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.

 Boniface wrote:
Not directed at any particular respondent, but I wanted to put it in record (for no real reason) that whilst it is fairy hurtful for a Tau player to be repeatedly wailed on about how 'effective' (read as OP) their army is, my post was more about pointing out that any army can be considered OP (I don't really take it too personally).
Space Marines were just an example of an army that probably breaks more rules and has more OP stuff than many others but no-one obsesses over them to the same level.

Well you said it yourself, SM are solidly in third place at the moment. People tend to pay more attention to extremes, and Eldar and Tau have some pretty extreme OP lists. SM players were given a bunch of tawdry handouts to compensate, because GW can't have their posterboys be seen with too much mud on their face. Most of the other factions simply weren't lucky enough to garner that kind of special treatment and attention.

Martel732 wrote:
An average tau list is far more effective (not OP) than an average marine list. Without their gimmicks, marines become BA, who are trivially shot off the table by firewarriors, regular suits, and even Tau tanks.

This is because a "standard" marine list has absolutely terrible firepower/pt and has to rely upon poor CC abilities to win the day vs Tau. Almost all methods of heavy weapon delivery are an absolute joke in the marine codex. Compare to Tau and weep.

Combat squads and chapter tactics and even ATSKNF typically don't matter in a game of 7th ed. That's why marines are resorting to obj sec spam with battle company and super friends for death stars. Their conventional abilities just don't matter in the face of Xeno guns.

Without their gimmicks, Tau and Eldar would both suffer greatly, Orks would jump ahead in power, and people would actually think about taking Tyranids to the table for more than just the looks.

Tau and Eldar don't have gimmicks per se. They have mathematical niches and undercosted units. For example, the pulse rifle is twice as good vs T6 and 50% better vs T5, which are key T values in 7th ed compared to the imperial standard S4 small arm.

Martel732 wrote:
Tau and Eldar don't have gimmicks per se. They have mathematical niches and undercosted units. For example, the pulse rifle is twice as good vs T6 and 50% better vs T5, which are key T values in 7th ed compared to the imperial standard S4 small arm.

Wait a minute, Jet Pack, Markerlights, Supporting Fire, Drones, and Nova Reactors aren't gimmicks?

And that's just the weaker Tau stuff.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
An average tau list is far more effective (not OP) than an average marine list. Without their gimmicks, marines become BA, who are trivially shot off the table by firewarriors, regular suits, and even Tau tanks.

This is because a "standard" marine list has absolutely terrible firepower/pt and has to rely upon poor CC abilities to win the day vs Tau. Almost all methods of heavy weapon delivery are an absolute joke in the marine codex. Compare to Tau and weep.

Combat squads and chapter tactics and even ATSKNF typically don't matter in a game of 7th ed. That's why marines are resorting to obj sec spam with battle company and super friends for death stars. Their conventional abilities just don't matter in the face of Xeno guns.

Without their gimmicks, Tau and Eldar would both suffer greatly, Orks would jump ahead in power, and people would actually think about taking Tyranids to the table for more than just the looks.

What do you consider to be a gimmick? I can't imagine someone bringing Orks or Tyranids and doing anything but die horribly against a bunch of uncatchable scatterlasers, the basic troop choice in the codex.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
An average tau list is far more effective (not OP) than an average marine list. Without their gimmicks, marines become BA, who are trivially shot off the table by firewarriors, regular suits, and even Tau tanks.

This is because a "standard" marine list has absolutely terrible firepower/pt and has to rely upon poor CC abilities to win the day vs Tau. Almost all methods of heavy weapon delivery are an absolute joke in the marine codex. Compare to Tau and weep.

Combat squads and chapter tactics and even ATSKNF typically don't matter in a game of 7th ed. That's why marines are resorting to obj sec spam with battle company and super friends for death stars. Their conventional abilities just don't matter in the face of Xeno guns.

Without their gimmicks, Tau and Eldar would both suffer greatly, Orks would jump ahead in power, and people would actually think about taking Tyranids to the table for more than just the looks.

What do you consider to be a gimmick? I can't imagine someone bringing Orks or Tyranids and doing anything but die horribly against a bunch of uncatchable scatterlasers, the basic troop choice in the codex.

scatter bikes are oddly not a big threat to my orks, lootas and big shootas on battlewagons and trukks pop en nicely. heck there is usually an attached farseer to at least one so tank bustas or rokkit buggies can one shot him after the squad is wiped... the wraithknights on the other hand... I got nothing for that

40K 7e simply has too many layers of rules stacked on top of eachother. SM are not the only guilty party in that regard.

Free transports are a gimmick. Libbiies that cast on a 2+ are a gimmick. Invis stars of ics from 5 codices is a gimmick.

Those items you listed are core rules to tau. Marines have jump packs instead of jetpacks for example. Its just that jump packs suck in 7th.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tau and Eldar don't have gimmicks per se. They have mathematical niches and undercosted units. For example, the pulse rifle is twice as good vs T6 and 50% better vs T5, which are key T values in 7th ed compared to the imperial standard S4 small arm.

Wait a minute, Jet Pack, Markerlights, Supporting Fire, Drones, and Nova Reactors aren't gimmicks?

And that's just the weaker Tau stuff.

No i wouldn't say so. They are core systems. Tau are strong because of mathematical niches and undercosted units.

 Talamare wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
On the other hand, some of these are a simple failure to realize that space marines cost 14 ppm.

Dire Avengers are 13 PPM...
Strength 3
Toughness 3
4+ Save

In return they only get +1 Initiative?

I won't compare weapons since each has distinct advantages.

Your 13 ppm dire avengers can reliably kill terminators.

Spare me.

 Traditio wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
On the other hand, some of these are a simple failure to realize that space marines cost 14 ppm.

Dire Avengers are 13 PPM...
Strength 3
Toughness 3
4+ Save

In return they only get +1 Initiative?

I won't compare weapons since each has distinct advantages.

Your 13 ppm dire avengers can reliably kill terminators.

Spare me.

not reliably wiping whole terminator squads. say you have 10 (130 points) fire at a group of 5 terminators. assuming they are all in 18 inches to fire (they do not want to be this close to termies as if all in range they will be charged and killed) 20 shots, 13.2 hits wounds on 4's mini rend on 6's. assuming tac marines you still have a 5++ to the 2.2 rends so lose 1.5 terminators. 4.5 more wounds so .76 after saves. overall 2.26 dead terminators. people don't usually take DA in 10 men they take em in 5's so really 65 points will be there killing 1.13 termies and trying to run away after.

by that note 10 tac marines rapid firing bolters into termies nets 13.2 hits, 6.6 wounds before saves, 1.1 dead termies after saves. So sure they are twice as effective as marines at killing terminators with shooting at 12 inches and more so 12-18, they exchanged -1 str -1 t, minus 1 armor save, and no atsknf for the plus 1 I, somewhat nicer gun and battle focus and a single point per model... seems fair

I hope you are not saying DA are somehow the Eldar's problem. they have some awesome units that are undercosted but the DA are not them. heck compare scatter bikes or even shurican cannon bikes to tac marines and Da and you see the real overpowered elder units. honestly I would probably have fun playing a huge field of dire avengers against tac marines.

G00fySmiley wrote:not reliably. say you have 10 (130 points) fire at a group of 5 terminators. assuming they are all in 18 inches to fire (they do not want to be this close to termies as if all in range they will be charged and killed)

Battle focus. If you're at 18 inches, you can shoot and then fall back an average of 3.5 inches, putting you outside of terminator charge range.

I hope you are not saying DA are somehow the Eldar's problem.

Of course not.

I'm just saying that the "dire avengers are overcosted at 13 ppm compared to space marines at 14 ppm" isn't so obvious to me.

Yes, marines have a better stat line and an assortment of special rules. However, dire avengers are a point cheaper, have battle focus and have a gun with pseudo-rending.

I'm inclined to think that marines are probably better overall, but then, they should be. They're a point more expensive.

The question is how much better marines are than dire avengers.

In practice...?

DA aren't exactly the best troop choice to say troops suck.

Terminators aren't exactly the best measurement for survivability in 7E.

btw a dire avenger has slightly less then 15% chance to wound a terminator w/o cover.

TAC marines are a cost to field more powerful things. They're low mobility, low damage, low survivability. Things that don't flat out pen their armor have enough volume of fire to reliably remove them.

 Boniface wrote:
Not directed at any particular respondent, but I wanted to put it in record (for no real reason) that whilst it is fairy hurtful for a Tau player to be repeatedly wailed on about how 'effective' (read as OP) their army is, my post was more about pointing out that any army can be considered OP (I don't really take it too personally).
Space Marines were just an example of an army that probably breaks more rules and has more OP stuff than many others but no-one obsesses over them to the same level.

But they don't have the most OP stuff - Eldar do. Why deal with SM why you could tackle the biggest issue - Eldar?

I also totally forgot the whole combat squad thing wherein you can double your scoring units at deployment if you want to.
No other army can do that.

Except combat squadding only works if you take a ten man squad. Your gimmick of "doubling scoring units" isn't really that good because I could just buy a second five man squads for the same price, which:
- Has another Sergeant
- Can take the same weapon as my original squad, plus a matching combi for the sergeant (so I could get two meltaguns and two combimeltas instead of a combimelta, meltagun and a single heavy weapon) allowing for better synergy
- Can have their own dedicated transport
- If I was taking a CAD with as few Tactical Squads as I could, I can get my "tax" units as cheap and as efficient as possible

If I was playing competitively, why would I take a ten man squad at all? The only time I can see a ten man squad, split into combat squads, as useful is if I had ran out of Troops choices in my detachment, or if for some reason I wanted more power armoured bodies in a formation involving Tactical Marines.

Note - this is coming from someone who has never actually fielded a 5 man squad of Tactical Marines in their life. I refuse to have a five man squad, regardless of the actual effectiveness. However, I fully recognise that it's very inefficient.

Or how about pick your flavour of army rules on the fly. Most people will homebrew an army and pick the chapter rules however they want.

What stops anyone from doing that?
If they've made up a custom chapter, then how are you to dictate their homebrew? If they took Ultramarines, and then played them with White Scars tactics, I could understand it, but a custom chapter? That's just being anal.

And again, what stops CSM players from doing that now, with their Legion rules? How about 30k? The Iyanden supplement, or any other one - are you saying that ONLY models painted in a certain way could have those rules? Because I can guarantee, I don't think I saw a single Iyanden army using the Iyanden rules - of course YMMV.

I would say personally that Marines are like 2nd or 3rd in overall power level (no disputing Eldar at 1).

No disputing, if they're going all out on cheese. If not, then one only has to look at the Blood Angels to see what they're like without their crutch units.

 Talamare wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
On the other hand, some of these are a simple failure to realize that space marines cost 14 ppm.

Dire Avengers are 13 PPM...
Strength 3
Toughness 3
4+ Save

In return they only get +1 Initiative?

I won't compare weapons since each has distinct advantages.

Your right losing bit of range for going to assault and getting not quite rending is a true disadvantage.

 Marmatag wrote:
TAC marines are a cost to field more powerful things. They're low mobility, low damage, low survivability. Things that don't flat out pen their armor have enough volume of fire to reliably remove them.

for troops they are more survivable than most. armies outside of Necrons, gray knight termies and elder windriders (technically the same but that mobility and 2d6 assault move). probably tied with tyranid warriors on durability though warriors have a bad time of str 8 popping them. I think in general across the board troops should be better (tac marines included) but I am not sure how to accomplish that. I dont' think tac marines or a lot of troops are bad for the points they are just not... good. I do agree that the top tier armies can dissolve tac marines like sugar in water, but some like orks, tyranids, dark elder, and even other space marine chapters can have a difficult time of them. hoping 8th makes them and all troops relevant though. would love some universal troop rule that makes them somehow more durable like "dug in" or "on mission" when holding objectives maybe a plus armor save or minus to hit indicating they are all at the destination and holding per orders knowing they don't need to go anywhere maybe only if they do not move or something... I am just spit balling thoughts there.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
TAC marines are a cost to field more powerful things. They're low mobility, low damage, low survivability. Things that don't flat out pen their armor have enough volume of fire to reliably remove them.

for troops they are more survivable than most. armies outside of Necrons, gray knight termies and elder windriders (technically the same but that mobility and 2d6 assault move). probably tied with tyranid warriors on durability though warriors have a bad time of str 8 popping them. I think in general across the board troops should be better (tac marines included) but I am not sure how to accomplish that. I dont' think tac marines or a lot of troops are bad for the points they are just not... good. I do agree that the top tier armies can dissolve tac marines like sugar in water, but some like orks, tyranids, dark elder, and even other space marine chapters can have a difficult time of them. hoping 8th makes them and all troops relevant though. would love some universal troop rule that makes them somehow more durable like "dug in" or "on mission" when holding objectives maybe a plus armor save or minus to hit indicating they are all at the destination and holding per orders knowing they don't need to go anywhere maybe only if they do not move or something... I am just spit balling thoughts there.

Things we know in 8th edition:

Boltguns no longer have AP5. They're AP -, so everything gets a save against them.

-Save Mods will negatively impact the survivability of the average TAC marine. This doesn't affect other armies as much, because they aren't paying points for the 3+ save.

So TAC marines are getting measurably worse in 8th edition.

Being a jack of all trades, master of none, doesn't really help an army, especially with survivability dropping dramatically, which was their claim to fame compared to other troops.

It really matters that they where 3+?
Who in 7th didn't had Ap2 or Ap3?
The ammount of saves a marine will do in 8th, I think will be much greater that the ones it did in 7th. Yeah, many will be at 4+ or 5+.
But better to have 100 saves at 4+ that 20 at 3+ and 80 at 0.

And I agree. I understand that troops are the most basic thing, and they can't be ultra special, but I think troops should be better and affect more your strategy. But I think the problem is not that troops are bad, but that all of the other things are much better.

Marmatag wrote:What do you consider to be a gimmick? I can't imagine someone bringing Orks or Tyranids and doing anything but die horribly against a bunch of uncatchable scatterlasers, the basic troop choice in the codex.

Well, things like: Jet Pack, Markerlights, Supporting Fire, Drones, and Nova Reactors for Tau; Battle Focus, Bladestorm, Distort Scythe, and Flickerjump for Eldar.

At least Scatterlasers lost Laser Lock. I know its not much help against the spam, but it helps a smidge.

Martel732 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tau and Eldar don't have gimmicks per se. They have mathematical niches and undercosted units. For example, the pulse rifle is twice as good vs T6 and 50% better vs T5, which are key T values in 7th ed compared to the imperial standard S4 small arm.

Wait a minute, Jet Pack, Markerlights, Supporting Fire, Drones, and Nova Reactors aren't gimmicks?

And that's just the weaker Tau stuff.

No i wouldn't say so. They are core systems. Tau are strong because of mathematical niches and undercosted units.

Jet Pack may be something in the rulebook, but the Tau were the first to have them, and the only ones to have them for a long time. Only a very few units have it outside their book, and one of them is Eldar.

The rest of the stuff can only be found in the Tau codex, so its not core to the game. Sure, its core to them, but how much in the OP isn't Core to the Codex Marines these days?

Everyone is misusing the word gimmick... it's annoying me more than it should. A gimmick is like Space Wolves Tac. Squad having counterattack because if you're charging them to begin with you're expecting to wipe them to a man. Whereas a shooting unit will let them charge in order to overwatch. It's nice, but overall changes nothing in the end against the majority of matchups.

See other things like... Banishment on every GK unit, IG Veteran Squads all having meltabombs, 6++ on every SoB, the Malceptor from the Tyranids, the Eversor death explosion.

Now that's out of the way, the OP obviously is little sensitive to Tau Bashing even though it is well deserved. People complain about atsknf all the time and grav and Imperium deathstar. Eldar is Eldar, but they engage in multiple phases at least. I dunno what the point of this thread is but to be snarky, so don't be suprised when people are snarky right back, especially to I think perhaps one of the most disliked factions after Aeldari and Necrons.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Boniface wrote:
Not directed at any particular respondent, but I wanted to put it in record (for no real reason) that whilst it is fairy hurtful for a Tau player to be repeatedly wailed on about how 'effective' (read as OP) their army is, my post was more about pointing out that any army can be considered OP (I don't really take it too personally).
Space Marines were just an example of an army that probably breaks more rules and has more OP stuff than many others but no-one obsesses over them to the same level.

Well you said it yourself, SM are solidly in third place at the moment. People tend to pay more attention to extremes, and Eldar and Tau have some pretty extreme OP lists. SM players were given a bunch of tawdry handouts to compensate, because GW can't have their posterboys be seen with too much mud on their face. Most of the other factions simply weren't lucky enough to garner that kind of special treatment and attention.

Tau are NOT in the top three and never have been without the Tau'nar. The 3 best armies in the game, statistically based on GT+ victories are Eldar->Daemons->Space Marines in that order.

 Galas wrote:
It really matters that they where 3+?
Who in 7th didn't had Ap2 or Ap3?
The ammount of saves a marine will do in 8th, I think will be much greater that the ones it did in 7th. Yeah, many will be at 4+ or 5+.
But better to have 100 saves at 4+ that 20 at 3+ and 80 at 0.

And I agree. I understand that troops are the most basic thing, and they can't be ultra special, but I think troops should be better and affect more your strategy. But I think the problem is not that troops are bad, but that all of the other things are much better.

A lot of people...
More than a few lists used wealth of shots

https://www.tabletoptournaments.net/t3_armies.php?gid=3&cid=0&latest=1

Don't know how relevant T3 tournaments are these days but here are their result spreads.

Yeah, Tau always come as ultra cheesy but really, in the TOP TIER Rankings, they are always 4rt.

The problem is that the moderate power of their units, as Martel said, is OK. Fire Warriors aren't gonna conquer Terra but they are very capable of defending themselves. I think they are balanced, but when compared with the basic troops of other factions, that normally are completely useless, they seem as OP. And this in general goes to the rest of the Codex (Ignoring things like Vespids, etc...)

There are a good number of reasons Tau are hated worse than the cheesiest of Freestuffmarines or Deathstarmarines or even Eldar.
I personally enjoy listening to Tau gripes, here's a few of my favorites.

* Because some armies can't even build to face a Tournament all-comers Tau list in a single match - AM and Nids are good examples.
* Because they killed more on my turn than I did! They killed my deepstrikers with EWO, they killed my chargers with Overwatch, their MCs and GMCs killed my melee units in melee!
* Because I couldn't even get to their side of the table.

As bad as Marines and Eldar can get, hurtful results like that are few and far between.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
There are a good number of reasons Tau are hated worse than the cheesiest of Freestuffmarines or Deathstarmarines or even Eldar.
I personally enjoy listening to Tau gripes, here's a few of my favorites.

* Because some armies can't even build to face a Tournament all-comers Tau list in a single match - AM and Nids are good examples.
* Because they killed more on my turn than I did! They killed my deepstrikers with EWO, they killed my chargers with Overwatch, their MCs and GMCs killed my melee units in melee!
* Because I couldn't even get to their side of the table.

As bad as Marines and Eldar can get, hurtful results like that are few and far between.

The fact that you don't even mention how busted daemons are hurts me.

Marmatag wrote:Things we know in 8th edition:

Boltguns no longer have AP5. They're AP -, so everything gets a save against them.

-Save Mods will negatively impact the survivability of the average TAC marine. This doesn't affect other armies as much, because they aren't paying points for the 3+ save.

So TAC marines are getting measurably worse in 8th edition.

Being a jack of all trades, master of none, doesn't really help an army, especially with survivability dropping dramatically, which was their claim to fame compared to other troops.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you:

The negative AP mods only adversely affect marines with respect to AP 4, which will likely downgrade power armor to a 4+ rather than a 3+.

Marines are actually getting buffed with respect to AP 3 (which will likely reduce marines to a 5+ save) and AP 2 weapons (which will likely reduce marines to a 6+ save).

So against AP 3 and AP 2, marines are actually more durable, not less.

Also, the changes to the way that cover works make it so that marines in cover start off with a 2+ instead of a 3+/5++.

Yes, marines will be marginally less durable against AP 1 when in cover, but by and large, marines are more durable now.

So I play Militarum Tempestus in the ITC. We are not a strong codex at all but I don't worry about space marine armies. I have tabled Skyhammer, Gladius, Demi, and even killed Rawbutt Girlyman in my last game. What I cannot counter are the gimmick army lists (tau, eldar, deamons, super friends). Marines are well rounded and strong but beatable even buy the weaker armies.

ERJAK wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
There are a good number of reasons Tau are hated worse than the cheesiest of Freestuffmarines or Deathstarmarines or even Eldar.
I personally enjoy listening to Tau gripes, here's a few of my favorites.

* Because some armies can't even build to face a Tournament all-comers Tau list in a single match - AM and Nids are good examples.
* Because they killed more on my turn than I did! They killed my deepstrikers with EWO, they killed my chargers with Overwatch, their MCs and GMCs killed my melee units in melee!
* Because I couldn't even get to their side of the table.

As bad as Marines and Eldar can get, hurtful results like that are few and far between.

The fact that you don't even mention how busted daemons are hurts me.

Truth be told there's a grand total of one Daemon player where I play at, even in the state events, although he's crazy good I don't hear any complaints about him or his army, people enjoy playing against them.

As a Renegade player I love the fact that we never get stick for being OP despite easily being up there with Marines (maybe not eldar though). I mean let's face it - with Ordnance Tyrant we have two of THE most effective rule breaking rules in the game. Let's forget that in The Purge we can also just create dangerous terrain all over the board, Ordnance Tyrant firstly let's you ignore the need for any tax unit and just spam all the units you want in a Purge or CAD and take waaay more heavy than any other lists allow (18 altogether in one Purge). But secondly and more importantly, Ordnance Tyrant let's you ignore the restriction of shooting into combat with barrage weapons - and Renegades can take advantage of this better than anyone! 55pt Earthshakers and Wyvers, 30pt Quad Mortars, also 55pt 3 man spawn units are T5 so arent doubled out by the Earthshakers, whilst 3pt Renegades with Sigils or Zombie hordes can take casualties en-mass and shrug it off whilst the opponents they are fighting in assault get worn down by the continuous blasts... and there is very little the opponent can do about it. If you take tough allies it gets even better for the Quad, Mortar or Wyvern blasts.
Whilst Unending Horde lets you literally ignore the entire death mechanic 5/6ths of the time! And you get to outflank when they come back so they are right back in the game straight away, so aside from killpoint games there is literally no downside. Simply ignoring the entire death mechanic (You have to admit - THE main mechanic of the game) 83% of the time is far more rule breaking then ATSKNF!

To this day I still have no idea why Renegades don't get as much dislike directed at them as SM, Eldar, Tau and Necrons.