PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Guard and Tau: Much Difference Playwise?



matthewmw64
28-06-2006, 09:38
Hi all,

I currently play a Tau army a nd was thinking of doing Guard as my second amry. My Questiono for you is, is there much difference playwise between playing Tau and Guard? I realise there both shooty army but is there any other differences or would it just feel like playing the same army again only with Humans instead of blue aliens?

Thanks,
Matthew

Damien 1427
28-06-2006, 09:42
I'm assuming so. Guardsmen have numbers, and the potential for HtH with the right doctrines and allies. Tau are relatively few, have superior firepower per soldier, almost no HtH ability whatsoever, and rely on speed and manuverability to project the heavy firepower in the soft underbelly of your foe.

Guardsmen, more often than not, aren't as swift, carry a worse weapon, and rely on sheer weight of fire.

I'd say the two are different enough. 'sides, with doctrines you could create a "pink tide", a HtH-geared Guardsmen army. :p

azimaith
28-06-2006, 09:43
Tau are more much mobile than imperial guard are.

On the other hand, guard can carry so many heavy and special weapons that enemies who appear in the open can be met with a barrage of overwhelming firepower.

In the end guard can take chimeras and all but it can not contend to skimmers like devilfish.


If you like lots and lots of massed firepower its guard you want. If you less but better applied firepower its tau.

xibo
28-06-2006, 09:49
Both are shooty, thats right, however
- Tau are more mobile (you need mechanized doctrine to get a transport for every squad)
- FoF will never work with lasguns.
- None of the guard units has the jetbike-move
- Guard Heavy Weapon Team Squads have T3 AS5+(4+), and only 6 wounds, that means you will lose the complete squad agains a lucky landspeeder ( now compare to broadsides? )
- Guard doesn't have heavy infantry

- Guard has better Tanks than Tau do, at the price of mobility.
- Guard has by default AS5+, that means boltguns slay you
- Guard is much more numerous
- Guard has special and heavy weapons in infantery squads ( see it as pro AND con )
- Guard has ordinance weaponry
- Guard has psykers(tell the fex he's incapable once he rolled a 6 to wound...)

Tactics-wise Tau are more mobile and Guard more static ( at least I play them like that )

the spook
28-06-2006, 16:57
Tau is like a scapel.

Imperial Guard is like a hammer.

Minister
28-06-2006, 17:35
Imperial Guard is like a hammer. Tau are like a chainsaw.

The chainsaw needs only a continuous application of pressure, not repeated blows. However, a hammer will smash just about anything if you keep at it long enough, whilst many things will break the chainsaw.

Voltaire
28-06-2006, 17:59
Tau is like a scapel.

Imperial Guard is like a hammer.

I concur, the Tau is the subtle powerful scalpel and the Imperial Guard are the hammer that cracks down.

jfrazell
28-06-2006, 18:12
Guard are also quite a bit more flexible than Tau due to doctrines and alternate lists:

*Armored company. Nothing says loving like 5-9 AP3 templates a turn.

*Drop troops. Someone else has a sig: 'real men jump out of a Valkyrie at 500 feet'. Maxed demo charges and special weapons can wipe an opponent in a turn if the Gods of Dice are in your favor.

*Abhuman doctrines. Try alternatives with slave levies (extra toughness), AYSKNF, CC ogryns and other fun traits (IIRC).

*SAFH army. Impress your friends and neighbors by bringing 25+ heavy weapons and an equal number of special weapons to the table.

*Also your guard can be used for LATD and Inquisitor forces which is a nice bonus.

At the same time, Tau represent IG in the future with lots of fast shooty goodness, and relatively strong vehicles.

I STRONGLY advise playtest before you go one way or the other with proxies. the two armies play quite differently and one should fit your personal playing style much more closely. Like WWI/WII era style combat then the guard is for you. Want a futuristic force then Tau is the way to go (you can even convert using Tau rules for andanced human force if you're a converter or enjoy fluff).

Bregalad
28-06-2006, 22:31
Think of a Tau army with only Fire Warriors, lots of them. Then you get an idea of how a IG army might be (this is a simplification, I know ;))

Gen.Steiner
28-06-2006, 23:23
It depends on your doctrines. I have fragile but hard to hit light infantry, serried ranks of lockstep-marching troopers supported by heavy weapons platoons, heavy infantry who take Tau fire on the chin and survive (AS 4+ - hoo-ah), a mechanised unit that'll put down ungodly amounts of gunfire at close range, (plans for) a full-strength armoured company, penal legionnaires so high on combat stims that they really don't care about that submunition blast, and the Generic Guard Army that sits back and pounds away at range.

I have Guard armies which advance to contact, armies which sit back and shoot, armies which do both, and an army which drops from the sky toting 36 (yes, 36) Melta guns.

Tau, on the other hand, are much much more precise, regardless of your tactics. Markerlights and Seeker Missiles, for example, or Hammerheads. A better overall BS means more shots hit, and your mobility and good CC troops choice (Kroot) mean that you can adapt and survive.

I still prefer the Guard.

The best comparison is between the US in Vietnam and the North Vietnamese. The Tau are the US, and the NVA/VC are the Guard. You may kill 10 or 100 Guard for every Tau casualty, but you will still lose!

xibo
29-06-2006, 00:28
"We have more men, more tanks and more pathetic organization" is what i would describe the american way of warfare *thread hijacking* ;)

I would describe tau as a unsharp scalpel, since BS3 realy hurts if you have nothing for CC

Getz
29-06-2006, 00:43
Everyone else has pretty much summed it up...

Tau have high quality firepower and very good mobility, allowing you to focus that firepower in usefull ways. However the volume of Firepower is only average and, of course, the suck in HtH.

Guard have a massive volume of Firepower of average quality but Mobilty is generally limited unless you use Doctrines to address that point. Although the average Guardsman is little better than a Fire Warrior in HtH, the army does have access to specialised Close Combat units that enable you to counter charge effectively and drive off assaulting elements so long as you don't let them overwhelm you.

Guard also have more opportunities to customise the army. There are countless different ways of building and modelling a Guard Army (including no less than Ten distinct lines of Infantry models - if we include the soon to be released Death Korps of Kreig - more if we treat the metal Cadians as being different to the plastic ones...) whereas there are relatively few different Tau themes (Vanilla, Auxillary heavy, Mechanised, Farsight Enclave - you catch the drift...)

In short, they play in very different ways and as such taking a Guard army as a second army won't mean you are taking "more of the same" (I never could undersatnd those Gamers who have a Marine army and then, s their second army build another Marine army... :wtf: )



- Guard has better Tanks than Tau do, at the price of mobility.


Although I agree with most of what you say, I've gotta take issue with this... Much as I love the Leman Russ (and I do love the Leman Russ) the Hammerhead is a very serious piece of kit indeed and costs very little extra - in fact I'd go so far as to say that a 175 point Railhead with Burst Cannons, Multitracker, Target Lock and Decoy Launchers is probably, for the points, the best Main Battle Tank in the game...


*Drop troops. Someone else has a sig: 'real men jump out of a Valkyrie at 500 feet'. Maxed demo charges and special weapons can wipe an opponent in a turn if the Gods of Dice are in your favor.


Yeah, that would be me... My old sig has disappeared for the duration of Medusa V, rest assure it will be back in september ;)

Gen.Steiner
29-06-2006, 00:46
"We have more men, more tanks and more pathetic organization" is what i would describe the american way of warfare *thread hijacking* ;)

No, the US military simply couldn't kill enough North Vietnamese. In almost every encounter with the NVA/VC, the USA/Austrailians/RoK forces won. Yet they lost the war...


I would describe tau as a unsharp scalpel, since BS3 realy hurts if you have nothing for CC

Close combat: Kroot. Problem - solved.

EDIT:

I agree, the Hammerhead is better than the Russ by far - but the Russ is cooler.

matthewmw64
29-06-2006, 05:37
What do you mean by a Drop Troop Army?

xibo
29-06-2006, 07:58
What do you mean by a Drop Troop Army?
Doctrine Drop Troops most probably. All your guardsmen may deepstrike

Bregalad
29-06-2006, 08:49
Still, if you play Tau right now, IG is the army that is closest to them in play. So thinking of other options would be wise.

boogle
29-06-2006, 11:07
the main difference i've found is the Tau have infinately more mobile troops choices, as even if you play Mechanised IG, you still have to worry about moving your troops for fear of losing out on Heavy Weapons shooting, whereas the Tau have no such worry (their mainline weapons being Rapid Fire and Assault Weapons)

Griffin
29-06-2006, 12:38
Imperial Guard - HUGE sledge hammer - you have more men and alot of troops and genererally tend to sit and shoot.

Tau - You jump and duck alot but, you hit where it hurts.

SwordJon
29-06-2006, 18:07
IG is like Frazier, and Tau is like Ali. If that helps :D

Sir_Lunchalot
30-06-2006, 02:47
Tau and IG have VERY different tactics. Yes, both armies excel in the shooting phase, however, that's the sum total of the similarities.

I have 2 IG armies. a 1000 point cadian infantry company, and a 1500 point Vostroyan army. I've also got Codex: Tau empire, and am planning on Tau being my next 40k army. the IG excel at static warfare, they're hands down teh best army to use on the defensive. they excel primarily through weight of numbers. you can increase their effectiveness by usign doctrines to make them shoot better and wear better armor, but at the end of the day they're still humans with lasguns. with IG it's much more cost-effective to split your tank hunting capabilities between all of your units, whereas with Tau it's best to concentrate your anti-tank in a couple units. IG will have a slightly easier time taking out MEQ armies provided you take copious ammounts of plasma.

Neither Tau nor IG are much use in melee, although if you can stomach the models, Rough Riders with hunting lances make for a REALLY nasty surprise. As far as Tanks go, I've got to side with the Tau. Yes, a leman russ can murder more marines than a railhead. however, the railhead is more mobile, just as tough, and is more dangerous against infantry which don't have a 3+ save and agaisnt tanks. All this and the Railhead costs significantly less. If you're also taking multiple devilfishes, which you really ought to do, that'll increase the survivability of your hammerheads even further.

That said, Tau cannot field the sheer volume of firepower present in a good IG army. both armies must make use of cover, Tau to jump oer it, IG to hide in it.

Overall, Tau excel at a mobile game, where IG fare better in static warfare.

Gen.Steiner
30-06-2006, 03:32
Overall, Tau excel at a mobile game, where IG fare better in static warfare.

Mechanised Companies and Armoured Companies beg to differ, as do Light Infantry and Drop Troops.