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.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
I've now read through the WD (in English this time) pretty thoroughly, so ask questions if you like and I'll answer to the best of my ability.

I'll write up my observations in a longer post as well.

How much changes to the base codex does it imply? I know it's probably not in the WD issue, but does it sound like Vespids, Stealth Suits, and Kroot are getting changed?

There was nothing specific about Vespids, Stealth Suits, or Kroot. The changes to the base codex are essentially the new models being added in, everything being presented in their new datasheet format, and the addition of the Hunter Contingent Detachment and the Formations. Thus, I would not expect to see any of the three units you mention be changed in terms of statline. They may well be included in formations, however. Seeing as the Wargear section needs to be changed anyway, it is possible their weapons/options would be modified.

Any news about the fire team rule the Ghostkeel has?

What stood out to you the most, like anything that's game changing?

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Iridium as an option is still in there and is still a Signature system.

More info can be provided if requested.

So no per squad or shas'ui upgrade to iridium? It's still a signature system so only 1/per army for each?

 warboss wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Iridium as an option is still in there and is still a Signature system.

More info can be provided if requested.

So no per squad or shas'ui upgrade to iridium? It's still a signature system so only 1/per army for each?

Or have the sig systems been significantly changed?

@Delorean: Good heads up on these. Thanks for taking the time to write them up!

Agreed that the wargear section will likely get a change. If anything small text changes to say that the storm surge/ghost keel are the same as the Riptide for point cost on items, etc. But probably more there.

As for the number of pages, 9 pages sounds about right actually. Remember for each of the new unit types, you're not only getting the 1-2 page entry in the middle of the book, but also the 1/3 to 1 page entry in the datasheets later in the book. And I would presume there is SOME additional/new fluff moving the Tau core story forward in time a bit.

How about the other Sig Systems, are the rest of the buffmander toys still secure or no mention of them?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
@Dr. Delorean: Thanks for doing this for us! Here are my questions:

As far as you can tell, have any army-wide special rules (such as Supporting Fire) changed significantly?

Are Markerlights the same as the previous Tau codex, or have they changed?

What sort of benefits due the new formations/Hunter Cadre provide?

Are Signature Systems limited to one per model, or can models take multiple Signature Systems?

The first two I can answer because I also got to read the rules for the Burning Dawn supplement - No, neither of them have changed (as far as I can tell) in any way. Markerlights didn't include the option to fire Seeker Missiles, but seeker missiles aren't included in the Burning Dawn set, so I don't expect they changed either. Nothing on what the Fire Team rule does either.

Apart from mentioning that the Hunter Contingent/9 New formations exist, nothing was stated on what they actually do or what they include. When this stuff goes up for pre-order on Saturday I fully expect a 1-click bundle for the 'reclamation legion/demi-company' Tau equivalent to be put up, which'll give us a decent idea of what it contains.

Signature Systems weren't directly addressed - but the Enforcer suit specifically said that its larger reactor enables the suit to support more signature systems, implying multiple can be taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


You questions are in the Spoiler so I don't take up too much space.

It's stated that Iridium is an option a Crisis Shas'Ui can take, but it also explicitly calls it a signature system. Looks like 1 per army remains.

Apart from the Enforcer being able to take multiple Sig systems (maybe, based on its description) it appears as though they're unchanged.

The Commander entry sample in the WD has a paragraph at the start that explicitly tells you to use all of the current profiles for weaponry, systems etc that appear in the 2013 book, unless they either don't appear in the 2013 book or are modified in the entry.

SOOOOOOO what's up with Vespid?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SOOOOOOO what's up with Vespid?

There was nothing in the WD about Vespid, I'm sorry.

A cautionary thought about the codex equivalencies...

There is the difference between functionally equivalent for average or casual players, and technically different for precision rules experts who will parse each word.

GW may think (even intend) for the two prints to be functionally equivalent, but if you look at the SM codex Chapter Tactics, they look functionally equivalent, yet if you parse the words, holy heck there are some significant actual changes (perhaps unintentional, like Iron Hands and vehicles).

So whether intentionally or not, when GW "reprints" a section with a few different words, people may go bananas over how everything is all different and how the two editions aren't alike at all.

Even if they were meant to be.

 Talys wrote:
A cautionary thought about the codex equivalencies...

There is the difference between functionally equivalent for average or casual players, and technically different for precision rules experts who will parse each word.

GW may think (even intend) for the two prints to be functionally equivalent, but if you look at the SM codex Chapter Tactics, they look functionally equivalent, yet if you parse the words, holy heck there are some significant actual changes (perhaps unintentional, like Iron Hands and vehicles).

So whether intentionally or not, when GW "reprints" a section with a few different words, people may go bananas over how everything is all different and how the two editions aren't alike at all.

Even if they were meant to be.

Agreed on the word of caution Talys. I will say though that the last SM book was more of a general cleanup/rewording of nearly everything in their lineup. Little changes here and there, from points to rule wordings. If they are saying that the contents of the 2013 Tau book remains the same.. then that's certainly a whole different thing. Makes this "codex" update more of a large scale addition.

How many new units did other 'Dexs get in recent releases? I'm kind of surprised how many units and formations the Tau are getting without older ones being removed or replaced entirely. It just feels like a lot of new entries, although if Enforce and Cold are now just sub-entries to the Commander that makes more sense.. I guess?

 Talys wrote:
A cautionary thought about the codex equivalencies...

There is the difference between functionally equivalent for average or casual players, and technically different for precision rules experts who will parse each word.

GW may think (even intend) for the two prints to be functionally equivalent, but if you look at the SM codex Chapter Tactics, they look functionally equivalent, yet if you parse the words, holy heck there are some significant actual changes (perhaps unintentional, like Iron Hands and vehicles).

So whether intentionally or not, when GW "reprints" a section with a few different words, people may go bananas over how everything is all different and how the two editions aren't alike at all.

Even if they were meant to be.

This is why I think just using the 2013 codex alongside the supplement isn't going to be feasible option. You'll have to go through the supplement with a fine-toothed comb to find all of the differences and modifications, and constantly flip from one book to the other during a game.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

 Talys wrote:
A cautionary thought about the codex equivalencies...

There is the difference between functionally equivalent for average or casual players, and technically different for precision rules experts who will parse each word.

GW may think (even intend) for the two prints to be functionally equivalent, but if you look at the SM codex Chapter Tactics, they look functionally equivalent, yet if you parse the words, holy heck there are some significant actual changes (perhaps unintentional, like Iron Hands and vehicles).

So whether intentionally or not, when GW "reprints" a section with a few different words, people may go bananas over how everything is all different and how the two editions aren't alike at all.

Even if they were meant to be.

This is why I think just using the 2013 codex alongside the supplement isn't going to be feasible option. You'll have to go through the supplement with a fine-toothed comb to find all of the differences and modifications, and constantly flip from one book to the other during a game.

I'd assume people who use the 2013 book plus the campaign one, will re-write the information in their list, to make sure they have an easy reference. They don't even have to re-write it thanks to all the army builder programs out there.

It's a lot easier to set up two reference books in private transcript than during a game, and I think that's the intended purpose D:

GreyDragoon wrote:


Agreed on the word of caution Talys. I will say though that the last SM book was more of a general cleanup/rewording of nearly everything in their lineup. Little changes here and there, from points to rule wordings. If they are saying that the contents of the 2013 Tau book remains the same.. then that's certainly a whole different thing. Makes this "codex" update more of a large scale addition.

How many new units did other 'Dexs get in recent releases? I'm kind of surprised how many units and formations the Tau are getting without older ones being removed or replaced entirely. It just feels like a lot of new entries, although if Enforce and Cold are now just sub-entries to the Commander that makes more sense.. I guess?

I reckon if you took all the actual changes to the SM dex between editions and compared them to the changes made that we know of to the new Tau dex, the new Tau dex would actually have more modifications than the SM one, simply because we had a lot more units added.

I'm trying to think of what actually changed (detachments/formations and Combat Doctrines aside) in the SM codex. Scouts got a full marine profile aside from armour, preds and vindicators became squadronable with benefits for doing so, was there anything else?

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


I'm trying to think of what actually changed (detachments/formations and Combat Doctrines aside) in the SM codex. Scouts got a full marine profile aside from armour, preds and vindicators became squadronable with benefits for doing so, was there anything else?

Points drop on Terminators. Points inrease on the TH/SS-option. Extra Attack on Dreads. Probably a few more minor things, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


I'm trying to think of what actually changed (detachments/formations and Combat Doctrines aside) in the SM codex. Scouts got a full marine profile aside from armour, preds and vindicators became squadronable with benefits for doing so, was there anything else?

Points drop on Terminators. Points inrease on the TH/SS-option. Extra Attack on Dreads. Probably a few more minor things, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Techmarines got W2 (including for TFC's which can now be taken in units of 3) and no more distinct Master of the Forge. Grav Cannons made available to Tac's & Dev's. Dedicated transports made Fast Attack.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


I'm trying to think of what actually changed (detachments/formations and Combat Doctrines aside) in the SM codex. Scouts got a full marine profile aside from armour, preds and vindicators became squadronable with benefits for doing so, was there anything else?

Points drop on Terminators. Points inrease on the TH/SS-option. Extra Attack on Dreads. Probably a few more minor things, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Vaktathi wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


I'm trying to think of what actually changed (detachments/formations and Combat Doctrines aside) in the SM codex. Scouts got a full marine profile aside from armour, preds and vindicators became squadronable with benefits for doing so, was there anything else?

Points drop on Terminators. Points inrease on the TH/SS-option. Extra Attack on Dreads. Probably a few more minor things, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Techmarines got W2 (including for TFC's which can now be taken in units of 3) and no more distinct Master of the Forge. Grav Cannons made available to Tac's & Dev's. Dedicated transports made Fast Attack.

Fair enough - I can confirm that Tau dedicated transports (the Devilfish at least) also received the Fast Attack treatment according to the tiny codex preview.

Grav cannons being made available is broadly analogous to FW squads getting access to the new drone turret. I fully expect Hammerheads and Skyrays to become squadronable as well, hopefully with some kind of D-related benefit.

So in terms of what we've 'missed out on', it's really just slight points adjustments (up or down), condensing of unit options (no MoF but 2W techies), possibly slight statline adjustments?

In a very profound way I think this actually worked out really well. Sure, there are things I wanted to change with the new book (devilfish being less points, Vespid being rejigged, Iridium being a support system), but there were also a lot of things I didn't want them to change.

I didn't want markerlights to change, I didn't want Supporting Fire to change, I didn't want Crisis suits to be more expensive or have Farsight Enclaves invalidated, there's a lot more.

When you open the door to massive changes, those changes can be both positive and negative. If we had the points for Devilfish revised, we could've also had Commanders go up to 100pts or markerlights become far worse than they are. Hell, we could've had Robin Cruddace be the one doing the majority of the work on our codex, can you imagine how awful that might've been?

This way, we get to keep everything in our codex that's good and works PLUS getting a bunch of new units and a Decurion-esque detachment + accompanying Formations. We didn't need to sacrifice anything in the codex to get those benefits.

Look at Orks as a counter example: When their new book was on the horizon, I was really hyped because I thought it'd improve a lot of things. Instead, it ripped the guts out of the army, changed things that never needed to be changed, and (arguably) alienated a large portion of the Ork playerbase. This Tau release could've been exactly the same, but instead they adopted the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality.

I know there'll be a lot of people who (justifiably, perhaps) are annoyed that more wasn't done, but in my opinion I'd rather have our current codex + MORE STUFF, than risk having the entire codex ruined by GW incompetence.

With the information from the german White Dwarf confirmed by the english magazine - Thank you, Dr. Delorean - and seeing GW is going for a let's call it innovative way of publicating rules I would like to point out there is the possibility of another campaign book featuring Tau. This is not a rumor - but the chance there is another book - maybe even containing an updated Farsight Enclave list/detachment - should be taken into consideration.

Honestly, I don't think that, even if this is the intent, we will be able to use the 6e codex as a living document by combining it with the new campaign book for one reason: imprecision of language. GW is known for not being precise with their language.

Hypothetical example that is not based on any actual rules:

Suppose in the new codex Piranha are BS4, and in the new campaign book there is a note that says "increase the Piranha BS to 4".

Those basically mean the same thing. Of course they are intended to mean the same thing. But the argument could be made, RAW, that the Piranha is BS with an improvement, not BS4, so anything affects BS modifiers would mess with it.

A very extreme hypothetical, yes, but it illustrates how minor wording tweaks can cause confusion.

In the end, the full codex is cheaper, so, you know, the more "definitive" wording of rules will be a nice bonus.

A true, honest to god, living document for the various rules would be amazing. I don't think GW can handle it though.

I am willing to bet the campaign book literally comes with the Dataslates that are included in the codex. It won't have any of the lore that the codex does, though.

maceria wrote:
But the argument could be made, RAW, that the Piranha is BS with an improvement, not BS4, so anything affects BS modifiers would mess with it.

The argument can't be made because errata/updates/FAQs exist outside of the rules. This isn't a special rule saying "the Piranha gets BS 4" or "the Piranha gets +1 BS", it's a statement outside of the rules saying "on page X replace BS 3 with BS 4". It's just like correcting a typo, you change the printed text in the rulebook and only then do you start interpreting what it means.

I wouldn't make it, but you know someone will attempt to exploit ANY discrepancy. And there will be discrepancies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, I realize that example was silly, unrealistic, and hyperbolic. But I did disclaim as much.

Well I, for one, am very excited about the new Tau formations/detachments

The stealth suits have always been my favourite infantry in the Tau army so hopefully they get some love in the formations!

Also I really like the new Commander model. Or rather, I hated the old one and am glad it's gone although it is a little pricey for what it is.

I agree. Exciting release.

 mazik765 wrote:
Well I, for one, am very excited about the new Tau formations/detachments

The stealth suits have always been my favourite infantry in the Tau army so hopefully they get some love in the formations!

Also I really like the new Commander model. Or rather, I hated the old one and am glad it's gone although it is a little pricey for what it is.

Me too. I've always loved the design of the stealth suits, so I'm looking forwards to them getting some decent formations (possibly with the Ghostkeel) so that I have an excuse to start a Tau amy.

Hi guys, I just open my Tidewall Rampart and this thing is BIG O_O

Snapped some pics for you:





More pics on the blog here: http://apaintingchaos.blogspot.it/2015/10/incoming-tide.html

Wow- that looks awesome

Apparently the Hunter Contingent detachment has two benefits:

- All markerlight hits are doubled

- Units can use regular markerlights to benefit themselves at double the cost of spending them normally (basically makes them networked markerlights when combined with the doubled hits above)


Take this with a Dead Sea's worth of salt for now, I'm still trying to verify the source.

It is! And it comes with a 2-sprues 4 drones that I think are what the new drones clam pack is all about (the sprues are copyrighted 2014)

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
Apparently the Hunter Contingent detachment has two benefits:

- All markerlight hits are doubled

- Units can use regular markerlights to benefit themselves at double the cost of spending them normally (basically makes them networked markerlights when combined with the doubled hits above)


Take this with a Dead Sea's worth of salt for now, I'm still trying to verify the source.

If this is true, Sniper marksmen just got a whole lot better, as well as adding the odd marker drone here or there.

My Remoras would love it, but, you know, not in the formation.

You know. If this codex is a dud and this is the way of the future for 40k as a TT game I can see a lot of gamers leaving. My cousin is already getting out. His brother is thinking of leaving too. Their friend is also thinking of leaving. That's over half the players left in the 40k group. Now I too must come to ask myself this question. Sad to see I might have seen and been part of the end days for 40k as a game and become a model painting hobby. I like to game with my models and GW is not making it easy. We're far from the richest players ever but we managed to keep single armies going.

We happen to play IG, Chaos, Nids, and Tau. All armies about to be hit hard by this new change of direction. Now I know if this happens there will be a community who makes their own rules, but it would still mean giving money to a company that wants nothing to do with me at that point. I'll have to consider this. It's too bad since I only started one and a half years ago or so.I'll have to think carefully. I wonder if anyone else is contemplating the same thing.

The double Markerlights think sounds both fluffy and insane.

Here's the weird thing about the "use the old codex" thing...we know the Fireblade is now a Troops coice due to his slot swap on the web store, as are Drones (before they were taken off they got put in Troops).

Thoughts?