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.

Arguing that the Fish entries vertical text on the side of its entry that says "transport" limits it to an exclusive roll a a transport is no better than arguing that the symbol above it makes it a troop choice

Except it's not solely page design (or a funky little image) I'm looking at - this is actually a word label for that specific unit. (It would be possible to fatuously argue if that wording does not apply, neither does the "big" heading for each section. And wouldn't that be fun? )

Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

You'll notice I looked over that earlier. With only one transport option, it would waste space to give its own page. That is only an assumption, but only armies with multiple transport options have a dedicated page for them.

If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Because it transports...troops?

You seem to be totally missing the point. This is irrelevant because the sidebar designation is not actionable in the rules, only section placement.

Yes, so the devilfish is not in the troops section - it is placed in its own section as a transport.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page. The devilfish is not listed as "troops" - so how can it be troops?

Maybe because calling a devilfish a "troop" makes no sense whatsoever, while putting into the troops section instead of seperately implies it's a possible seperate choice. That's also an intent arguement though and one that is just as plausible as your intent arguement. Which is why you want to avoid them in a discussion about what the rules actually say.

I'm curious though, what is the wording for the LRBT troops in the current Armored company? It wouldn't be defintive but would give us a reference as to other instances of vehicles that can be taken as a troop choice.

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

I just trooped my pants.

- Oaka

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

I thought so too.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

Or it it could mean that the Devilfish is not located in the Troops section, as the "light grey" text "written on the side" defines the FOC sections. And thus your problem with the RAW of "How to fill a Force Org Chart" is solved.

Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

You'll notice I looked over that earlier. With only one transport option, it would waste space to give its own page. That is only an assumption, but only armies with multiple transport options have a dedicated page for them.


If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Because it transports...troops?

So if this is true (considering it also caries fast attack units) why wouldnt it be between the two sections in the list and clearly marked as a non-selectable unit that takes up no space in the FOC like every other instance of such a transport in the game. Look over the codicie that have a single transport option. See how their transports are clearly marked out as not being able to be bought on their own?
See how a land raider has no such marking in it's codec while still being mentioned in a unit's description as being selectable as a transport option (and therefore not taking a heavy support choice)?
If you simply look at convention that GW uses the devilfish entry is more similar to a land raider's entry in the codex than the rhino's entry.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/06/2006 2:04 PM

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

Or it it could mean that the Devilfish is not located in the Troops section, as the "light grey" text "written on the side" defines the FOC sections. And thus your problem with the RAW of "How to fill a Force Org Chart" is solved.

Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

I'll give $20 to anyone that brings 5 empty devilfish to a GT and can argue thier point well enough to get to play it (including you Mauleed)

There is one catch though, I want a detailed story either way, I figure it would be worth the $20 just for the story.

So if this is true (considering it also caries fast attack units) why wouldnt it be between the two sections in the list and clearly marked as a non-selectable unit that takes up no space in the FOC like every other instance of such a transport in the game. Look over the codicie that have a single transport option. See how their transports are clearly marked out as not being able to be bought on their own?

Seems to me if we use the interpretation here the Eldar will be turning up with wave serpents as troops choices. Unless, of course, page design is important.

It is not between the two sections because it is listed next to the first unit in order that it is available to (supposition).

See how a land raider has no such marking in it's codec while still being mentioned in a unit's description as being selectable as a transport option (and therefore not taking a heavy support choice)?
If you simply look at convention that GW uses the devilfish entry is more similar to a land raider's entry in the codex than the rhino's entry.

No. If you actually look at the land raider entry is is nothing like the devilfish entry. It is not labelled as a "transport:" and is specifically available as a heavy support choice (which was mentioned earlier in this thread). Its role as a transport option is displayed by which units can take it (terminators) as a transport. The devilfish is labelled as a transport (twice!) and does not follow the format of the land raider entry in the way you suggest.

I find it surprising that a "non-intent" argument involves stripping out as much information as possible to prove its point.

Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

There are two instances of the word "transport" if we're including what some consider graphical gubbinz (how a word is a graphical design is beyond me, of course). That makes it a "draw" - based on reasonable doubt I don't see how you can claim it is a valid troops choice.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 2:52 PM
Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

Sadly this isn't rock paper scissors, and 2 of 3 leaves room for doubt. When in doubt, play the more conservative interpetation.

Wouldnt the more conservative interpretation be for the guy with less to back him up to give in?
Never understood that arguement. Its right up there with "take the side that benefits you the least"
Well, there are two sides and someone benefits more from one choice or the other. The side to give should be the one with less backing behind it.

No... you're just wrong on that. That's not a conservative approach. Conservative approach: Only do something if it is sure. You're talking about a preponderance of the evidence argument. As has been shown time and again here, take the approach that is less beneficial to you, if there is doubt about the situation. I read the rule as clear: the vehicle is a transport. However, even if you read the symbol as being equal to the explicit writing, you cannot deny that there is doubt, and when there is doubt you must opt not to do a thing, rather than the other way around. It's a permissive, not prohibitive, rules set for a really good reason, folks.

It's quite clear the Devilfish is a transport. Obviously it's a transport or it would not be able to transport other models. No-one's arguing about that.

Being a transport does not make it a dedicated or a non-dedicated transport -- they are both transports. The question is what does make it dedicated or non-dedicated.

The BBB says that a transport is dedicated if it's bought for a squad that can buy transports, for example, an FCW squad. Non-dedicated transports are bought as FOC selections.

The Devilfish is in the Troops section of the codex and carries the Troops symbol, indicating (arguably) that it counts as a Troops selection according to the Selection rules in the BBB. It also has none of the verbiage associated in other codexes with dedicated transports. The only thing that may indicate it is a dedicated transport is the fact that it's labelled a transport, but the rules say a transport can be dedicated or non-dedicated, depending.

By the spirit of taking no advantage from unclear rules, if this is unclear then obviously an "ethical" Tau player should not take any transports, dedicated or not, since any kind of transport is an advantage over none.

Do they have the 40K equivilent of 18 wheelers that transport things like Solyent Green and Emporers Holy Cookies to the masses?   Is there a rouge trader equivelent of Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason chaseing one another so they can deliver Sapporo and beer to rich spyrers on the freeways of Necromunda?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/06/2006 4:34 PM
By the spirit of taking no advantage from unclear rules, if this is unclear then obviously an "ethical" Tau player should not take any transports, dedicated or not, since any kind of transport is an advantage over none.

You have clearly lost it. Both on page 24 and 36 it mentions that a unit is able to select a transport option. There is no other possibility for this transport option other than being a dedicated transport, otherwise the unit would not be selecting it.

 No one in their right mind would question firewarriors having a Devilfish as dedicated transport and that is not the question being discussed in this thread.

Feel free to start a thread on firewarriors actually being able to select a Devilfish as dedicated transport if you feel it is in question.

 

 

Considering how universally pessimistic everyone is about GW's authoring abilities, it strikes me as odd that everyone is assuming there's going to be one "right answer" on this question. Isn't ambiguity a feature of poorly written rules? Or contradiction?

So why do you guys get on either sides of a contradiction and yell?

I think there is a general concensis that if you say something enough times people will believe it (this has been proven true many times in history).

I don't know about constant repetition, but this thread shows that it is practically impossible to change people's minds through reasoned argument.

Must wholly agree with Cypher, and completely agree with your second point, Killkrazy!

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/06/2006 11:58 PM
I don't know about constant repetition, but this thread shows that it is practically impossible to change people's minds through reasoned argument.

Happypants changed his mind. At the beginning of this thread he was planning on field empty Devilfish. And now he isn?t.  

In all fairness, it wasn't the constant repetition on this thread that changed my mind but sitting there with a friend looking at the codex.

We both agreed that although it is POSSIBLE to argue that you can take them on their own, it is a pretty weak argument and the argument for not taking them is better.

So a reasoned arguement changed your mind. Good to hear.

The key phrase in Killkrazy's quote was the "practically" - one person listening the reasoned argument and changing his/her mind means that it is not totally impossible - just not possible virtually all of the time.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/07/2006 9:29 AM
So a reasoned arguement changed your mind. Good to hear.

No, he said he looked at the book and made a decision based on his own opinion of how it looked in the book instead of listening to other people's arguments.

If someone is willing to spend the time to independantly corroborate and verify that reasoned argument, I take my hat off to them - it means they have listened to both sides, but are not willing to simply do as other people say. Quite commendable. It does not change the fact that it is practically impossible to change someone's mind with a reasoned argument, nor does it eliminate the validity of the reasoned argument.

Posted By Antonin on 07/07/2006 10:54 AM
It does not change the fact that it is practically impossible to change someone's mind with a reasoned argument...

Hardly a fact. Reasoned arguments change people's minds all of the time. I even see it here on Dakka... occasionally.

Perhaps you should aimed your statement to, "it's practically impossible to change anonymous stubborn internet forum posters' minds with a reasoned argument." Those with closed minds are a strange breed.

Nothing personal, but in my experience the ones who claim that it is impossible to change peoples' minds that are the same ones who refuse to admit that they might be wrong once they take a stance on an issue.

If you are adamant about trying to change someone's mind, try putting your argument into a clear and airtight premise/conclusion format and open yourself up to peer-scrutiny and the possibility that you might be mistaken. Once an argument in this form has been dissected, it is easy to see if it is correct or not.

The moment that you admit to yourself that you might not always be correct and open your mind to new ideas and perspectives is the moment that the world becomes a much better place.

Hey, tell Killkrazy - I was quoting him, to draw out the irony!

Perhaps you should aimed your statement to, "it's practically impossible to change anonymous stubborn internet forum posters' minds with a reasoned argument." Those with closed minds are a strange breed.

That's pretty much everyone, at one time or another.

You guys need to give up on these "reasoned arguments." When the rules are ambiguous or contradictory, no "reasoned argument" can be conclusive. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it. You can't blame the other guy for being stubborn if there's nothing there to prove him wrong.

I think the How to Have a Debate rules need to be updated to reflect the fact that some (if not most) rules discussions are going to be inconclusive. After all, when the rules are conclusive it doesn't often demand much debate.

This entire argument hinges on the interpretation of the word "transport" printed sideways (running from bottom to top) alongside the Devilfish entry. Only people with the Codex can see it and try to interpret its meaning.

There are two possible interpretations and they are not mutually contradictory.

1) The Devilfish is a transport and obeys the Transport Vehicles rules. This is clear and I do not argue with it.

2) The Devilfish is not a Troops choice.

If I have understood correctly, people claim that the Transport label creates a different section, containing only the Devilfish -- this excludes it from Troops, preventing it from being chosen as non-dedicated.


Phryxis posted: "I think the How to Have a Debate rules need to be updated to reflect the fact that some (if not most) rules discussions are going to be inconclusive. After all, when the rules are conclusive it doesn't often demand much debate."

I agree. The state of rules writing is bad enough that there are many points which cannot be proved by the formal processes recommended in the Debating guide. There are many occasions when disputes need to be solved by creating a house rule. Problems can arise when groups take their house rules to be the proven standard rule, but there's no way around that.

The Devilfish situation is clearly one of these points.