Upcoming T'au Codex

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#181 » Jul 26 2017 09:07

Glarblar wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:Uh? There will be sept-wide buffs. All armies will have the same thing Marines got.


How do we know? I don't remember the community site saying how they were going to handle Tau, Necron, and Tyranid Key words.

Because GW said multiple times that everyone will get that treatment and frankly it wouldn't make any sense to give it only for some factions.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2632

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#182 » Jul 26 2017 09:10

Glarblar wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:Uh? There will be sept-wide buffs. All armies will have the same thing Marines got.


How do we know? I don't remember the community site saying how they were going to handle Tau, Necron, and Tyranid Key words.


They said all armies would get sub-faction perks a few months ago. Where though, I can't remember.

User avatar
Czar Ziggy
Fio'Ui
Fio'Ui
Posts: 557
Contact:

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#183 » Jul 26 2017 10:19

I believe it was on the community site. But I agree that it's logical to assume there will be at least some sept traits. Bonus points to GW if the do all the Septs, but 6 or less is what I expect, with 3 of them being T'au, Farsight, and Voir'la based on the index and the recent fluff from the campaign books Mont'ka and Kauyon. It's like I expect something to do with Jet packs as well because why else put the key word there? If they didn't intend to do Sept specific traits, then only the Farsight Enclaves would have gain that as a faction key word, and there would be no reason to put the <sept> key word in.

Czar Ziggy

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 600

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#184 » Jul 26 2017 08:14

Edit:

My utmost apologies to Khayman for my overly aggressive (IMO) response.

I just finished the bar exam, and my self-control is a bit limited.

Suffice to say that, yes, it is easily possible that 3 buffs can be less potent than a single buff, and we have what I consider strong evidence that GW is taking that into consideration when looking at the Salamanders and Raven Guard - two SM chapters with only a single Special Character each (and both of which have limited buffing potential) that got arguably the strongest Chapter Tactics to the point that I'd rather just take Salamanders than Ultramarines with their 6ish Special Characters of Insane Buffing (and genuinely believe I'd receive a greater benefit from doing so), just because the Salamander Buff is just that good.

We should avoid claiming the sky is falling before we have a good reason to believe so.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#185 » Jul 26 2017 09:53

I guess Dal'yth and Ke'lshan will be done by FW?

With T'au, Vior'la and Farsight Enclaves, these make 5 Septs. To get to the... seven? chapter tactics number, we're missing two. I think Bork'an will star as well, as it is very famous. The other one - maybe Sa'cea? It's military might is comparable to Vior'la.

But let's see what they'll do to other codexes with a similar splitness of Tau, like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons... I guess our codex will be pretty similar to theirs. We might get 7-8 sept rules, or only the 5 with characters.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2632

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#186 » Jul 26 2017 10:12

Vector Strike wrote:I guess Dal'yth and Ke'lshan will be done by FW?

With T'au, Vior'la and Farsight Enclaves, these make 5 Septs. To get to the... seven? chapter tactics number, we're missing two. I think Bork'an will star as well, as it is very famous. The other one - maybe Sa'cea? It's military might is comparable to Vior'la.

But let's see what they'll do to other codexes with a similar splitness of Tau, like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons... I guess our codex will be pretty similar to theirs. We might get 7-8 sept rules, or only the 5 with characters.


I heard on Reddit that Forgeworld's first 8th Ed Imperial Armor release would be Tau vs Imperial Guard. Dal'yth and Ke'lshan are from Forgeworld (I think?) so maybe they'll publish sept perks there. Actually, it would be bizarre if they didn't.

Prophet224
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#187 » Jul 27 2017 12:02

Well, for the record I am definitely with Khayan on the "empire not sept-level" issue. I think my frustration is simply around being forced to say your army is xyz in order to build it a certain way when it is really built as something else. I don't know about SM players but it seems that Tau folks like their fluff and their varying septworlds. But as I have said before - I am still new so have less XP with all of this.

Also they have opened up a way to drop a potential 3rd Tau empire in. If we want options of different play styles (and we do - options are good) that feels like the right way to do it. I mean - SM chapters paint to their chapter, Tau are more logical - "let's do what makes sense... put some camo on darnit." To me that means SN might not play well with others but Tau are more interested in efficiency than not training with someone from a different sept.

Also I can see certain buffs coming from training with someone but why would a particularly amazing leader not be sent to train with teams where they are needed? We (USA) trained our army navy and marines for over a year to integrate and take Iwo Jima in WWII... it isn't unprecedented.

All that said - if the sept thing is only an issue internal to detachments, I might be ok with that... I think that works in general; I'd like to see different septs working together. I just want a way to represent my army and play style without having to say "oh. well I guess they are from that planet over there after all, since Darkstrider is a key component."

PS - Sorry for bringing it up again; I was away while the discussion was going strong!

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#188 » Jul 27 2017 12:07

Vector Strike wrote:I guess Dal'yth and Ke'lshan will be done by FW?

With T'au, Vior'la and Farsight Enclaves, these make 5 Septs. To get to the... seven? chapter tactics number, we're missing two. I think Bork'an will star as well, as it is very famous. The other one - maybe Sa'cea? It's military might is comparable to Vior'la.

But let's see what they'll do to other codexes with a similar splitness of Tau, like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons... I guess our codex will be pretty similar to theirs. We might get 7-8 sept rules, or only the 5 with characters.

If we get more than just the popular 3 + FW Septs then my money is definitely on Sa'Cea as well. Most likely with similar stuff Imperial Fists got.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#189 » Jul 27 2017 12:12

Unusualsuspect wrote: we have what I consider strong evidence that GW is taking that into consideration when looking at the Salamanders and Raven Guard - two SM chapters with only a single Special Character each (and both of which have limited buffing potential) that got arguably the strongest Chapter Tactics to the point that I'd rather just take Salamanders than Ultramarines with their 6ish Special Characters of Insane Buffing (and genuinely believe I'd receive a greater benefit from doing so), just because the Salamander Buff is just that good.

We should avoid claiming the sky is falling before we have a good reason to believe so.

I'd argue with Iron Hands against that. No special character and just a 6+ FnP as chapter tactic. Their Stratagem allows a single vehicle to move&shoot with heavy weapons without the movement penalty. Those aren't exactly great. :D

But yeah it's WAY too soon to see the sky falling.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#190 » Jul 27 2017 12:17

Prophet224 wrote:Well, for the record I am definitely with Khayan on the "empire not sept-level" issue. I think my frustration is simply around being forced to say your army is xyz in order to build it a certain way when it is really built as something else. I don't know about SM players but it seems that Tau folks like their fluff and their varying septworlds. But as I have said before - I am still new so have less XP with all of this.

Also they have opened up a way to drop a potential 3rd Tau empire in. If we want options of different play styles (and we do - options are good) that feels like the right way to do it. I mean - SM chapters paint to their chapter, Tau are more logical - "let's do what makes sense... put some camo on darnit." To me that means SN might not play well with others but Tau are more interested in efficiency than not training with someone from a different sept.

Also I can see certain buffs coming from training with someone but why would a particularly amazing leader not be sent to train with teams where they are needed? We (USA) trained our army navy and marines for over a year to integrate and take Iwo Jima in WWII... it isn't unprecedented.

All that said - if the sept thing is only an issue internal to detachments, I might be ok with that... I think that works in general; I'd like to see different septs working together. I just want a way to represent my army and play style without having to say "oh. well I guess they are from that planet over there after all, since Darkstrider is a key component."

PS - Sorry for bringing it up again; I was away while the discussion was going strong!

It's a bit harder for the T'au Empire to share "leader" between Septs. T'au have relatively short lives and Firewarrior are constantly fighting for the Empire. Longstrike is no exception, he'd be around for quite some time now and he is way more valuable on the battlefield together with the trained squad of Hammerhead pilots instead of leaving them alone to roughly train another squad somewhere else in the Empire.
On top of that, it's not like the Sept is only a few hours away. T'au don't have real warp travel and it takes them some time to get from planet to planet.

You're also not really forced to say anything. You could just as fine play a "T'au Empire" army with all the characters and styles you want. But then you trade the Sept bonuses for less restrictions.
That's how 8th is designed and no mourning is going to change that....and so far most people on the internet actually think it's a pretty good design. At least miles better than 7th formation system.

EDIT: woops I'm not on B&C. Guess we need a multi-quote function here as well. :D

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 600

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#191 » Jul 27 2017 12:32

Panzer wrote:
Unusualsuspect wrote: we have what I consider strong evidence that GW is taking that into consideration when looking at the Salamanders and Raven Guard - two SM chapters with only a single Special Character each (and both of which have limited buffing potential) that got arguably the strongest Chapter Tactics to the point that I'd rather just take Salamanders than Ultramarines with their 6ish Special Characters of Insane Buffing (and genuinely believe I'd receive a greater benefit from doing so), just because the Salamander Buff is just that good.

We should avoid claiming the sky is falling before we have a good reason to believe so.

I'd argue with Iron Hands against that. No special character and just a 6+ FnP as chapter tactic. Their Stratagem allows a single vehicle to move&shoot with heavy weapons without the movement penalty. Those aren't exactly great. :D

But yeah it's WAY too soon to see the sky falling.


I think people are underestimating what a reliable source of durability/extra firepower can do.

People are going gaga over Raven Guard (and for good reason), and yet Iron Hands is sitting pretty with a defensive mechanism that cannot be bypassed (unlike Raven Guard) that against the majority of their foes (BS3+) is roughly equal in defensive benefit. For a casual player against another casual player, Raven Guard seems stronger, but when you're facing foes with tactical acumen, I'd take the reliable bonus over the situational bonus any day of the week and twice on sunday.

That's partially why I find Salamanders so good. Their ability is boring, but it is reliable and effectively impossible to negate or deny, which a good opponent will always seek to do.

GW certainly didn't get things perfect, but they're moving in the right direction, and they seem at least minimally cognizant of the imbalance that results from Special Character Bloat.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#192 » Jul 27 2017 12:47

Unusualsuspect wrote:
Panzer wrote:
Unusualsuspect wrote: we have what I consider strong evidence that GW is taking that into consideration when looking at the Salamanders and Raven Guard - two SM chapters with only a single Special Character each (and both of which have limited buffing potential) that got arguably the strongest Chapter Tactics to the point that I'd rather just take Salamanders than Ultramarines with their 6ish Special Characters of Insane Buffing (and genuinely believe I'd receive a greater benefit from doing so), just because the Salamander Buff is just that good.

We should avoid claiming the sky is falling before we have a good reason to believe so.

I'd argue with Iron Hands against that. No special character and just a 6+ FnP as chapter tactic. Their Stratagem allows a single vehicle to move&shoot with heavy weapons without the movement penalty. Those aren't exactly great. :D

But yeah it's WAY too soon to see the sky falling.


I think people are underestimating what a reliable source of durability/extra firepower can do.

People are going gaga over Raven Guard (and for good reason), and yet Iron Hands is sitting pretty with a defensive mechanism that cannot be bypassed (unlike Raven Guard) that against the majority of their foes (BS3+) is roughly equal in defensive benefit. For a casual player against another casual player, Raven Guard seems stronger, but when you're facing foes with tactical acumen, I'd take the reliable bonus over the situational bonus any day of the week and twice on sunday.

That's partially why I find Salamanders so good. Their ability is boring, but it is reliable and effectively impossible to negate or deny, which a good opponent will always seek to do.

GW certainly didn't get things perfect, but they're moving in the right direction, and they seem at least minimally cognizant of the imbalance that results from Special Character Bloat.

You misunderstood. I didn't mean to say it's trash or anything like that. Just that it's not on the same level as the Salamanders tactic (it really isn't) and that despite having not a single special character available. It kinda undermines that argument of yours. ;)

The Ravenguard CT is strong...but once some units are within 12" they basically have no CT left. Luckily for them their WT and Stratagem is pretty crazy too.
The IH Stratagem in return is pretty meh since their vehicles already have BS3+ so a -1 to-hit modifier doesn't hurt as much and the 1CP is often better spend on the re-roll Stratagem.

Prophet224
Shas'Saal
Posts: 25

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#193 » Jul 27 2017 08:46

Panzer - "that's how it is designed" doesn't mean it is good. That said, I agree that in general 8th is better, faster, stronger. ;-) seriously in general it is a much smoother rule set and I love how it is being handled.

Saying just mix your guys together though doesn't answer the issue and then creates a balance issue too. It is being written (and hopefully balanced) with these various rules in mind. I just think that as it stands it takes away from "your dudes" as I understand it at least, and mixing units and septs but dropping their abilities means you play in a non-balanced situation, not a flexible and still balanced situation.

Much of it will depend on actual implementation. I am looking forward to seeing the actual book, but the sept-level requirements bug me, especially with ethereal. Everybody else I can at least see reasoning. Ethereals not so much.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#194 » Jul 27 2017 08:59

Prophet224 wrote:Panzer - "that's how it is designed" doesn't mean it is good. That said, I agree that in general 8th is better, faster, stronger. ;-) seriously in general it is a much smoother rule set and I love how it is being handled.

Saying just mix your guys together though doesn't answer the issue and then creates a balance issue too. It is being written (and hopefully balanced) with these various rules in mind. I just think that as it stands it takes away from "your dudes" as I understand it at least, and mixing units and septs but dropping their abilities means you play in a non-balanced situation, not a flexible and still balanced situation.

Much of it will depend on actual implementation. I am looking forward to seeing the actual book, but the sept-level requirements bug me, especially with ethereal. Everybody else I can at least see reasoning. Ethereals not so much.

No it's not good just because that's how it's designed. But so far there hasn't been any issue with it and people seem to be pretty happy with it so it can't be that bad.

You think it takes away from "your dudes" - I think it actually improves the "your dudes" feel.
Fleshing out the fluff and giving rules to represent it on the tables is something good, not the end of the world.

Just wait for the Codex for now. Once it's there we can see whether it's a terrible design choice or not. ;)

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 266

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#195 » Jul 27 2017 09:05

Panzer wrote:I think it actually improves the "your dudes" feel.
Fleshing out the fluff and giving rules to represent it on the tables is something good, not the end of the world.


Warhammer TV was talking about something similar in for AoS, with the updates coming next month.

They were promoting that creating a personal army you get a feel for how it plays, and in the long run you perform better with it. As opposed to 'The New Hotness' where you need to buy and learn a new pattern or army.

You get the same thing with online gaming (like LoL) but at a very frequent rate. If you play 1 thing and get really good at it you will eventually progress to a higher level.

Its a balancing act of Learning Curve, Time, how Strong a List is, and in 40K's case, lots and lots of money.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#196 » Jul 29 2017 07:13

So we just got news that the GK and CSM Codex both will be up for pre-order on 5th and release on 12th.
Apparently GK will get a HQ version of the Dreadknight...

..soo Riptide HQ next? With BS2+? Pretty please GW? :D

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 351

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#197 » Jul 29 2017 07:27

Panzer wrote:So we just got news that the GK and CSM Codex both will be up for pre-order on 5th and release on 12th.
Apparently GK will get a HQ version of the Dreadknight...

..soo Riptide HQ next? With BS2+? Pretty please GW? :D

Source? Curious to see what else they are talking about.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Upcoming T'au Codex

Post#198 » Jul 29 2017 07:28

QimRas wrote:
Panzer wrote:So we just got news that the GK and CSM Codex both will be up for pre-order on 5th and release on 12th.
Apparently GK will get a HQ version of the Dreadknight...

..soo Riptide HQ next? With BS2+? Pretty please GW? :D

Source? Curious to see what else they are talking about.

Source would be the next White Dwarf it seems:
Image
Image
Image

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Razzmatazz and 7 guests