Simple answer. Fluff does not equal rules.

Okay guys those are fair enough arguments. No one wants an unbalanced game so i'll leave it at that.

Admiral d'Artagnan don't take this the wrong way but there are very few "simple" answers in life. It can also put peoples backs up when you say "It's simple just do". I teach martial arts and have come to realise while something is simple to me it may not be simple to someone else and vice versa.

But this is not real life. This is a miniatures game. And in most miniatures games, fluff does not equal rules, whether they be a genre of kilometers long ships duking it out in space or genetically engineered humans which can conquer planets to steam punk warjacks being controlled by magically endowed beings.

The rules about the shields makes things simpler for the game without making it too "dumbed down". It may not make sense fluff wise, but it makes the game simple yet challenging and fun.

Okay i have mistaken what you meant. As i said i understand that for game use it is a simple system. Even if i disagree with the specifics.

There's quite a few stuff in BFG I disagree with as well.

Eldar managing to avoid the area of effect explosion of a deviated NC shot. BMs affecting WBs even though the BMs are on the opposite side of the ship and not in the firing ship's line of sight. Apocalypse getting the thruster crit as long as it fires beyond 30 cm (should be 45 cm since description says medium ranges).

But these things make the game interesting enough, I guess without making ships or weapon systems too powerful.

True enough, i guess given that im new to the game my only real dislike is that Railgun Batteries have such short range compared to everything else. Realistically Railguns would have extremely long ranges and function somewhere inbetween a lance and a weaponsbattery. There would however be relatively few of them.


I find it annoying as weapons batteries are often described as lasers, plasma, slugs etc and they all have relatively small range compared to a MA weapon. Its just annoying when an imperial fleet can out engage you at range and in close when you are the Tau. Though ordnance goes a long way to evening the odds it doesn't seem as pinpoint strike as the Tau are at times!!

Its a good game though and i am having great fun with it and the Shield, Hit point system is simple and effective the way its meant to be done, which is a good thing i guess.

Eh... quite accurate though for IN vs Tau. Space is a totally different balance of power from ground based Tau. Read the fluff on the Tau from armada, they got pretty well outclassed by their IN opponents. Tau are not more advanced in the space warfare department no matter how strong their weapons are on the ground.

_________________
-Vaaish

Okay, i'm not going to get into this. However to cover it briefly adapting Magentically accelerated weapons from ground use to space use would be realtively easy. You have to understand that "recoil" is bad in space, however with MA weapons recoil doesn't come into it. Add to the fact that the Manta is a space going ship and very very effective at that and you can't state that the Tau don't have the necessary composites needed for space ships.

That a race would have an advanced and capable Army and not an advanced and capable Navy when for most of their history they have encountered space born threats is poor writing and really inconcievable for a sentient and intelligent humanoid race.

So while armada may say this and that i just don't follow it, especially as there are numerous Novels out there (one or two written by someone who had a hand in the Tau army book) that state the Tau as capable of engaging at range to the Imperials.

I'm sorry game balance wise every fleet suffers horribly against an Imperial player because of the wide range of ships the imperial can talior to his opponent. In a campaign this only allows an Imperial player to achieve a very balanced force. Further more the Imperial has longer range Ordnance thats more devestating (Nova, Assault boat) than the Tau, they have longer range Gunnery than the Tau, Armoured prows, more shields, more hit points and actually cost roughly the same as the Tau.

I've played the game only a little however the Imperial is a race that can be played anyway, any style, simply, technically. The chaos are similar to this and these two races just over shadow pretty much any other race.

This of course could be due to my new experience in BFG but i'm a very experienced table top player and i just find the Tau fleet to be a poor reflection of the fluff given by their army, their empire and diplomats and just the general civilisation.

Its just an opinion but i think Games workshop missed the chance to have as unique and interesting fleet as the Tau are in 40K.

Actually, I don't get why Tau would have such a capable Army considering they are supposed to be "peaceful" in their expansion, unlike a truly dedicated and ruthless expansionist race which will need more powerful weapons to subjugate their prey.

That is a mistake of Tau in 40k. In BFG, it actually comes out ok.

Well that depends on you view. Just because someone is relatively (though not always as the Tau have shown with Taros, Damoculous and generally 3rd expansion) peaceful in expansion does not mean they will have a less capable army than someone who is more naturally aggressive. IN fact Technology wise they are more likely to have a better army.

Besides i view the Tau as good guys towards their empire members but very willing to engage those who refuse the "greater good"... Remember they only managed to exist together by being unified. I should imagine those who fail to embrace that unified existance are viewed as dangerous.

Primarily peaceful people will always have less effective weapons than those who use weapons on a permanent basis. Example would be German tech in WW2 vs American tech. Now, sure they might have a technological advantage but as Stalin says, quantity has a quality of its own. Quantity will almost always beat quality as Russia proved in WW2. The Russian army's available weapons were not inferior to the German's mind you.

I don't mind Tau having technological advantages (built in re-rolls and such) but even in 40k, they could shoot as much as IG, as long if not longer than IG and still be better. Something is wrong there. They should get fewer shots but better hitting.

You can't make just one example and then provide a sweeping statement like that. Quantity will not always be overwhelmed by quantity. There are so many if's, buts and whys. Lets get this straight had Hitler not thrown the resources into Stalingrad like he did and instead just had the luwftwaffe bomb the place to the ground while the rest captured Russia... Things would have been very very different. Add in the Russian winter and you see why Quantity was so dangerous in Russia.

Winter causes deaths, the army that is used to that winter, that has equipment designed to survive that winter is going to have less deaths. Add in quantity and now that army suffers even less than a small elite army.

In a meat grinder or a "siege" an army that can throw man after man at the oppossing force will do great damage. They will simple stop soldiers from sleeping, from relaxing and slowly inflict cassualties that will sap moral.


However there are several cases where well equiped, trained and elite troops will hold out and beat more numerous forces indeffinately.
The battle of Thernopolie was only won because of one simple fact. The Perssians found the path (Whether people agree it was from betrayal or not really doesn't come into this) and when they did the Spartan's allies assigned to gaurd it broke and ran.
Up untill that point Xerces was never going to win. The Perrsians couldn't bring numbers to bear against a superior greek force. The greeks could rotate fighting so that one soldier never got truly tired and they had the best equipment in Greece.

Rorke's Drift, a tiny detachment of troops armed with superior technology and a superior fighting spirit held of an ENTIRE Zulu Wing untill reinforcements arrived. Thats 139 men, of which 35 were already sick and injured. Holding off a Wing and in the process killing 400, with another 100 carried off. I don't know how many wounded. The Brits suffered only 15 dead, 12 seriously wounded of which 2 were mortal. Rorke's Drift should have been wiped off the map. Please remember the Zulu's weren't savages ether but capable and confident soldiers that had themselves overcome an over confident British army days previously that was better equiped than them.

The Defence of outpost Snipe (27th October 1942, second battle of Alamein if you want to look it up) 19 British 6 Pounders were stranded due to unfortunate results. They were however in a hollow depression that allowed them to make a concentrated defence against Rommel's Tank platoons that had not yet discovered. During the ensuring battle(s) all but three of the British 6 pounders were knocked out, although at the end those three only had 3 rounds left each. 1 of the 6 pounders was recovered and the British suffered 75 Cassualties. The Germans lost twenty one tanks, the Italians lost eleven tanks. A further 5 assault guns and another fifteen tanks had been knocked out and then recovered. German loses were never confirmed but believed to have been considerably higher. Thats over 2:1 ratio and less man cassualties despite facing a German Mech devision (i can't remember the number of transports they knocked out).

Once again good training, spirtit and dare i say it, luck. Have shown the Hand over Quality


Finally Trafalgar. The enemy outnumbered the British fleet, they had more soldiers on their ships, more guns on the ships, better guns on the ships. The ships themselves were made of better wood and materials than ours and also had less problems due to not being kept on extended patrol as much. Further more that day was calm and the weather should have allowed the Spannish and French to pummel us on the approach (which they did). They killed our Admiral which should have given them a Serious advantage in the fighting.

However the Tactics developed by Nelson, Collingwood and his other Captains meant that when Nelson died the fleet had Captains capable of acting independently. The Sailors on our ships were capable sea men quick and efficient and the gunnery was much faster. Our Marines were better trained and more disiplined.
As a consequence a superior, more heavily armed and manned fleet was severely beaten.

The battle of Britain is another Senario where poorly deployed forces allowed a smaller and better equiped force (we had Radar) to carry the day!


The details about Rorke's Drift and the Defence of Outpost Snipe are from "Last Stand! Famous Battles Against the Odds by Bryan Perrett" and much of what i have said can be confirmed by him (stats and figures) as well as many of my opinions.

If you truly wish to discuss Trafalgar i have a massive selection of books by Mark Adkins, Nicholas Best, Roy Adkins and Arthur Herman on the topic.

I'm not saying that Quantity won't overwhelm Quality. However i am refuting your statement that it ALWAYS will, or even that it OFTEN will. You simply cannot say that.

As to a Peaceful nation having less effective weapons i could refute that with stating the ships used by America against the Royal Navy in the war of Independence. I could state that Greece a relatively peaceful nation for its era had better equiped soldiers than the Perssians. Sure on the most hand a warring nation will have more effective weapons but i doubt it will have more effective technology.
At the end of the day an Engineering, Technological country will develop better weapons than one whos not. Regardless of the situation. Perhaps if one has more experience than they other they will fight with those weapons better but thats not the point.

As for that Tau in 40k outshooting the Imperial guard. The average tau has a BS of 3, same as IG. At ranges were the average Tau can outshoot him and hit harder he gets the same number of shots. However a Tau costs 10 points an Imperial gaurd is far cheaper (buy them as squads instead of individuals) Additionally the average IG squad may be equipped with Heavy weapons and Special weapons giving it a large independence, something the Tau do not have.

The Imperial Gaurd have much longer range weaponary than the Tau, Missile launchers are longer range than Missile pods and more versitile (Frag and Krak), Lascannons are longer ranged than Plasma cannons, Fusion blasters and the like. As for Tank mounted weapons. Basalisks provide the Imperial guard with long ranged deadly artillery, either direct or indirect fire (something the Tau don't have), Battle cannons and their varients are as long ranged as Ion cannons and are all Ordnance heavy weapons.

The railgun is a superior weapon for tank killing and mass infantry killing but only Heavy Support options may take this. Seeker missiles are nasty but once again depend on OTHER Tau.

Finally you are likely to have more guard, all of them with more independence than a respective Tau squad and so just as capable as bringing the fight to the Tau.

40K Tau aren't overly shooty. They are a balanced force of Mobility, Team work and Fire power. Used correctly this makes them seem horrendously powerful due to their ability to strike hard and fast in one area with powerful shooting before fading away. However Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Eldar can all easily out shoot Tau armies if they really want to deploy shooting line armies.

Look at all your examples. Nations that have, at the points you mentioned, been mastering the art of war. Sparta and Britain. Which was my point. Yes, they used good tactics, esp the Spartans and the fortifications at El Alamein and the human factor is as important as the tech, especially when the enemy doesn't have an inkling of what to do with their advantages. And please remember it wasn't only 300 Spartans defending the gap but I still think in the end, the Persians would have taken it. I would have tried to bomb the fortifications first then immediately send the tanks in to take on the British fortifications.

In the case of Stalingrad, the whole place was bombed out. It's not as simple as saying they should have just bombed the place. The problem is you can't win with bombs alone. You still need an army to get in there and secure the place. And the Russians knew they just had to hold on until winter arrived and it would turn in their favor.

Trafalgar, well, it was lost via a mind game and the French already lost from the start when they placed Villeneuve in command because he was already thinking he couldn't win against the British. They had a more capable admiral at the time but IIRC he wasn't placed in command from the beginning and later died. At that point also, French was a century or so behind the British when it came to naval experience.

However, I also posit that these instances you mention are more well known because precisely they were a battle of unbalanced forces won by the "weaker" foe and thus much harped about while the more common result of the "stronger" foe running roughshod over their "weaker" foe is just reported quietly. Had the Germans managed to control the air around England and allowed their army to land, things might have turned out bad for the British since they didn't have a huge standing army at the time. Unfortunately, Hitler and Goering were too full of themselves for not listening to their air commanders.

As for IG vs Tau, what can I say? My experience shows me that Tau are much more superior than IG with almost as much firepower. I don't see what the difference bet the Railgun is against the Basilisk since both are Heavy Support. If you meant the other weapons, well, Tau also has them in some form or other as you have pointed out. Maybe not in range but since Tau are more mobile (with a form of shoot-move-shoot IIRC), the range disadvantage is not a factor so much. Maybe it's because I see maxed out lists but I have never seen IG take the fight to Tau in these parts where I am.

First i know that the Spartans were accompanied by a couple of thousand soldiers and that the Persians did NOT number millions of soldiers because to be frank thats a silly statement at that time of history and logistic technology etc.
We could debate whether or not 300 trained soldiers who can support each other and set up a system so each can rest can overcome 250,000 farmers another time perhaps

Secondly i might be willing to concede that a nation who fights all the time will be a more effective fighting force than one who doesn't. In fact you are probably right there. Whether it is fighting spirit, training, technology or numbers.

I will also concede that 1 well equiped elite unit at the end of the day cannot be in as many places as multiple units, eventually the elite unit will have fatigue, transport or just weight of numbers set in against it.

However i will still refute anyone that quantity cannot overcome quality. Another very recent example is the Falklands war. The Royal Navy sustained horrible cassualties in the Falklands. Moree than the other services put together... remember the Marines are Naval forces.
They were Thousands of miles from home with no real logistics base to support their opperations, they were opperating in seas where the environment had detrimental effects on the equipment they carried. Further more the Navy had not engaged in proper combat for years and as such several ships had disfunctional equipment such as Salt encrusting sea Dart launchers because the prow wasn't long enough on the T42, Aluminium used in construction that then melted and caused fire problems and Synthetic cloths worn that would melt onto soldiers and cause burns are but a few.

However overall the Harrier, Sea Dart, Sea Wolf as well as our Fleet submarines allowed the Royal Navy to fight with the professsionalism that they are well known for. They carried they day against MUCH superior numbers and the Marines and Army did a hell of a job on the Islands themselves.

As to Stalingrad i haven't studied in the same depth as other engagements however Hitler focused on Stalingrad more than a good general should have. He was quite strange in his insistance that capturing one place or destroying one thing could win a war.

As to saying other battles were won on a mind game, stupidity, luck, and the rest you are once against falling prey to what i have been taught to avoid looking at.

Any engagement is not a simple factor. You cannot view a real life engagement like a table top battle game. Quantity, Quality, Weather, Moral, Technology, Leadership and Luck are but a few of the things that come into a battle. Not to mention the understanding of Tactics and Strategy by noot just the general but every soldier.
In fact you countered your own argument with the statement;
Trafalgar, well, it was lost via a mind game and the French already lost from the start when they placed Villeneuve in command because he was already thinking he couldn't win against the British. They had a more capable admiral at the time but IIRC he wasn't placed in command from the beginning and later died. At that point also, French was a century or so behind the British when it came to naval experience.

All of the real world history begs the question, how the heck is it of any relevance to IG and Tau naval capabilities? Whether or not you "buy" it Tau are outclassed in the naval department because fluff says so. Whether or not railguns would work in X manner is immaterial. Having a great weapon or advanced army doesn't make you instantly have an awesome navy. If haven't focused research on the requisite technologies or are sorely lacking in experience in naval combat it doesn't matter how good your army is, you will still be outclassed by an enemy with weapons better designed for the environment and tactics refined with years of experience. Have Tau gotten better? yes, that's reflected in the Forgeworld list, but again they still aren't up to the level of IN capabilities.

_________________
-Vaaish