks in the lore... and they should certainly be more cost effective than guardsmen in melee.

No, they have not, at least, not the ones that have added Ork genes to their own. They are tougher than an average human (though, maybe matched by Death Worlders like Catachans) and a Fire Warrior, that's not in doubt, but nothing indicates that they have an Ork or Marine's toughness without Adaptations being brought in to play. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with D&D'd CON system to show such granularity, but dealing with a system that measures Toughness in very constrained strata that we can't tell the difference between an Astartes and an Ork outside of Armour.

And I agree that a Kroot should be more cost effective than Guardsmen in melee, at least, when they attack. Unless they are allowed their Adaptations again, they will still take hits like Guardsmen, though, because of that lousy (for them) stat gradient that exists in the game and because their armour should never be that strong.

With the new system, it probably wouldn't hurt too much to stretch things out again so that we can see a difference between a Kroot and a Fire Warrior, or an Astartes and an Ork. Vehicle and Monster Toughness will get crazy high, but it is much easier to manage it today than it was in the last few decades.

w1zard wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Ogryns are not limited at all for the IG. You can have a Vanguard Detachment and an entire army of nothing but Ogryns with a token HQ.

Rule of 3 makes it impossible, as it should. You cannot have an entire army of Ogryn unless you consider 3 units an army.

With 3 units of Ogryns and 3 units of Bullgryns, you are already well above 1750 points. In fact, if you add in the Lord Commissar then you should be around 2000.

Also, of course, the Rule of 3 is only for Organized Events, so at the average table I can have all the Ogryns I want.

w1zard wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Still don't see why making Kroot vaguely worth their points undermines Tau

Because Tau aren't supposed to be a melee army... the ability to make all of your infantry be melee focus (and have them actually be good) means you have a melee army. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Kroot can and should be worth their points, but in order to keep them from being able to be spammed and allow a Tau force to do something it thematically shouldn't be capable of doing (melee) they should be limited. Or they can just suck and be worse then fire warriors in every situation and nobody takes them because they suck... like how they are now. Your choice.

I don't agree with your assertion that since Tau are "not a melee army", any melee options must be rubbish, so they don't appear on the table.
Are Eldar not a melee army? I guess this edition they have Ynnari shining spears - but typically assault options have been crap. Banshees, Scorpions, the Avatar, Storm Guardians may all have been there for decades but for edition after edition they were a joke.
Are Necrons not a melee army? This would explain why flayed ones and lichguard are also a bit crap. Although since they have a chapter tactic explicitly buffing assault presumably you would say no.

If you take fire warriors, riptides and crisis suits you are "not a melee army". There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to take a Kroot army which can compete in assault. It doesn't "devalue the flavour" or whatever it is you are concerned about because you cannot have 2k points of both in a 2k game on the table at the same time.

Tyel wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Still don't see why making Kroot vaguely worth their points undermines Tau

Because Tau aren't supposed to be a melee army... the ability to make all of your infantry be melee focus (and have them actually be good) means you have a melee army. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Kroot can and should be worth their points, but in order to keep them from being able to be spammed and allow a Tau force to do something it thematically shouldn't be capable of doing (melee) they should be limited. Or they can just suck and be worse then fire warriors in every situation and nobody takes them because they suck... like how they are now. Your choice.

I don't agree with your assertion that since Tau are "not a melee army", any melee options must be rubbish, so they don't appear on the table.

I think W1zard refers to the fluff here that indeed says the T'au (the blue not!fish guys) are not very fond of melee, but IIRC it does not explicitly says that they are crap. There are even pieces of fluff where they are either holding their own in melee (essentially every story with Shadowtsun) or actively trying to not suck (Hazard suits). So I'm not sure how much foundation we have for this "the Tau (the faction) should be weak in melee" angle.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Tyel wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Still don't see why making Kroot vaguely worth their points undermines Tau

Because Tau aren't supposed to be a melee army... the ability to make all of your infantry be melee focus (and have them actually be good) means you have a melee army. I don't understand why people don't get this.

Kroot can and should be worth their points, but in order to keep them from being able to be spammed and allow a Tau force to do something it thematically shouldn't be capable of doing (melee) they should be limited. Or they can just suck and be worse then fire warriors in every situation and nobody takes them because they suck... like how they are now. Your choice.

I don't agree with your assertion that since Tau are "not a melee army", any melee options must be rubbish, so they don't appear on the table.

I think W1zard refers to the fluff here that indeed says the T'au (the blue not!fish guys) are not very fond of melee, but IIRC it does not explicitly says that they are crap. There are even pieces of fluff where they are either holding their own in melee (essentially every story with Shadowtsun) or actively trying to not suck (Hazard suits). So I'm not sure how much foundation we have for this "the Tau (the faction) should be weak in melee" angle.

It has been a while since I focused on Tau fluff overall, but the stats are one of the reasons why the individual Tau sucks in close combat. Low Weapon Skill, low Initiative, mediocre Strength and Toughness, combined with some of the longest ranged weapons in the game, especially for the standard Troop weapon, it demonstrates that.

However, one should also consider this fluff-wise, Tau don't really soldier. They are hunters and treat everything as a hunt. You go after prey in the most economical method possible, which involves ranged weapons, lures, and traps. The closest things to Warriors in the Tau lexicon are the Vespid, and that's because of their insectoid aspects. Even the Demiurg are more miners than fighters.

 Charistoph wrote:

However, one should also consider this fluff-wise, Tau don't really soldier. They are hunters and treat everything as a hunt. You go after prey in the most economical method possible, which involves ranged weapons, lures, and traps. The closest things to Warriors in the Tau lexicon are the Vespid, and that's because of their insectoid aspects. Even the Demiurg are more miners than fighters.

This is very true. But to add to his thought, Tau avoid melee not because they hate it but because they find shooting to be more effective most of the time (Ethereals use Honour Blades of all things so melee isn't shunned, but is more ceremonious). However, their workings with the Kroot showed how beneficial it was to incorporate melee shock troops in their lines. They've since relied heavily on kroot to provide this role while their line troops focus on ranged training.

In fact, when Tau first came out, the Farsight enclaves lost access to Kroot but had better WS to make up for it (though it cost extra). A farsight bodyguard team actually had WS 4 at the time (I was actually bummed to find out they changed farsight so much after being out for several years). Then of course there's Fusion Blades and Onager Gauntlets that proved effective in combat, though they had a high casualty rate for the user.