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.

the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tau are fundamentally badly-designed. Trying to build an army on the principle that you ignore three phases of the game and dominate in the last one seems to end up only producing games that feel bad for either the Tau player (because the other guy got to contact and they feel like they can't do anything while getting slowly chewed up) or feel bad for the other player (because they couldn't get to contact and feel like they can't do anything while getting leafblowered off the table). I've never had a close or interesting game playing as Tau or playing against Tau, only one-sided curbstomps one way or the other.

Your experience may vary, but your playgroup may just find that Tau feel bad independent of whether they're objectively powerful or not powerful.

So, are Tau that army that set up on the battlefield in a giant reroll all hits and reroll 1s to wound bubble, and get to rapid fire their weapons at you at full 30" maximum range if they didn't move?

Or is that some other army I've been hearing about that works like that? Because it sure as hell sounds like that's the army that ignores all the phases except shooting.

That's what I said.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tau are fundamentally badly-designed. Trying to build an army on the principle that you ignore three phases of the game and dominate in the last one seems to end up only producing games that feel bad for either the Tau player (because the other guy got to contact and they feel like they can't do anything while getting slowly chewed up) or feel bad for the other player (because they couldn't get to contact and feel like they can't do anything while getting leafblowered off the table). I've never had a close or interesting game playing as Tau or playing against Tau, only one-sided curbstomps one way or the other.

Your experience may vary, but your playgroup may just find that Tau feel bad independent of whether they're objectively powerful or not powerful.

So, are Tau that army that set up on the battlefield in a giant reroll all hits and reroll 1s to wound bubble, and get to rapid fire their weapons at you at full 30" maximum range if they didn't move?

Or is that some other army I've been hearing about that works like that? Because it sure as hell sounds like that's the army that ignores all the phases except shooting.

That's what I said.

Yeah it's weird though, all the lists I've played against recently that operate like that...they haven't been Tau.

They've been these big dudes wearing power armor. And unlike the Tau, if you charge them it turns out they've got 3 S4 WS3+ melee attacks apiece, so if you get into melee you don't just win automatically.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tau are fundamentally badly-designed. Trying to build an army on the principle that you ignore three phases of the game and dominate in the last one seems to end up only producing games that feel bad for either the Tau player (because the other guy got to contact and they feel like they can't do anything while getting slowly chewed up) or feel bad for the other player (because they couldn't get to contact and feel like they can't do anything while getting leafblowered off the table). I've never had a close or interesting game playing as Tau or playing against Tau, only one-sided curbstomps one way or the other.

Your experience may vary, but your playgroup may just find that Tau feel bad independent of whether they're objectively powerful or not powerful.

So, are Tau that army that set up on the battlefield in a giant reroll all hits and reroll 1s to wound bubble, and get to rapid fire their weapons at you at full 30" maximum range if they didn't move?

Or is that some other army I've been hearing about that works like that? Because it sure as hell sounds like that's the army that ignores all the phases except shooting.

That's what I said.

It sounds to me like you just got unlucky and played some unimaginative players. Its not really fair to lump the rest of us Tau players into how you just described as Tau do not have to be one sided mono. Just because you played some mono players it doesn't mean Tau are badly designed in that regard and are built around ignoring three phases of the game.

if the mono is the best, then it would like saying that in every cycle events all the top players sooner or later are caught juicing, it does not mean everyone does it.

How do tau stack up? It depends on who there up against. Since Faith and Fury they generally stack up against my Night Lords like cordwood ripe for the flaying pits (warp talons and "we have come for you" ftw). Hope the new pa helps them with varied tactics and lists.

Pottsey wrote:
...It sounds to me like you just got unlucky and played some unimaginative players. Its not really fair to lump the rest of us Tau players into how you just described as Tau do not have to be one sided mono. Just because you played some mono players it doesn't mean Tau are badly designed in that regard and are built around ignoring three phases of the game.

I'm not trying to say that the Tau as a concept are one-dimensional and uninteresting, I'm trying to say that the rules GW writes for the Tau are one-dimensional and uninteresting. The Tau in Dawn of War aren't one-dimensional and uninteresting, the Tau in various homebrew projects I've done over the years aren't one-dimensional and uninteresting, but GW's insistence on defining the army's identity around the shooting phase means that in official 40k I find them one-dimensional and uninteresting.

Before you go for the "oh, sour grapes, you get beaten up by Tau players a lot" this is informed at least as much by my Tau army that I played in 4e, 7e, and 8e that I have since sold because while I really like the models I found them frustrating and dull to play.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Pottsey wrote:
...It sounds to me like you just got unlucky and played some unimaginative players. Its not really fair to lump the rest of us Tau players into how you just described as Tau do not have to be one sided mono. Just because you played some mono players it doesn't mean Tau are badly designed in that regard and are built around ignoring three phases of the game.

I'm not trying to say that the Tau as a concept are one-dimensional and uninteresting, I'm trying to say that the rules GW writes for the Tau are one-dimensional and uninteresting. The Tau in Dawn of War aren't one-dimensional and uninteresting, the Tau in various homebrew projects I've done over the years aren't one-dimensional and uninteresting, but GW's insistence on defining the army's identity around the shooting phase means that in official 40k I find them one-dimensional and uninteresting.

Before you go for the "oh, sour grapes, you get beaten up by Tau players a lot" this is informed at least as much by my Tau army that I played in 4e, 7e, and 8e that I have since sold because while I really like the models I found them frustrating and dull to play.

That is the bit I am not agreeing with. The Tau rules by GW are not one dimensional and uninteresting. There are multiple interesting and various dimensions to look at when it comes to Tau lists. For example my lists tend to be built around sub 18" and sub 6" shooting with close combat and lots of highly mobile movement. The army is not defined by the shooting phase. If you find Tau boring due to ignoring movement and the Close Combat phase that is a flaw and problem in the way you or your opponent is building the list, its not a problem with how the rules are written. The Tau rules are not on dimensional. I too find sitting in a castle not moving dull but that is not what Tau are about.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tau are fundamentally badly-designed. Trying to build an army on the principle that you ignore three phases of the game and dominate in the last one seems to end up only producing games that feel bad for either the Tau player (because the other guy got to contact and they feel like they can't do anything while getting slowly chewed up) or feel bad for the other player (because they couldn't get to contact and feel like they can't do anything while getting leafblowered off the table). I've never had a close or interesting game playing as Tau or playing against Tau, only one-sided curbstomps one way or the other.

Your experience may vary, but your playgroup may just find that Tau feel bad independent of whether they're objectively powerful or not powerful.

2018 called, it wants it's army back.

You are fundamentally wrong, over the last year the competitive Tau lists have changed to ever increasing levels of mobility, Target Lock (the upgrade to move and shoot Heavy without penalty, or advance and shoot Assault without penalty) has become almost mandatory for units like Riptides and Ghostkheels. Sure, on first read through the Tau codex looks like it would favour immobile castles going for double Kauyon with Shadowsun are extra range from Bo'rkan to increase your tripple tap ranges, but people have found that doesn't really work, it's too easy for that list to be shut down in combat, especially since the Fly FAQ was partially reversed so that you can jump over screens again, it also has no mobility amkingit hard to score points.

The problem really is Saviour Protocols, and too many units are costed to work with them rather than without them.

Tau have a lot of auto win situations. Cover against them is totally meaningless and tau players are always like...lets add a little more cover on the table so I can get +1 to my save but you cant. LOL.

If they are against a melee army they basically can't lose unless you can ignore overwatch. If you don't have ILOS weapons you can not kill their suits so you lose. If your army has a bunch of elite units they are all gonna die at a rate of 2+ a turn because of 5 marker lights and +1 to wound stratagem.

Then theirs armies they can't beat. Armies that ignore over-watch and charge turn 1. Game over for tau - literally no way to respond to that.

I agree with the poster above. Tau are just a badly designed army. Totally weird too - premier shooting army that hits on 4+??? kinda weird.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tau have a lot of auto win situations. Cover against them is totally meaningless and tau players are always like...lets add a little more cover on the table so I can get +1 to my save but you cant. LOL.

If they are against a melee army they basically can't lose unless you can ignore overwatch. If you don't have ILOS weapons you can not kill their suits so you lose. If your army has a bunch of elite units they are all gonna die at a rate of 2+ a turn because of 5 marker lights and +1 to wound stratagem.

Then theirs armies they can't beat. Armies that ignore over-watch and charge turn 1. Game over for tau - literally no way to respond to that.

I agree with the poster above. Tau are just a badly designed army. Totally weird too - premier shooting army that hits on 4+??? kinda weird.

Since when is RF1 30" S5 AP0 D1 premier shooting? That's situationally better than an Intercessor's gun (when Strength matters but AP doesn't, or against T8 models like Knights) but frequently worse.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tau have a lot of auto win situations. Cover against them is totally meaningless and tau players are always like...lets add a little more cover on the table so I can get +1 to my save but you cant. LOL.

If they are against a melee army they basically can't lose unless you can ignore overwatch. If you don't have ILOS weapons you can not kill their suits so you lose. If your army has a bunch of elite units they are all gonna die at a rate of 2+ a turn because of 5 marker lights and +1 to wound stratagem.

Then theirs armies they can't beat. Armies that ignore over-watch and charge turn 1. Game over for tau - literally no way to respond to that.

I agree with the poster above. Tau are just a badly designed army. Totally weird too - premier shooting army that hits on 4+??? kinda weird.

Since when is RF1 30" S5 AP0 D1 premier shooting? That's situationally better than an Intercessor's gun (when Strength matters but AP doesn't, or against T8 models like Knights) but frequently worse.

I think his point was that it's supposed to be a premier shooting army but the stats don't back that up. (Thought that's why they had markerlights).

Ah. That'd make sense-Xeno, can you clarify?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Then theirs armies they can't beat. Armies that ignore over-watch and charge turn 1. Game over for tau - literally no way to respond to that.

There are ways to deal with that. What I do is use cheap hound squads to absorb/road bump those turn 1/ turn 2 charges. Then my Breachers and Vespids advance up to point blank range and tend to wipe the target off the map followed up with my own charge into close combat if I have suitable units nearby. If you are under 15" of me then you are in my main kill zone.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
Do GW just suck at creating balance across all the codexes or do they intentionally make some armies better/easier to with. As Tau are one of the newer armies do they make the over powered at first to encourage sales?

100% my dude, I think a lot of people don't realise that Warhammer 40'000 is just a marketing ploy. GW are a model company, that's where they make there money. people will always buy the new stuff with the best rules to increase their chances of winning. that's just how people are. GW got us good lol big new expensive models that play well get GW lots of $$$ 8th edition actually feels like the first edition in a long time where GW actually seem to care about the state of the game with regular updates, erratas and FAQ's.

Sorry, but Tau came out in 4th edition. They're not exactly a new army.

By new I just mean recent releases


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
Do GW just suck at creating balance across all the codexes or do they intentionally make some armies better/easier to with. As Tau are one of the newer armies do they make the over powered at first to encourage sales?

100% my dude, I think a lot of people don't realise that Warhammer 40'000 is just a marketing ploy. GW are a model company, that's where they make there money. people will always buy the new stuff with the best rules to increase their chances of winning. that's just how people are. GW got us good lol big new expensive models that play well get GW lots of $$$ 8th edition actually feels like the first edition in a long time where GW actually seem to care about the state of the game with regular updates, erratas and FAQ's.

Sorry, but Tau came out in 4th edition. They're not exactly a new army.

yeah the idea that every new thing is OP simply isn't born out, Primaris Marines at the start of 8th wheren't all that great. and if GW wanted NEW armies to be the OP, we'd be seeing a meta dominated by Admech, Custodes and GSC.

I never said all new stuff is OP , just that 99% a new release are good. Theres nothing wrong with that. GW are just artificially making there protect more desirable to increase sales. It very smart by them. I remember when 5th edition grey knight came out. They were super strong and so was the new (at the time) dreadknight which every one wanted a piece of.

But you're just like...wrong, man. 99% of new releases absolutely are not good.

The latest new model releases have been:

-Sisters stuff. Generally mid-tier, from the reviews I've seen. Not anywhere near marines level. There's a ton of units so I'm not going to dig in too much here, but Sisters generally seem like they're in the middle with some good and some bad units and some mediocre ones.

-New Drazar, New Jain Zar, New Banshees, New Incubi. All objectively bad units. you might see Drazar in some HQ slots in competitive Drukhari armies because Drukhari HQs in general are really really REALLY bad and he's like, a reasonable footslogging smash-captain type unit.

-New Shadowsun. Doesn't look amazing from previews.You're never gonna take her over a coldstar commander.

-New SM characters. Iron Hands dude was notoriously broken. Dark Angels, Imp Fists, Raven Guard, Ultramarines, Salamanders, and White Scars new dudes? Never hear about them, never see them in tourney lists.

This is just confirmation bias, my dude. You get some release where Iron hands Techmarine Mcbrokenstein is in the top 10% of units in the game...and then you ignore the other 9 marine characters who come out who are just nothing special. It's human nature.

I guess I wasn't clear, I am not talking about tournaments. Tournaments are a different environment, you go to compete and win. I think most people would agree that is where power gaming has it's place and that's fine. I am not saying 99% of new releases are going to be the new competitive meta. I am saying that everything is usable, and can be made effective if you want to use it or even theme a build around it. Those other 9 marine characters can all be played just fine. I often find myself playing against heaps of different special characters and they all a PITA to deal with.
Shadowsun ain't no Coldstar Commander your right, but she is a cool hero. I have been looking at using Shadowsun, a unit of Stealthsuits and two Ghostkeels as a small infiltration force to attack a flank of my opponents army. Sure she is probably best used to castle up and call Kauyon twice, but like many have pointed out is stale and boring for you and your opponent. I hate how much GW encourages Tau forces to be static. All these rules you only get if you stand still.
Not everything has to be a best in slot choice or min/max to play this game, and I would go as even as far to say that its more enjoyable that way. For me at least.

I find Tau to be the most miserable army I have ever played against in 8th edition while I was still actively playing. Mainly just due to how boring all the games were.

Tau are a completely one dimensional army.

They have nothing but shooting. You win and lose based on that phase alone.

That makes for a really terrible and sometimes skewed match up.

It's not really the Tau player's fault. they have no other options (well except play a real army).

I hate Tau with every fibre of my being. They don't belong in 40K.

I really wish GW would produce some new Combat/Psychic models for this army just to make them not unbelievably boring to play against.

I can't say I don't like Tau, but they can lead to really heavy win or lose big feelings. As long as you're prepared for that, have fun.

It's a problem some lists have though not just Tau, depends on the build like typically Marine lists used to suffer from that would drop pods heavy lists as either they land and sweet the enemy back or they land, whiff and proceed to get smashed apart in short order. Either way, it was over fast.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Tau are a completely one dimensional army.

They have nothing but shooting. You win and lose based on that phase alone.

That makes for a really terrible and sometimes skewed match up.

It's not really the Tau player's fault. they have no other options (well except play a real army).

I hate Tau with every fibre of my being. They don't belong in 40K.

I really wish GW would produce some new Combat/Psychic models for this army just to make them not unbelievably boring to play against.

That is complete wrong. Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional that doesn't mean the army and Tau rules are. We do not have nothing but shooting. We have lots of other stuff from close combat, agility, stealth. We do not win or lose based on shooting alone. I won plenty of games due to the Close Combat Phase including taking out the enemy warlord on the last turn turning the game into a win.

Pottsey wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Tau are a completely one dimensional army.

They have nothing but shooting. You win and lose based on that phase alone.

That makes for a really terrible and sometimes skewed match up.

It's not really the Tau player's fault. they have no other options (well except play a real army).

I hate Tau with every fibre of my being. They don't belong in 40K.

I really wish GW would produce some new Combat/Psychic models for this army just to make them not unbelievably boring to play against.

That is complete wrong. Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional that doesn't mean the army and Tau rules are. We do not have nothing but shooting. We have lots of other stuff from close combat, agility, stealth. We do not win or lose based on shooting alone. I won plenty of games due to the Close Combat Phase including taking out the enemy warlord on the last turn turning the game into a win.

Kind of hard to say "Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional..." when almost every Tau player and the vast majority of Tau bat rep videos I have seen all look like the darn near same gunline castle, that relies on exactly the same tactics.

 Imateria wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tau are fundamentally badly-designed. Trying to build an army on the principle that you ignore three phases of the game and dominate in the last one seems to end up only producing games that feel bad for either the Tau player (because the other guy got to contact and they feel like they can't do anything while getting slowly chewed up) or feel bad for the other player (because they couldn't get to contact and feel like they can't do anything while getting leafblowered off the table). I've never had a close or interesting game playing as Tau or playing against Tau, only one-sided curbstomps one way or the other.

Your experience may vary, but your playgroup may just find that Tau feel bad independent of whether they're objectively powerful or not powerful.

2018 called, it wants it's army back.

You are fundamentally wrong, over the last year the competitive Tau lists have changed to ever increasing levels of mobility, Target Lock (the upgrade to move and shoot Heavy without penalty, or advance and shoot Assault without penalty) has become almost mandatory for units like Riptides and Ghostkheels. Sure, on first read through the Tau codex looks like it would favour immobile castles going for double Kauyon with Shadowsun are extra range from Bo'rkan to increase your tripple tap ranges, but people have found that doesn't really work, it's too easy for that list to be shut down in combat, especially since the Fly FAQ was partially reversed so that you can jump over screens again, it also has no mobility amkingit hard to score points.

The problem really is Saviour Protocols, and too many units are costed to work with them rather than without them.

My subjective impression of five editions of playing Tau is "completely wrong" because the ITC tournament lists in the past year don't behave the same way?

Pottsey wrote:

That is complete wrong. Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional that doesn't mean the army and Tau rules are. We do not have nothing but shooting. We have lots of other stuff from close combat, agility, stealth. We do not win or lose based on shooting alone. I won plenty of games due to the Close Combat Phase including taking out the enemy warlord on the last turn turning the game into a win.

^This^
I feel like these competitive type lists that stand still and stack abilities to blow your opponent off the table in one or two shooting phases are all everyone seem to think about when talking about Tau. Although we don't have many options for close combat, I agree that Tau are very capable of moving out into the board to take the fight to you and to actively play objectives. Not everything is shoot your opponent off the table with complete disregard for the mission.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
“My subjective impression of five editions of playing Tau is "completely wrong" because the ITC tournament lists in the past year don't behave the same way?”

Yes it is wrong and its not just ITC lists. Tau lists often are completely different from how you describe which makes your subjective impression incorrect. We are not all about shooting phase only nor do we only sit in a bubble and shoot without moving. Some players do play how you describe but its not fair to make such a blanket statesmen that Tau can do that and nothing else. There is far more to Tau then just sitting in a big bubble not moving. I do agree bubbles are boring which is why myself and many others do not play like that.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
“Kind of hard to say "Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional..." when almost every Tau player and the vast majority of Tau bat rep videos I have seen all look like the darn near same gunline castle, that relies on exactly the same tactics.”

The past few times I went to Warhammer world and other clubs less than 1/3 of Tau played like that. Same for Twitch streams from Warhammer world the past batch where anything but one dimensional and especially for the red ones I don’t even remember the last time I watched a battle report and Tau just sat in a bubble shooting only. Been over a year since I have seen that. Seen plenty of other styles though. Pay extra attention to the red ones as they are more likely to avoid bubble castles.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Pottsey wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Tau are a completely one dimensional army.

They have nothing but shooting. You win and lose based on that phase alone.

That makes for a really terrible and sometimes skewed match up.

It's not really the Tau player's fault. they have no other options (well except play a real army).

I hate Tau with every fibre of my being. They don't belong in 40K.

I really wish GW would produce some new Combat/Psychic models for this army just to make them not unbelievably boring to play against.

That is complete wrong. Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional that doesn't mean the army and Tau rules are. We do not have nothing but shooting. We have lots of other stuff from close combat, agility, stealth. We do not win or lose based on shooting alone. I won plenty of games due to the Close Combat Phase including taking out the enemy warlord on the last turn turning the game into a win.

Kind of hard to say "Just because one person is unimaginative and one dimensional..." when almost every Tau player and the vast majority of Tau bat rep videos I have seen all look like the darn near same gunline castle, that relies on exactly the same tactics.

So we can paint Tau in that way, but not Imperial Guard?

At the end of the day, the only real difference between the two armeis is mobility and that people is much more symphatetic towards imperial guard. A imperial guard artillery castle, the most common way of playing the army is just as obnoxious as Tau castles. But you don't see people being as angry, or calling for the removal of Imperial Guard.

Sounds like what most people have a problem with isn't Tau, but tryhards who play Tau and by extension tournaments. All armies played and "honed" (read: dumbed down) for tournament play are boring garbage. And the majority of them are just as bad as the triptide lists.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Are Tau just OP and even a novice can win a game with them?

Apparently the is no strategy or skill required. Don't even have to think about my list or what moves I make. Tau are cheesy as heck and that means auto win. I keep getting told that by my regular opponents.

Where do they fall for you? I think their maybe above average, but auto win! surely not.

Tau are a strong competitive army. I find most of my games against Tau to be very frustrating as you are not going to out shoot them and if you can't ignore over watch its incredibly difficult to even get into CC with them. So most of my games against Tau just boil down to me ignoring them keeping out of LOS and just focusing on objectives. Its really just not a fun experience. On the plus side they can't do anything about my psychic powers!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Tau are a completely one dimensional army.

They have nothing but shooting. You win and lose based on that phase alone.

That makes for a really terrible and sometimes skewed match up.

It's not really the Tau player's fault. they have no other options (well except play a real army).

I hate Tau with every fibre of my being. They don't belong in 40K.

I really wish GW would produce some new Combat/Psychic models for this army just to make them not unbelievably boring to play against.

Does khorne also not belong? They have about as many ranged weapons as tau have melee options.

Does khorne also not belong? They have about as many ranged weapons as tau have melee options.

Khorne has all of Chaos at its disposal, which is a lot of shooting. Unless you specifically hamstring yourself by not taking those things. You can do that, but there are plenty of options.

Additionally, CC requires you to get close to your opponent which shooting does not. You can at least hurt the enemy in CC unlike shooting where you just stand there while the opponent unloads a bucket of dice while you take off your models unit by unit. CC by it's very nature is more interactive between the players, and therefore objectively more exciting.

How much close combat does Tau have? Realistically. Apart from Kroot, I'm genuinely interested in what they can take that could stand toe to toe with another close combat unit.

Also, It's Tau. Who the feth wants to play with ugly ass Kroot. They should make Tau combat suits that at least match the aesthetic of the rest of the army.

Not everything is shoot your opponent off the table with complete disregard for the mission.

Who said anything about disregarding the mission?

Having 2 units that can do some very pitiful work in CC doesn't mean they aren't a one dimensional army.

Straight up, Tau are not fun to play against at all. You either get up close and win, or you get shot off the board. There is very little in between.

At the end of the day, the only real difference between the two armeis is mobility and that people is much more symphatetic towards imperial guard. A imperial guard artillery castle, the most common way of playing the army is just as obnoxious as Tau castles. But you don't see people being as angry, or calling for the removal of Imperial Guard.

I'm not defending Guard Castles, but IG have all of the Imperium at their disposal too. Most of the time you see Guard in soup lists which is probably why they aren't seen as one dimensional. Their guys also die fairly easily, which isn't the case with all Suit Tau armies, so at least you feel like you might be gaining some kind of upper hand.

In ITC only 1 list is viable.

They are more varied and fun using CA missions.

If Tau table you, they win every mission. That's always the mission regardless of the mission.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
How much close combat does Tau have? Realistically. Apart from Kroot, I'm genuinely interested in what they can take that could stand toe to toe with another close combat unit.

Against the right target a triple Fusion Commander with shield generator and Fusion blades is deadly. That’s a possible 5 fusion hits or 6 if you go quad Fusion with a possible further 2 fusions on the opponents round so 7 to 8 fusion hits. It’s very nasty against big targets with low attacks as the drones absorb the hard hitting but few attacks leaving you to hit back hard. I have killed a fair few warlords and Dreadnoughts with this in close combat.

Add in Hero’s of the Enclave trait to reroll close combat miss’s and Heroic Intervention 6” into enemies. If they didn’t declare you a charge target you can safety hit them hard and they cannot hit you back. Due to the long range it can be used as a long range flying Close Combat Assassin. Or you can fusion some tanks then charge into CC for safety and do more damage.

Farsight with a Dawn Blade added with bodyguards who have 3 attacks each, S5 and with ATS -1AP reroll 1’s to hit. With a possible further enhancement with the new book.

Then there is the good old Donkey Punch.

To a lesser degree even Stealth Suits with ATS or Tanks can be beneficial to charge into close combat as long as its the right target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
If Tau table you, they win every mission. That's always the mission regardless of the mission.

That is incorrect depending on the mission. Many of the missions you can win even if Tau table you. Sometimes its better to go for Victory Points even if it means losing your army.