Why is the Tau Codex so messed up?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lord of Baal**

Why is the Tau Codex so messed up? It isn't even in order and it's so small?

**Coolyo294**

It's old.

**Avatar 720**

Already being discussed about 1/3 down the first page:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390836.page

**Lord of Baal**

The Tau codex is from 2008. That is, when it was edited.

**Aerethan**

Except the book was written in 2003 or 2004. 8 years is an old book.

**killykavekommando**

Being a tau player, I know how bad it sucks. Hope shall come soon.

**Nerivant**

Lord of Baal wrote:It isn't even in order

What?

**infinite_array**

Nerivant wrote:
Lord of Baal wrote:It isn't even in order

What?

He's 13, and probably used to the newer codices. So the layout of the older ones (i.e., Tau) may look strange.

**Vaktathi**

Their book was published mid-4th Edition, in the early part of 2006. They were, IIRC, the last book published before GW radically changed the layout and design of their codex books with the Eldar codex in late 2006. Up to that point, the Tau codex layout and design was fairly standard, and Tau were a very powerful army in 4th edition.

**AustonT**

An edit just means they fixed the errata and ran off another print. It's absolutly in order.
Fluff,wargear,special characters, summary, color hobby section. Thats how 4th ed Codei are. I think Dark angels was the first Codex to go Fluff,Army entries, Wargear, color hobby section, army list. and that was in prep for 5ed.
It's so messed up because it's about half as old as you are. first print in 2005, released in 2006 (April I think) considering at the time the original Tau dex was only 5 ish years old, a lot closer to 4. At the time older Codex players like Blood Angels and Dark Eldar were kitting up for a murder-make in Nottingham.

**Lord of Baal**

I have know the older codexes than the new ones. When I was around five I watched and looked at my cousins 40k stuff. And he still has some of his stuff. They look too cartoony, 2nd Ed.

**AustonT**

Soooo....pretty much around the time this codex came out?
Or to be more chronologically precise. somewhere around 2003 when 3ed was already 5 years old and 4ed was on the not-so-distant horizon.

**Aerethan**

Tau are most definitely '03-'04. I ran a hobby store in that time and that's when they came out as I was painting an army of them for the shop.

**AustonT**

Are you sure that wasn't just a model release? The first Tau book with the Black cover says 2001 on the inside cover, taken with a grain of salt since I know for a solid fact the current Tau werent released until 2006 and my copy says 2005.

**Aerethan**

Second wave may have been 06 like the Vespids. All I know is that I was painting fire warriors and tau tanks in early 2004.

**Harriticus**

The most annoying part of the older codices is the weapons/wargear options for models are on a different page. Pisses me off to flip back and forth when I'm coming up with an army with a paper/calculator!!!!

**AustonT**

Vespids came out in 06 for sure...it was just kroot and tau in the 3ed.

**Lord of Baal**

Do you guys have that feeling a new Tau race will come in on the next codex?

**AustonT**

No

**Lord of Baal**

So what do you think will be changed?

**juraigamer**

We don't know exactly, what we do know is scattered around the web, and even then it may not be true.

**Lord of Baal**

About two years?

**AustonT**

**Lord of Baal**

What is that supposed to mean?

**Aerethan**

Lord of Baal wrote:What does that supposed to mean?

think about the grammar of that question again please.

Secondly, the pic implies that someone(likely you in this case) is trolling.

Thirdly, since I know you'll ask:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

**Beregond**

I think this version was released on 2006 or something?

Anyway, on topic, the only thing I dislike about the Tau codex is how the summary isn't actually on the last page. That is incredibly annoying...

Other than that, I find I dislike the structure of the newer codexes more...

**Lord of Baal**

You'v got my vote. But it needs way more fluff.

And Aerathan, I know you like to comment on everything I do wrong but it's changed.
-My bad.

**Aerethan**

Eventually I'll grow tired of watching every post you make for mistakes. Until then...

**chromedog**

There isn't much fluff because they are the NEWEST race included.

SM, Eldar, Orks, CSM, EVEN Tyranids go back to FIRST edition (so 25 years or so). Dark Eldar were invented for 3rd ed, and even they suffered for lack of fluff until their current codex fleshed them out a bit more.

Tau have already had TWO codices since their inception. They have no fluff because they don't sell as well as marines and their rules got left behind in rules changes.

@Lord of Baal: I can barely make out what your posts mean - and I have English as my first language. Not everyone here DOES. At least TRY to make some kind of sense with your posts. Slow down, read through it before you hit 'submit'. It's not an instant message chat board.

**Vaktathi**

Aerethan wrote:Tau are most definitely '03-'04. I ran a hobby store in that time and that's when they came out as I was painting an army of them for the shop.

Nope, first release was 2001, second codex release was very definitely March 2006.