40K RUMORS: Codex T’au Latest

A T’au rumormonger returns with more news on the upcoming codex. For the Greater Good!

You will recall that a few weeks back we heard from Haechi at Advanced Tau Tactica.

He’s been talking a bit the last couple of days on the new Tau codex.  Here’s the latest:


via Haechi (Advanced Tau Tactica)

I lost track of this topic for a while, but Arka told me someone dropped a rumour about Gun Drones not having saviour protocols and Rail weapons being the same price. I can tell you both are false. Although there is a small change to saviour protocols.

Burst-or Iontide…?
Either and both. The firepower of both has skyrocketed while the point cost dropped hard. Plus there’s two insane stratagems for them.

…I have a massive tournament coming in two months and I’m dropping my Custodes and Thousand Sons list to play T’au instead. Also buy Riptides and a couple Hammerheads (with Ion Cannons) if you don’t have them.

The change to Saviour Protocols is something similar to what Crisis Bodyguards do and Shadowsun’s rule with Stealths suits.

Sorry, that was a bit confusing. Savior Protocols is the same as before, but happens only on a 2+.

If people are already complaining about T’au, here a few negative things haha.

1 commander per detachment
No changes to the markerlight table
No improvement to BS across the board
Railguns are the same

Don’t get alarmed though, there are far more upsides that we will get to soon-ish. I’m just waiting for GW to officially announce the codex to get more into details.

The upsides will come from massive point drops on base costs and weaponry, and massive buff to weapons characteristics. Sometimes both, which can make for some crazy stuff. Like a Heavy 18 S6 -1 2dmg gun for 35 points


~ Interesting that no Drukhari rumors have come out yet… Still T’au Strategems better be AWESOME – they need help bad.

  • Crevab

    Disappointing rumors. The Index should’ve been a hiccup in the life of the Tau army, not something built upon

    • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

      No change to markerlights, almost stop reading at that point

      • Spacefrisian

        Laserlights are so heavy indeed…

      • SilentPony

        I used to get my butt handed to me by Tau gunlines in 7th. With the change to Markerlights, I can just sweep them off the table with little trouble.

  • Not sure what to think about it. Sounds a bit like they want to turn Tau into a mass army instead of a small, highly mobile force.

    • vlad78

      Selling more minis is the imperative of each new edition.

      • orionburn III

        Of ANY edition. It’s smart business. Make people buy want to buy what isn’t selling. If Hammerheads got ignored by players in 7th then it won’t be surprising to see them get a big buff.

        • vlad78

          You know what would be smarter business in the long run? Make a great game without allowing sales strategy to alter it. Keep it great. Make people veterans or new players willing to use your awesome minis in this game. Keep allowing the orks to steal and customize other armies vehicles as much as possible. Don’t allow any unit to be bad. Allow as many strategies as possible and playtest everything with the help of players. GW forgot the first step while finding out the others work.
          Throwing a billion dices in less than 2 hours does not always make a great game.

          Anyway now I think we should get rid of GW rules and just make our own ruleset.

          • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

            So many fanboys at my gaming club that thinking that way is an HERESY !!! 😉

          • zeno666

            GW are way to lazy for that.

          • Shane Williams

            At very least an approved list of point value and rule adjustments. We’d be smart to come together as players and bypass their BS.

        • Fergie0044

          Ask warhammer fantasy how that goes in the long term…

          • Marcus Clark

            To soon bro, to soon

      • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

        THIS. Capitalism, “comrade” :/

    • NNextremNN

      Looks to me like they want to turn them into orks which can’t melee. I rather have my shooting army to be able to hit something instead of throwing enough dakka until something hits.

    • Wolfsark

      I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion from the article. The guy said Hammerheads and Riptides are getting buffed.

  • Karru

    I am going to be honest, this does not sound good and I feel bad for Tau players if these hold out to be true. If Markerlights remain the same, they won’t be usable any more and Tau will remain as a single build army for the remainder of the edition with nothing being viable outside massed shooting.

    It is sad to see them lose their unique mechanic and make them just more advanced Imperial Guard without Orders. That’s my biggest gripe with Tau in general, even if they get buffs here and there that give them more than 1 viable build, they still lack a mechanic that makes them stand out as something different. They only get the Overwatch thing really, but that’s about it, which is sad.

    I do dislike the fact that GW has gone more towards “we reaaaaally need to sell these particular kits so we have to make them more appealing while making the ones that sold well less so.” And thanks to that, Pathfinders are out of the question as those are the models everyone bought in droves when they dropped, but poor old hammerhead was left to gather dust. If only GW had the skills to write balanced rules, it would make things to much more interesting.

    • HeadHunter

      One would think they wouldn’t want to make the best-selling kits less appealing – they’d want to keep them as good so that they continue selling.
      I can see why they’d want to buff the kits that aren’t selling, but what’s the sense in nerfing those that do?

      • Karru

        Exactly, it makes little sense to nerf a great selling kit in order to increase the ones that don’t sell enough.

        All they would have to do is make both appealing which is super easy, but unfortunately GW lacks the skills to do that.

        • Koen Diepen Van

          It makes perfect sense. They know that ppl play limited points. You do not need more then a set number of the same kit. Make something else the new hotness and ppl will buy that. Make every thing equal and they will keep using what they already own.

          • Karru

            At the same time, that backfires so fast since people don’t like to be forced to one strategy so they will avoid that army.

            For example, I’d like to make a traditional Tau army with Pathfinders buffing my main army with Markerlights, using Broadsides, Hammerheads, Crisis Suits and Fire Warriors to overwhelm my enemy with fire. GW says to me “No, you will play with those Riptides we buffed to oblivion and like it.”

            That is where the logic starts lacking you see. Instead of offering a wide selection of options for the army where you can make any type of army you want and do good, they offer only one viable option that is based around spamming 1-2 units over and over again just so that they can sell that kit.

          • Koen Diepen Van

            Well it´s not that black and white is it. A) being the most viable option doesn´t equal only use that option B) Ppl purchasing decision are not purely logical. C) even outside of doing it on purpose for sales, in game some options are going to be more viable than others. Just look at LVO to see how one outlier in unit effectiveness can have a impact on what ppl play. Nudging players to buy a certain option by effectiveness is a viable tactic. But no tactic should be used exclusively

          • Karru

            There’s a small problem though, with Tau I have noticed one thing, unless my opponent is going with a specific strategy, aka spam Tau Commanders, I will roll over them pretty much always as long as the dice go at least average during the game. Either that or they spam Stormsurges in order to have enough firepower to cause dent in my army during the first turn.

            Not many people like to stick with an army that is pretty much an automatic loss if they play anything beyond the “main tactic” with them.

    • marxlives

      Ya, I remember when Tau was this really neat coalition force when they first came out, but with each edition they are get more and more watered down. With some Xenos forces they really should just announce that some of those forces are basically limited release. Ya you are going to get a codex but don’t expect it to be updated during the edition and overtime only have one way to win.

    • Jose Delgado

      Yes i dont know how heck a army that havent magic neither melle shoot with 4 is so dumb.

      And also agree i dont wanna play tau if i gonna have to shoot 200 shoots per turn because it is very time consuming and i have a timer cap in my region, i would prefer be balanced shooting in 2 or 3 but only 50 shoots before that do 200 shoots at 4 due to the timd

  • MarcoT

    Ugh are Riptides coming back? Superiour firepower through excessive stats is boring. The markerlight system is so much more interesting.

    • NNextremNN

      And currently the matkerlight system is boring and half useless. And this rumor says it says that way.

  • 40KstillRulesTheTT

    So 1 commander per detachment… I dunno, maybe a spam riptide spam Ionhead spam commander (or just 3 if that is the max number of detachments you can use) cropping up ? I am as sceptical as you other guys, i dunno i just don’t think they will get this codex right. At all. This will come out, and people will hate playing against Tau (still, cause ATM it’s just horrible. Give me instead super strong Eldar to play against (and lose), anytime ! Tau drone spam and poxwalker spam must be the worst stuff to play against since conscripts could be fearless (pre faq)

    • Koen Diepen Van

      Yea for consistency. I mean you can spam every thing else in this game. But commanders no that is going to far….Seriously. The tau army is dead the tau are just way to one note. Now that they stripped jsj from the army the tau lost their mobility even more. So the only phase of the game they do well in is shooting. Whit leaves two options. A) untis are undercosted and tau will shoot the opponent of the table B) untis are over costed and tau will get shoot of the table. There is almost no middle ground.

      • 40KstillRulesTheTT

        This… I also play Tau and I sold half my 2500-3000 army. Because of this absence of “middle ground”. With its never close games, it’s always one side steamrolling the other. I kinda like the models, the fluff (despite being a little “off” with that of the other armies). It was a good addition to 40k back in the day, but as of 6th ed GW has been unable or unwiling to set this army right.

    • Spacefrisian

      Kind of weird seeing 0-1 entries that aren’t unique return, sounds bogus.

  • Luca Lacchini

    Oh Gods, I hope these rumours are not true. Some of them are just… obscene.
    And I DO HAVE a T’au budding force that I hope to expand.

  • RocketScience80

    Points drops and weapon buffs, that’s all I need to hear. I still love playing T’au but I must admit I’ve had a hard time since the release of 8th edition.

    And I’m sure there will be some kickass Relics/Stratagems aswell…
    Bring it!

    • euansmith

      Surely, instead of “Relics” the Tau should get “Experimental Tech”.

      • RocketScience80

        Fair point… 😉

      • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

        Give that man a synthetic tech-cookie

        • euansmith

          Soylent Blue, please, I like their fishy, Tau taste.

      • NNextremNN

        Shouldn’t they simply call them “prototypes”?

        • euansmith


    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      And your opponents ? Even worse a time ? Or did they say “OK, sure, I’ll play your Tau” ? Legit question, no ill will here, some players can make anything fun to fight against 😉

      • RocketScience80

        Totally legit, Well, never had a complaint about me bringing the Tau before, even in 7th editon and certainly not now. But I guess I’m blessed with lot of good Friends to play with. We’re just a local community with 7-8 people.

        • 40KstillRulesTheTT

          Yeah a tight knit community can make any codex any edition work (perhaps barring 7th eldar)

  • BigNorthMxO

    I really hope the dark Eldar get a Jet bike or hover board HQ . I’ll bring annoyed if I cannot take a all jet bike army without going Yanarri and pulling from the Eldar Dex.

    Yeah wont be competitive but would still be fun to occasionally run. They just need to do what they did with the Custodes. Let one model out of 3 count as the HQ,

    • HeadHunter

      That’s not how it works. Yes, you can make a Custodes bike HQ but he’s not “one of the three”, he’s a standalone. The other two bikes in the box will have to go into an existing squad.

      • el_tigre

        The Shield Captain’s so similar you can just run him as a biker when necessary, but the unit minimum should really be 2

      • Sebastien Bazinet

        Think he meant you don’t have to buy separately

        • BigNorthMxO

          Yeah that’s is what I mean . You buy 3 models with your money in both the DE and custodes jet bike boxes .I want to see them work the same way .you take 1 model and make it your HQ and then yes add the other two to other units if you’d like to .

  • Kabal1te

    You mean GW is giving a xenos army the shaft, shocking. If you think this is bad news tau players, try playing Dark eldar. This looks like kind treatment compared to what they do to my army of choice.

  • zeno666

    As with all armies with a codex Tau will be fun to play as long as you have command points to spend on stradegems.
    After that, they’ll be as dull as everyone else.

    • Rob brown

      Tyranids are fun to play with or without stratagems, I’m my experience.

      • Ronin

        I wish CP was based on size of the game rather than detachment abuse. 3 for being battle forged and +1 for every 500 points would be agreeable.

  • Rob brown

    Codex isn’t out yet so we have no idea how it will play. All I will say is don’t get so fixated on just one or two solutions to an army’s challenges.

    Personally multiple commanders in a detachment is a ridiculous notion and people should be ashamed of taking it. Without this limitation if the commander is too good you either increase the cost or nerf the commander to keep balance. However this doesn’t help when a strong cheap commander is part of the overall style of the army. Limiting numbers is a simple control method. Spamability is not a core design principle of 8th ed.

    As for marker lights, while I agree that they are unsatisfying now, a return to earlier addition auto hits and lost cover is just too unbalanced – particularly against melee units.

    • stinkoman

      “Spamability is not a core design principle of 8th ed”

      isnt there a detachment that awards a CP when you bring 3 HQ/elite/heavy/fast choices? sounds like they want you to spam.

      it’s funny that there isnt a detachment that gives you a bonus CP for bringing 3 more troops choices. (or is there? wouldnt know as troops are a tax anyway)

      • Rob brown

        Nobody says the three units in those detachments have to be the same unit type. Those detachments represent armies that are weighted towards artillery or fast attack, not just for spamming identical units.

        Troops are part of a balanced army. If you want to min-max the game then that’s your choice. However don’t be surprised if new armies coming out don’t make that easy for you.

        Would you prefer spammed units be limited by number/model-count or by increased points and the nerf bat. Do you want dark reapers nerfed into oblivion or just limited in qty. I’d prefer to limit qty and not penalize people who use them as part of a balanced army.

        • vlad78

          I think the whole CP system is rubbish. CP should be given only if you field a fluffy list and each codexies should give some templates akin to the 7th formations.

        • Karru

          Unfortunately the game is aimed purely towards spamming. You can clearly see this with the way Detachments work and how CP is gained.

          A good chunk of a full-fledged codex army’s “flavour” comes from Stratagems. Only way to get those Stratagems is to have multiple Detachments. You won’t be getting far with just taking 1 Battalion and maybe 1 small detachment that gives you 1CP.

          You usually want 2 Battalions minimum, so you can start out with 9CP out the gate. That means 4 HQs minimum and 6 Troops. Not many are going to be spending a good chunk of their points on just that so they take minimal units just so that they can get the CP and use neat units instead. This usually leads to people just taking 6 of the same Troop Choice, mostly the cheapest available.

          Then you get to the “no brainer” part of the list building. Why take just one of something when you can just take multiples of the same unit over and over again? Why purposefully limit your firepower in favour of something else?

          In the past, GW would limit this via simply giving us a limited selection in the first place. The good old CAD. On top of that, they made the books offer more than 1 viable option.

          Once GW started offering the chance to just “pay the tax to have the neat stuff”, the mentality of the game changed in one go. You are rewarded when you spam, not when you go with flavour. That is 8th edition.

          • Rob brown

            The issue is seeing troops as a tax and taking minimum numbers rather than building the army around that core. The troops section has always and should always be the bulk of the army’s model count. If for no other reason than they are the cheapest models per head generally. Though anecdotal, I certainly see that in Nids, Imperial guard, genestealer cults, necrons and space wolves that form the majority of games in our group.

            The powerful units need to be restricted in some way and rewarding multiple troop numbers with CP over special more powerful units is one way of doing this.

          • Karru

            That’s what they are in this edition and have been since 6th edition. The problem is easy to pinpoint, Troop units rarely add anything to the army and are there solely because you HAVE to have them.

            In 5th edition, I would more often than not see people bring all 6 Troop Choices easily, and not as minimal units mind you. Why? Because it was only Troops that could hold objectives and since the other slots were limited to only 3 per army, you didn’t just go with minimal troops and just spammed the heck out of units that actually did damage. Until Imperial Guard started getting their Squadrons, which was the first sign of the end of fun in 40k.

            There are super simple ways to make 40k fun and balanced, but the problem is that GW doesn’t want that. It would limit their sales. They want this rapidly changing meta, they want people to spam large quantities of certain units. They hide behind the “we want this game to be more about freedom and not limiting your armies since that is much more fun for you guys” while it is clear that the only reason why they do it is to encourage bigger sales.

            Quick money comes before balance. They will keep doing this until they start seeing that it no longer works, then they switch strategy. Simple.

          • stinkoman

            I think it is also evident that troops are more of a tax by the simple fact that out of the 20+ unit selections in any of my codexes, 1 or 2 are actually troops choices. GW wants you to use all the cool options, that’s why i think there are so many.

    • Izak Lazarowski

      Funny how the only model in a shooting army with decent BS is the only viable option… Commanders are not OP. Their spam is a symptom of an army that has horrid internal balance. sounds like GWs solution is to force players to run a horde army and play the odds. There are some glaring design flaws in the T’au index and this sounds like GW has compounded ALL of them. I blame Frontline Gaming’s involvement in the play testing. They hate T’au and now we have rules to match.

      • gdim415

        I agree. The commander spam is happening because of point cost of other units and the fact that they have a BS of 2+. While lowering the point cost will make taking other things enticing it still doesn’t fix the fact that our super advanced technology has us hitting like the Imperial Guard. Markerlights don’t make up for this because even with that bonus you still need to hit and that ain’t happening.

  • quaade

    To be honest there are more people who play T’au tha Drew Carrey. This makes it easier to keep something secret untill it’s time.

  • Doug

    Amazing what is classed as rumours these days. GW seems to have managed to stem the leaks leaving nothing but a few scraps and reposting of warhammer community posts.

  • piglette

    How are Kroot? They are the only part of Tau I really like.

    • frank

      heard they are down played in the new codex but that could be a good thing if they are releasing hunter cadre rules.

    • Izak Lazarowski

      Kroot are getting NO love in the codex. There is a rumor about a “not so T’au” T’au release coming up. The assumption is there will be a separate auxiliary codex at some point that includes Kroot. but thats all hear say, the only thing we know for sure is that Kroot are not getting any attention in the T’au codex.

  • Marcus Clark

    Way to many peeps jumping on the “marker light only make tau good” band wagon. Its like you want to make Tau a one trick pony.
    I’ll just wait, it sounds like while marker lights have no changes points are so, more daka, more OP weapons, possibly cheaper drones too.

    • Pl4gu3 B4st4rd

      Cheaper drones would be a crime, but take my money anyway !

  • tau4eva

    My low expectations are even lower

  • Oh yeah, I should get around to selling those…

  • Sabrescene

    They aren’t releasing any new minis with most of these upcoming 40k codex releases are they? So next to no chance of finally getting some more allied xenos (like the Kroot and Vespid) this edition either right?

  • Sabrescene

    They aren’t releasing any new minis with most of these upcoming 40k codex releases are they? So next to no chance of finally getting some more allied xenos (like the Kroot and Vespid) this edition either right?