Talk:Warhammer 40,000/7th Edition Tactics/Tau

This wiki is a bit of a clusterfuck. Can we harmonize some of the multiple points for some these into a more cohesive explanation rather than a bunch of point lists and struck-out bits? Tarbosaur (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do it Mezmerro (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

why does the cleanup tag still persists? It's now reasonably fixed I think.

Deleting the cleanup tab?

All clear? VVK, XXTTXX (and other aliases)

Separate page for FE

I couldn't help but notice Militarum Tempestus has it's own page, where it is more or less an Astra Militarum supplement. Anyone willing to work with me to do the same for Farsight Enclaves? (and maybe some other supplements afterwards) VVK, or xXTTXx

• Personally, I'd be against that. Since a supplement isn't really a new "Army List" as we know it, but a variation/bolt-on to an existing one. I'd say if a particular unit performs differently with a particular supplement then just describe it on the core page, rather than create a separate page just for that, or explain the difference on the "unit's" page itself, since 1d4chan has plenty of pages on individual squads/characters/vehicles. As for Militarum Tempestus, you'll find that we already have the "double dip" since it is has both its own page and a section on the core IG page, the downside of that may be that they end up with contradictory information, or one of them just stagnates. That being said, the Tempestus IS its own codex, and while small, Forgeworld apparently counts it as Astra Militarum just like the other multitude of IG lists they've produced, so it may have a bit more going for it to make unique combinations. Until the 7e codex, Farsight Enclaves will always just be Codex Tau with a bit extra added.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that it would be a very good idea, if only to add readability and get more space for more detailed tactical analysis of the supplement's options. To stop stagnation, just fuse them every few months (I'll do it for a start) --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't see the point either in adding another page for supplements: every supplement uses units and rules found in another codex, while only adding a few quirks, and so you would have to repost the whole tactica with only some minor rework. That would be a huge waste of time and make it quite confusing. As it was said before, Militarum Tempestus is its own codex, albeit a small one, so has its own page 'cause it can be used alone and doesn't refer to Astra Militarum's units. It is like Skitarii and Harlequins, in a way. Hekaloth (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where the hell are you guys getting this new codex info?

Seriously, while not a Tau Player, I'm seriously wondering where you guys are getting all of this information from. Not even "The Folder" has this stuff in it. Evilexecutive (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything but Coldstar could be found in WD. As for Coldastar I'm wondering too. Mezmerro (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Tidewall rules insert was leaked a few days ago. Coldstar upgrade pics, last week. Mostly from Europe, by way of Bell of Lost Souls. Murdaface (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Fire Team-related updates, and early Formation details came from a reputedly reliable source on Warseer. Murdaface (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More stuff for Mont'Ka is up on BoLS. Murdaface (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Crisis Builds redirection

Say, because there can be so many crisis builds and because some "Hints & Strategies" are actually proposed commander builds, do you think it be convenient to move and redirect those builds to the XV-8 page, where we could expand and classify them at lenght without cluttering this page? This could also include things like Drone Babysitter, which is a proper strategy, but one that is pretty much based around a battlesuit build. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the Big Idea

Seriously, what's with all the Rage Editing? Do we need photo evidence to prove that our adjustments accounting for 7th are true? Murdaface (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, with some formations we DO have photo evidence of their contents, but cannot place them yet because we don't know where they go. As for stuff in the regular 7E codex, who'd ask for proof on that? Just donwload LEGALLY BUY the codex. But someone is saying Farsight Enclave's Riptides cannot take Earth Caste Piloting Arrays, they prove it nao! -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Screencaps of the ECPA found here. Note the wording of who can take it. Murdaface (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks man. Let's just hope that dude reads this and desists. BTW, what's the name of the book that features Aun'Do? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • My bad. Just Reread FSE 6.0, and yes, RAW, it works. But we shall see when and if they update FSE to 7th. Murdaface (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Turns out I was right, Mont'ka, pp. 196. The rule granting Riptides Signature Systems access is gone. Murdaface (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Burning Dawn rules insert for Aun'do and the Formations that box contains. Murdaface (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks again man. I think we should add the source to entires in the tactica for better reference. As in (Forgeworld - IA3,2E) or something like that. BTW are you 173.58.107.69? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)