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.

BossJakadakk wrote:
Your best argument continues to be that each unit did not in fact purchase a turret because a unit of 12 purchased 1 turret. You say it's going to come up in tournaments like TO's are just gonna be like "Oh yeah sure 10 points for 20 SMS turrets is totally legit." Stop asserting this will be the case or else show that it already has been.

See, this is your problem. You find it absurd (and it IS!), therefore you ignore the rule. And I do too, in casual games. I DO NOT CARE what a TO would actually say (although, if I were the TO, I WILL allow it unless I have a way to contact everyone that signed up and inform them of the home rule), I care whether this is LEGAL. Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.

You say you need RAW reasoning but refuse to see that everything being discussed here is an interpretation. That unit of 1 fire warrior did not purchase a turret. The original unit of 12 fire warriors purchased 1 turret. Your interpretation that you cite as absolute RAW is still simply your interpretation of RAW. Every other example of a unit upgrade presented thus far is mentioned in multiples because each model in those units gets the upgrade. That is not the case with the DS8 turret or the Eldar guardian turret, and thus house rules are required in order to deal with these situations.

YOU see interpretation. I see rules. The original unit did not purchase a turret in the sense that the turret is an additional model, like an Eldar platform: they purchased a unit UPGRADE, which is therefore shared between all members. The fact that you say that every unit upgrade is mentioned in the plural form is EXACTLY the problem with you: you try to use common sense instead of the rules. What if Cluster Mines were instead called "mine delivery drone" or something like that, in the singular form, with the exact same effect? Would it change anything? OF COURSE not, because names are there for fluff reasons! You could have called it "upgrade #3" and it would be equally valid. You are being completely misled by the fluff and your personal interpretations based on common sense, I start to doubt that you have the strict and logical mentality to be able to discard useless details and focus on the RULES... if you want to use house rules, be my guest, but this is NOT a conversation about house rules. It is ONLY about RAW. I expressed my premises multiple times (I really don't want to quote myself again, read a few posts back), with numbers for easier reference, please tell me exactly which one of my premises is wrong and according to which rule, or I would ask you to top commenting, because derailing a conversation about RAW into house rules is meaningless. On a personal note, I never understood people that do not play with RAW, and I never will. Without a codified and objective structure, any game makes no sense. You may as well play with toy soldier where the rules are "pew pew you are dead". The only, and I mean ONLY way in which both players can play the same game is if they both use the exact same rules, and in many enviroments this means using the ONLY possible objective interpretation, which is RAW. Saying "but a RAW interpretation does not exist, therefore we can house rule this" is a cop out, and it's also false. The fact that you can't SEE or accept that a RAW interpretation exists doesn't mean that it's not there. There is almost NOTHING that can't be covered by RAW, you just need to stop looking for a specific rule detailing the exact situation, which may very well not exist, and start using the OTHER rules that are written, seeing how they interact with each other in a particular instance, and what you can infer from them. THIS is RAW, not finding the rule you are looking for clearly written in the BRB.

Plus, even if you have rules-based arguments against facing it in tournaments, your whole point hinges on the fact that the TO is already allowing it. You say they can't update the rules because people already signed up, so what's the point of having an argument ready for why your opponent can't use 20 turrets when you're already playing in the tournament? Surely it can't be that you want rules to cite to the TO beforehand, because they can't change it, right? I guess what I'm saying is, you give us reasons you want your interpretation refuted, while telling us it doesn't matter if you try to refute it to a TO anyway.

HUGE difference. A TO that doesn't want (for good reasons) to have 20 turrets can HOUSE RULE his tournament as much as he wants. But only if all participants are aware of those house rules in advance. Finding a RAW interpretation that stops this list is another thing entirely, because here you are NOT using house rules, you are using THE RULES! And therefore THIS is valid immediately, withouth need to notify it in advance, because rules have a universal validity. You come with 20 SMS turrets because you misinterpreted the rules? Fine, but if you discover that you can't use that list NOT because of a home rule, but because there is a RAW interpretation that stops you from doing it, then you don't have any grounds to complain. Enjoy your losses.
I doubt you can see the difference between the two situations, since you already showed that you have some problems with the validity of the rules when they conflict with what you THINK they should be...

doctortom wrote:No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.

Ok, how would YOU regulate which unit can set it up? Since the original FW unit DOES NOT EXIST anymore, and instead 12 separate and independent units exist, how can you fit this into the Every Man for Himself rule? I explained multiple times that a UNIT upgrade is shared among ALL models of the unit. Do FWs have the turret as a UNIT upgrade? Yes. Do they EACH get in once they split up? YES, because all models benefit from a unit upgrade, otherwise it would be a MODEL upgrade! Please stop trying to use common sense, the rules don't give a f*** about common sense. If scout bikes get cluster mines for each model, then FWs get a turret for each model. This is pure RAW, even though it makes no sense. Once you have rules interacting in weird ways, you can come up with results that make absolutely zero sense, but that are completely LEGAL. Please try to make an effort, and look at the rules, and ONLY the rules.

Charistoph wrote:You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?

Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.

Not a thing they have in common. Because even though the result is the same (they get removed), this happens in very different way, and potentially for very different reasons (you don't even need losses to lose a Tau turret, just moving voluntarily out of range does that). Try again.

Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.

Again, not a thing they have in common. One needs nearby models to shoot, the other requires a specific model to operate it (he can't shoot his own weapon). When I asked for similarities, I meant situation in which they behave EXACTLY the same for the EXACT SAME reason. For example, do you know what are the similarities between a Wraithknight and a grot? There are a lot more than you think: they both have a profile, they are both deployed on the field or declared in reserve, they are both removed when they suffer their last wound... I could go on. Now, can you find anything similar for the two turrets? Given that both your examples are demonstrably false, I doubt it.

And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.

I asked you to tell me EXACTLY which of my premises, numbered for convenience, is false, and what rules it violates. You have not even tried. I provided a RAW interpretation, you don't get to IGNORE this, avoid replying to my argumentation, and then claim that a RAW interpretation is lacking. I GAVE you one. If you don't like it, tell me WHY it's wrong: which premise in unfounded, and what rule it conflicts with. Either you can do this, WITH RULES (not common sense like "but other upgrades are plural", names are there for fluff reasons only, you could call it "upgrade #5" if you want and this would change NOTHING). RAW means rules and ONLY rules, If you can't stay within the confines of existing rules, you are contributing nothing to the conversation, and are actually poisoning it and going off topic with your constant support for HYWPI and home rules.

The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.

YES, it IS absurd! But when you have many rules, even written for different games (KT is practically another game), it's quite possible that their interactions are unforeseen and absurd. This is one of those cases. You may not like it, but you NEED to stop thinking is terms of reason, and start thinking in term of rules. YES, the rules as they are written allow for a purchase for a unit to be spread out to all its members. If it works for cluster mines, it works for the turret, period. You just can't accept it, but you have NOT been able to tell me which rule conflicts with my interpretation. Because there isn't one.

Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.

Ok, THIS at least is an attempt at RAW. The first one you make, actually. If you continue along those line, we can discuss. However, it's not a valid argument, since the turret just says "its unit". Which is not the same as "the unit it was purchased with". In normal games the two are the same, in KT they aren't. In KT, this means "the unit possessing this upgrade. Since the turret is a unit upgrade, ALL models purchased with the original FW unit share that upgrade. Once again, read the description for cluster mines, and tell me how your idea would apply to it: "each unit with cluster mines in your army may booby-trap a single piece of battlefield terrain on the table". According to what you just wrote, the scouts do not have the mines, since they were an upgrade of their "parent" unit, which no longer exists. I REALLY think you need to consider Cluster Mines if you want to discuss the Tau turret, since they are actually the closest thing you can find to it (along with similar upgrades like snare mines, etc.)

My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.

Very condescending. Which is ironic, coming from someone who apparently doesn't even understand what RAW means. Hint: if it conflicts with even a single rule, then it's not RAW. And your suggestion, while completely reasonable and a good home rule, conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, as I explained multiple times. Therefore, it's definitely not RAW. Maybe I need a chill pill, but you clearly need a pill to understand what rules are and how they work.

Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.

Where does it state that all 3 scout bikes purchased cluster mines? I see a unit which purchased cluster mines no longer exists and was separated in to 3 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Spot the differences. As I said, if your interpretation behaves differently for cluster mines than it does for the turret, you need to explain WHY. And don't tell me that a turret is one but mines are plural, because that is a LABEL, a name for purely fluffy reasons: you could have called the bike upgrade "mines delivering drone", and it would have changed NOTHING in how the rules work.

Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.

The very fact that you compared it to a banner shows that you STILL are unable to understand the difference between a UNIT upgrade and a MODEL upgrade. If you give a meltagun to a Marine, OF COURSE other members of the squad don't get one as well! But if you give a UNIT an upgrade, then all of its models have that upgrade. In this case, the turret. Yes, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but this doesn't mean it's not RIGHT. PLEASE, read the rules and ONLY the rules, without considering anything else, and tell me why this is wrong. And once again, think about Cluster Mines, because THAT is really the key to understand why the multiplication of turrets WORKS, exactly like the multiplication of cluster mines.

Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.
2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.
3) The singular purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.

"The only logical possibilities" are ll wrong and conflict with the rules in different ways. Specifically:
1) If the turret is lost because its unit does not exist anymore, than EVERY piece of equipment you purchase for every unit is also lost. If you don't lose a meltagun, you don't lose the turret. And the fact that you said "we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear" means that you STILL have not been able to understand what a UNIT upgrade is, and in which way it's different from a model upgrade.
2) Nope, the turret is not an upgrade to a model and therefore can't be assigned to a specific one. With Scout Bikes, does a single bike of your choosing get to keep Cluster Mines, while the other models lose it? If your answer is no, then know that this is also valid for the turret.
3) This is a home rule, and it conflicts with the EMfH rule since, as you yourself said, the original FW unit does not exist anymore, now the only things that exist are 12 one-model FW units with no relations with their "parent" unit, therefore you don't get to "group" them into one single entity that can deploy the turret by any one model. Also, you don't set up the turret in the Deployment phase, but in any Movement phase by standing stationary. Your severe lack of knowledge of this simple rule says plenty.

So much for "the only logical possibilities", you were not able to give a single one that does not conflict with an existing rule! You know what does NOT conflict with any rule? MY interpretation, the RAW one. It conflicts with a lot of things, from logic to common sense to sportsmanship, but NOT with the rules.

Option 1, makes the turret pointless, but it is the strictest RAW interpretation. Admittedly, that happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept. Admittedly, that also happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 2 is the only one that can take in to consideration all factors from the rules that are written as well as all players finding an acceptable balance between useless and overpowered.

Oh, this is priceless! Let's for a second forget the fact that I already demonstrated than none of those options is viable, I would like to focus to this sentence: "Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept.". In other words, if you don't like a rule because it's too powerful, feel free to ignore it. This attitude is completely unacceptable. The fact that you think this way shows pretty clearly that you are completely unqualified to hold a discussion about the rules, because RAW sometimes DOES mean you get overpowered combos, this however doesn't make them non legal! This i a game made of rules. Either you accept it, and follow ALL the rules, no matter where they lead you, or you make up your own personal version of the game. But the instant you do that, and you ARE doing exactly that, that becomes a DIFFERENT game. Therefore, you don't get to comment of the rules of OUR game, since you already decided that you prefer your own rules and your own game.

Sadly, when it comes to RAW, there is nothing that actually defines any of these three scenarios as being the literally correct one.

True. Because I already demonstrated that they are all false. And not because I don't like them (which seems to be the way YOU approach rules), but because they each contradict an existing rule. An interpretation that contradicts a rule is not RAW by definition.

It is not the same. The turret is a single item of Wargear. Bikes and Mines are not. Their purchase involves a plural of the term purchased, not the singular. When you purchase the Bikes, you are purchasing 5 Bikes. When you purchase the Cluster Mines, you are purchasing a group of Mines. Again, it is closer to the Banner than the Bikes in this respect, because it is a singular purchase buy the unit. The Banner just has the advantage of being assigned to a model in the options while the turret is not.

Again, you go with the fluff instead than the rules. Mines are plural, but they may very well be singular (I used the example "mine delivery drone"), and the effect will not change one bit. If the only thing you can appeal to is fluff (and names ARE fluff, nothing else!), then you show once more (as if it was needed...) that you have no idea how rules work. And the Banner is an upgrade for a MODEL, you genius, not the unit, exactly like a special weapon is! If you STILL are unable to understand the difference, there's not much more I can do, the conversaion must be over if the other person can't even understand the most basic of concepts...

But the final point is, the turret operates in a fuzzy space that is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and unnecessary outside of them. Since it is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and the general rules do not NEED to consider them in this way, all we have left is to use our own methods of interpreting the rules, i.e. HYWPI. Whine and rage about it all you want, but unless you can actually reference a rule which defines what happens to a single piece of Wargear purchased by a unit but not assigned to a model with a profile, that is what we are left with. Do not get angry with me, I did not write these rules. If you must get angry, direct your anger towards those who are so shoddy and incomplete with their rules writing.

This is the way you think. There isn't a specific rule, so you can make up your own. The idea that almost ANY fuzzy situation can be resolved by LOOKING AT THE RULES and their complex interactions, and following them to the letter even if they lead to absurd conclusion, is apparently completely alien to you. Which means that you have no place in any discussion about the rules, because you don't even know what RAW means.

 Kriswall wrote:
I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.

And here we have another one that thinks that, if following the rules TO THE LETTER leads to a conclusion he does not like or that does not make sense, then he is authorized to ignore that conclusion. How can you people play a game without following its rules if you don't like them? I DID demonstrate why my interpretation works. I clearly stated all my premises, with numbers for easy reference, and asked to tell me WHICH ONE is wrong, and exactly what rule it conflicts with. None has even TRIED to do so. Certainly not you, it's much easier to resort to mockery and appealing to common sense (which sould have NO PLACE in rules discussions) that to actually PROVE me wrong. Do it, if you can, or have the dignity to admit that I am right.

pumaman1 wrote:As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."

Actually, no. You can deploy one and only one turret per unit, because you can purchase only one. The crucial part, however, is "per unit". In KT, all FWs have it, and they all can deploy one turret. And I agree, it's an extremely dickish move, and the entire reason for this topic is to find a LEGAL way to prevent such a thing. I don't even play Tau, I WANT to find a way to stop this nonsense. But it has to be a LITERAL interpretation of the rules, not a home rule. Up to now, ONLY Happyjew was on the right track, and I asked multiple times to switch the conversation to whether the turret is a model or not (hoping it is, so bye-bye combo), but NOBODY has ever addressed this issue. The conversation keeps getting derailed by people who think that if a conclusion derived from existing rules is absurd or overpowered, they have the right to ignore it and suggest their own home rules, by people who still are unable to understand why a unit upgrade and a model upgrade are radically different things, or even people who don't fully understand the Every Man for Himself rule. It's getting frustrating, having to deal with someone who just wants to poison the conversation instead of addressing the real issue.

Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?

This is important for the discussion at hand.

Mmmh, this is a really interesting question, much deeper than it may seem at a first glance. I'd have to go with 0. You have 4-9 units of Space Marines, and 1 unit of Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant. A literal interpretation of the Every Man for Himself rule leads to this conclusion, since specific models like Drones or Fenrisian Wolves are mentioned. However, I still can't see the implication this has in the present case, but I expect that the only person until now that actually READ the rules instead of making them up may have some ideas... I am very curious where this might lead.

Snake Tortoise wrote:Well if you can't get the TO to make a house rule in time just go along, play games, enjoy the event, and if (in the unlikely scenario) some prick tries this just say "GG" and pack up your models. So what if he wins the event? Are you playing for life changing money? Even in a perfect rules system bad things can happen. Your opponent could drop some of your models on the floor and stamp on them. They could pull out a knife and stab you because they lost. You could be hit by an overturning lorry on the way to the event. Winning games of Warhammer 40k isn't the be all and end all, and somebody pulling a dick move like this to feel good about themselves probably has quite a miserable existence and should be pitied

I like to play competitively. In casual games, I'm there to have fun (and bring terribly weak lists at times). In tournaments, I am there to have fun AND to win. They are both extremely important to me (so, I play the most competitive army I HAVE FUN PLAYING WITH, I'll never play Eldar BikeSpider spam + WK even though it's effective). But if I find such a list, I don't have fun, AND I don't win. This is the reason for this topic. Well, this, and the fact that I actually enjoy discussing rule interpretations (if the other participants talk about the rules, instead of ignoring them like so many people in this topic do...)

doctortom wrote:Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.

Reductio ad absurdum. It's a logical fallacy, in case you are wondering. A dedicated transport is not an upgrade for the unit, but a separate unit altogether. If you are unable to understand the difference, or to grasp the concept of what a unit upgrade is, then I don't have much faith that you can contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

Charistoph wrote:And how many can the unit purchase in the Options? One, I believe, and it is purchased as a piece of Wargear, not as an option to deploy the Wargear. That option comes from purchasing the Wargear.

Following that, are all the Fire Warriors in the separate units the same unit that purchased the Turret? No, they are all separate units, not the same original unit.

Yes, they are all separate units, but since they all have the UNIT upgrade their parent unit had, then they all get a turret. Seriously, you STILL don't get what a unit upgrade is, and how it works?
Cluster Mines. Think about cluster mines, maybe it would help.

Fabled_Hero wrote:I've been thinking the same thing. But at least now a Tac squad can bring 10 Rhinos with Hunter Killer missiles for 45 pts, to deal with all the turret bearers. So, now we have the same excess found in normal 40k for KT.

If you've been thinking this, then we can add you to the large number of people who don't understand what a unit upgrade is. Before hitting "reply", you should at least try to understand what you are reading. But I guess it's much easier to dismiss it only because it seems unreasonable, regardless of whether the rules support it or not.

Teschio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?

Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.

Not a thing they have in common. Because even though the result is the same (they get removed), this happens in very different way, and potentially for very different reasons (you don't even need losses to lose a Tau turret, just moving voluntarily out of range does that). Try again.

You asked for what, not how. But even then you miss some facts. The Fire Warrior turret is removed from the board when Fire Warriors move to far from it, but so long as there are any original models of the unit around, that turret is not lost and can be brought back. When all Fire Warriors are gone, that turret is lost and cannot be brought back. When the Guardian Defender unit runs out of Guardian models, guess what, that Platform also is removed from the board, AND IS LOST AND CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK.

Just because you don't like the answer does not mean that it doesn't apply.

Teschio wrote:

Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.

Again, not a thing they have in common. One needs nearby models to shoot, the other requires a specific model to operate it (he can't shoot his own weapon). When I asked for similarities, I meant situation in which they behave EXACTLY the same for the EXACT SAME reason. For example, do you know what are the similarities between a Wraithknight and a grot? There are a lot more than you think: they both have a profile, they are both deployed on the field or declared in reserve, they are both removed when they suffer their last wound... I could go on. Now, can you find anything similar for the two turrets? Given that both your examples are demonstrably false, I doubt it.

Don't change the standards mid-stream in an attempt to discredit the statement. None of us are mind readers when we are face to face (as far as I know), much less when responses are read at a time after they are written or crafted.

I said that both the Turret and the Platform require nearby models to be used, and that is a fact. Yes, for the turret, it fires independently and the Platform requires another model to shoot it like artillery. In either case, they still require models of the unit nearby in order for either function to be used. In order to properly refute this, you need to provide the case that only one of them can be used without another model nearby, not changing what you meant after an answer is given.

Teschio wrote:

And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.

I asked you to tell me EXACTLY which of my premises, numbered for convenience, is false, and what rules it violates. You have not even tried. I provided a RAW interpretation, you don't get to IGNORE this, avoid replying to my argumentation, and then claim that a RAW interpretation is lacking. I GAVE you one. If you don't like it, tell me WHY it's wrong: which premise in unfounded, and what rule it conflicts with. Either you can do this, WITH RULES (not common sense like "but other upgrades are plural", names are there for fluff reasons only, you could call it "upgrade #5" if you want and this would change NOTHING). RAW means rules and ONLY rules, If you can't stay within the confines of existing rules, you are contributing nothing to the conversation, and are actually poisoning it and going off topic with your constant support for HYWPI and home rules.

No, you did not provide a full RAW statement, you skipped a step, as I pointed out. You even quoted part of it following this.

You want me to get more specific, here is where part of your slippery slope lies:

Teschio wrote:2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
4) therefore, every Fire Warriors "has" the turret upgrade

#2. How does a Fire Warrior model benefit from the Turret Wargear? Note, you must provide an example of the a model actually USING the Wargear or receiving its benefit.

#4. The Turret is not once noted as being possessed by any model., much less all. I even pointed this out when I referenced the Banner, remember?

And that doesn't even bother considering the fact that you are allowing the purchase of a single piece of Wargear purchased for one unit to be spread across twelve units. That is the bridge of rules you are missing on your road.

Teschio wrote:

The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.

YES, it IS absurd! But when you have many rules, even written for different games (KT is practically another game), it's quite possible that their interactions are unforeseen and absurd. This is one of those cases. You may not like it, but you NEED to stop thinking is terms of reason, and start thinking in term of rules. YES, the rules as they are written allow for a purchase for a unit to be spread out to all its members. If it works for cluster mines, it works for the turret, period. You just can't accept it, but you have NOT been able to tell me which rule conflicts with my interpretation. Because there isn't one.

Operating a set of rules is an operation of logic and reason. If you can't understand that, then stop posting until you can either see why or you can prove otherwise.

And again, cluster mineS and bikeS are purchases of multiples of a Wargear for a unit are a different factor than the purchase of a singular of a Wargear for a unit. If you cannot understand the difference between buying a bunch of things for a group and one thing for a group, then stop posting until you can either see why or you can prove how they are the same.

And again, there isn't actually a rule or set of rules that addresses this specific situation, one way or the other. Unless you want to talk about when it says "may purchase a (thing)" it is only talking about one, singular thing. But that is basic English AND what the Options states, right?

Teschio wrote:

Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.

Ok, THIS at least is an attempt at RAW. The first one you make, actually. If you continue along those line, we can discuss. However, it's not a valid argument, since the turret just says "its unit". Which is not the same as "the unit it was purchased with". In normal games the two are the same, in KT they aren't. In KT, this means "the unit possessing this upgrade. Since the turret is a unit upgrade, ALL models purchased with the original FW unit share that upgrade. Once again, read the description for cluster mines, and tell me how your idea would apply to it: "each unit with cluster mines in your army may booby-trap a single piece of battlefield terrain on the table". According to what you just wrote, the scouts do not have the mines, since they were an upgrade of their "parent" unit, which no longer exists. I REALLY think you need to consider Cluster Mines if you want to discuss the Tau turret, since they are actually the closest thing you can find to it (along with similar upgrades like snare mines, etc.)

Took you long enough to recognize it. You attributed it to only yourself not so long ago, remember?

Now, can you demonstrate where when it states a unit purchases one of something ALL models actually get it? Actual written, quotable, and referencable rules, please. And to use your own standards, you cannot use "reason" to supply the answer.

Teschio wrote:

My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.

Very condescending. Which is ironic, coming from someone who apparently doesn't even understand what RAW means. Hint: if it conflicts with even a single rule, then it's not RAW. And your suggestion, while completely reasonable and a good home rule, conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, as I explained multiple times. Therefore, it's definitely not RAW. Maybe I need a chill pill, but you clearly need a pill to understand what rules are and how they work.

Oh, I am quite familiar with what Rules As Written actually means, and there are people here who would tell that your opinion on that is rather off.

As for condescending, you have been increasingly condescending throughout this thread. Your posts are coming across more and more belligerent to those you do not believe are meeting your standards. You have accused me of following fluff when I never mentioned fluff.

Now, let's review your list of 5 and find out where their rules are, just to be certain:

Teschio wrote:1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade

You did not reference where this comes from, but I can assume this is in the Options of the Fire Warrior Datasheet, easily found, correct?

Teschio wrote:2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)

Where is this rule? You did not reference it.

Teschio wrote:3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)

No rule reference provided, but I assume this is in the new version of Kill Team rules of "Every Man For Himself", correct? Does it actually state, "they retain all the rules and upgrades they had as a unit"? The previous version I have access to does not state this.

Teschio wrote:4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade

An assumption based on 3, not an actual rule.

Teschio wrote:5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.

No rules quote that allows one piece of Wargear to be made 20 exists, and you do not quote it. This is not RAW, but an extrapolation and a poor case of reasoning.

You want to continue whining about others not using RAW? Quote the Rule to present your case, especially if you demand the same standard of others.

Teschio wrote:

Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.

Where does it state that all 3 scout bikes purchased cluster mines? I see a unit which purchased cluster mines no longer exists and was separated in to 3 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Spot the differences. As I said, if your interpretation behaves differently for cluster mines than it does for the turret, you need to explain WHY. And don't tell me that a turret is one but mines are plural, because that is a LABEL, a name for purely fluffy reasons: you could have called the bike upgrade "mines delivering drone", and it would have changed NOTHING in how the rules work.

It may be a label, but it is how the Wargear is defined, correct? Can you demonstrate in the rules that the singularly purchased turret actually is multiple instances?

If you cannot understand the WHY behind this statement, go talk to your English teacher to explain the differences. This forum is not a class for basic English.

Teschio wrote:

Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.

The very fact that you compared it to a banner shows that you STILL are unable to understand the difference between a UNIT upgrade and a MODEL upgrade. If you give a meltagun to a Marine, OF COURSE other members of the squad don't get one as well! But if you give a UNIT an upgrade, then all of its models have that upgrade. In this case, the turret. Yes, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but this doesn't mean it's not RIGHT. PLEASE, read the rules and ONLY the rules, without considering anything else, and tell me why this is wrong. And once again, think about Cluster Mines, because THAT is really the key to understand why the multiplication of turrets WORKS, exactly like the multiplication of cluster mines.

Basic English Rules tell me that purchasing one thing does not mean I get multiples. Basic Rules of Mathematics tell me that 1 does not equal twelve.

I referenced the Banner as it is a unique purchase for the unit. It is purchased by the unit, and assigned to a model. And I acknowledged the difference in that (did you miss that part?).

And to counter your statement, where in the rules does it state that a Wargear which is defined as a purchase of a single item can become twelve? Do not lay the burden only on me without backing up your own statements with your own standards.

Teschio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.

"The only logical possibilities" are ll wrong and conflict with the rules in different ways. Specifically:
1) If the turret is lost because its unit does not exist anymore, than EVERY piece of equipment you purchase for every unit is also lost. If you don't lose a meltagun, you don't lose the turret. And the fact that you said "we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear" means that you STILL have not been able to understand what a UNIT upgrade is, and in which way it's different from a model upgrade.

Didn't you just state that the Meltagun was a model upgrade and not a unit upgrade? Consistency please.

Where is the RAW quote to demonstrate the falseness of this possibility?

I am well aware of what a unit upgrade is, but I do not share the same definition in my mind about it. Care to actually quote the Rulebook or Kill Team expansion on what that is? Without that, the concept of "unit upgrade" is a player construct used to communicate when the Options states, "the unit/squad may purchase (thing)", not an actual specific rule.

Teschio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.

2) Nope, the turret is not an upgrade to a model and therefore can't be assigned to a specific one. With Scout Bikes, does a single bike of your choosing get to keep Cluster Mines, while the other models lose it? If your answer is no, then know that this is also valid for the turret.

Then you ignored what I said or cannot accept the logic train. It is a singular purchase of one thing, not a singular purchase of multiples of a thing. Also consider the fact that the rules do not provide for units to transfer upgrades to each other if they were purchased as one, at least so far as it has not been quoted, anyway.

Where is the RAW quote that states otherwise?

Teschio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

3) The singularly purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.

3) This is a home rule, and it conflicts with the EMfH rule since, as you yourself said, the original FW unit does not exist anymore, now the only things that exist are 12 one-model FW units with no relations with their "parent" unit, therefore you don't get to "group" them into one single entity that can deploy the turret by any one model. Also, you don't set up the turret in the Deployment phase, but in any Movement phase by standing stationary. Your severe lack of knowledge of this simple rule says plenty.

 Charistoph wrote:
If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it.

Most sensible thing you ever wrote here, I'm definitely going to follow the advice. I'd just like to notice that you basically have one argument: "show me the rule that says that". Cluster mines. And before you start with the whole "but cluster mines are plural!" thing, please tell me how they would work if the equip entry was "the unit may take a booby-trap kit". Exact same effect, diferent label. Isn't it weird that you tried to respond to everything I wrote, but neglected to address this very simple point? It doesn't make much sense to discuss with someone who mixes rules and fluff, so I am not really interested in continuing the conversation with you.

Now,for the people who don't ignore the rules just because they seem absurd, and want to have an honest discussion about the possible ways this combo may not work, what do you think of the turret=model thing? Is there a way we can unambiguously say that the turret IS a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up?

Teschio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?

This is important for the discussion at hand.

Mmmh, this is a really interesting question, much deeper than it may seem at a first glance. I'd have to go with 0. You have 4-9 units of Space Marines, and 1 unit of Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant. A literal interpretation of the Every Man for Himself rule leads to this conclusion, since specific models like Drones or Fenrisian Wolves are mentioned. However, I still can't see the implication this has in the present case, but I expect that the only person until now that actually READ the rules instead of making them up may have some ideas... I am very curious where this might lead.

If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed.

Problem solved.

 Happyjew wrote:

If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed.

Problem solved.

I thought about that, and I am not sure this is a solution. In the description of the Turret, the form used is just "its unit". Which means the unit that set it up, in this case a Fire Warrior unit, not a Strike Team unit (which doesn't exist anymore). Since the turret is not itself an independent model like an Eldar Platform, I am not so convinced that it "has" a unit before being deployed on the field. Following this idea, if you have an Apothecary (stupid in KT, but still...), then he doesn't get FnP himself, since the narthecium says "all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and his unit would be a Command Squad which doesn't exist anymore... just to use the first example that came to my mind, there are countless others.

I think the most promising line of thought is your previous idea, if we can say with certainty that the turret is a model, then it will be removed immediately, and this would solve the problem.

Teschio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed.

Problem solved.

I thought about that, and I am not sure this is a solution. In the description of the Turret, the form used is just "its unit". Which means the unit that set it up, in this case a Fire Warrior unit, not a Strike Team unit (which doesn't exist anymore). Since the turret is not itself an independent model like an Eldar Platform, I am not so convinced that it "has" a unit before being deployed on the field. Following this idea, if you have an Apothecary (stupid in KT, but still...), then he doesn't get FnP himself, since the narthecium says "all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and his unit would be a Command Squad which doesn't exist anymore... just to use the first example that came to my mind, there are countless others.

I think the most promising line of thought is your previous idea, if we can say with certainty that the turret is a model, then it will be removed immediately, and this would solve the problem.

The Apothecary example is flawed - if the Narthecium said models in the Command Squad had FNP, then you would be right, nobody would get FNP. However, the Apothecary is still a model in his unit (in this case the unit is "Apothecary").

 Happyjew wrote:
The Apothecary example is flawed - if the Narthecium said models in the Command Squad had FNP, then you would be right, nobody would get FNP. However, the Apothecary is still a model in his unit (in this case the unit is "Apothecary").

But the description of the turret doesn't say "strike squad" in any way. It just says "it is immediately removed as a casualty if there are no other models from its unit within 2" of it". The question then becomes, what IS "its unuit"? The unit it was purchased with, or the unit that sets it up? This is the reason why I talked about the Narthecium, because it just says "as long as the Apothecary is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and it seems to me the descriptions are similar. BTW, if Fire Warriors are not the turret's unit, you don't even get to the point where it disappears, because it can't even be set up: "tactical support turrets are not set up when their unit deploys or arrives from Reserves. Instead, if the unit remains stationary in the movement phase, you can set up the tactical support turret [...]".

Sure, if "its unit" is the Strike Squad, then the problem is solved. But I am not sure we have enough ground to affirm that with certainty. Maybe you could elaborate more on that?

BTW, you manage to find TWO possible reasons why this may not work, both completely RAW, even though I feel the evidence for both is still not conclusive enough. Great job, man!

Teschio wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it.

Most sensible thing you ever wrote here, I'm definitely going to follow the advice. I'd just like to notice that you basically have one argument: "show me the rule that says that". Cluster mines. And before you start with the whole "but cluster mines are plural!" thing, please tell me how they would work if the equip entry was "the unit may take a booby-trap kit". Exact same effect, diferent label. Isn't it weird that you tried to respond to everything I wrote, but neglected to address this very simple point? It doesn't make much sense to discuss with someone who mixes rules and fluff, so I am not really interested in continuing the conversation with you.

I did address them. Your lack of desire to accept the explanations doesn't mean I didn't address them. I will also point out that you have been saying little else when someone brings up a point, then, "show me the rule that says that". If you also notice, I asked for those rules a lot because of how you were treating my responses. And again, I have not once mixed rules and fluff. That is a malicious lie.

If the unit purchases "a booby-trap kit" instead of "cluster mines" then we are back in the same scenario as the turret. And just like the turret, the rules do not cover when a unit purchases a single piece of Wargear not assigned to a model and the unit gets split in to multiples.

Now, if you can properly address this issue with rules from the rulebook, codex, or Kill Team ruleset, then you will have answered your own question, and you can post it here.

Teschio wrote:
Now,for the people who don't ignore the rules just because they seem absurd, and want to have an honest discussion about the possible ways this combo may not work...

And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.

Teschio wrote:
what do you think of the turret=model thing? Is there a way we can unambiguously say that the turret IS a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up?

If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? From Core Rule, Models & Units introduction:

To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.

Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?

 Charistoph wrote:

I did address them. Your lack of desire to accept the explanations doesn't mean I didn't address them. I will also point out that you have been saying little else when someone brings up a point, then, "show me the rule that says that". If you also notice, I asked for those rules a lot because of how you were treating my responses. And again, I have not once mixed rules and fluff. That is a malicious lie.

If the unit purchases "a booby-trap kit" instead of "cluster mines" then we are back in the same scenario as the turret. And just like the turret, the rules do not cover when a unit purchases a single piece of Wargear not assigned to a model and the unit gets split in to multiples.

Now, if you can properly address this issue with rules from the rulebook, codex, or Kill Team ruleset, then you will have answered your own question, and you can post it here.

You do use fluff instead of rules. The problem is, you don't even realize this. Names are labels, completely meaningless. Only the rules pertaining those upgrades have meaning. They could be called "upgrade #1", "upgrade #2" and so forth, and the game would work exactly the same. Therefore, saying that mines are plural, and if the exact same equip was called "booby-trap kit" then it would work in a different way, IS being misled by the fluff.

And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.

Not a passive-aggressive attack. A specific attack. After I spent a lot of time countering your arguments, it's quite frustrating to see you still don't get that names are labels, and that unit upgrades and model upgrades are quite different, especially in KT (I mean, you spent multiple posts ranting about banners, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Turret, since they are upgrades to a speciic model, and are removed if that model dies!). Ask yourself why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: because a rule that is supposed to work once per unit, suddently becomes a lot stronger if the unit is split up. Anyway, yes, I didn't bother to address your questions. After discussing with you for a while, I feel you have nothing worthwhile to say, so I should stop wasting time with you and focus on the issue with more reasonable people.

If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? [...] Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?

No, it does not have a profile. This is one of the arguments against considering it a model. An argument that I explicitly mentioned multiple times, by the way. Funny that you forgot to mention the arguments FOR considering it a model, specifically the description of the turret (removed if there are no OTHER models from its unit), and the very first line of the BRB section about core rules: "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow", and the Turret DOES have a miniature. Quoting only the rules that seem to support your claim and ignoring the others is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in a rule discussion. It's for people who want to "win" the discussion at all costs, instead of getting to the bottom of things. And I know you did NOT forget that those other rules exist, because you read everything I wrote, and I mentioned them twice. And you wonder why I feel I wasted enough time replying to you? You don't care about the truth, you just want to be right. If this is how you conduct a discussion, then I am not interested, and will therefore ignore your comments in the future. Bye.

Teschio wrote:
You do use fluff instead of rules. The problem is, you don't even realize this. Names are labels, completely meaningless. Only the rules pertaining those upgrades have meaning. They could be called "upgrade #1", "upgrade #2" and so forth, and the game would work exactly the same. Therefore, saying that mines are plural, and if the exact same equip was called "booby-trap kit" then it would work in a different way, IS being misled by the fluff.

Use your own standards, where does it define a name of something only as fluff?

Labels are hardly meaningless. They provide easy designations of differentiation.

The Option states, "the unit may take a turret", correct? Or does it state, "the unit takes turret"? If the former, where are the Options defined as fluff in the rules?

The Options for Cluster Mines and Bikes do not state they take "a bikes upgrade" or "a cluster mines upgrade", it still uses the grammar applied to when multiples of an item are taken.

To continue on with your example to actually prove what I am saying is about rules and not fluff, the Command Squad and Scout Bikes would have written in their options, "Unit may purchase Upgrades #1" and "Unit may purchase Upgrades #2", while the Fire Warrior Options state "Unit may purchase an Upgrade # 27".

Or are you going to contend that when a unit has "a model" purchase "a meltagun", it actually means that the unit is having "models" purchase "meltaguns"?

Teschio wrote:

And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.

Not a passive-aggressive attack. A specific attack. After I spent a lot of time countering your arguments, it's quite frustrating to see you still don't get that names are labels, and that unit upgrades and model upgrades are quite different, especially in KT (I mean, you spent multiple posts ranting about banners, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Turret, since they are upgrades to a speciic model, and are removed if that model dies!). Ask yourself why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: because a rule that is supposed to work once per unit, suddently becomes a lot stronger if the unit is split up. Anyway, yes, I didn't bother to address your questions. After discussing with you for a while, I feel you have nothing worthwhile to say, so I should stop wasting time with you and focus on the issue with more reasonable people.

Ah, so you admit to breaking the tenets of almost every forum by attacking the poster and not the argument.

And no, I accept that names are labels, but that doesn't make them fluff. The concept of something purchasing one thing is not fluff, but a review of the terms used in the Options of the unit entry.

I did not spend multiple posts ranting about banners. I made a proper association by referencing the quantity of something being purchased in the Options of a unit. That is not a rant. More to the point, you didn't even recognize the point for what it was, and so dismissed it, ranted against it, and made accusations of which were unfounded in the text you quoted. You have carried on about wanting something RAW from others, but have quoted zero rules to support your case. You take assumptions to get to where you want to go and then demean others for doing the same thing.

Teschio wrote:

If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? [...] Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?

No, it does not have a profile. This is one of the arguments against considering it a model. An argument that I explicitly mentioned multiple times, by the way. Funny that you forgot to mention the arguments FOR considering it a model, specifically the description of the turret (removed if there are no OTHER models from its unit), and the very first line of the BRB section about core rules: "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow", and the Turret DOES have a miniature. Quoting only the rules that seem to support your claim and ignoring the others is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in a rule discussion. It's for people who want to "win" the discussion at all costs, instead of getting to the bottom of things. And I know you did NOT forget that those other rules exist, because you read everything I wrote, and I mentioned them twice. And you wonder why I feel I wasted enough time replying to you? You don't care about the truth, you just want to be right. If this is how you conduct a discussion, then I am not interested, and will therefore ignore your comments in the future. Bye.

Do not project. Everything you have accused me of, you have performed at least several times before the end of the second page.

Now, I was not ignoring that portion of the introduction, but I was merely pointing out where assigning the turret as a "model" fails the muster of ALL the definitions presented in that area. Can you demonstrate where in the Turret's rules it is allowed to be considered a "model" even without a Profile? Or are you just going to continue to attack the poster who disagrees with you?

Isnt terrain also a model without a profile?

nekooni wrote:
Isnt terrain also a model without a profile?

Good question. My answer would be that terrain elements are not properly "miniatures", and therefore they are not "models" in the sense the core rules define models. The turret, however, is a miniature, albeit without a profile (or a unit type, another thing that all models possess).

BTW, let me be clear, I would very much like to confirm that turrets ARE models. Because this would be the ONLY way, despite what some may think, to make the "20 turrets" list not legal.

nekooni wrote:
Isnt terrain also a model without a profile?

Depends on the Terrain. Some Terrain are Buildings, and those have Profiles. Either way, they are all miniatures, unless you are using an actual tree as a tree on your table.

Teschio wrote:
BTW, let me be clear, I would very much like to confirm that turrets ARE models. Because this would be the ONLY way, despite what some may think, to make the "20 turrets" list not legal.

It is not the only way to disprove it. It just has become the only way you will accept. Note the difference.

If it is from the Damocles-Kauyon entry:
No profile listed in the unit entry.
Options list it as: "The unit may take a DS8 tactical support turret".
Rules involve conditions for set up, removal, and mobility. It is given a BS of 3, can fire in Shooting Phase or Overwatch with the rest of the unit the same turn it sets up. It must target the same unit as the rest of the unit (pointless if it was considered a model, as this would already apply). Enemy models cannot attack or affect the turret in any way, but is removed as a casualty if no other unit model are within 2" of it (that sounds familiar) or if enemy models are within 2" of it (unlike a normal model). It can be returned to play in a later Movement Phase after it has been removed.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Isnt terrain also a model without a profile?

Depends on the Terrain. Some Terrain are Buildings, and those have Profiles. Either way, they are all miniatures, unless you are using an actual tree as a tree on your table.

Sorry - my point was that a miniature doesnt have to have a profile to be considered a model. Iirc the description for regular terrain - not the buildings from SA - that does not have a profile calls them models anyways. Since you guys got stuck on the term models i thought that might help.

nekooni wrote:
]
Sorry - my point was that a miniature doesnt have to have a profile to be considered a model. Iirc the description for regular terrain - not the buildings from SA - that does not have a profile calls them models anyways. Since you guys got stuck on the term models i thought that might help.

Yes, you are correct. Terrain is considered a model. This should settle it, the Turret is a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up (which makes it completely unusable in KT, even a single one).

Apologies for understanding English and math to the point where a purchase of one item can not equate the purchase of multiple items, and for attempting to help you find arguments (any and all) that you could use for disallowing your "competitive group" from steamrolling you at will (because apparently you're willing to just let that happen based on your RAI).

If you don't care what a TO thinks the rule is, why did you put so much emphasis on making sure a TO rules it correctly (which you don't affect anyway until you see the house rules for an event and notify them)?

Condescension and veiled (and plain) insults seems to be your true goal, rather than attempting to find an interpretation that disallows your RAI (which is very clearly RAI regardless if you admit it or not), and all I've done is attempt to give you ammunition with which to fight someone telling you "I have 20 DS8 turrets" because that's what you asked for. But I can't help you. No one can, obviously, because you don't even understand anything and everything here is RAI, objectively.

"I purchased one turret for a unit of twelve, when they split I now have twelve turrets each in a unit of one." Interpretation, very plain and simple. I'm sorry you don't see that. I am glad however you have found a rules interpretation that works for you and will be your argument when someone tells you they get 20 turrets. You will tell them they get 0 due to it being a model. Then you two will either not play, stop playing, or roll off. I feel like here is where you'll mention tournaments and TO's again, because you want an argument you can use midgame to prove to the TO that they're wrong if they were to rule that your opponent gets 20 turrets. However, if their interpretation is that the guy does get 20 turrets, then it's already settled. Then again, you don't care what their interpretation is. Okay, lol.

I can't even tell if this is trolling at this point. However, I no longer have time for someone who can't get past their own interpretations and stretches rule 1 ad infinitum. Sorry again :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:
Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.

Good catch.

Teschio wrote:

doctortom wrote:No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.

Ok, how would YOU regulate which unit can set it up? Since the original FW unit DOES NOT EXIST anymore, and instead 12 separate and independent units exist, how can you fit this into the Every Man for Himself rule? I explained multiple times that a UNIT upgrade is shared among ALL models of the unit. Do FWs have the turret as a UNIT upgrade? Yes. Do they EACH get in once they split up? YES, because all models benefit from a unit upgrade, otherwise it would be a MODEL upgrade! Please stop trying to use common sense, the rules don't give a f*** about common sense. If scout bikes get cluster mines for each model, then FWs get a turret for each model. This is pure RAW, even though it makes no sense. Once you have rules interacting in weird ways, you can come up with results that make absolutely zero sense, but that are completely LEGAL. Please try to make an effort, and look at the rules, and ONLY the rules.

I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.

But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.

This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.

BossJakadakk wrote:
Apologies for understanding English and math to the point where a purchase of one item can not equate the purchase of multiple items, and for attempting to help you find arguments (any and all) that you could use for disallowing your "competitive group" from steamrolling you at will (because apparently you're willing to just let that happen based on your RAI).

If you don't care what a TO thinks the rule is, why did you put so much emphasis on making sure a TO rules it correctly (which you don't affect anyway until you see the house rules for an event and notify them)?

Condescension and veiled (and plain) insults seems to be your true goal, rather than attempting to find an interpretation that disallows your RAI (which is very clearly RAI regardless if you admit it or not), and all I've done is attempt to give you ammunition with which to fight someone telling you "I have 20 DS8 turrets" because that's what you asked for. But I can't help you. No one can, obviously, because you don't even understand anything and everything here is RAI, objectively.

"I purchased one turret for a unit of twelve, when they split I now have twelve turrets each in a unit of one." Interpretation, very plain and simple. I'm sorry you don't see that. I am glad however you have found a rules interpretation that works for you and will be your argument when someone tells you they get 20 turrets. You will tell them they get 0 due to it being a model. Then you two will either not play, stop playing, or roll off. I feel like here is where you'll mention tournaments and TO's again, because you want an argument you can use midgame to prove to the TO that they're wrong if they were to rule that your opponent gets 20 turrets. However, if their interpretation is that the guy does get 20 turrets, then it's already settled. Then again, you don't care what their interpretation is. Okay, lol.

I can't even tell if this is trolling at this point. However, I no longer have time for someone who can't get past their own interpretations and stretches rule 1 ad infinitum. Sorry again :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:
Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.

Good catch.

LOL, you don't even know what RAI means! Hover on the little yellow word, you will see that it means "rule as intended", which means "trying to guess what the game designers' intention was, instead of following the rule to the letter". RAI does not mean "my personal interpretation". My interpretation is definitely NOT RAI, I never said "but the GDs obviously meant that [...]", and I don't even imply this is the truth, since it's quite obvious to anyone that this weird rule interaction was NOT done on purpose, it's just an oversight. But if you DO follow the rules even when they don't make any sense, and I do, then there is no other possible interpretation. Yes, it conficts with math, but WHO CARES! You are trying to use common sense, which is NOT how you should approach rules. You can either follow them TO THE LETTER, regardless of how asburd the unintended consequences are, or you can ignore them and make up your own. I choose the first option. BTW, NOBODY was able to provide an alternative explanation of how this should work that does not openly conflict with one or more rules. My interpretation may be absurd, mathematically and linguistically, but it DOES follow the rules, every one of them, which is all that matters in a game that needs a rigid structure. Please tell me, how would YOU say the turret works? Give me an interpretation that is COMPLETELY consistent with all the rules in the BRB and the codex, and I will accept it.

PS: interpreting the rules does not mean "making sh*t up". It means using the existing rules, and ONLY the rules (ignoring common sense, fluff and all these other things) to get to a conclusion. Your idea of interpretation is "personal opinion"... as you can guess from the little flag near my name, English is not my first language, but even I know the difference...

 doctortom wrote:

I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.

But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.

This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.

You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).

Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.

A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.

BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong. Your possible solutions are:
1) the turret is assigned to a model: no, since it's not an upgrade to a specific model like a special weapon would be. If the turret does not "belong" to a model in a normal 40k game (and it doens't), then it doens't belong to one in KT, because there is no rule allowing it.
2) the turret is set up by any one model in the original unit: this conflicts with the EMfH rule, since after unit selection any memory of the unit a model comes from is lost, all models are completely independent, they are not parts of a unit that just ACT as if they were independent. Big difference, and if the rule said the latter is true, then this interpretation would be correct. But they don't.
3) the turret is a model. and therefore disappears: we already established that this is true, but this has NOTHING to do with how many turrets you would get. It makes the question moot, certainly, but it's not in itself a possible deployment option, it's just a cop out. The only possible deployment options that do not involve the "20 turrets" list are the two above, and both openly confict with other rules. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Teschio wrote:LOL, you don't even know what RAI means! Hover on the little yellow word, you will see that it means "rule as intended", which means "trying to guess what the game designers' intention was, instead of following the rule to the letter". RAI does not mean "my personal interpretation". My interpretation is definitely NOT RAI, I never said "but the GDs obviously meant that [...]", and I don't even imply this is the truth, since it's quite obvious to anyone that this weird rule interaction was NOT done on purpose, it's just an oversight. But if you DO follow the rules even when they don't make any sense, and I do, then there is no other possible interpretation. Yes, it conficts with math, but WHO CARES! You are trying to use common sense, which is NOT how you should approach rules. You can either follow them TO THE LETTER, regardless of how asburd the unintended consequences are, or you can ignore them and make up your own. I choose the first option. BTW, NOBODY was able to provide an alternative explanation of how this should work that does not openly conflict with one or more rules. My interpretation may be absurd, mathematically and linguistically, but it DOES follow the rules, every one of them, which is all that matters in a game that needs a rigid structure. Please tell me, how would YOU say the turret works? Give me an interpretation that is COMPLETELY consistent with all the rules in the BRB and the codex, and I will accept it.

1) RAI is trying to figure out what the rules as written were trying to get at. That comes across as the individual's personal interpretation.

2) Common sense and logic are methods of interpreting the written rules. Unfortunately, Common Sense really isn't that common or people tend to not use it.

3) There are absurd rules in the rulebook, and there are rules that stop at one place and pick up later on without explanations about what happens in them middle.

4) We have not been able to provide a rule to counter yours (aside from the basic rules of English and Mathematics which you have rejected) for the same reason you have not been able to provide a certain rule that connects all of your assumptions together. The simple fact that they do not exist. Make no claims about how they do actually exist. You have provided nothing to prove your assumption follows the letter of all the rules, only your assumptions on how the rules function.

Teschio wrote:PS: interpreting the rules does not mean "making sh*t up". It means using the existing rules, and ONLY the rules (ignoring common sense, fluff and all these other things) to get to a conclusion. Your idea of interpretation is "personal opinion"... as you can guess from the little flag near my name, English is not my first language, but even I know the difference...

Ironic since in order to do as you suggest, that is exactly what you have done. I asked questions on them and you refused to answer them at all, and then berated and demeaned me in order to cover it up. Heck, you probably won't even read this if you have set me to ignore.

Teschio wrote:You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).

Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.

A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.

And where is the rules that actually allow you to make this differentiation? All I have seen from you is assumptions. Where in the rulebook or its expansions does it state that "a single upgrade purchased by the unit is multiplied when the unit is separated"? Where in the rulebook or its expansions does it differentiate a single upgrade of Wargear with a single upgrade of a unit?

Teschio wrote:BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong.

You have provided no rule in which mine were in conflict. You only made declarations on how you think the ruleset is made up.

Teschio wrote:Your possible solutions are:
1) the turret is assigned to a model: no, since it's not an upgrade to a specific model like a special weapon would be. If the turret does not "belong" to a model in a normal 40k game (and it doens't), then it doens't belong to one in KT, because there is no rule allowing it.

A misrepresentation of something I said. I never said it was assigned to a model. It is set up by one model from the original unit, and then it stays with that model as a permanent part of that unit, due to lack of permission for the Wargear to change units. This is not a case of breaking rules, but a case of not having any rules to follow.

Teschio wrote:2) the turret is set up by any one model in the original unit: this conflicts with the EMfH rule, since after unit selection any memory of the unit a model comes from is lost, all models are completely independent, they are not parts of a unit that just ACT as if they were independent. Big difference, and if the rule said the latter is true, then this interpretation would be correct. But they don't.

Actually, the phrase is, "treated as separate units", I believe. Their separate unit status is technically temporary. In keeping with your assessment on this, it would also preclude the turret from being deployed by all 12 of the Fire Warriors for the exact same reason. Again, this is technically not a case of breaking rules, but not having anything to follow. Still, this is a more real representation of what would happen then the "1 becomes 20" concept you think has more merit than a snowball in hell.

Teschio wrote:3) the turret is a model. and therefore disappears: we already established that this is true, but this has NOTHING to do with how many turrets you would get. It makes the question moot, certainly, but it's not in itself a possible deployment option, it's just a cop out. The only possible deployment options that do not involve the "20 turrets" list are the two above, and both openly confict with other rules. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

It is a model, and is not a model. It is a model in the fact that there is a miniature of it, but it is not a model in the fact that it has no profile and is nothing actionable can be made against it and it has directions that are redundant if it was a model.

And "1 becomes 20" doesn't break any rules in the rulebook or its expansions, but it doesn't properly follow the rules, either, since there are none that actually say you should do this. It does break basic English and mathematical rules, however, which do say you cannot do this without permission. Where is your permission?

Teschio wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.

But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.

This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.

You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).

Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.

No, you get one. You are confusing unit/army creation with deployment. You bought the unit upgrade when you created the unit, and all the equipment issued, including one and only one turret) is what you split up when it becomes time to split the unit later. You purchased the upgrade at the time of creation. At the time of creaton, all the members are of one unit. So, when the unit is created you have 12 (or t0 or however many you purchased) fire warriors, and one turret that is shared in the unit. When it becomes time to deploy you split them up into separate units. There is only one turret in total. It does not become 12 as you only bought one for the unit. The unit splitting into 12 (or 10 or however many fire warriors you purchased) does not change things from there being only one turret. Splitting the unit up after creation does not retroactively make you get 12 turrets. When you split up the unit you are splitting up what they have AT THAT TIME. Cluster mines plural, attack bikes (plural) bought for a unit, since they are bought plural everybody gets one. Since you bought only one turret there is only one turret today that can be divvied out somewhere.

Teschio wrote:
A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.

It's a unit upgrade that happens to be a separate unit. It's listed as an option to buy, just like turets, attack bikes and any other options in the datasheet. It's something - like a Turret - that you buy one of that the unit gets (a dedicated transport instead of a turret, but oh well). Your arguement is that the one unit splits into multiple units - rules that say a unit may buy a dedicated transport have to be treated the same as rules that say a unit may buy a turret. If you're treating the turret as something all new units gets when the one unit gets split into multiple units, then all those units would get a dedicated transport if the original unit bought a dedicated transport. From what the rules state for the unit purchasing either one, you wouldn't get to differentiate between the two when it comes time to split everything up, since "the unit" bought a dedicated transport just as much as "the unit" bought a turret. Whether the transport is also a unit is irrelevant; you just wish to ignore that beccause it does point out the problem with your argument.

Teschio wrote:
BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong. Your possible solutions are:/quote]

Yours conflicts with rules, you just don't want to admit it. The unit bought A turret, not multiple turrets. The unit dissolvess, becoming a number of new units where each is one model from the old uinit. It's not the old unit, though, so you do not retroactively apply "A" turret to each model of these new units with different names. Because they don't meet the requirements of the original unit that you bought, it can't be the same type of unit. Therefore, everybody getting a turret would conflict with the rules. There being only one turret after everything is split up meets all the rules. You might have to house rule which way to handle it, but it's certainly not your way.

If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.

Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.

Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.

Teschio wrote:

Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently.

Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.

Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.

Much obliged.

Teschio wrote:
If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.

If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.

Teschio wrote:
Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.

The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.

Teschio wrote:
Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.

I have, and said that it would need to be house ruled between different things that are covered by the rules. I have steadfastly maintained, however, that what you are saying absolutely goes against the rules. Buyinn one item does not turn it into multiple items. I've explained how that doesn't work when considering how the English language is used, and I've explained how it doesn't work because of timing issues - a unit getting one item in an upgrade had only the one item to hand out when the unit is split up into multiple units of a different type. There are no rules for the one man units saying each one of the new units (which aren't the same unit as the original) may retroactively purchase something or retroactively claim they have items that this new unit did not purchase. These are all MAJOR conflichs with the rules. Now, please do what Sgt_Smudge asked you to present, and while you're at it present the rules quotations that Charistoph has asked for justifying how one piece of equpement in the original unit, purchased as only one unit, turns into 12 pieces of equpment in 12 different units. So far you haven't presented a rule that allows this.

Teschio wrote:
If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.

This much is probably true. If nothing else, it is an interesting insight as to what people believe regarding how certain unwritten things are to be used.

Teschio wrote:
Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.

Actually, it is not the "label" that we are focusing on, but the use of the identifying article. You are confusing the quantity allowed for the purchase with "labels". And the problem with your example is that cluster mines are not written as "may purchase a cluster mine", but "may purchase cluster mines". Between these two examples, the former is purchasing one of an item, the latter is purchasing multiple. You are combining the thought that "the unit has one" with "all the models can use it" which translates to, "all the models are able to use a turret when they separate in to multiple units". You have provided zero rules to support this in your assertions.

Teschio wrote:
Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.

There are conflicts, and there are conflicts. Nothing says you can't do it, but then, nothing actually says you can, either way. Right now, you are closer to combining a violation of Tenet #1 (back it up) with "It doesn't say I can't do it".

BossJakadakk wrote:
Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.

If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand.

You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.

Much obliged.

1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit
2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.
3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.
4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.
5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.

With this, I am NOT saying that I will use such a list. I don't even play Tau! All I am saying is that this is the interpretation of the rules. Oh, and this whole discussion is quite useless now, since we established that turrets (even a single one) are removed as soon as they are set up...

doctortom wrote:If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.

One is a unit upgrade, the other is a SEPARATE model. Buying a rhino is no different than adding another model to a squad (such as buying the 6th Space Marine in a tac squad). Buying a Rhino is like buying an Eldar Platform, that has NOTHING in common with the Tau turret except for fluff reasons.

The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.

I am not asking that you agree with my ideas, but you should al teast try to understand what I'm saying. I KNOW you get a single turret, ONE turret. And in normal games you do get only one. But things change once the KT rules kick in. A unit uprade is shared by all members of the unit, and once the unit DISAPPEARS to be replaced with 10 indivdual units, they ALL have that upgrade, because it was an upgrade to the whole unit. The 10 FWs units that you deploy are NOT related in any way to their parent unit, except for the fact that they have all the equipment and upgrades and special rules their "parent" unit had.

I have, and said that it would need to be house ruled between different things that are covered by the rules. I have steadfastly maintained, however, that what you are saying absolutely goes against the rules. Buyinn one item does not turn it into multiple items. I've explained how that doesn't work when considering how the English language is used, and I've explained how it doesn't work because of timing issues - a unit getting one item in an upgrade had only the one item to hand out when the unit is split up into multiple units of a different type. There are no rules for the one man units saying each one of the new units (which aren't the same unit as the original) may retroactively purchase something or retroactively claim they have items that this new unit did not purchase. These are all MAJOR conflichs with the rules. Now, please do what Sgt_Smudge asked you to present, and while you're at it present the rules quotations that Charistoph has asked for justifying how one piece of equpement in the original unit, purchased as only one unit, turns into 12 pieces of equpment in 12 different units. So far you haven't presented a rule that allows this.

Cluster mines are a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade. It's written nowhere that ALL models get them, and you can't infer that just by the fact the the equip label is in the plural form. But you don't deny that you get to booby-trap one piece of terrain PER model. Why, since they are not an upgrade to ALL models, but to a single unit? This case is EXACTLY the same. The only thing is, you are so wrapped up in the fluff that you can't see the extreme similarities. If nothing tells you that EVERY model gets mines (and nothing does), then you ARE multiplying pieces of equipment. You are fine with that, but for some reasons you are not fine with the turret. I really can't follow your logic here...

Now, you COULD say that even though cluster mines are in the plural form, since it's not specified that all models have them, then only one has them. Which is fine, but this is a different argument, and again this does not work well with the EMfH rule. My problem is that nodody contests the multiplication of cluster mines, but you DO contest the case of the turret, not realizing that the two are exactly the same. Yes, you ARE multiplying cluster mines, but since the result does not conflict with common sense, you accept it. I am loking at only the rules, though, and rule-wise there is no difference between the two.

Teschio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.

If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand.

You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.

You still don't seem to understand what singular vs plural is. I don't understand how you don't *objectively* see that clear as DAY the RULES are specifying a singular noun. It's not the name I'm focused on, it's the singularity.

But hey, the rules are always *subject* to your *interpretation* I suppose.

Objectively, there is one turret purchased as wargear for 12 fire warriors. Objectively, there is a unit upgrade called "cluster bombs" purchased by a unit of 3 scout bikers. One is objectively an actual item, one is objectively simply a rule addon. Don't pretend the *name* "cluster bombs" and the *fluff* the rule represents assists in your assertion that a singular physical object has now become 12. I'm not using the name, I'm not using fluff. I'm using what it says in the books to draw a conclusion, which you don't like. So you attack my understanding of what RAW is by asserting your *interpretation* is the only one that makes sense. It's insulting and laughable at the same time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:

With this, I am NOT saying that I will use such a list. I don't even play Tau! All I am saying is that this is the interpretation of the rules. Oh, and this whole discussion is quite useless now, since we established that turrets (even a single one) are removed as soon as they are set up...

Okay, there's your RAW. Enjoy! You've accused me of simply arguing your points because of my own preference, but that's not the case. I believe this to be closest to RAW as well. I'm not a fan of it, though. I'd rather there be a way for it to be included as I prefer inclusive rulesets (even though obviously Kill is exclusive by its nature).

Teschio wrote:
You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

"Rules As Written" (aka RAW) actually is "here is a rule that details this exact situation", not "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation".

By definition, RAW is looking at the Written Rules. You know "Written" as in words placed on paper (or placed in an electronic document)? In order for it to be "Rules As Written", there must be something "Written". If there is nothing "Written", it becomes something else.

The definition of Rules As Intended (RAI) is, "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation". By making this statement above, you have announced you have been violating Tenet #4, please review. You have also been insulting and condescending while doing it.

To restate, there is nothing Written on this subject, so there is nothing RAW.

Teschio wrote:
1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit

Not in dispute, except this is in the part you keep insisting fluff is being used when we refer to it. Though, realistically, its not "the whole unit", it is just "the unit". It may be a slight semantical difference, but it only matters if you plan on giving the turret to every model.

Teschio wrote:
2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.

I'm going to need a quote on this one. Rulebook, codex, or Kill Team will suffice if properly referenced.

Unlike a Banner or Meltagun, which both of us have pointed out, the turret is purchased by a unit and not assigned to any model. The rules for the DS 8 Tactical Support Turret do not indicate its use by any model. The only use of "model" in the first two paragraphs are just how close it has to be to one and that it shoots with them. The third paragraph only talks about its interactions with enemy models (and being able to return the turret to play). Indeed, it is not ever stated to be used by the unit, either. It just has to wait until a Movement Phase the unit doesn't move and "you" (the owning player) can set it up to shoot with the unit. (per the Kauyon document I have access to).

Cluster Mines are sort of the same way, in that models are never ever mentioned to be taking possession of them or use them. They are wholly owned and used by the unit itself.

Teschio wrote:
3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.

My Kau'yon document does not have this stated in the Wargear's rules (admittedly, it is an old copy). The only time a limitation is made is in the purchasing options which you claim are just fluff. Is it different elsewhere? If so, quote and reference, please.

Teschio wrote:
4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.

Does the new Every Man For Himself actually state the original unit is eliminated, or is it just "treat every model as their own unit"? The semantic difference is key.

Does new new Every Man For Himself actually state that the new units are named after the models that make them up?

Going by the logic (and what I'm taking for as assumptions) in this quoted statement, the unit which purchased the Turret no longer exists and so it cannot deploy the turret. You no longer have 1 Fire Warrior Squad, but 6-12 Fire Warrior units. And those Fire Warrior units did not purchase the turret.

Teschio wrote:
5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.

This is an assumption based on #2 being accurate, and that has yet to be supported by any quoted rules. Proper rules support is also required by #4 to help bring it together.

Where is it Written so it can be Done?

Teschio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.

If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand.

You don't understand fluff. And, as has been pointed out, it is whether you are told you are buying one piece of equpment or multiple pieces for the entire unit.

Teschio wrote:
You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.

That's not RAW in the slightest! Charistoph is correct: ""Rules As Written" (aka RAW) actually is "here is a rule that details this exact situation", not "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation" " What you are using here is HIWPI, not RAW. There's a big difference.

Teschio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.

Much obliged.

1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit
2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.
3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.
4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.
5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.

You fell apart with the last one, because you ignore the purchase of something singular vs something in the plural. If you buy equipment in plural, everybody in the unit has it. If the unit gets one piece of equipment, singular, then there is only one. It can potentially be used by anybody in the unit, but not at the same time. This is a far cry from everybody having the equipment itself. If anything, your argument about it being an upgrade that is shared would mean that anybody from the old unit would be able to use the turret, but since there's only one turret (that does not mystically split into numerous turrets - you only paid for one, and the rules don't allow you to purchase a separate turret for each fire warrior before they split up), this one turret is placed on the board. Your statement about it having been a unit upgrade would mean anybody in the unit could use the turret as long as someone else in the unit hasn't, but it certainly does not equate to one turret becoming one per fire warrior when it isn't purchased that way.

Teschio wrote:

doctortom wrote:If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.

One is a unit upgrade, the other is a SEPARATE model. Buying a rhino is no different than adding another model to a squad (such as buying the 6th Space Marine in a tac squad). Buying a Rhino is like buying an Eldar Platform, that has NOTHING in common with the Tau turret except for fluff reasons.

You keep missing the point. Like Halley's Comet, it keeps going over your head. Both are upgrades that are bought for the unit, but one works as a separate unit and is a model. Other units have upgrades that are models (or at least used to - SW ICs being able to take wolves as an upgrade). The main point is, you buy one dedicated transport that the unit can access (or anybody in the unit when they split up). The turret is an upgrade that anybody from that unit can access, or - going by what you say about it being a unit upgrade 0 any of the models can access when they are split up. In both cases though you still have only the one dedicated transport or the one turret that the former unit (now multiple units) have access to, not one per model. You don't seem to grasp that your argument for multiple turrets would equally apply to having multiplying dedicated transports...which is an indication that your argument has a flaw.

Teschio wrote:

The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.

I am not asking that you agree with my ideas, but you should al teast try to understand what I'm saying. I KNOW you get a single turret, ONE turret. And in normal games you do get only one. But things change once the KT rules kick in. A unit uprade is shared by all members of the unit, and once the unit DISAPPEARS to be replaced with 10 indivdual units, they ALL have that upgrade, because it was an upgrade to the whole unit. The 10 FWs units that you deploy are NOT related in any way to their parent unit, except for the fact that they have all the equipment and upgrades and special rules their "parent" unit had.

I have tried to understand what you are saying. I have rejected it. If you KNOW you get a single turret, you KNOW that it can not become multiple turrets because you do not HAVE multiple turrets. And, as I point out above, they all have ACCESS to that upgrade - when it's an upgrade singular that means only one of those models can be using it in a turn, which makes sense when there is only the ONE turret to start with. You have mistaken for possessing the turret with possessing access to the turret. The unit has one turret that any one model in the unit in range of the turret can use during a turn. When they're split off, any one of the models in range of the turret can use the turret during a turn. THAT follows the rules without breaking the rules by having A turret not be A turret but multiple turretS.

Go back and read what I said about timing also. It is a singular item unit upgrade. When it comes time to split the unit, you only split up what you have. Since you have only one turret only one turret gets split up, you don't suddenly make one per model split off. You have no permission to split it up that way. Access to the equipment can be split up, there is certainly the permission for any of the old models to use it if they're in range just as any of the models could use it if it were a normal 40k game. You still have to have the models within range of the turret - the one turret - just as you would in a normal 40k game. If none are within range, then it goes away, whether it's a kill team or a 40k game. There's still only one turret that's accessed, whether it's a Kill Team or a 40k game.

Some people want to house rule only one member of the unit getting the turret - there may be an argument for that, but the old unit did have permission for everyone to use the turret. They just never had permission for every model to HAVE a turret.



EDIT: To beat the horse a little more, but to summarize what I think your interpretation problem is, you haven't actually properly defined WHAT the unit upgrade is. The unit upgrade is 1 turret that everybody in the unit has permission to access (but only one per turn). If you split up the unit for a kill team everybody gets the permission to access the 1 turret still, but it's still only one turret, and - like it would work in 40k - only one model would get to use the turret each turn. I think what you're missing is that when they're discussing unit upgrades, multiple pieces of equipment being bought means everybody gets the equipment. if the rules say you get "a" piece of equipment, you only get the one that the whole unit gets access to. You can split the access permission so every model can still access the one turret, but you don't turn the one piece of equipment into multiple pieces because you never had permission for multiple pieces of that equipment for the people in that original unit.