Tau Codex Rules Preview

[Dark Legionnare]

15 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

GW could actually just do what they need to do, and release a version with actual points and turn away from a flawed design approach.

 

Just maybe.

Naaaaaah. This is modern GW (and plenty of other companies) business logic!  When you F up, just double down, then triple down!  Eventually you'll come out on the other side!

In all seriousness, they REALLY need a big fail; a huge upset of some kind, someday, to teach them a lesson.  I feel they keep (and historically have pretty consistently since late 00's I also feel) doing stuff like this because it's never actually done meaningful, lasting harm to their bottom line.

"Some day."

Until that happens, we'll all keep rolling our eyes, and the more lucky of us (I count myself among the extremely fortunate to be so) have a playgroup that can keep playing HH 1.0, and older 40K versions where the fun and recent "lack of investment in game design/caring about the product" nonsense doesn't penetrate.
 

Edited March 11 by Dark Legionnare

[Indy Techwisp]

32 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

My personal stance is that they've maybe taken the greater of 2 evils but couldn't have left it as they were regardless given that pointage was never going to be an option. But I'm not sure if a generic profile is better or worse than distinct units, I might yet change my mind. Not a tau player but do play against them sometimes.

 

Being entirely honest here, the only T'au players I've seen who aren't annoyed at this are the ones who've never actually brought a Crisis Suit in their life, rather they've manifested 9 Triple-CIB Crisis Suits from the magic box known as a 3D Printer.

 

In regards to what GW have done here, they had 2 "somewhat sane" options, one of which is maximum laziness but would fix the main issue at hand, the other was in line with GW cutting all options that aren't in a Unit's box.

 

Option A was to just add an Asterisk after the CIBs entry on the weapon table, adding it to the group of option that you can only take one of per mini alongside the Airbusting Frag Launcher and the 2 Support Systems.

 

Option B was to just remove CIBs and the Frag Launcher from the datasheet, since neither weapon is in the box.

 

They looked at these 2 options and chose Option C: Send the entire T'au playerbase into panic mode with an article which blatantly says they're limiting the Crisis loadouts, but not actually saying how far the limitation has gone, leading to rampant speculation, doomcalling and general outrage for what could just turn out to be "Your Crisis Suits must have these 2 options, you can add whatever 3rd weapon you like lol".

[Zoatibix]

As a casual player myself I don’t find more and more datasheets to be simpler than just using points per weapon.

[Mogger351]

39 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

99 times out of 100, the "genuine question" is not actually genuine, but rather an attempt at a gotcha.

 

Personally, if I want to make a point, I try to avoid asking questions I don't know the answer to. More often than not you end up with egg on your face.

Sorry, I do not know which Fraters have Tau armies, I have no idea what type of game they play be it competitive or casual, narrative or serious. I have no idea how they build their minis, I have no idea how everyone will react or be impacted by these changes. I have no context how many people can adapt, how many are turned away purely by this despite not having Tau.

 

Or am I getting egg on my face for not somehow assuming every Frater and/or Tau player is of one mind?

 

So no, it was not a gotcha, it was a genuine question, but thank you for being an :cuss: upfront.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

So no, it was not a gotcha, it was a genuine question, but thank you for being an upfront.

 

The point they're making is that most of the questions like the one you posed aren't in good faith, they're usually used to draw out a different point to attack ("Oh, you don't even collect Tau, so your point is now invalid!"). Maybe you didn't intend that at all - and one of the problems with this kind of question (and those that often pose it, but again, not necessarily saying it's you) is that they can hide behind the vagueness of the question if there's significant backlash to it (I've seen it referred to as Schroedinger's Douchebag: when someone says something offensive, they can hide behind, "It was just a joke!" if they don't like the responses). We're online here, so nuance is much harder to read into, and seeing this tactic employed in various places puts people on edge when they see it, even if it is genuine.

 

Personally, I haven't had any Tau models in years (since I was in my teens, so over a decade ago now) mostly due to money constraints meaning I had to pick my figurative battles. Hell, relatively recently I was deciding on if I want to move into Eldar or Tau after my issues with Marines made me give up on them - if I'd actually moved into either (instead of dropping 40k almost entirely bar Kill Team) then it would have been a major kick in the teeth to get Crisis Suit and then have a bunch of options ripped away for what reads as basically no good reason.

[Indy Techwisp]

1 minute ago, Zoatibix said:

As a casual player myself I don’t find more and more datasheets to be simpler than just using points per weapon.

 

We are well past the point GW can switch back to that within 10th.

There's almost certainly stuff in development now that won't even reach the ears of our resident rumour-mongers.

At this point we've just gotta hope they switch back to Wargear Points for 11th.

[ZeroWolf]

2 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

We are well past the point GW can switch back to that within 10th.

There's almost certainly stuff in development now that won't even reach the ears of our resident rumour-mongers.

At this point we've just gotta hope they switch back to Wargear Points for 11th.

I think wishing for that is a fool's errand sadly...a indicator for what we may get is what happens with AoS 4th edition this year. I'd wager that AoS had a big influence on 10th edition.

[Indy Techwisp]

5 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I think wishing for that is a fool's errand sadly...a indicator for what we may get is what happens with AoS 4th edition this year. I'd wager that AoS had a big influence on 10th edition.

 

Inb4 AoS 4th edition goes over to Wargear points.

[ZeroWolf]

1 minute ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Inb4 AoS 4th edition goes over to Wargear points.

Honestly, I'd laugh if that happened

[Prot]

I for one think this is just a bi-product of GW including all wargear in unit costs. They kind of cornered themselves into doing this because all things are certainly not equal with Crisis Suit load outs. They did this to themselves.

 

To the long time Tau players, and those that started paying for GW models that are probably never going to be WYSIWYG now;  I've never said this in my life 'til this day: I feel sorry for Tau players. 

 

I admit I started a Tau army because I like the suit aesthetic, but aside from the characters and solo build units, I honestly took my 2 boxes of Crisis Suits and I put them away. Honestly I looked at the contents and I thought...'there's no way they can let us pick from all this wargear and it's all the same points.'  I foresaw this as a massive problem so as badly as I wanted to build my Crisis Suits, I just put them in the closet o' shame.

 

I do feel like this is why they started the articles with this little tidbit. They need to give you time to calm down before they can let James Workshop out of the building without a Kevlar vest on. 

 

This is going to be interesting. I don't like the dinosaur aesthetic so I was going to skip the box set, but I'm wondering if I might skip all of this if it gets too goofy/expensive.

Edited March 11 by Prot

[Doghouse]

I think the end goal is completely fixed loadouts in boxed sets based on the models in them, with fixed power levels and the only thing that won't be fixed is how much hard cash you pay for their stuff which means GW's bank account gets a buff every six months.

[Wormwoods]

Well, glad my New Year New Army Tau doesn't have any suits yet! 

 

Can't say I'm that broken up about it, but it is always a shame when old units get invalidated. Not sure how else they could have handled it without changing how 10th works a year in, and they were never going to do that. Ah well. 

[Indy Techwisp]

Ok, but for a genuine thought experiment:

 

Would you be happier with this new change if rather than a fully fixed loadout with 0 customisability, the 3 datasheets lock in an initial loadout for each suit and you can add whatever 3rd Gun and/or Support choices you like but CIBs and Airburst Frags are removed entirely from the datasheet?

 

For example:

A team of 3 Starscythe Crisis Suits automatically come equipped with a Burst Cannon and a Flamer, but you could give all three a Plasma Rifle and a Support System on top.

[Lord Marshal]

1 hour ago, Dark Legionnare said:

Naaaaaah. This is modern GW (and plenty of other companies) business logic!  When you F up, just double down, then triple down!  Eventually you'll come out on the other side!

In all seriousness, they REALLY need a big fail; a huge upset of some kind, someday, to teach them a lesson.  I feel they keep (and historically have pretty consistently since late 00's I also feel) doing stuff like this because it's never actually done meaningful, lasting harm to their bottom line.

"Some day."

Until that happens, we'll all keep rolling our eyes, and the more lucky of us (I count myself among the extremely fortunate to be so) have a playgroup that can keep playing HH 1.0, and older 40K versions where the fun and recent "lack of investment in game design/caring about the product" nonsense doesn't penetrate.
 

 

I'd argue that was pretty much 7th ed. They were haemorrhaging money on all fronts and anything GW was definitely in a downward spiral, financially and otherwise. 8th edition was very much do-or-die for them and they happened onto what was a winner at the time and bought themselves an enormous amount of goodwill from it, as well as a large amount of newblood who don't have the same bitter history with the brand.

 

Ultimately, it doesn't feel like we're in a similar situation to 7th, where things had been bad enough for so long that GW being the biggest kid on the block was no longer "good enough" for a lot people. By comparison, people seem a lot more content to gripe and still keep paying/playing than back then.

 

It probably also helps their non-40k games are chugging along with communities that generally seem happier with their games than 40k mainliners. If people are upset with 40k, they're much more likely to muck about with Horus Heresy, Kill Team, Age of Sigmar, The Old World, or many other games within the GW 'eco-system' compared to when they were a proudly two/three game show back in 2017 - and ultimately all that money is still going to the same company, rather than when it was going to FFG or Privateer Press.

 

Hell, I've never known less non-GW games being played than I have now, which is usually where people head off to if they're disenfranchised (and probably has a lot to do with GW's "release a game for every genre" strategy). I think that's largely because people have been burnt too many times on on buying into non-GW (or even non-40k) games and everybody scrambling to pick it up again as soon as a new edition drops... which probably has a lot to do with 8th and hoping they've made lightning strike again.

 

 

Edited March 11 by Lord Marshal

[Arikel]

5 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Honestly, I'd laugh if that happened

Gotta keep the systems distinct enough that you can’t crossover armies in any of them after all. Wouldn’t want to get fantasy chaos all over your cultists by mistake.

[Indy Techwisp]

7 minutes ago, Wormwoods said:

Well, glad my New Year New Army Tau doesn't have any suits yet! 

 

Can't say I'm that broken up about it, but it is always a shame when old units get invalidated. Not sure how else they could have handled it without changing how 10th works a year in, and they were never going to do that. Ah well. 

 

Take that section of the Datasheet and put an Asterix * next to the CIB whenever it appears on a Crisis Suit/Commander's Wargear Options.

Instantly kills 6-Suit Triple-CIBs without invalidating everyone else's suit builds.

 

Alternatively just remove CIBs (and Airburst) from the Non-Commander Datasheets.
They're not in the Crisis Suit kits, so that's 100% in line with GW's "Only what's in the Box" approach to 10th so far.

Edited March 11 by Indy Techwisp
ETA another option

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Take that section of the Datasheet and put an Asterix * next to the CIB whenever it appears on a Crisis Suit/Commander's Wargear Options.

Instantly kills 6-Suit Triple-CIBs without invalidating everyone else's suit builds.

 

Alternatively just remove CIBs (and Airburst) from the Non-Commander Datasheets.
They're not in the Crisis Suit kits, so that's 100% in line with GW's "Only what's in the Box" approach to 10th so far.

I think they would still need to put some effort into balancing out the other weapons mind, it wouldn't solve the issue completely.

[Indy Techwisp]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I think they would still need to put some effort into balancing out the other weapons mind, it wouldn't solve the issue completely.

 

Probably, but that would fix the actual issue this datasheet splitting is aimed to fix.
That being every comp T'au list being 3 units of 6 Crisis Suits all with 3 CIBs each all lead by a Coldstar Commander who also all have 3 CIBs each, and then maybe an other random commander not leading anyone but also with 3 CIBS if there's any points left over after you max out on Tetras for a total of 63 CIBs minimum + 3 more for each roaming Crisis/Enforcer Commander in the list

Edited March 11 by Indy Techwisp
maths

[Shinespider]

Three-CIB builds were stupid, but honestly, all three-of-the-same-gun builds were stupid. The fact that the hardpoint system ever allowed that in the first place was a huge mistake. I don't fully agree with this change, but I'm frankly happy that they're willing to cut away old mistakes like this instead of insisting that every bad thing they've ever done has to stay in the game in the name of continuity.  

[Wormwoods]

3 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Probably, but that would fix the actual issue this datasheet splitting is aimed to fix.
That being every comp T'au list being 3 units of 6 Crisis Suits all with 3 CIBs each all lead by a Coldstar Commander who also all have 3 CIBs each, and then maybe an other random commander not leading anyone but also with 3 CIBS if there's any points left over after you max out on Tetras.

 

Oh, see, as a non-competitive player I was assuming people were being put out by losing the customisation/mix-and-match options more than 'what if I take this one, best gun 9 times'. 

 

Fair enough, I guess. More evidence that 40K needing to be both a tournament game and a narrative game is awkward for both sides. 

[Indy Techwisp]

5 minutes ago, Wormwoods said:

 

Oh, see, as a non-competitive player I was assuming people were being put out by losing the customisation/mix-and-match options more than 'what if I take this one, best gun 9 times'. 

 

Fair enough, I guess. More evidence that 40K needing to be both a tournament game and a narrative game is awkward for both sides. 

 

Most of us are annoyed at losing the customisability.

That 63+ CIB list is why we're losing it.

[Indy Techwisp]

10 minutes ago, Shinespider said:

Three-CIB builds were stupid, but honestly, all three-of-the-same-gun builds were stupid. The fact that the hardpoint system ever allowed that in the first place was a huge mistake. I don't fully agree with this change, but I'm frankly happy that they're willing to cut away old mistakes like this instead of insisting that every bad thing they've ever done has to stay in the game in the name of continuity.  

 

With Wargear costs, you paid more points for each additional one of each gun you took.
So a single CIB cost you 5pts on it's own, then the 2nd cost 10pts and the 3rd cost 15pts.

Plus prior to 10th those Crisis Suits were eating away at your limited Elites choices, and you couldn't just use up all your points on CIBS because you required Troops to be a legal list and iirc you could only have one T'au Commander in Crisis/Enforcer/Coldstar in your list (and Farsight filled this slot if you brought him along).

Triple of any Gun was balanced in prior editions by not having the insane list building freedom of 10th coupled with the lack of Wargear costs.

[TheArtilleryman]

31 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

With Wargear costs, you paid more points for each additional one of each gun you took.
So a single CIB cost you 5pts on it's own, then the 2nd cost 10pts and the 3rd cost 15pts.

 

 

And this is exactly why so many players are going to have “illegal” loadouts now. For some time, GW have actively encouraged players to build varied combinations on their suits, which they are now invalidating 

 

My team has:

1 with 2 plasmas, 1 fusion and a shield

1 with 2 fusion, 1 plasma and a shield

1 with 1 fusion, 1 plasma, 1 missile pod and a shield

 

My son has:

1 with 3 fusion and a shield

1 with 2 plasma, 1 flamer and a shield

1 with 1 fusion, 1 plasma, 1 flamer and a shield

 

So not a single legal model between the two of us 

 

On another note, I never saw what was so good about CIBs. The whole lore thing about t’au plasma weaponry was that it is supposed to be completely stable compared to Imperium stuff. Plasma rifles are stronger and not dangerous to the user. So what do GW do? They invent a new gun called the ion blaster, that is exactly the same as an imperial plasma gun, right down to being hazardous. 
 

So yeah, I don’t get it with CIBs. But then my luck with overheat rolls is so painfully bad that I do more damage to myself than the enemy pretty much every time, so that also kinda put me off 

 

Edited March 11 by TheArtilleryman

[Noserenda]

Datasheets arent the problem, certainly when playing 30k i miss having my rules in one place rather than hidden across a series of books in non intuitive fashion. The problem is this need to have special rules for every unit and no meaningful options/points, both of which are coming home to roost here.

Ive actually sold most of my tau over the years but i think i still have like... Half a dozen battlesuits in boxes? Id probably be alright actually because i had quite a few double melta or double flamer crisis suits but im sure some of them have now illegal loadouts which sucks.

[Tokugawa]

It is an adjustment to inner-codex balance problems caused by free wargears. TAU players may feel fraudulent since XV8 was once very customizable. 

 

This design had and could have better effects on factions with other styles. Once people adapted to easier and faster points calculating brought by fixed/free loadouts, they will never look back. I heard that Americans dislike doing math, is that true?