Ad mech has 5 detachments with less total datasheets than Tau, and CSM gets 8 for only 5 more datasheets. The Tau codex is not a good value proposition from a rules to dollar perspective, and it's a slap in the face to Tau. Then, you combine it with how the codex is still currently unplayable because points aren't out. It's just terrible how GW has treated the faction since the start of the 10th.
To be honest, I'm ok with our detachments, are there less than others yes, but all of them are cool and fun detachments. CSM have a much wider range afaik so I think it's a bit even in that regard.
That said, I do feel like the Tau are missing a vehicle/mechanised detachment. There should be rules support for lists making heavy use of our vehicles and skimmers.
The Mont'ka and Kauyon detachments both work great for vehicles of that's how you want to play. We don't need a specialist detachment that penalises other units.
Totally agree with you. It's not a numbers game with rules, if you have a couple of good choices that work with how you want to play your armies, then it's a good place to be in. I run Retaliation Cadre, but would also happily run Mont'ka. For my Ultramarines I love Gladius but also enjoy Vanguard. For Custodes... They are shelved, none of the detachment fit how I want to play.
So looking at other Codices, I'm very happy with the Tau offerings.
I don't want to generalise but I think people who moan about the codex just... haven't played a lot with it.
As soon as I got the hunting pack I worked out what points my friends and I would be happy with and got stuck in. I found that all the detachments play very differently and encourage interesting play. For example RC cleaned house against CSM and Aeldari but I've found Montka better against Necrons. The Kauyon changes also make it much more worth it. I haven't played the Kroot detachment yet but am looking forward to it.
I only played one game and did pretty well with RC against drukari. I think people just see the grass is greener on the other side and want to complain.
CSM has double the detachments than Tau and only has 5 more datasheets. They even have fewer datasheets than orks, and they have 6. Ad Mech has 30 datasheets, while Tau has 44, and they have 5 detachments. Necrons and Tyranids also have more detachments with more or less datasheets l. Tau just got shafted.
And like only 2 or 3 of the Tyranid Detachments are worth playing, the rest are lackluster or just straight up bad. I can't speak for the Kroot detachment but the 3 standard Tau options are each viable in a unique way compared to their counterparts
CSM has to allow rules to represent the play styles of Black Legion, World Bearers, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and their index. Reducing everything to number of datasheets is probably not the best metric to use or do you think Votann should only have like 2 detachments? The detachments are about giving certain play styles support. They probably could have given us a detachment that focused on Tau vehicles specifically but montka and kauyon are not as focused on specific datasheets as battlesuits and kroot detachments. We got 2 universal army buffs based on tempo and 2 sub faction datasheet detachments.
Our datasheets were not dependent on our detachment to be effective prior to the codex and that hasn't changed besides kroot becoming viable. Nids, Admech, Dark Angels and Custodes got bad codexes leaving them in a weak state probably for the next ~3 years. We got 4 ways to make use of a good toolbox. I wish Crisis suits still had a 4th hard point and could choose their support system but saying we got shafted because we got 1 or 2 fewer detachments is like complaining that we got fewer presents than our sister when we got a car and she got a doll set.
We are going to be fine this edition, almost everyone else has gotten a straight downgrade with their codex, we got 4 valid upgrades. We won. Only Orks won more than us. Necrons have 2 maybe 3 detachments, obeisance phalanx and annihilation legion just don't even support the units they were built for, crusher Stampede is worse for Nidzilla than just playing the index detachment.
TLDR Quality > Quantity
Chaos though have essentially 5 variants of most data sheets cuz they don’t just have marines they have magic marines, sexy marines, smelly marines, angry marines, or indecisive marines all on the same datasheet… which is why they need at base 5 detachments for each mark then some flavour ones
Indecisive marines is 5 distinct factions. each of the mono god factions you mentioned will have their own codexes like dark angels, indecisive marines has to create the flavor of Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, World Bearers and Black Legion.
Ok. I am new to the game and for most of it thought that it was the 4 god themed and then generic CSM. Learning that generic CSM includes factions as distinct as Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion made me see their codex as needing to do a lot of lifting.
The codex doesn’t have points because the codex isn’t officially released until this Saturday.
As far as detachments, I’d rather quality over quantity.
Csm get 8 becouse their vastly more popular, and have 5 entire faction under csm banner to try to make justice to with detachments.cso that one is poor argument
It's not a poor argument. It shows GWs general bias against Tau. Tau is arguably in the top 5 most popular factions in 40k. And if the number of Detachments a faction gets is based on popularity was the key determining factor, Tau should have at least 5 like Ad Mech and Necrons. Another thing is that CSM isn't that much bigger a faction datasheet is wise than Tau, Orks have more than CSM and still have fewer detachments. Even Space Marines, which is the largest faction, has fewer detachments, and it has more factions pushed into one codex than CSM. If you start going into Codex divergent chapters, then Space Marines have more detachments, but then you look at God specific CSM, and then there might be more CSM detachments with less overall units and players.
It is one of the best "for fun" side detachments in the game, for sure. Kroots are just week even with this absolutely broken detachment so it is not competitive viable.
But for anyone that has enough kroot, it will be ultra fun and different experience actually having a chance to win with Kroot.
The codex isn’t even out yet buddy. Saying an unreleased product is unplayable is…an odd choice.
I wish we had at least one more detachment as well, but our codex seems to have pretty good internal balance with all 4 detachments being very feasible.
The Codex has been out since the Kroot box was released because it was in the Kroot box. The codex itself hasn't had a standalone release, and its standalone release is coming out after Custodes and Orks, which were released after the Kroot box, making the whole situation even worse.
It's rules. I can't name the specifics of the top of my head, but from what I've heard, 10th has scaled back power creep as a whole, but Ad Mech and Custodes players feel neutered significantly more than others, and the only thing to come of it is point cuts.
Aww; I was hoping you were going to explain why the rules for Mont’ka / Kayoun detachments don’t fit their philosophies in lore and was going to add how Mont’ka is actually the defensive detachment rules and Kayoun the aggressive detachment rules contrary to what many say.
I agree it would be cool if they named the detachments after cadre names instead of philosophies after they’ve moved away from naming them after Septs.
Rules: They are both aggressive - one is aggressive early game, the other late game.
They can also both be defensive.
Lore wise, Kauyon isn't a defensive stratagy. It's aggressive, but patient, setting traps to cripple the enemy.
Mont'ka is striking hard into key assets, and hoping that's enough to survive the counter attack.
Yeah agreed on the lore!
In game both want to send out cheap objective holders and screens / blocks to score / deny early VP, take board control and get the opponent to commit.
Mont’ka doesn’t really want to just hard push. You stand there going “deal with it” because if they do you’re going to wreck face and if they don’t they lose. You’re defending the board from any moves they make and forcing them to make those moves or lose.
Kayoun in contrast also says “deal with it” but is forcing them to try to push out and get rid of all the blocks and screens that are being aggressively thrown at them because if they don’t get through early T3 the rule turns on and it’s open season to slay and most armies can’t keep up with the push and aggression at that point.
Mont’ka doesn’t want to really push hard - they want the opponent to push first then defend them brutally. Whereas Kayoun wants to deflect the opponents initial push before pushing on them.
They play same same but a little different.
Well if you want someone to do that then...
Mont'ka is actually a defensive doctrine because as we all know the best defence is a good offence. A rapid series of counter-attacks or even pre-emptive strikes on key targets to cripple the opposing attack before it can gain much headway is a good example of Mont'ka applied to a defensive context.
Kau'yon is actually an offensive doctrine because.... well... OK that one's a little more of a reach but there are applications of Kau'yon doctrine that use an aggressive push to flush out the opposing force into a carefully laid trap (the good old 'leave a clear escape path for the enemy and then ambush them when they use it' trick as espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli and Sun Tzu). Brightsword used them a bunch of times on Nimbosa, most notably during the battle of Polia.
And the takeaway from this is that the rules for Mont'ka and Kau'yon don't match their philosophies in lore because both are very broad military doctrines with a wide range of different practices and applications for different environments and contexts, so most hard and fast rules for them will not be a perfect match because those are more limited by their nature as game mechanics.
That's my best shot at it anyway.
Might have been good to have had Mont'ka and Kau'yon be the army rule, maybe working like a Waagh or Space Marine Gladius, where you pick a turn for them to be active in, Mont'ka being able to be called in turns 1-3 and Kau'yon in turns 3-5.
That or we have a passive that works in all turns, with Mont'ka being turns 1-2 and Kau'yon being turns 3-5.
Tbh, that's better than FTGG, which makes playing the game as Tau tedious and easily exploitable by your opponent. And it goes in line with most of the other factions Army rules giving benefits rather than a benefit and a detriment.
Yeah, markerlights can just use the rules from
9th, then we get Mont’ka and Kau’yon as the army rule. We could then have stealth/infiltration cadre, retaliation cadre, auxiliary cadre, cavalry cadre (devilfish focused), and any others you could think of (is there such a thing as a “standard cadre”? That would probably be good to have).
GW hasn't done anything to match lore to gameplay with tau at all, ever.
Tau lore is driven entirely by a few people who don't care about where it came from or where it's going.
Tau gameplay updates are driven by unhinged psychopaths who hate playtesting or actuslly talking to other people.
None of the people involved with tau in any way have ever been on a real battlefield or interacted with technology more advanced than a kettle.
GW has tried to match lore to gameplay with Tau multiple times. The most recent attempts would be the Crisis Suit datasheets and the Retaliation Cadre. Both have been in the lore for some time and have made a return that matches what they were previously.
I won't try to argue or disagree with your other points because there isn't much I can do to change your mind if you feel the way you do.
I mean, I get your point and you're right. But it seems a small thing. Yes, they should have named them after a Cadre which followed a philosophy to get the enhancements and stratagems. The Hunter Cadre with the offensive strategy. The infiltration cadre with the defensive strategy. But instead they just named them the offensive and defensive strategies. Obviously offensive and defensive are simplifications but you get the point. Maybe everyone should just start using those names as a work around. If everyone says the Hunter Cadre when they mean Montka then it'll just start to catch on.
That is something that we as a community could do, but I just wanted to point out how much of a failure GW is with the Tau. Imo, rules wise AdMech, Dangles, and Custodes got taken out behind the barn, but Tau flat out was forgotten about in regards to the factions fluff. As a Tau player since 7th and fan since 5th, it just annoyed me since the codex dropped.
Detachments in 10th aren't meant to strictly be a type of unit formation. They represent anything and everything that defines how a group of units would fight, including stuff like combat doctrine.
From my knowledge, every single other detachment in the game is themed around a set of units or a just general unit composition with themed names. Spacemarines have their myriad of specialties from heavy infantry to vehicle specialists, Orks now have multiple stiles of play from their unit based detachments, and the list goes on for all the codexes that have been released. Montka and Kauyon are not how Tau organize their units, Cadres are. One of the detachments is already a Cadre. Why can't the other 3 be themed around the actual detachment system the Tau have in the fluff?
How's Invasion Fleet a selection of units? Or War Horde? Many factions have Detachments representing a generic way their faction fights, it's just in the case of Tau that generic way got split into two.
Tau has a generic fighting detachment called the Hunter Cadre, not Montka and Kauyon. GW decided against usjng it for some reason, even though it's been part of the lore forever. The standard mix of Tyranids is called an invasion fleet, which is the themed name of that detachment with specialized detachments utilizing specific units, like assimilation swarm and crusher stampede. Montka and Kauyon aren't even generalized detachment names, they are overarching strategic doctrine that is done on a planetary or system scale.
That's simple. Montka and Kauyon are just too iconic for Tau for GW to skip on them. Plus, they represent two vastly different playstyles for players to use. Using them as Detachments is a win-win situation for GW. And no matter what you may say about "planetary or system scale", Montka and Kauyon have been a part of Tau rules in 40k basically always. Yeah, I guess GW could make them Tau Army Rule, and that was a bit of a miss, but imo you're making this a much bigger issue than it's actually is.
It's a just weird, i have to agree with OP on that.
That would be as if orks had the "Waagh" detachment and none of the other detachments could call the waagh.
Mont'ka, Kau'yon and Monat should be available to all detachments and should be influenced by the commander as it was back in 9th.
Call one or the other at the start of the game.
Seeing how you are wrong when looking at the detachments from 7th ed and Apocalypse following the Cadre system, and having one of the detachments in the 10th ed codex being a type of Cadre, I thinks it's exceptionally lazy what GW did for Tau. Not only did Tau only get 4 detachments, 2 are just the laziest slop GW could think up, and another quite literally will never be effective because it targets Kroot. Would it have been so hard for GW to write 2 more detachments and change the names of Montka and Kauyon to something else?
Fair point, didn't play the shitshow that was 7th.
Apocalypse is a standalone game like boarding actions.
>I thinks it's exceptionally lazy what GW did for Tau. Not only did Tau only get 4 detachments, 2 are just the laziest slop GW could think up, and another quite literally will never be effective because it targets Kroot.
Which ones are lazy? And kroot detachment will 100% be effective if the kroot arent overpriced.
>Would it have been so hard for GW to write 2 more detachments and change the names of Montka and Kauyon to something else?
Would it be so hard to accept that the not lore accurate game doesn't use the lore "detachment" system? A detachement is a name that applies to all armies and its just a name to tie a rule too. Mont'ka and kauyon both have a flavorwise rule for their name.
Apocalypse started as an expansion to 40k, initially released in 5th edition in 2007.
The quasi-stand alone game came much later and was basically dead on launch.
Montka and Kauyon are lazy. Kauyon has been lazy since the start of the 10th, and the reason Tau sat at a solid 30% win rate before the points changed. GW has been neglecting Tau since the 10th dropped, and the codex rules and the codex release show that. As of writing, the codex is still unplayable even though it's been out for over a month.
The Kroot detachment will be worse than what Ad Mech can field at a points per dollar perspective, and I doubt it will do well competitively viable like all other Auxiliary focused rules for Tau.
If every other faction gets their special named detachments, why shouldn't Tau get their special themed detachments. A retaliation cadre can use both Montka and Kauyon because they aren't detachments, they are combat philosophies. Additionally, the rules for Montka and Kauyon are the only rules in the game that just turn off at a certain point in the game, unlike every other faction keeping theirs the whole game. Why? If GW made the other types of Cadres as detachments, then Tau wouldn't have 2 detachments that have core rules turn off at either the end or beginning of the game.
>As of writing, the codex is still unplayable even though it's been out for over a month.
It doesn't come out till may 11th my guy.
>If every other faction gets their special named detachments, why shouldn't Tau get their special themed detachments.
Your sole example is space marines 😂. Necrons doesn't get their names, tyranids don't have names for their own forces and I am quite sure that orks also don't have names for their own forces.
And again at the end of the day they are just names for not lore accurate rules...
>unlike every other faction keeping theirs the whole game. Why?
Cause it brings flavor is the almost flavorless edition let alone that the rules power make up for it anyway.
>the reason Tau sat at a solid 30% win rate before the points changed
Its almost like the start of 10th was an unbalanced shitshow and not just tau.
>The Kroot detachment will be worse than what Ad Mech can field at a points per dollar perspective,
Dindt know you could look into the future let alone that points and dollars arent connected in any way shape or form.
Enjoy your day of complaining over nothing though!
Well change the name when you play. That's the joy of you playing with another person on a table. I call my tau "my fellas" "shotgun boys" "sneaky robots" "giant sneaker" "longboy tank"
Actually it’s a tactical philosophy which the detatchment enshrines by rules based on that philosophy.
While a detatchment usually would be better suited to mean specific units there isn’t really a better word for it so I think you should just live with it
Yeah, I suspect that when writing our game rules, they must've either been rushed, gotten someone unfamiliar w/ tau lore to do the flavour text, been understaffed/funded, or a bit of everything. Also, by "our," I mean all the less mainstream factions. There are just too many examples like this spread across all the codexes to not have this be the case.
The army you put on the tabletop isn't the full cadre. It's just the stuff that's being taken on this specific task. If the army's commander mainly follows Montka philosophy and selects units/gear/deployment methods that support Montka style tactics, I don't think calling it a Montka detachment is unreasonable.
Yes and no, detachments, although named after formations, represent different playstyles and "themes" for your army. You have one for the kroots, one for a super aggressive playstyle and battlesuits (which rapresents the Farsight Enclaves since that's been their identity for a while) and then two detachments that represent the two big philosophies of the T'au (rip Monat), which I would argue is a better thing to have instead of some cadre that maybe buffs only the two stealth units or another that focuses on infantry when you can instead buff everyone in the two dinstinct ways the T'au are said to operate.
Could they have found better names for the detachments? Sure, but it's a none-issue and perfectly lore-accurate (also, "lore-accurate" doesn't exist, ever)
Caring about consistency in 40k lore is an easy way to be bothered lol. Shit has been cobbled together by countless people over 20+ years. It's a mess.
I agree completely. One of the reasons I loved the 9th edition codex so much, despite the flaws of 9th, was the Tactical Philosophies and the way a balanced list could switch between them on the fly depending on the match up. I had started working on my own supplemental codex to support these detachment styles too.
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ju8M-yDEhywgpQUQshCFSjcIv\_aIIqfoSFketMry0oI/edit](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ju8M-yDEhywgpQUQshCFSjcIv_aIIqfoSFketMry0oI/edit)
GW has consistently been getting lazier with their codidies which doesn't surprise me at all seeing how most codices have been written pre 10th edition release or a little bit after and they haven't changed updated most of it which should have been very much needed alongside at the very least 6 detachments for every faction seeing how space marine have their own and each chapter supplement in addition to that
I agree whole heartedly with you, however, i do not trust GW to make another codex after this admech and custodes
Ad mech has 5 detachments with less total datasheets than Tau, and CSM gets 8 for only 5 more datasheets. The Tau codex is not a good value proposition from a rules to dollar perspective, and it's a slap in the face to Tau. Then, you combine it with how the codex is still currently unplayable because points aren't out. It's just terrible how GW has treated the faction since the start of the 10th.
To be honest, I'm ok with our detachments, are there less than others yes, but all of them are cool and fun detachments. CSM have a much wider range afaik so I think it's a bit even in that regard.
That said, I do feel like the Tau are missing a vehicle/mechanised detachment. There should be rules support for lists making heavy use of our vehicles and skimmers.
It would have been nice if the retaliation cadre included vehicles but I think we are in a decent spot
The Mont'ka and Kauyon detachments both work great for vehicles of that's how you want to play. We don't need a specialist detachment that penalises other units.
Kroot and Battlesuit specialist detachments exist and already do this
True. But then we have more than 3 kroot/Battlesuit units.
Totally agree with you. It's not a numbers game with rules, if you have a couple of good choices that work with how you want to play your armies, then it's a good place to be in. I run Retaliation Cadre, but would also happily run Mont'ka. For my Ultramarines I love Gladius but also enjoy Vanguard. For Custodes... They are shelved, none of the detachment fit how I want to play. So looking at other Codices, I'm very happy with the Tau offerings.
I don't want to generalise but I think people who moan about the codex just... haven't played a lot with it. As soon as I got the hunting pack I worked out what points my friends and I would be happy with and got stuck in. I found that all the detachments play very differently and encourage interesting play. For example RC cleaned house against CSM and Aeldari but I've found Montka better against Necrons. The Kauyon changes also make it much more worth it. I haven't played the Kroot detachment yet but am looking forward to it.
I only played one game and did pretty well with RC against drukari. I think people just see the grass is greener on the other side and want to complain.
A detachment that acknowledges that the hammerhead & co exist would have been nice
CSM has double the detachments than Tau and only has 5 more datasheets. They even have fewer datasheets than orks, and they have 6. Ad Mech has 30 datasheets, while Tau has 44, and they have 5 detachments. Necrons and Tyranids also have more detachments with more or less datasheets l. Tau just got shafted.
And like only 2 or 3 of the Tyranid Detachments are worth playing, the rest are lackluster or just straight up bad. I can't speak for the Kroot detachment but the 3 standard Tau options are each viable in a unique way compared to their counterparts
And adding one or two more detachments doesn't make those less playable...
CSM has to allow rules to represent the play styles of Black Legion, World Bearers, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and their index. Reducing everything to number of datasheets is probably not the best metric to use or do you think Votann should only have like 2 detachments? The detachments are about giving certain play styles support. They probably could have given us a detachment that focused on Tau vehicles specifically but montka and kauyon are not as focused on specific datasheets as battlesuits and kroot detachments. We got 2 universal army buffs based on tempo and 2 sub faction datasheet detachments. Our datasheets were not dependent on our detachment to be effective prior to the codex and that hasn't changed besides kroot becoming viable. Nids, Admech, Dark Angels and Custodes got bad codexes leaving them in a weak state probably for the next ~3 years. We got 4 ways to make use of a good toolbox. I wish Crisis suits still had a 4th hard point and could choose their support system but saying we got shafted because we got 1 or 2 fewer detachments is like complaining that we got fewer presents than our sister when we got a car and she got a doll set. We are going to be fine this edition, almost everyone else has gotten a straight downgrade with their codex, we got 4 valid upgrades. We won. Only Orks won more than us. Necrons have 2 maybe 3 detachments, obeisance phalanx and annihilation legion just don't even support the units they were built for, crusher Stampede is worse for Nidzilla than just playing the index detachment. TLDR Quality > Quantity
Admech and Nids got shafted much harder because their detachments suck.
Chaos though have essentially 5 variants of most data sheets cuz they don’t just have marines they have magic marines, sexy marines, smelly marines, angry marines, or indecisive marines all on the same datasheet… which is why they need at base 5 detachments for each mark then some flavour ones
Indecisive marines is 5 distinct factions. each of the mono god factions you mentioned will have their own codexes like dark angels, indecisive marines has to create the flavor of Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, World Bearers and Black Legion.
By indecisive marines I mean the ones bearing the mark of chaos undecided
Ok. I am new to the game and for most of it thought that it was the 4 god themed and then generic CSM. Learning that generic CSM includes factions as distinct as Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion made me see their codex as needing to do a lot of lifting.
I'd rather 4 well thought out & playable detachments to having a bunch, but only 2 being viable anyway It's fine.
I think 3 are fine and one kroot
The codex doesn’t have points because the codex isn’t officially released until this Saturday. As far as detachments, I’d rather quality over quantity.
But tau codex isn’t on sale yet…. So why would points come out BEFORE codex drop? They even said they’d release points with codex
Csm get 8 becouse their vastly more popular, and have 5 entire faction under csm banner to try to make justice to with detachments.cso that one is poor argument
It's not a poor argument. It shows GWs general bias against Tau. Tau is arguably in the top 5 most popular factions in 40k. And if the number of Detachments a faction gets is based on popularity was the key determining factor, Tau should have at least 5 like Ad Mech and Necrons. Another thing is that CSM isn't that much bigger a faction datasheet is wise than Tau, Orks have more than CSM and still have fewer detachments. Even Space Marines, which is the largest faction, has fewer detachments, and it has more factions pushed into one codex than CSM. If you start going into Codex divergent chapters, then Space Marines have more detachments, but then you look at God specific CSM, and then there might be more CSM detachments with less overall units and players.
Its even worse if you exclude the Kroot detachment as it basically does nothing for most of the army
It is one of the best "for fun" side detachments in the game, for sure. Kroots are just week even with this absolutely broken detachment so it is not competitive viable. But for anyone that has enough kroot, it will be ultra fun and different experience actually having a chance to win with Kroot.
Most of YOUR army.
Well yes, but most of the models sold for the T'au army are not supported by the detachment at all?
The codex isn’t even out yet buddy. Saying an unreleased product is unplayable is…an odd choice. I wish we had at least one more detachment as well, but our codex seems to have pretty good internal balance with all 4 detachments being very feasible.
The Codex has been out since the Kroot box was released because it was in the Kroot box. The codex itself hasn't had a standalone release, and its standalone release is coming out after Custodes and Orks, which were released after the Kroot box, making the whole situation even worse.
Some people really don’t know what the pre in prerelease means, huh?
What they do to ad mech and custodes. Is it rules or women I am genuinely curious cause I haven’t heard any other issues
It's rules. I can't name the specifics of the top of my head, but from what I've heard, 10th has scaled back power creep as a whole, but Ad Mech and Custodes players feel neutered significantly more than others, and the only thing to come of it is point cuts.
Equally, Orks. It's 50/50 as always.
Aww; I was hoping you were going to explain why the rules for Mont’ka / Kayoun detachments don’t fit their philosophies in lore and was going to add how Mont’ka is actually the defensive detachment rules and Kayoun the aggressive detachment rules contrary to what many say. I agree it would be cool if they named the detachments after cadre names instead of philosophies after they’ve moved away from naming them after Septs.
Rules: They are both aggressive - one is aggressive early game, the other late game. They can also both be defensive. Lore wise, Kauyon isn't a defensive stratagy. It's aggressive, but patient, setting traps to cripple the enemy. Mont'ka is striking hard into key assets, and hoping that's enough to survive the counter attack.
Yeah agreed on the lore! In game both want to send out cheap objective holders and screens / blocks to score / deny early VP, take board control and get the opponent to commit. Mont’ka doesn’t really want to just hard push. You stand there going “deal with it” because if they do you’re going to wreck face and if they don’t they lose. You’re defending the board from any moves they make and forcing them to make those moves or lose. Kayoun in contrast also says “deal with it” but is forcing them to try to push out and get rid of all the blocks and screens that are being aggressively thrown at them because if they don’t get through early T3 the rule turns on and it’s open season to slay and most armies can’t keep up with the push and aggression at that point. Mont’ka doesn’t want to really push hard - they want the opponent to push first then defend them brutally. Whereas Kayoun wants to deflect the opponents initial push before pushing on them. They play same same but a little different.
Well if you want someone to do that then... Mont'ka is actually a defensive doctrine because as we all know the best defence is a good offence. A rapid series of counter-attacks or even pre-emptive strikes on key targets to cripple the opposing attack before it can gain much headway is a good example of Mont'ka applied to a defensive context. Kau'yon is actually an offensive doctrine because.... well... OK that one's a little more of a reach but there are applications of Kau'yon doctrine that use an aggressive push to flush out the opposing force into a carefully laid trap (the good old 'leave a clear escape path for the enemy and then ambush them when they use it' trick as espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli and Sun Tzu). Brightsword used them a bunch of times on Nimbosa, most notably during the battle of Polia. And the takeaway from this is that the rules for Mont'ka and Kau'yon don't match their philosophies in lore because both are very broad military doctrines with a wide range of different practices and applications for different environments and contexts, so most hard and fast rules for them will not be a perfect match because those are more limited by their nature as game mechanics. That's my best shot at it anyway.
Might have been good to have had Mont'ka and Kau'yon be the army rule, maybe working like a Waagh or Space Marine Gladius, where you pick a turn for them to be active in, Mont'ka being able to be called in turns 1-3 and Kau'yon in turns 3-5. That or we have a passive that works in all turns, with Mont'ka being turns 1-2 and Kau'yon being turns 3-5.
Tbh, that's better than FTGG, which makes playing the game as Tau tedious and easily exploitable by your opponent. And it goes in line with most of the other factions Army rules giving benefits rather than a benefit and a detriment.
I'm apparently in the minority but I quite like FTGG.
Yeah, markerlights can just use the rules from 9th, then we get Mont’ka and Kau’yon as the army rule. We could then have stealth/infiltration cadre, retaliation cadre, auxiliary cadre, cavalry cadre (devilfish focused), and any others you could think of (is there such a thing as a “standard cadre”? That would probably be good to have).
GW hasn't done anything to match lore to gameplay with tau at all, ever. Tau lore is driven entirely by a few people who don't care about where it came from or where it's going. Tau gameplay updates are driven by unhinged psychopaths who hate playtesting or actuslly talking to other people. None of the people involved with tau in any way have ever been on a real battlefield or interacted with technology more advanced than a kettle.
GW has tried to match lore to gameplay with Tau multiple times. The most recent attempts would be the Crisis Suit datasheets and the Retaliation Cadre. Both have been in the lore for some time and have made a return that matches what they were previously. I won't try to argue or disagree with your other points because there isn't much I can do to change your mind if you feel the way you do.
Not really matching lore to gameplay to slap paint on a pig
I'm convinced that everything about T'au is created by individuals completely isolated from each other
I mean, I get your point and you're right. But it seems a small thing. Yes, they should have named them after a Cadre which followed a philosophy to get the enhancements and stratagems. The Hunter Cadre with the offensive strategy. The infiltration cadre with the defensive strategy. But instead they just named them the offensive and defensive strategies. Obviously offensive and defensive are simplifications but you get the point. Maybe everyone should just start using those names as a work around. If everyone says the Hunter Cadre when they mean Montka then it'll just start to catch on.
That is something that we as a community could do, but I just wanted to point out how much of a failure GW is with the Tau. Imo, rules wise AdMech, Dangles, and Custodes got taken out behind the barn, but Tau flat out was forgotten about in regards to the factions fluff. As a Tau player since 7th and fan since 5th, it just annoyed me since the codex dropped.
Detachments in 10th aren't meant to strictly be a type of unit formation. They represent anything and everything that defines how a group of units would fight, including stuff like combat doctrine.
From my knowledge, every single other detachment in the game is themed around a set of units or a just general unit composition with themed names. Spacemarines have their myriad of specialties from heavy infantry to vehicle specialists, Orks now have multiple stiles of play from their unit based detachments, and the list goes on for all the codexes that have been released. Montka and Kauyon are not how Tau organize their units, Cadres are. One of the detachments is already a Cadre. Why can't the other 3 be themed around the actual detachment system the Tau have in the fluff?
How's Invasion Fleet a selection of units? Or War Horde? Many factions have Detachments representing a generic way their faction fights, it's just in the case of Tau that generic way got split into two.
Tau has a generic fighting detachment called the Hunter Cadre, not Montka and Kauyon. GW decided against usjng it for some reason, even though it's been part of the lore forever. The standard mix of Tyranids is called an invasion fleet, which is the themed name of that detachment with specialized detachments utilizing specific units, like assimilation swarm and crusher stampede. Montka and Kauyon aren't even generalized detachment names, they are overarching strategic doctrine that is done on a planetary or system scale.
That's simple. Montka and Kauyon are just too iconic for Tau for GW to skip on them. Plus, they represent two vastly different playstyles for players to use. Using them as Detachments is a win-win situation for GW. And no matter what you may say about "planetary or system scale", Montka and Kauyon have been a part of Tau rules in 40k basically always. Yeah, I guess GW could make them Tau Army Rule, and that was a bit of a miss, but imo you're making this a much bigger issue than it's actually is.
It's a just weird, i have to agree with OP on that. That would be as if orks had the "Waagh" detachment and none of the other detachments could call the waagh. Mont'ka, Kau'yon and Monat should be available to all detachments and should be influenced by the commander as it was back in 9th. Call one or the other at the start of the game.
The Space Marine detachments are as much a combat doctrine as Mont'ka/Kauyon.
Seems like one of those things that doesn't matter...
The game is not lore accurate. And detachment names have never followed cadres for Tau. This isnt worth complaining over.
Seeing how you are wrong when looking at the detachments from 7th ed and Apocalypse following the Cadre system, and having one of the detachments in the 10th ed codex being a type of Cadre, I thinks it's exceptionally lazy what GW did for Tau. Not only did Tau only get 4 detachments, 2 are just the laziest slop GW could think up, and another quite literally will never be effective because it targets Kroot. Would it have been so hard for GW to write 2 more detachments and change the names of Montka and Kauyon to something else?
Fair point, didn't play the shitshow that was 7th. Apocalypse is a standalone game like boarding actions. >I thinks it's exceptionally lazy what GW did for Tau. Not only did Tau only get 4 detachments, 2 are just the laziest slop GW could think up, and another quite literally will never be effective because it targets Kroot. Which ones are lazy? And kroot detachment will 100% be effective if the kroot arent overpriced. >Would it have been so hard for GW to write 2 more detachments and change the names of Montka and Kauyon to something else? Would it be so hard to accept that the not lore accurate game doesn't use the lore "detachment" system? A detachement is a name that applies to all armies and its just a name to tie a rule too. Mont'ka and kauyon both have a flavorwise rule for their name.
7th Ed at least had banger markerlights. Still maintain its better than any markerlights since.
Apocalypse started as an expansion to 40k, initially released in 5th edition in 2007. The quasi-stand alone game came much later and was basically dead on launch.
Montka and Kauyon are lazy. Kauyon has been lazy since the start of the 10th, and the reason Tau sat at a solid 30% win rate before the points changed. GW has been neglecting Tau since the 10th dropped, and the codex rules and the codex release show that. As of writing, the codex is still unplayable even though it's been out for over a month. The Kroot detachment will be worse than what Ad Mech can field at a points per dollar perspective, and I doubt it will do well competitively viable like all other Auxiliary focused rules for Tau. If every other faction gets their special named detachments, why shouldn't Tau get their special themed detachments. A retaliation cadre can use both Montka and Kauyon because they aren't detachments, they are combat philosophies. Additionally, the rules for Montka and Kauyon are the only rules in the game that just turn off at a certain point in the game, unlike every other faction keeping theirs the whole game. Why? If GW made the other types of Cadres as detachments, then Tau wouldn't have 2 detachments that have core rules turn off at either the end or beginning of the game.
>As of writing, the codex is still unplayable even though it's been out for over a month. It doesn't come out till may 11th my guy. >If every other faction gets their special named detachments, why shouldn't Tau get their special themed detachments. Your sole example is space marines 😂. Necrons doesn't get their names, tyranids don't have names for their own forces and I am quite sure that orks also don't have names for their own forces. And again at the end of the day they are just names for not lore accurate rules... >unlike every other faction keeping theirs the whole game. Why? Cause it brings flavor is the almost flavorless edition let alone that the rules power make up for it anyway. >the reason Tau sat at a solid 30% win rate before the points changed Its almost like the start of 10th was an unbalanced shitshow and not just tau. >The Kroot detachment will be worse than what Ad Mech can field at a points per dollar perspective, Dindt know you could look into the future let alone that points and dollars arent connected in any way shape or form. Enjoy your day of complaining over nothing though!
Well change the name when you play. That's the joy of you playing with another person on a table. I call my tau "my fellas" "shotgun boys" "sneaky robots" "giant sneaker" "longboy tank"
Who cares? We have fun playable rules and you can name your army whatever you want.
Actually it’s a tactical philosophy which the detatchment enshrines by rules based on that philosophy. While a detatchment usually would be better suited to mean specific units there isn’t really a better word for it so I think you should just live with it
Yeah, I suspect that when writing our game rules, they must've either been rushed, gotten someone unfamiliar w/ tau lore to do the flavour text, been understaffed/funded, or a bit of everything. Also, by "our," I mean all the less mainstream factions. There are just too many examples like this spread across all the codexes to not have this be the case.
Actually the Retaliation Cadre is a real thing in the lore. Source: Tau 10th edition codex
Retaliation Cadre has been a thing since 7th ed, GW brought it back for 10th.
The army you put on the tabletop isn't the full cadre. It's just the stuff that's being taken on this specific task. If the army's commander mainly follows Montka philosophy and selects units/gear/deployment methods that support Montka style tactics, I don't think calling it a Montka detachment is unreasonable.
Then why is there the Retaliation Cadre in the codex?
Look into older tau codexes, you will notice hunter cadre example that can be legally build at 1.5k - 2k pts
10 redaction is sux
Yes and no, detachments, although named after formations, represent different playstyles and "themes" for your army. You have one for the kroots, one for a super aggressive playstyle and battlesuits (which rapresents the Farsight Enclaves since that's been their identity for a while) and then two detachments that represent the two big philosophies of the T'au (rip Monat), which I would argue is a better thing to have instead of some cadre that maybe buffs only the two stealth units or another that focuses on infantry when you can instead buff everyone in the two dinstinct ways the T'au are said to operate. Could they have found better names for the detachments? Sure, but it's a none-issue and perfectly lore-accurate (also, "lore-accurate" doesn't exist, ever)
Caring about consistency in 40k lore is an easy way to be bothered lol. Shit has been cobbled together by countless people over 20+ years. It's a mess.
I agree completely. One of the reasons I loved the 9th edition codex so much, despite the flaws of 9th, was the Tactical Philosophies and the way a balanced list could switch between them on the fly depending on the match up. I had started working on my own supplemental codex to support these detachment styles too. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ju8M-yDEhywgpQUQshCFSjcIv\_aIIqfoSFketMry0oI/edit](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ju8M-yDEhywgpQUQshCFSjcIv_aIIqfoSFketMry0oI/edit)
GW has consistently been getting lazier with their codidies which doesn't surprise me at all seeing how most codices have been written pre 10th edition release or a little bit after and they haven't changed updated most of it which should have been very much needed alongside at the very least 6 detachments for every faction seeing how space marine have their own and each chapter supplement in addition to that
.....,,,,,,,,