Tau Codex Rules Preview

[jaxom]

2 hours 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.

Huh, that makes me like not having to worry about individual upgrade costs even more.

[tinpact]

The few times I've looked at T'au it seemed like a unit where magnetization was basically mandatory - and anecdotally, I don't think I've seen a collector with hordes of crisis suits in the way Tyranid players often have a lot of warriors.

 

I think I vaguely remember the options in 9th being different enough that it caused a bit of a stir, but obviously not like this. 

 

Well, if the recent lots of cheap Nid warriors I've seen on eBay mean anything, maybe I'll finally nab one or two as hobby pieces.

Edited March 12 by tinpact
redundant question

[01RTB01]

Crisis suits were flexible but the triple CIS plus buffs were broken. What they've done makes sense. For those that spammed it I've never any sympathy. For those who built sensible suits I'm sorry but as always, it's the minority that breaks it for the many.

[MithrilForge]

Hmmm I’m not going to say the sky has fallen just yet… I’d like to see the rest of the rules, especially how the Commanders can be kitted out . 

please tell me if I’m wrong as I haven’t played Tau for several editions,  so this is just a guess on my part -

Was the CIB and that other launcher? So over powered that it was simply an auto take ?!… we’re Tau players simply ignoring all other weapon loadouts ?!, I remember early days Taking my suits in the fire knife configuration etc 

I can see ways to play these new limited suits with the stratagems, it might require some re training in the ways of Kauyon & mont’ka 

 

Cheers M 

ps if I still had my army I’d be rather annoyed though as my models were all glued together, perhaps I better magnetize my new army … 

[Scribe]

7 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

Crisis suits were flexible but the triple CIS plus buffs were broken. What they've done makes sense. For those that spammed it I've never any sympathy. For those who built sensible suits I'm sorry but as always, it's the minority that breaks it for the many.

 

Perhaps if there was a system to make such a build prohibitively expensive, while retaining flexibility and freedom through appropriately pricing upgrades...

 

But no, such a thing is beyond then ken of mere mortal men. Never a thing has existed, it's clearly too advanced.

[Noserenda]

Throwing the baby out with the bath water hardly makes sense, its not like they dont have decades of iterations where triple CIB or whatever was not a problem to look at is it.. /facepalm

[caladancid]

38 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

Crisis suits were flexible but the triple CIS plus buffs were broken. What they've done makes sense. For those that spammed it I've never any sympathy. For those who built sensible suits I'm sorry but as always, it's the minority that breaks it for the many.

No that’s logic for children. For everyone else, we expect to be treated as adults who spend our money according to how a company deserves it. 

[01RTB01]

8 minutes ago, caladancid said:

No that’s logic for children. For everyone else, we expect to be treated as adults who spend our money according to how a company deserves it. 

It's not logic for children but it's not surprising with how everything else has been done for 10th. 

 

The death of weapons points values meant it was highly likely. I'm just thankful I've got all my 2nd Ed ruleset available for gaming. 7th onwards hasn't been great bar crusade in 9th. Power leap killed 9th though. 6th was probably the last decent set and the "tournamentification" is killing/ has killed 40k 

[Nephaston]

Not to sound trite but this is another prime example of:

 

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸    Rules are Temporary    ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

¤¸¸.•´¯`•¸¸.•..>> Models are Forever >>..•.¸¸•`¯´•.¸¸¤

[Tokugawa]

Modern warhammer, especially "no parts, no rules" in recent years, is actually much more friendly and compatible to WYSIWYG. 

 

Players shouldn't be forced to spend extra money and efforts to make weapons which not in the model kits box at all, and shouldn't be punished by rules for choosing not doing so.

[jaxom]

As I said previously, 10th edition makes a lot of sense if one considers it's meant for people who are building armies now and not in previous editions.

[MithrilForge]

4 minutes ago, Tokugawa said:

Modern warhammer, especially "no parts, no rules" in recent years, is actually much more friendly and compatible to WYSIWYG. 

 

Players shouldn't be forced to spend extra money and efforts to make weapons which not in the model kits box at all, and shouldn't be punished by rules for choosing not doing so.

 

I agree with you, But it's a double edged sword, GW made those CiB's and only added (what was it?... one each  to a commander box??..) they caused the initial problem, with what ..the hopes that every rabid player would go buy 6 -8 commander boxes to fill out their CIB allocation for other models! of course people will go to 3rd party makers to get the extra guns. They should have just changed the rules to limit the amount of special weapons allowed.

 

M

[Wormwoods]

44 minutes ago, jaxom said:

As I said previously, 10th edition makes a lot of sense if one considers it's meant for people who are building armies now and not in previous editions.

Can confirm, it's been pretty chill building a marine crusade army in 10th, and once the Tau codex is out and I can start planning, my Tau should come together pretty easily. 

 

Which, again, not going to help with anyone looking to use their older armies. So it goes.

[chapter master 454]

yikes, reading this at work before getting home to comment was a ride. People coming out with pitch-forks because GW won't bring back wargear points and saying the game is done and this is another bad codex...with only like a fraction of it revealed...goodness.

 

Wargear Points were a problem as well. If we look at how it was "back in the goo' ol' days" then it was flat points for everything: wanted a lascannon? 25 points. Twin-linked? 50pts. Oh its an Ork using it? don't care, 25pts. A marine? 25pts. What did that lead to? Only certain units taking it despite lore written saying other units did indeed take them. Then we move forward a good while to the idea of each unit's wargear being pointed individually. A nice system, granular...but are you telling me that MASSIVE table of points wouldn't be scary to a new player or...anyone actually sane? For a list builder like myself it isn't an issue but much like how we have people who LOVE painting but hate building, some people HATE list building but love playing.

I further this is that any unit that is so MASSIVELY flexible should in fact have multiple datasheets, especially when their load-outs are so radically different. This isn't to say we need 20 different sheets for tactical squads in space marines but when a unit like Crisis suits exist where load-outs define their role further to being just a crisis suit, this makes sense.

It would be akin to that of having the Intercessors unit of marines be a singular datasheet but having the wargear options of the Infernus and Hellblasters on top of their bolters. Fusion Blaster Crisis suits are being brought for a distinct target.

 

Ok. Lets address the "but now I have illegal load-out models". Ok...first question: do you play among tournament players? If yes, next question: are they complete wasters of human breath? if no, then there isn't a problem. Would be easy to tell your opponent "ok, this one is a Sunforge Suit. We identify him by means of his load-out which does include a fusion blaster". Only tournaments would have comments on doing such things with actual reason while only the kind of players you should avoid will have issues. This issue to me smells of people not wanting to treat their fellow wargamers as human and assume they are all trash...when in truth the vast majority are incredibly cool guys.

My club is FULL of tournament players (pretty sure its a central place for Team Scotland actually...) and they have no issues with playing guys who are new, with guys like me who have entire armies of nothing but grey plastic and don't mind that some of my bases aren't the right size. They know I ain't doing it to be a shark, and similarly anyone who sees your Crisis suits with cool looking singleton load-outs balling out with Burst cannon, Plasma rifle and Fusion blaster looks good, we can count it as whichever variant you like just so long as we remember which one...umm...was it the fireforge...no the sunknife...screw it we'll go with whatever because it is in the end a game.

 

To repeat my signature:

"The point of a game is to have fun. The objective is to win. Don't confuse the two"

 

Talk to your opponents and explain the situation. Very VERY likely they'll be understanding and we just assume those suits are using special proto-type fusion blasters that are more like shotguns or something hence why the suit can mow down infantry with that weapon in tandem with the Burst cannon.

 

I know we can got all hot under the collar and plastic soldiers is serious business (very serious, no jokes allowed! Anyone caught with that "if the rhino be a-rockin' don't come a-knockin'" sign will be shot!) but in the end it is a GAME that is done between two HUMAN beings. We aren't computers, we have feelings and thoughts and can be reasoned with. If a select few can't be then...I am sorry your group is in such a sad state.

 

This is me trying to put across the idea of solutions that don't boil down to "burn GW down to the ground, they didn't implement my idea in the codex" or "the game is trash now, never going to play again -continues to play for another 10 years-".

 

For me personally, this is a POSITIVE change. Crisis suits can now have load-outs that matter in tandem with their unique rules. Yes, you can no longer have Burst Cannons with Fusion blasters or such, but you can still have them posed up awesome and looking great. Always put Models over Rules before anything.

 

And before anyone asks, I have crisis suits but because I am wired with autism, I magnetised all my suits so ultimately you can put me to the stake for "not being affected thus my opinion doesn't count".

Just seen this far too much...kind of becoming trendy to hate on the new codices because...they're underpowered? Weren't we recently complaining about how GW power creeps and make the newest codex overpowered to push sales...Just asking. (and by recently, I point to prior editions, not 10th).

[01RTB01]

Having been into the main tau group on FB the response has largely been positive.

 

Personally I'm curious as the Sunday article said 4 combat patrols for tau which could be very interesting.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

As I said previously, 10th edition makes a lot of sense if one considers it's meant for people who are building armies now and not in previous editions.

 

Ah yes, because burning the bridge to your consistent, decades running (fanatical) customer base has absolutely never been an issue before.

[Mr. Oddity]

So I had some time to think about the changes while I was at work, and it helped me to sort out my actual thoughts from my initial reaction. I'm still not going to 100% agree with this decision, but I can separate my gaming opinion from my lore and modeling opinion now that I've processed some more.

 

From the perspective of a modeler/hobbyist (however you want to think about it), I believe this was not the best situation. Since their inception Crisis suits have been touted as an incredibly flexible threat response unit capable of taking on all sorts of enemies on the fly by altering their weapon loadout. Units that could mulch infantry but still wing a VIP with plasma or melt a transport and soften up its contents were both encouraged and fairly common. Most artwork of suits - including almost every piece in the original codex and the iconic suit team image - featured mixed loadouts. In lore, pilots had their preferred weapons that they used to cover the weaknesses of fellow team members. By removing the ability for players to mix and match loadouts, they're both removing a level of agency and backtracking on faction lore/background. The mass use of CIBs also falls into this category to an extent, as even during their first introduction they were being tested with the intent of full-scale production. Of course this would have potentially necessitated a recut of the Crisis molds and various other changes, so it is what it is.

 

That being said, from a gameplay and balance perspective I find myself appreciating this change more as time goes on (silly to say when the announcement isn't even a day old, I know). First off, and potentially the biggest change, removing the CIB as an option is probably the better change to make. Nerfing it would make it potentially too close to a missile pod and I'm not sure how you could buff everything else to be comparable without being a bit too overtuned. The "What's In The Box" approach is pretty widespread at this point and unlikely to change. And as much as I'm not a huge fan of every unit having a special rule to keep track of, being able to tune the three more common types of loadout (anti-infantry, -elite, and -heavy) does make sense mechanically. It's also easier for newer players to build and keep track of - with the price and time investment, lowering one of those barriers to entry isn't the worst thing in the world. I'm glad they're acknowledging the old naming lore for these at least, it's a nice nod to the older T'au community.

 

Not sure how well I articulated these thoughts, but it feels good being able to express them.

[The Unseen]

For everyone who has ever said, compared GW's previous failure to balance wargear means that the new system is the same, no. They are not comparable.

The new system is a kludgy mess that requires weird work-around, like splitting up previously 1 datasheet into 3 different mono-build options, which is objectively worse, OR creates units like the wraightknight, where the melee+shield weapon is so hilariously over-costed it may as well not exist because it must suffer for the sins of the big gun.

 

The new system, by design, is incapable of handling 40ks glut of wargear options without either stripping them out, or just leaving options to die a death of hilarious pts values.
Previous editions failures were attributable to the developers just... not doing their job well. Developers being bad at using a system (locking all upgrades to 5 pt increments, having weapons cost the same across all armies rather than on their actual utility to the model, not being willing to let say, for example, bolters be different across factions, etc) doesn't mean the system is broken and you should just throw it out and replace it with nothing, it means make your devs do THEIR JOB. But that takes work, and math, and playtesting.

 

As others have stated, the system works when you're building a new army with units designed with the paradigm in mind; like in AoS, where the game is built from the ground up to not have wargear options that are vastly different, a pip of strength vs a pip of rend or whatever, it works there, even if most of the time one is better. But 40k has several decades of history that GW actively refuses to move on from while simultaneously wanting to make it "new". So now we have this mess, where the rules are quasi digital and get updated all the time, so all the physical stuff GW wants you to buy is outdated before it hits the shelf, but ALSO please buy new kits to make your old models WYSIWYG because all your old loadouts are now illegal, ok?

 

For Crisis specifically, CIB's going away was expected and fine. What probably should have happened is they turn Crisis into Obliterators. Ignore what models have what guns, since the kit has never come with enough of each to make a unit all equipped the same, and just give all of them a generic set of 3 profiles to choose from each time to represent the varied loadouts of the suits. A better kludge than this mess anyway.

Edited March 12 by The Unseen
Spelling

[MegaVolt87]

10th works if we get generic merges like oblitorator guns and accursed melee weapons, it fails when different options exist. GW fence sitting with units options has failed. 

[Dark Legionnare]

7 hours ago, Lord Marshal said:

 

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.

 

 

Very plausible! I myself was absent from Warhammer, all of it, from leaf-blower 5th ed days until start of 8th so I missed the hullabaloo that was the worst parts of 7th. I've heard enough tales of what madness was abound in those days!  Though in that same period, I never saw the shops I know suffer any real loss of player-base, purchases, etc... in VT and CT in the US.  Always was games going on, stocks going off the shelves in droves, etc... All a localized perspective of course! 

If what you say, about them bleeding capital during said times, is the facts then perchance that is their first taste of "big hit" indeed!  It feels to me they could certainly do with another "hit" to right the ship as it were.  Seeing the near-universal griping, grumbling, crap-talking, and lack of playing for 10th in the same circles has been pretty disheartening to me. Like you said, 8th was probably a huge shot in the arm, as I never saw more people playing in local haunts than midway through 8th! Now, every local shop's discord, various across-the-table banters overheard or directly part of, etc... seems very, VERY negative at large in particular to HH 2.0 and 10th edition. (AoS seems it's in a good place these days from what I gather from those folks.) I consistently witness vitriol & eye rolling (Directed directly at the design decisions of 10th) part of most games wandering into the shop for paints, models, etc... and that certainly can't be good for the game and player base.

I'm not up in arms about these Tau changes, though I do disagree with them, because I've been magnetizing everything since 5th edition. It's not the same for the five other Tau folks I know across both states who do feel hurt that now they'll be punished from a balance perspective as things get updated down the road, but their legends teams won't.  I've mentioned to them how it certainly shouldn't be TOO bad of a difference in points, rules, etc... hopefully, but it's the principal of the matter.  Then again, I suppose that's been Warhammer in a nutshell some way or another for a very long time now!

Thanks for the further history lesson
Cheers, mate!

[Tokugawa]

IMO "accursed weapon" is great rules design. If you prefer axe to sword you can just glue axes onto your models, and needn't to worry about their rules being weak/illegal. If you have model purchased during past editions which glued with chainswords, you can also use it without chopping anything.

[Kallas]

4 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

it's the minority that breaks it for the many.

You're right, the minority that is the GW Design Team that refuses to balance things properly, and instead relies upon strange methods such as breaking datasheets into three when simple and effective methods such as points exist, and allow for far greater granularity than their shoehorned way.

 

GW choosing to balance things around the sweatiest of tournament builds is as much as a failing of GW's as it is those who use the most cracked builds possible. While perfect balance isn't realistic, GW are not good for targeting actual problems - as evidenced by things such as the CIB being kind for multiple editions (and so many more).

[MegaVolt87]

23 minutes ago, Tokugawa said:

IMO "accursed weapon" is great rules design. If you prefer axe to sword you can just glue axes onto your models, and needn't to worry about their rules being weak/illegal. If you have model purchased during past editions which glued with chainswords, you can also use it without chopping anything.

 

Problem is, it feels bad when you have cut options and fixed box loadouts, while others retain their unit options like prior editions. GW's fence sitting in 10th ed design is a disaster as a result, creating feels bad haves and have nots. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, MegaVolt87 said:

Problem is, it feels bad when you have cut options and fixed box loadouts, while others retain their unit options like prior editions. GW's fence sitting in 10th ed design is a disaster as a result, creating feels bad haves and have nots. 

 

I can't think of many units that retain that kind of flexibility. Vanguard Veterans got consolidated into Relic weapons, Chaos got accursed weapons. Classic squads like Terminators get 1 heavy weapon per squad which is quite easy to balance. Thunderwolves also got stuck with Relic Weapons. I am 99% sure the new Blood Angels Codex will see Death Company lose their flexible wargear.

 

By the time the codices are done, I suspect all units will either be fixed loadout or will have a very small limited selection of options which can be easily balanced.

 

The consolation for gamers with classic loadouts is that WYSIWYG is definitely no longer a thing. If you have a Crisis squad with a mixed loadout, you just declare to your opponent before the game which of the 3 fixed datasheets they represent.

[brother_b]

Non-points for weapons became ludicrous to me when I realized that GSC Acolytes should never be made with auopistols because they’re never going to be as good as hand flamers. Because hand flamers don’t cost extra there’s no reason not to take them!

 

Not a big deal until you realize the sprues have autopistols and hand flamers. They invalidated actual plastic sprue! You should never build the autopistol option. Ever!

(This has been my go to argument. I love the granularity of points and really question the thought process to go to no cost loadouts)
 

And now Tau look ready to suffer a similar fate; not entirely the same but still an invalidated weapon load out with real model impact.

 

I picked up a bunch of second hand Tau. Time to peep the crisis suits see what I can salvage.