PDA

View Full Version : Most competitive, Tau or Necrons?



Gharnukk
25-09-2013, 20:07
Greetings.

I played Tau when they were first released and loved everything about them.
Had a great time playing the army and the look was just amazing. And then
they turned bad and I gave them up. Picking up Necrons when the new Codex
came and played them with great success, also the new models looks really
cool. But now I have turned away entirely from 40k about a year and a half
ago. But I have had many thoughts about making a comeback. And the thing
I want to know is pretty simple. Are Tau or Necrons most competitive with
their current books? And how do the "tournament builds" look today?

Thank you for looking.

Gossipmeng
25-09-2013, 20:32
I'd give the edge to Tau simply because they have great internal synergy, most up-to-date codex, and they have great allies.

Necrons are a very close 2nd place though. With necrons you'd be looking at using plenty of flyers, wraiths, annihilation barges, and destroyer lords.

A very competitive Tau army would look something along the lines of:

50 Ethereal
60 fireblade

190 riptide: ion accelerator, TL fusion blaster + early warning override
190 riptide: ion accelerator, TL fusion blaster + early warning override

108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors

66 6x pathfinders
66 6x pathfinders
55 5x pathfinders

297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)
297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)
297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)

2000 pts

Effective, but very bland IMO and not very fun to play against.

Kaltenberg
25-09-2013, 20:46
Defently Tau.
Their firepower is uniq in 40k atm. And they have a chance to survive not having first turn against eldar.

Gharnukk
26-09-2013, 05:01
So the firepower have improved? How do they handle cc?

Perth
26-09-2013, 05:05
Standard Tau CC performance, all models that even catch a glance of a sword instantly explode.

Gharnukk
26-09-2013, 05:30
Haha really? ;)

Polaria
26-09-2013, 06:49
Both are very shooting focused armies. Tau have better firepower, Necrons have better cc. Tau win purely because they have one of the best lines in Allies Matrix.

Death Company
26-09-2013, 06:59
Both are very shooting focused armies. Tau have better firepower, Necrons have better cc. Tau win purely because they have one of the best lines in Allies Matrix.

This, right here.

Incredibly effective shooting, coupled with possibly the best allies matrix.

HalfBlood
26-09-2013, 07:00
I'd give the edge to Tau simply because they have great internal synergy, most up-to-date codex, and they have great allies.

Necrons are a very close 2nd place though. With necrons you'd be looking at using plenty of flyers, wraiths, annihilation barges, and destroyer lords.

A very competitive Tau army would look something along the lines of:

50 Ethereal
60 fireblade

190 riptide: ion accelerator, TL fusion blaster + early warning override
190 riptide: ion accelerator, TL fusion blaster + early warning override

108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors
108 12x firewarriors

66 6x pathfinders
66 6x pathfinders
55 5x pathfinders

297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)
297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)
297 3x broadsides with HYMP and SMS + 6x missile drones (1x shas'vre with velocity tracker)

2000 pts

Effective, but very bland IMO and not very fun to play against.


This is literally the exact list I came up with right when the codex was released. Like im talking 1 hour after I had the book in my hands on the day of release. You are completely right though. Extrememly bland, and got old after testing it once(Proxing it I mean). The game ended with me shooting my opponent off the board. I decided not to play the army because of it. Tau are clearly ranked 1. The overall firepoer, cover denial, and AA and AI, and AV are very abundant.

Whenever I write a competitve Eldar list or Daemon list. I compare it to my compeititve Tau list (similar to this one, I dont run veolcity trackers, or the Shas,vre... Instead I ran more FW and Pathfinders. Remember Sheer amount of missiles coming at a Flyer can take it down. I did all the math hammer for it awhile back) Its just hard when you think about it. I always ask myself How can I deal with 72+missiles a turn. Or 150+ S5 shots at 15" Or AP2 PiePlates that ignore cover. Its just too tough.

I feel Necrons arn't close to 2nd. I would rank them 4 or 5. They used to rely heavily on Flyers that are rather poor. The reason the flyers were such a pain was because every other army lacked AA. Now reliable and powerful AA is out. The flyers show their true colors.


My ranking: Without inclusion of SM
1) Tau
2) IG
3) Eldar
4) Daemons

Ironbone
26-09-2013, 08:43
I still would say nekrons. They shoot almost as good as tau, but handle a lot better in CC, and take full ( to point of unfairness ) adventage of 6th ed rules, like ovwerwatch, chellenges, hullpoints, and neffed cc.

2nd army definietly would be GK. While far cry of their awesomeness in 5th ed, still very strong.

Tau however are biteing both of their shiny metal asses ;).

Gharnukk
26-09-2013, 12:09
So Tau have the same problem as before. Get in close combat and die. I have always had better luck with shooting.

Ironbone
26-09-2013, 13:07
Tau get argubably even worse in CC, because of kroot neff ( no longer double ccw, no longer Str4, AP5 in cc is not even 10% recompensate for this ), but gain in shooting, and gain a lot. And combined overwatch ( and markelights working also for snap-shots ) makes geting close enough may sometimes be preety hard.

Gharnukk
26-09-2013, 16:28
How about drop pods and infiltration?

Mandragola
26-09-2013, 16:29
It's tau, by a mile. They are by far the top performing army at tournaments at the moment. At nova they won 3/4 of their games, which is unheard of.

Necrons are ok but it doesn't compare.

By the way, tau never got bad. They were always a decent army, often because they ran counter to the meta that everyone prepared for. Now they are the meta.

Ironbone
26-09-2013, 20:21
How about drop pods and infiltration?
Well, no one disallows you trying, but do not expect spectacular resoults. Tau army can have ( if they realy try hard enough, even on entire army ) wide acces to interceptor rule, and can shoot down large portions of newly arriving enemy army, even before it have chance to act.

Nekrons are actually preety good for fighting tau. Night off/on switch, aka solar pulse helps them to reduce enemy shooting greatly, and their cc units, even if averange to decent by game standards, can tear tau to shreds. And cover/save denial is not that terrible when you have RP.

jri0t68
26-09-2013, 20:26
I don't see nightfighting bothering any tau suit or most vehicles, thanks to the prevalence of the blacksun filter.

Gossipmeng
26-09-2013, 20:34
I would actually argue that Tau aren't as horrible in CC as people make them out to be - this assumption has actually helped me win games.

- Supporting fire: Tau units with 6" of the unit being assaulted can overwatch as well. This makes assaulting Tau very risky (1 overwatch isn't too bad, but 3 hitting you will hurt). I try to run my Tau units in a buddy system format so I always have 2 overwatches hitting.
- Firewarriors and pathfinders will crumple in CC, but battlesuits are very different. A crisis battlesuit has marine durability with 2 attacks base at str 5... sure power weapons will hurt, but not every CC unit has them so you will survive to hit back and if you had a good overwatch it will hurt! Broadsides are also great for CC because of their 2+ save, twin-linked weapons for overwatch and any drones attached to your suit squad are an extra attack and initiative 4 :)
- Riptides are very durable and are MC's..... they will go down to dedicated CC, but will steamroll regular troop choices who assault you. They will also tear apart walkers.
- Farsight: WS5 str 5 initiative 5 with 4 attacks base - all of which are AP 2 at initiative (armourbane)..... beastly.
- Pimped out commanders: iridium armour, stim injector, shield generator... WS4 str 5 T5 A4 with 2+/4++ FnP, give him an onager gauntlet so he can hit with str 10 ap 1 and ID non EW characters.

My farsight enclave welcomes combat :)

HalfBlood
26-09-2013, 21:04
Yea and let's say you fail in combat. Just think about this. Now in your shooting phase you can eliminate the target unit.

NF doesn't hurt tau at all. Best matchup vs tau is probably eldar, or the new sm book.

Eldar can exploit swooping hawks to help take out fw squads and pathfinders. Sm now have grav guns to help out vs riptides.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Gharnukk
26-09-2013, 22:05
Looks pretty close at the poll :) But your comments mostly point at Tau.

Heafstaag
26-09-2013, 22:12
Tau are more shooty than the Imperial Guard now?

Inquisitor Shego
26-09-2013, 22:35
I lean toward Necrons primarily for Cron Air, but I won't deny it, it'll be close. This is purely in theory though, as I've yet to have the "pleasure" of meeting Tau on the table. Either way though, I look forward to the challenge.

SpanielBear
26-09-2013, 22:38
From what I understand, tau and guard are both shooty, but in different ways. Tau are all about precision, using markerlights to pick out and surgically destroy threats. Guard are less accurate, but have a tendency of going "hello, artillery? You know map reference 26 north 34 east? Eradicate it."

HalfBlood
26-09-2013, 22:41
This thread is less about what's more competitive and more about are you still upset that aircrons dominated 6th for 6 months.

If you look at tournament results, it shows tau coming out on top.

Any competitive played can pick up the book and realize that it excels at almost everything. I feel more semi comp players / non comp players are polling on this thread. It shouldn't be this close :p

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Ironbone
26-09-2013, 23:14
Tau are more shooty than the Imperial Guard now?
They always were more shooty than guard :p, even on previous codex.

Tau and guard are mostly shooting armies, with rather poor cc abilities ( but, as pointed, siuts can pack qiute a puch if you can withstand WS and I 2 ), but their shooting is diffrent. Guard can spam a lot of weak units, and their firepower comes in 90% form special and heavy weapons. Thanks to normal guardsmans with 3rd most crapiest gun in entire game ( and certainly worst primary, army wide weapon ) acting as alablative wounds it's harder to compleatly negate their firepower without killing all squad members, but is also harder to concentrate fire on targets.

Tau on the other hand, tend to have their firepower dispresed on less numeric, but much more "shooty" units. Loss of each squad usually downs your firepowers more than in guard eqiliament, but it's easier to concentrate your fire to compleatly anihilate your target. Farsight bomb is just extreme example of this.

I short - single tau unit can achive what guard need two or more units to involve. While cost may be same, or similar, more units need more space to use, and free space far enough from enemy tend to be difficoult to obtain, especialy in later turns.

Also, tau are overall more durable - have acces to useful, not useless armour saves, and are more mobile than guard. And current edition is all about firepower and mobility.

Guard of course have superiour numbers, but with idioticaly increasing number of "no cover" weapons, is noting special now. Guard is still decent army, and even have one OP unit ( vendetta, wich i hope will be resonably neffed, and yes, I pay IG ), but its far cry of 3rd army in system as in 5th ed ( wich IMHO guard never was :p, maybe unless you spammed vendettas ).

Gharnukk
27-09-2013, 10:48
I want my army to be competitive but balanced, fun to play and also look good on the table.

Ironbone
27-09-2013, 11:03
Duh, every player of every army wants so :p. With maybe slight exception of CSM players who rant endlessly how terrible is their codex, and how 3.5 was best :p.

malisteen
27-09-2013, 11:16
Nah, chaos marines want the same thing. Yeah, they've been complaining since 3.5, but have you tried playing with the 4e and 6e csm books? 4e was the definition of monobuild, and 6e just really isnt meaningfully better, and now that the tools are widely available to shut down the drake thanks to tau, the illusion of competitiveness that said crutch gave their book is fading fast. Iirc didn't even break the top 40 in the last big tourney?

Granted, they should improve a bit now that tau is the army to beat instead of drake spam, but it mostly just goes to show that the book isnt codex: csm, it's codex: heldrake, and yeah, I'd say that's a fair complaint.

Mandragola
27-09-2013, 12:15
Please, let's not derail this as yet another csm whine thread.

That said though, there's no actual point in this "debate". You can just look at the results from tournaments. They show tau massively in the lead have a look at this article on torrent of fire: http://www.torrentoffire.com/1006/nova-open-by-the-numbers

It shows eldar with tau allies as the strongest combination, winning 74% of games. 74%! In second place? Tau with eldar allies, at 71%. I'm not sure if this includes mirror matches but it's even more ridiculous if it does. The top 6 army combinations all featured eldar and/or tau.

Necrons actually did pretty well, registering 66% wins... When they took tau allies. Without the tau they were around 50% - which is to say they were about balanced.

So that's factual analysis of hundreds of real games under tournament conditions. Tau are more competitive than necrons, though necrons are far from terrible. Those are the facts. You may beat your friend's tau with your necrons, if you're a better player than him, or luckier, or if you field a WAAC army and he doesn't, so this sort of thing isn't always too good an indicator for casual play.

Ironbone
27-09-2013, 12:32
So (finaly for some ) we have non-imperial top 3 ?

malisteen
27-09-2013, 14:12
Hm. I had heard dark angels were doing slightly better w/ drake spam waning in popularity. Apparantly not. That's unfortunate. It's sad to see such dramatic variance in competitiveness out of 6e codeces with the edition still so young.

Mandragola
27-09-2013, 14:33
So (finaly for some ) we have non-imperial top 3 ?

Does anyone care about this?

I sometimes see people talking about GW having a pro-imperial bias, apparently based on one moment in time when SW, IG and GKs were all doing well. This has never been taken seriously by anyone who remembers (among other things) the absolute dominance of Ulthwe and iron warriors in 4th.

GW does not intend for any army to dominate. It happens because their play testing is weak.

malisteen
27-09-2013, 16:00
It happens because their play testing is weak.

This. You can argue a Space Marine bias, based on reliably frequent updates and strong model line, particularly in plastics, but that's a matter of product line support rather than any deliberate attempt to make space marines powerful within the game. In fact, from some reports I've heard, the space marine book is the only book new codeces are play tested against, meaning that they're often on the low end, power wise, since no matter what strong or weak matches other factions have, in general they're actually tested to do alright against marines.

gwarsh41
27-09-2013, 16:18
Really curious what the Daemons/CSM list was .

On topic, my vote went to Tau. I have played against them a bunch with daemons and necrons. My daemons always did well, but my necrons got shut down pretty often.

Death Company
27-09-2013, 17:34
Hm. I had heard dark angels were doing slightly better w/ drake spam waning in popularity. Apparantly not. That's unfortunate. It's sad to see such dramatic variance in competitiveness out of 6e codeces with the edition still so young.

The Angels just don't have enough of a gimmick to allow them to compete, it seems. There are some ally-matrix combos that do 'alright', but nothing that seems truly 'competitive' - by tourney standards, anyway.


Does anyone care about this?

Angsty Xeno/Chaos players, with a short memory / attention-span. ;)


Really curious what the Daemons/CSM list was .

Screamerstar with cultists and drake, or 'drown in hounds' with the same CSM support, most likely.

Mandragola
27-09-2013, 18:38
Yeah good daemon lists work by ramming flesh hounds or screamers, with great invulnerable saves from the grimoire and divination, straight at the enemy. It's one of few things that can upset tau because they only get one shooting phase and they can't run away.

Actually in most cases they don't seem to bother with allies.

Gharnukk
30-09-2013, 07:32
My two closest friends play Orks and Tyranids. Both horde armies, does Tau have the biggest advantage against them aswell?

The Emperor
30-09-2013, 19:35
Please, let's not derail this as yet another csm whine thread.

That said though, there's no actual point in this "debate". You can just look at the results from tournaments. They show tau massively in the lead have a look at this article on torrent of fire: http://www.torrentoffire.com/1006/nova-open-by-the-numbers

It shows eldar with tau allies as the strongest combination, winning 74% of games. 74%! In second place? Tau with eldar allies, at 71%. I'm not sure if this includes mirror matches but it's even more ridiculous if it does. The top 6 army combinations all featured eldar and/or tau.

Necrons actually did pretty well, registering 66% wins... When they took tau allies. Without the tau they were around 50% - which is to say they were about balanced.

So that's factual analysis of hundreds of real games under tournament conditions. Tau are more competitive than necrons, though necrons are far from terrible. Those are the facts. You may beat your friend's tau with your necrons, if you're a better player than him, or luckier, or if you field a WAAC army and he doesn't, so this sort of thing isn't always too good an indicator for casual play.

Mother of God! :eek:

Rypher
01-10-2013, 03:25
Playing at NOVA, Daemon lists were either screamer stars (3 - 4 heralds of tzeentch on disks with ~7 screamers & Fateweaver + 2 flying princes), Flying Circus (Fateweaver, Lord of Change / Great UO / Keeper, 3 flying daemon princes of whatever god the other HQ was, plaguebearers and daemonettes as troops), or a mixture of flying circus with chaos allies for a black mace flying HQ prince, cultists, and a drake.
Hard hitting, but beatable. Tau and Eldar actually have decent builds to work against this.

The Emperor
02-10-2013, 20:52
So is there any way to find out what the composition was for these Tau and Eldar army lists as these tournaments?

Rypher
04-10-2013, 06:17
Not that I know of. Most Eldar lists were Mech (4+ wave serpents and jetbikes), had a Wraithknight or Wraithguard, and a Farseer. Tau had 1 - 4 Riptides, Broadsides, Support Commanders, and Skyrays. Most had a lot of Kroot.

malisteen
04-10-2013, 12:24
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/and-now-40k-meta.html?m=1

Some strickingly different results from a recent US tournament. Smaller sample size, but interesting results none the less. Of note was the deliberate use of line of sight blocking terrain on all tables by the event organizors. Tau and Eldar domination was basically eliminated and the armkies that showed well seemed to be a lot more varried, though there was a definite leaning in favor of daemons in the top results.

Poseidal
04-10-2013, 12:53
The Canada Golden Throne GT was also quite varied in who was in the top players. NOVA is looking like the outlier in this instance.