Tau Codex Rules Preview

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, brother_b said:

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.

Ironically they did this to avoid the Acolyte problem where 1 option is the obvious right one.

[Tokugawa]

WYSIWYG is no longer a thing (X)

WYSIWYG is no longer a liability(✓)

[Halandaar]

For those making the point that "this is how it is in AoS and it works fine there", well yes, it does because the entire game system and model range is built around that paradigm, and don't forget they had to nuke an entire system and design a new one from scratch to get there.  If units have a choice between weapon loadouts, it's almost always minor stat differences which are a trade-off against each other. You're likely to be trading an attack for an inch of reach, or a point of strength for a point of AP. The choices are binary and typically well balanced against each other which is why it works for them to cost the same. It's not comparable to  the above mentioned GSC Hand Flamers vs Autopistols thing, where they cost the same but one is always objectively the better choice; nor the Crisis team thing of a unit having 4+ different weapons with wildly different roles/stats that can be freely mixed and matched.

 

Is this change to Crisis Teams a solution to the "problem" the 40K team have created for themselves? Well yes, it is. But it's a bad solution and it's inconsistent with the way other units with similar suites of options have been treated. They condensed all the different melee options on Chosen into Accursed Weapons, they condensed all the variant Sternguard Combi-Weapons into a single profile. Although not my preference, both of those are a more elegant solution than this which creates datasheet bloat, creates modelling problems for existing players and even for newer players unless GW re-box the Crisis Team kit to have three copies of the one sprue that does include 2 Fusion Blasters.

 

The solution seems obvious to me, make them flying Obliterators. Lean into the lore of them being a swiss army knife unit and give them a choice of three internally-balanced weapon profiles each turn which correspond to the Fireknife, Sunforge and Starscythe archetypes. No extra datasheets, nobody needs to re-build their models, job done.

[TrawlingCleaner]

44 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

The solution seems obvious to me, make them flying Obliterators. Lean into the lore of them being a swiss army knife unit and give them a choice of three internally-balanced weapon profiles each turn which correspond to the Fireknife, Sunforge and Starscythe archetypes. No extra datasheets, nobody needs to re-build their models, job done.

 

This definitely seems like the way it should've gone, although a unit like Oblits pay through the nose for their flexibility  with one of their limiting factors being how slow they are. The trade off for suits could be that they have less shots but are obviously still taken in numbers, tough and fast.

I can see why they might be cautious in making a unit that shoots like that as GW have a tendancy where the swiss army knife units either are too good with every profile or bad with every profile.

 

I think it'll be interesting to see where the rest of the codex lands. Sunforge Suits are perfect for dropping in at 3" to melt a tank (even if they only get 4 shots between 3 of them as I suspect), Coldstar commanders with a unit of suits still have nuts threat range too. They're definitely a CP hungry army if you want to use the 3" Deepstrike

[AutumnEffect]

I don't really get why people are up in arms over consolidating the Tau battlesuits into specializations based on what you intend the unit to do. Was that not what people were doing before?

Were people really taking Battlesuits with missile launchers and flamers for example? 

Having your unit specialize is what you want it to do. The names for these, like Fireknife, are ten-year old names that the community came up with because you wanted to take that build.

If you were taking mixed weapons in squads and glued them in and intended the unit to take on anything and everything then this sucks for you but...
Doing those three things were a terrible idea.

Edited March 12 by TrawlingCleaner
Removal of OT

[Halandaar]

49 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

I don't really get why people are up in arms over consolidating the Tau battlesuits into specializations based on what you intend the unit to do. Was that not what people were doing before?

 

Splitting one unit entry that could do anything into three different ones that can only do one thing is the polar opposite of consolidating them. 

 

Yes, most people probably did spec out their units to do one specific job, but the mechanics of the game prior to 10th Edition allowed you to do that anyway if you chose to. This is a "solution" to a self-inflicted problem.

 

I mean what next, are CSM going to get five different Havoc datasheets because "this amazing innovative idea will let us price a Heavy Bolter Squad differently to a Lascannon squad! Groundbreaking!"

[AutumnEffect]

Why are more datasheets a bad thing, unless there's a serious concern about the usage of paper?

 

To use the example about splitting havoc squads up into five different data sheets: Okay? Why is that a bad thing?

Edited March 12 by AutumnEffect

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, AutumnEffect said:

If you were taking mixed weapons in squads and glued them in and intended the unit to take on anything and everything then this sucks for you but...

 

It does suck but since WYSIWG is well and truly dead, at least you don't have to cut up or ditch your existing models. Just tell your opponent in advance what dataslate the unit represents and there is no risk of confusion because there are no options to mis-interpret.

 

1 hour ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

This definitely seems like the way it should've gone, although a unit like Oblits pay through the nose for their flexibility  with one of their limiting factors being how slow they are.

 

GW seems to consistently over-price and over-value flexibility because they don't seem to understand that just because a unit can perform multiple roles, it can usually only perform one of them at a time. Granted you get some units like Terminators that can shoot one target and charge another but 16 S4 shots and one special weapon is not usually anything to get excited about and most people feel Terminators are a bit over-priced.

[Guiltysparc]

Eh, i miss being able to fine tune the points of a unit, but i do not miss agonizing over how to build the models.  Pick the bits that look cool to you, off you go.

[Xenith]

6 hours 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.

 

This is what 'power weapon' used to be in the change from 2nd ed granularity to 3rd ed simplification. I think it works to an extent, where it's believable on models, but doesn't work when you lump say, a combi flamer and combi melta, two weapons known for having different targets, with the same profile. 

[Halandaar]

32 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

Why are more datasheets a bad thing, unless there's a serious concern about the usage of paper?

 

To use the example about splitting havoc squads up into five different data sheets: Okay? Why is that a bad thing?

 

Being able to field 15 Havoc Squads in an army for one. 

 

It's just a stupid solution to a stupid problem that didn't need to exist. The game has always had the mechanism to make every variant loadout have a cost relative to it's power, but they took that away and now they're having to find a way to shoehorn it back in because, shock horror, things costing the same while having wildly different capabilities is a disaster for balance. 

 

In a vacuum, is 5 individually costed single-weapon Havoc datasheets better than one where the unit costs the same regardless of whether it has Heavy Bolters or Lascannons? Yes. But is the bigger picture of 5 datasheets better than simply having each weapon have a points cost and players paying the cost of the weapons they are using? No, absolutely not.

 

 

[AutumnEffect]

24 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Being able to field 15 Havoc Squads in an army for one. 

You mean like being able to field 24 Leman Russ?
 

24 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

But is the bigger picture of 5 datasheets better than simply having each weapon have a points cost and players paying the cost of the weapons they are using? No, absolutely not.

It sounds like it's exactly the same thing just put on paper differently.

 

And even if it isn't, why is it not better? In the immortal words of The Dude: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

Edited March 12 by AutumnEffect

[Commander Dawnstar]

Personally I'm about 80-90% okay with this change, likely more so once we have the full picture. It doesn't feel great to be completely changing the design direction here, but at the same time I'm quite on board with giving different Battlesuit loadouts far more clearly defined niches through focused special rules. I'm very much intrigued to see how worthwhile the anti-chaff versions end up being.

 

Certainly I'm not the biggest fan of flexibility being removed and how this is all the result of the messy change over to wargear no longer having individual points values, but I also kinda feel like this doesn't do a whole lot to change how most people - though certainly not all - used their Crisis Suits. I'm fine with it, particularly as a solution for the issue of Crisis Suits usually having a single dominant loadout based on efficiency alone. It makes sense to me.

[Halandaar]

8 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

You mean like being able to field 24 Leman Russ?

 

Which is also stupid.

 

9 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

It sounds like it's exactly the same thing just put on paper differently.

 

Sure, if you choose to ignore that mixing weapons in a single squad was a thing that people used to do even if mono-loadouts were more popular. It didn't have to be a box-art-style mix of one of each weapon, but single missile launchers in Devastator Squads were a thing (to make use of flakk missiles), for example.

[AutumnEffect]

Just now, Halandaar said:

 

Which is also stupid.

 

Why?

 

Leman Russ spam isn't dominating anywhere.

Imperial Guard Armored Company has been a thing for ages.

 

4 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Sure, if you choose to ignore that mixing weapons in a single squad was a thing that people used to do even if mono-loadouts were more popular. It didn't have to be a box-art-style mix of one of each weapon, but single missile launchers in Devastator Squads were a thing (to make use of flakk missiles), for example.

 

I dont really think they did.

I know we are getting into anecdotal arguments, but in 20 years of playing I've never seen a list in person or online that didnt max one type of heavy weapon.

[Handsome Fred]

15 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

 

Leman Russ spam isn't dominating anywhere.

 

Just because now there is a awesome new baby, Dorn

[AutumnEffect]

13 minutes ago, Handsome Fred said:

 

Just because now there is a awesome new baby, Dorn

People aren't spamming Dorns either. You see one, maybe two in the wild. 

[TheArtilleryman]

5 hours ago, Halandaar said:

Lean into the lore of them being a swiss army knife unit and give them a choice of three internally-balanced weapon profiles each turn which correspond to the Fireknife, Sunforge and Starscythe archetypes. No extra datasheets, nobody needs to re-build their models, job done.

Best suggestion yet. I love this idea. You can mount all weapons but can only use one set per turn. I would happily pay say 10 points extra per suit for this.

 

Means you can still only have 3 units of suits though so GW wouldn’t sell any more boxes #cynicism

Edited March 12 by TheArtilleryman

[Indy Techwisp]

Here's your daily reminder that the most common Crisis Suit loadout present on models (excluding metachasing Triple CIB spam which caused all this) is 1x Burst Cannon, 1x Plasma Rifle and 1x Missile Pod, a mixed loadout spawned from the previous "incrementing weapon cost" previously used to discourage running a Crisis Suit with 3 Plasma Rifles or something equally dumb.

 

Equally common tho, especially amongst former Farsight Enclaves players, was a Shas'vre with 2x Fusion Blasters and a Plasma Rifle, then the rest of his squad with 1x Burst Cannon, 1x Fusion Blaster and 1x Plasma Rifle so you could apply "Fusion Blades" to the unit (or in editions without Fusion Blades have a close range "maul a tank" team which can still fight at range if needed).

 

TL;DR until literally this edition Mixed loadouts was the way to go for equipping Crisis Suits and GW had far less drastic options avaliable to kill off Triple-CIB Spam without killing Crisis Suit Flexibility in the process.

[Guest Triszin]

Huh...

So riptides and ghost kees can use the 3" deepstrike strat?

 

Danger close.

Giant danger mech

[Petitioner's City]

4 minutes ago, Triszin said:

Huh...

So riptides and ghost kees can use the 3" deepstrike strat?

 

Danger close.

Giant danger mech

 

 

 

Reminded of Thunderbolt!

 

 

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= We're getting quite a bit off topic here folks. Before we get back on topic, we do have the OldHammer club which may be a good shout for those that aren't enjoying 10th ed and want to discuss older editions with fellow like minded hobbyists:

There's definitely a place for a club for game systems like One Page Rules (that are obviously based on 40k), if you get stuck setting that up drop us a PM and we'll be happy to give you a hand. Previous editions hobby threads are welcome and encouraged elsewhere too.

 

On an internet denizen level, I think a few people in this thread and other threads (on either side of the argument) need to reevaluate how they participate on the B&C. We're nice and clear on how you should act in our rules. It's plastic war dollies. Why do we need to get so heated?

A chunk of hobbyists on here aren't enjoying 10th edition and that's okay. A chunk of hobbyists are enjoying 10th edition and that's okay.

Back to Tau's Rules Previews =][=

 

(If you're worried about my or another moderator's actions, Brother Tyler is the one to PM)

Edited March 12 by TrawlingCleaner

[jaxom]

So, Kroot detachment seems a given due to the army box. Then there's the Retaliation Cadre (battlesuits) and Kauyon. I imagine Mont'ka is a given. That's four and there's probably going to a fifth. What do you all think it will be, or have there been any rumors?

[Karhedron]

I haven't heard any specific rumours but I am sure there would be one based around infantry.

[VanDutch]

48 minutes ago, jaxom said:

So, Kroot detachment seems a given due to the army box. Then there's the Retaliation Cadre (battlesuits) and Kauyon. I imagine Mont'ka is a given. That's four and there's probably going to a fifth. What do you all think it will be, or have there been any rumors?

I’m pretty sure the Kroot detachment was already confirmed in the original preview.

 

I wouldn’t be shocked if there is a detachment for mechanised infantry, but that’s probably all my devilfish talking.

Edited March 12 by VanDutch