a friend of mine plays tau, and in his codex he pointed out that the devilfish entry is listed just like a normal squad, and that it doesnt list it as a dedicated transport, just a transport.

I really dont care that much, but i just wanted to see if anyone else has done this or heard of it being done. also does it look to you like the codex supports it?

thanks!!

Been discussed to death. It is in GW FAQ's. The 'troop' symbol in the pic box is a 'misspirint so to speak. 'Nuff said.

akira5665 wrote:Been discussed to death. It is in GW FAQ's. The 'troop' symbol in the pic box is a 'misspirint so to speak. 'Nuff said.

can you point me to where it states this? the GW FAQs make no mention of this. if you could give me the the thread or the web addy for the gw disscusion id appreciate it

thanks!

Ok, will have a look. Or FYI, you can search Dakka's previous threads. Checking now.

Ok, once you get past the dialog..

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/82596.page#84358

Talk about can of worms.

If you're to go pure RAW then yes you can take a DF as a troop transport (but be prepared to argue it with everyone you try to field a DF this way against).

The facts as they stand are

The Devilfish rules (pg 36 – Tau Empire Codex) say:
1. The Devilfish is a transport
2. It is located in the troops section of the codex
3. The entry does not indicate it is dedicated

The transport rules (pg 62 – Warhammer 40k v4 Rule Book) say:
1. Units may take a dedicated transport if the unit entry includes a transport option
2. Other transports can be taken separately and take up a FOC slot
3. Transports can only carry infantry

Supporters of the DF as a troop choice point to 3 things to support their point of view.
1. Every other dedicated transport in the game says that the transport is dedicated in its entry (and the entries are normally located in a separate section)
2. The pathfinder DF doesn’t get the scout move
3. The DF entry says the only thing they may not transport is XV battlesuits.

Those that oppose this view point to the Land Raider and Falcon entries as proof that the DF is dedicated.

The only difference between the Land Raider/Falcon entries and the Devilfish entry is that the Land Raider and Falcon are identified as heavy support, where the Devilfish is identified as a transport. Nowhere in the transport rules does it sate that transports MUST be dedicated.

The devilfish BECOMES a dedicated transport when taken as an option/upgrade for either a Fire Warrior or Pathfinder squad.

So by the RAW you can take the DF as a non-dedicated transport, occupying a troops FOC slot. Unfortunately the Tau Empire seems to be the only army with a non-dedicated transport. Also the prevailing view in the 40k world is that transports should always be dedicated. Thus, anyone who you try to tell otherwise is going to fight with you (even the RAW advocates).

I support that the view that the DF is a troops choice. However, in my opinion getting a battlefield taxi is not worth the argument.

I know I’m going to get flamed for this opinion but until GW comes out and says one way or another (taking a DF as a non-dedicated transport is not covered by any of the FAQs) it will be continue to be a point of contention.

Meep357 wrote:Talk about can of worms.

Fun little thread. Perfect example of what I call "houserule disease" -- the irrational desire of some players to justify their house rules as RAW. Not that there's anything wrong with house rules -- and many are quite reasonable (e.g., models with a rapid fire weapon and a pistol can charge if they fire the pistol and not the rapid fire weapon), and there are myriad situations that require them (e.g., drop pods scattering on friendly models), but the bizarre need to justify house rules as RAW when the RAW fails baffles me.

Lowinor .... you point me to the RAW that states a DF cannot be taken as a troop choice and I'll happily concede the point

How about this... I'll point you to the page where it says what the thing IS, instead of what it isn't (nothing specifically says my scout isn't a Terminator... but that doesn't mean its a Terminator).

So by the RAW you can take the DF as a non-dedicated transport, occupying a troops FOC slot.

The set up of the Tau codex is such that each unit has to its' side (farthest from the spine) what Force Org slot it is (all HQ's say "HQ" by them, the Elites say "elite" by them, etc).

What does it say next to Devilfish? It says transport. That makes it a transport option and not a Troop option. You cannot take an Elite choice as a Troop choice in this game without special rules. Right? Why would that rule be suspended for anything identified as something other than "Troop?"

Fin.



Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:How about this... I'll point you to the page where it says what the thing IS, instead of what it isn't (nothing specifically says my scout isn't a Terminator... but that doesn't mean its a Terminator).

The set up of the Tau codex is such that each unit has to its' side (farthest from the spine) what Force Org slot it is (all HQ's say "HQ" by them, the Elites say "elite" by them, etc).

What does it say next to Devilfish? It says transport. That makes it a transport option and not a Troop option. You cannot take an Elite choice as a Troop choice in this game without special rules. Right? Why would that rule be suspended for anything identified as something other than "Troop?"

No rule is suspended, no rule is changed. Yes the Devilfish is a transport (a point I never constested). However may I point you to page 62 of the BGB and I quote "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen spereratly and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it." (Emphasis mine).

Now granted this refers to the third edition Eldar codex (which I do not have a copy of). However it quite clearly states that transports can be taken to occupy a FOC. As the devilfish is bagded in the codex as troops and quite clearly part of the troops section .....

Meep357 wrote:No rule is suspended, no rule is changed. Yes the Devilfish is a transport (a point I never constested). However may I point you to page 62 of the BGB and I quote "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen spereratly and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it." (Emphasis mine).

Now granted this refers to the third edition Eldar codex (which I do not have a copy of). However it quite clearly states that transports can be taken to occupy a FOC. As the devilfish is bagded in the codex as troops and quite clearly part of the troops section .....

Yes, but you're forgetting some things.
The book refers to the fact that those transport options are using specific FOC slots (Heavy, etc).
Additionally, you overlooked my point about using a unit in the FOC as not being specified as for that slot. Just because it is "badged" doesn't mean anything. That is simple decoration within the book. Nothing more. Show me where, in the codex, it says "anything with this symbol (enter symbol here) may be purchased to fill a troops FOC slot," or something similar.

You're relying on the fact that the transport can be taken for firewarriors as the basis for your point (supported by a decorative image). The problem is that it is listed -in writing- as a "Transport" and not as "Troops." If it isn't listed as "Troop," is can't be taken as one, barring a special rule (like the SM trait system).

Just because it doesn't say you CAN'T, it doesn't mean you can. The 40K rules are permission based. That means they're restrictive (you can't do anything unless given the permission to do so). You have to show where, in the book, it specifically says you CAN do that in order to be able to.


Eric

Meep357 wrote:Lowinor .... you point me to the RAW that states a DF cannot be taken as a troop choice and I'll happily concede the point

Um, if you read the thread, I argue quite a bit in it that the DF, by RAW, is a valid troops choice. Not taking it as a troops choice is a house rule, and while a reasonable one (and how most folks really should expect others to play the game), still a house rule. What I was just commenting on was the amount of attempts to twist the RAW to the individual's house rules when the rational thing to do is say "yes, that's not what the rules say, but for reasons X, Y, and Z we don't play exactly by what the rules say" and instead try to justify the (often more reasonable) house rule as literal RAW.

It's like the rapid fire gun on the charge -- the rules say firing while carrying a rapid fire weapon prevents you from charging. Everyone I'm aware of plays it as shooting a rapid fire weapon is what prevents you from charging. It's clearly a house rule, but people will still try to justify it as RAW for unknown reasons. That's what I was commenting on. The Devilfish thing is another example -- by RAW, they're troop choices. I don't know anyone who plays that way, but hey, plenty of people will vehemently argue that their house rule is the RAW and apply some incredibly twisted logic just to prove that their version of the rules is more correct.

MagickalMemories wrote:You're relying on the fact that the transport can be taken for firewarriors as the basis for your point (supported by a decorative image). The problem is that it is listed -in writing- as a "Transport" and not as "Troops." If it isn't listed as "Troop," is can't be taken as one, barring a special rule (like the SM trait system).

You are making up rules.

It gets down to this, to put it as simply as possible, restating some of what Meep has already said, and what's gone 'round and 'round in the other thread.

Premise 1: The only existing rule which specifies FOC location of army list entries for Tau lists is in the Tau Empire codex page 24. The criterion (and, it deserves to be stressed, sole criterion) given is which section of the army list the entry is found within.
Premise 2: The Devilfish entry is found within the Troops section.
Conclusion: A Devilfish may be taken as a Troops choice.

Now, plenty has been said, but no one has been able to refute the basic argument (at least, as far as I've seen). There aren't any other rules that determine FOC location (people have quoted the dedicated transport rules, but those are a property of the selection of the transport, not the transport (or transport entry) itself) that apply to Tau beyond those on page 24.

People have attacked the second premise, but honestly, if you define "section" in such a way that the Tau troops section is non-contiguous in the text, you're abusing the English language. The army list part of the codex is divided into sections, each with a large section header. Deciding that section is determined by the vertical text to the side of the army list entries is... ad hoc at best.

And I think it's pretty clear that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Now, as I've said before, I don't play that way (I don't even play Tau... yet), I don't know anyone who's actually put together a list that way, I don't expect to really see anyone play that way, but that doesn't change what the rules actually say.

The Tau Empire Codex says: "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier". It is a transport, not an independent unit.

Nurglitch wrote:The Tau Empire Codex says: "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier". It is a transport, not an independent unit.

Back it up or rescind it. The only rules that I can find about whether something is or is not a Troops choice (at least, that are applicable to Tau) are on page 24, and don't mention anything about that. The rules for dedicated transports only apply if the transport is taken as a part of another force org chart, and as such are a property of the rules for the unit purchasing the dedicated transport. Show us the rules that say that something being labeled a transport means it can't be a force org choice in and of itself.

See Codex: Tau Empire. P. 24, "Using Army Lists: Army List Entries: Transports."

It says: "If a unit is permitted to be mounted in a transport, this is mentioned here." Italics mine.

See Rulebook. P. 62. "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle?"

It says: "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports." Italics mine.

The Devilfish Army List Entry is labeled a Transport. This labeling corresponds to the Devilfish noted to be available as a transport for Fire Warrior Teams and required for Pathfinder Teams. Since its Army List Entry is labeled "Transport" we know that unlike vehicle units with some transport capacity this vehicle unit is only allowed to be taken as part of some other Army List Entry, and follows the rules for Dedicated Transports.

Summary: These rules say that no Unit being labeled a Transport can be a Force Organization Chart Selection, as they are only allowed to be selected as part of another Unit.

Since its Army List Entry is labeled "Transport" we know that unlike vehicle units with some transport capacity this vehicle unit is only allowed to be taken as part of some other Army List Entry, and follows the rules for Dedicated Transports.

Here's the problem -- there aren't any rules that actually specify this. You're conflating Transport and Dedicated Transport -- and asserting that because something can be a Dedicated Transport it must be a Dedicated Transport. The "only" above doesn't exist in the rules.

Actually the rule on P. 62 that I quoted does say exactly that units labeled Transports are Dedicated Transports.

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports." Underline mine.

Thusly do the rules say that if some unit is labeled "Transport" it must be a "Dedicated Transport". The concept expressed by my use of "only" is the same as that expressed by the verb phrase "are known as", an indication of an identity statement.

Transports are only taken as part of some other Army List Entry; Transports are Dedicated Transports.

Nurglitch wrote:Actually the rule on P. 62 that I quoted does say exactly that units labeled Transports are Dedicated Transports.

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports." Underline mine.

Thusly do the rules say that if some unit is labeled "Transport" it must be a "Dedicated Transport". The concept expressed by my use of "only" is the same as that expressed by the verb phrase "are known as", an indication of an identity statement.

Again, you're claiming the label of Transport (as anything other than the rule Transport, at least) means something. There's no such rule. It's a reasonable intuitive leap, sure, but it's not a rule. Nowhere does it say anything about "being labeled Transport". It says transports taken as an option from another army list entry are Dedicated Transports. It doesn't say that this designation carries over to the army list entry for the transport in question, just the particular vehicles taken as options from an army list entry.

Transports are only taken as part of some other Army List Entry; Transports are Dedicated Transports.

Right, just like Falcons. And Land Raiders. Oh, wait...

Seriously, though, Land Raiders can be taken as Dedicated Transports. By your argument, they could only be taken as Dedicated Transports, as Land Raiders fit the "these transport vehicles" in exactly the same way as Devilfish do, as they fit the exact same criteria when selected as Dedicated Transports. They just say "Land Raider" instead of "Transport" in their vertical text, which as I keep pointing out, doesn't have any rules attached to it.

Very good Nurglitch. You've identified how units can get a dedicated transport.

Now unfortunatley you missed a part of page 62. "Other transport vehicles are chosen seperatley and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot ..." (emphasis mine)

Also I'm afraid you've misread the entry on pg 24 in the tau codex. The section you are refering to only indicates if a unit is eligble to take a dedicated transport.

Now .... the devilfish is identified as a transport - NOT a dedicated transport vehicle. The transport rules say I can take a transport vehicle and occupy a FOC slot with it. The devilfish is listed under the troops heading in the Tau codex. Therefore the Devilfish occupies a troops FOC slot when selected as a non-dedicated transport.

Now ... please identify for me where the Tau Devilfish is identified as any thing other than transport (ie. a dedicated transport) or the rule that states that all transport vehicles are dedicated.

EVERY dedicated transport in the game is identified as such somehow in its entry.


----

Lowinor - sorry about that .... I only skimmed that other thread when I went back and reread it.

Edit: Spelling & such

I'm not claiming the label of Transport means anything other than what the rules state it to be: Dedicated Transports are what are labeled "Transports". It does indeed say that this designation carries over to the Army List Entry for the Transport in question. That's why it's labeled "Transport".

Interestingly Falcon and Land Raider Army List Entries are not labeled "Transport". Codex: Space Marines has a specific section for Transports. This section describes how Land Raiders may be taken as dedicated transports (as opposed to always being dedicated transports like the vehicles in that section) and how the rules apply when that happens.

Codex: Eldar lists the Wave Serpent in its Transport section. The Falcon is in the Heavy Support section. Their entry is not prefixed by the label "Transport", unlike Wave Serpents, or Rhinos, or Razorbacks, or Drop Pods, or Trukks. Being able to transport troops does not a dedicated transport make, as the rules for vehicles transporting troops tell us. Having a unit entry labeled "Transport" however does.

By my argument neither Falcons nor Land Raiders can only be taken as Dedicated Transports. That's because my argument is about what the rules say, and the rules say that units labeled Transports are Dedicated Transports (which is, as the rulebook points out in the section on "Transport Vehicles" is different from Passenger Capacity, which is noted within a unit's entry as "transport:"). Land Raiders are not labeled "Transport" and the rules note when and how they operate as Dedicated Transports.

P. 35 of Codex: Space Marines.

"Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle. These vehicles do not use up any additional force organization chart selections, but otherwise function as separate units."

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports."

The label of "Transport" means something, it means that the vehicle capable of transporting troops that it labels is a Dedicated Transport Vehicle. We know it means this because the rules say so, in particular "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle?" (Rulebook. P. 62.)

This is elaborated by the various codicies. The Ork Codex and the Blood Angels Codex take no chances and label Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, and the Trukk as "Dedicated Tranport Vehicles". The Space Marine Codex, like the Tau Empire Codex and the Eldar Codex merely labels Dedicated Transport Vehicles "Transport". The Chaos Space Marine Codex does not label the Chaos Rhino a Transport or Dedicated Transport, but merely recommends reference to the Transport Vehicles section of the rulebook to see how transport vehicles taken for units work.

So apparently there is an entire section in the rulebook attached to the label "Transport", covering the entirety of P.62. Then there's the commentaries in the Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine codicies, the explicit labeling in the Blood Angel and Ork codicies, and the labeling in the Tau Empire and Eldar codicies.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not claiming the label of Transport means anything other than what the rules state it to be: Dedicated Transports are what are labeled "Transports". It does indeed say that this designation carries over to the Army List Entry for the Transport in question. That's why it's labeled "Transport".

Please site the page number and quote the rule.

Nurglitch wrote:That's because my argument is about what the rules say, and the rules say that units labeled Transports are Dedicated Transports (which is, as the rulebook points out in the section on "Transport Vehicles" is different from Passenger Capacity, which is noted within a unit's entry as "transport:").

Again, please site the page number and quote the rules.

Nurglithc wrote:So apparently there is an entire section in the rulebook attached to the label "Transport", covering the entirety of P.62. Then there's the commentaries in the Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine codicies, the explicit labeling in the Blood Angel and Ork codicies, and the labeling in the Tau Empire and Eldar codicies.

Why then does the rule on pg 62 specifically state that "transports" can be selected individually and take up a FOC slot? Again I quote the BGB (pg 62) "Other transport vehicles are chosen speraratley and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot ..." Note it says TRANSPORTS, not vehicles that have the capacity to transport.

Nurglitch wrote:This is elaborated by the various codicies. The Ork Codex and the Blood Angels Codex take no chances and label Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, and the Trukk as "Dedicated Tranport Vehicles". The Space Marine Codex, like the Tau Empire Codex and the Eldar Codex merely labels Dedicated Transport Vehicles "Transport". The Chaos Space Marine Codex does not label the Chaos Rhino a Transport or Dedicated Transport, but merely recommends reference to the Transport Vehicles section of the rulebook to see how transport vehicles taken for units work.

Let me cite the sections you we referring to:

SM Codex: Transport Section (pg35) "Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle. These vehicles do not use up any addition force organisationl chart sections, but otherwise funtion as seperate units."
Eldar Codex: Wave Serpent (pg 63) "Transport: The Serpent is a dedicated transport that can carry a single unit of up to 12 models."
CSM Codex: Chaos Rhino (pg 96) "This vehicle [b]does not use up any force organisation chart selections[b], but otherwise functions as a seperate unit."
Orc Codex: Dedicated Transport Vehicles (pg 100) "Thses vehicles [b]do not use up any force organisation chart selections[b], but otherwise function as separate units."
(Emphasis Mine)

Now as you can see, each of these units has it specifically included in their rules that they are dedicated transports or that they fail to occupy a FOC slot.

On to another entry
Tau Codex: Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier (pg 36) "Transport: The devilfish can carry up to twelve models. It may not carry any troops in XV battlesuits."
Nowhere in the entry does (or anywhere else in the codex) does it say that the devilfish is a dedicated transport vehicle (like the Eldar & Orc codexes), nor does it state that the devilfish doesn't use up a FOC slot (like the SM, CSM & Orc codexes)

Now how can I claim that the DF is only a dedicated unit that fails to occupy a FOC slot if there are no rules for it? Just like the Land Raider (both SM & CSM) I must use the rules on page 62 to turn it into a dedicated transport.

These problems are caused because the Tau are the only army with a non-dedicated "transport". This has been an issue since the codex came out. There is a Tau FAQ .... and the Devilfish is only mentioned in the Pathfinder entry to say that it does not get the scout move that the pathfinder unit gets.

**EDIT** Typoitis

Meep357: I did quote the rule and cite the page number. Here it is again, on P.62, "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle":

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles.

So if some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles, and some transport vehicles are dedicated transport vehicles, what distinguishes one from another?

These rules, or rule depending on what we're refering to here, tell us that all transport vehicles have the passenger capacity. And transport vehicles that are not dedicated transport vehicles are not included in a unit's transport option. We know that because the rules tell us that they are "other" than the units chosen as transport options for other units.

In the Space Marine Codex an exception to this is spelled out, the Land Raider. Land Raiders are transport vehicles that may be taken as dedicated transport vehicles. A Land Raider may be assigned as a dedicated transport vehicle or it may be chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot.

In Codex: Tau Empire, which units have transport options, as described on P.24 of that book? Fire Warrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams each have the transport 'option' of taking a Devilfish troop carrier. Put another way, the Devilfish Troop Carrier is a transport option for units in the Tau Empire Army List. Devilfish do not have the Land Raider option of occupying a Force Organization chart slot or being chosen as a dedicated transport. They are listed as a transport option for Fire Warrior Teams and transport 'option' (requirement) for Pathfinder Teams.

Like the dedicated transports in all of the army lists except the Chaos Space Marine Codex, which makes it clear that the Chaos Rhino is a dedicated transport in a different way, the Devilfish Army List Entry falls under the heading of Transport. Transport vehicles listed under the heading of Transport are those referred to by the transport option available to other units in army lists.

The Fire Warrior Team, Devilfish, and Pathfinder Team all satisfy the requirements for a transport vehicle to be a dedicated transport vehicle. Codex Tau Empire has no additional rules providing an exception, as exist for the Land Raider in Codex Space Marines. They are dedicated transport vehicles and according to the rules for transport vehicles on P.62 of the rulebook may not be chosen independently of those units they are an option for.

Nurglitch wrote:Meep357: I did quote the rule and cite the page number. Here it is again, on P.62, "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle":

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles.

So if some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles, and some transport vehicles are dedicated transport vehicles, what distinguishes one from another?

The rules that distinguish one from another are included in the rules for the specific vehicles. There is no general rule that distinguishes one type of transport from another. Labeling a vehicle as a transport does not distinguish it as dedicated, just as the label "jump infantry" does not distinguish between "jump pack" and "jet pack".

Here's the problem with your argument Nurglitch: You are trying to use the fact that most codexes include a specific rule for their transport vehicles that rule must therefore automatically applies to the others.

Page 62 instructs us as to who can use a transport vehicle and how we create a dedicated transport. It does not catagorise or identify any vehicles as dedicated unless they are taken as such. It includes rules that alows transports to be selected independantly and as dedicated units.

The devilfish is a transport. However what the devilfish does not have a rule that restricts it to dedicated duties (like the rhino, wave serpent & orc trukk). When selected as an option for a unit of Firewarriors or as the required option for pathfinders then they are restricted to dedicated duties; when selected independantly it occupies a FOC slot.

Meep357: The 'general' rule that distinguishes dedicated transport vehicles from non-dedicated transport vehicles is stated on P.62 of rulebook. It tells us that transport vehicles that are a transport option for another unit are dedicated transports. It categorizes such transport vehicles as dedicated transports.

The Devilfish is a transport option for Fire Warrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams. Transport options for units are other than non-dedicated transport vehicles; they are dedicated transports. The Devilfish is a dedicated transport. It is labeled as such; it cannot be selected independently because it is a dedicated transport vehicle.

No ... page 62 tells us how to select a transport as a dedicated unit.

It does not categorise any vehicle as dedicated unless it is selected as an option.

Nowhere on that page does it state (or allude) that anything labelled a transport is automatically dedicated.

And no ... the devilfish is not labelled dedicated. Nor does it have a rule that makes it such.

Again I quote the page section you are referring to:

“Sometimes aunit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot …” (emphasis mine)

Where there does it state that something labelled as a transport is dedicated?
It only says that when a transport vehicle (A) is selected as the transport option for another unit (B) it becomes a dedicated transport. So taking a devilfish with a unit of firewarriors is no different to taking a land raider with a unit of terminators in terms of determining if the unit is dedicated or if it can provide ad hoc transport.

It makes no distinction between a vehicle with a transport capacity and a vehicle labelled as a transport. Therefore we must defer to the rules for each individual unit to determine if it can be used separately or as a dedicated unit only.

Yes, I did explain how those rules need to be read in English and what they meant. They state that transport vehicles labeled as a transport and which a transport option for another unit are dedicated transports.

The Devilfish Troop Carrier Army List Entry is labeled "Transport" and the Devilfish Troop Carrier is a transport option for two units in that Army List (Fire Warrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams).

Selecting a Devilfish as part of Fire Warrior Team Army List Entry is noted to be different from selecting a Land Raider as part of a Terminator Squad Army List Entry. Codex: Space Marines notes that Land Raiders may also be taken as dedicated tranports even though they do not have an entry under the header of "Transport" like Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods. It also notes how they differ from all other dedicated transports with regard to capturing objectives and whatnot.

So, back to the rules on P.62:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles.

These rules, or rule depending on what we're referring to here, tell us that all transport vehicles have the passenger capacity. And transport vehicles that are not dedicated transport vehicles are not included in a unit's transport option. We know that because the rules tell us that they are "other" than the units chosen as transport options for other units.

The Fire Warrior Team, Devilfish, and Pathfinder Team all satisfy the requirements for a transport vehicle to be a dedicated transport vehicle. Codex Tau Empire has no additional rules providing an exception, as exist for the Land Raider in Codex Space Marines. They are dedicated transport vehicles and according to the rules for transport vehicles on P.62 of the rulebook may not be chosen independently of those units they are an option for.

Meep, put yourself in the shoes of a non-tau player. Your opponent shows up with a fleet of devilfish. He uses your arguement to say they aren't dedicated transports, they are troops.

Try to be fair and unbiased: Does it seem reasonable to you?

According to your stance, SM's & CSM's could take an unlimited number of rhinos, since they aren't dedicated AND take up no FOC slot

We're not talking reasonable, we're talking RAW. My views on RAW are (should be) fairly well known.

I have no problems what so ever facing an opponent who want's to show up with 6 devilfish as their troops choices (and 6 is the max you could have ... remeber when transports are taken as an seperate choice they occupy a FOC slot - troops in this case). Personally if someone shows up with a fleet of 6 devil fish they're seeting themselves up for failure. Devilfish just aren't that tough & you would be better off spending those 300+ points elsewhere in the army.

As for the rhinos no .... you forget that the SM & CSM rhinos have a rule that states that they are dedicated transports & therefore cannot be taken seperatley (a rule which the devilfish lacks).

Maybe you're talking RAW, but I'm talking about the rules stated by the text and thus eminently a matter of being reasonable.

There are several transports that may or may not be dedicated.

Falcon, Land Raider, and a Chimera (Chimeras are fast attack options in an AC list. So are Armored Fist squads).

But using examples in other codexes is pointless from a RaW perspective.

The Devilfish is an entry in the Troops section of the Tau codex, and it is also available as a dedicated transport for some units. That something is one of those things does not mean that it can't be the other.

I really doubt it was intended for the Devilfish to be a troops unit by itself (And I don't play that it is - I would consider it an exploit), but by RaW it appears to be.

So it is not written that: "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier"?

No one is arguing that the Devilfish is not a transport.

Let me quote Lowinor's post from earlier.

Premise 1: The only existing rule which specifies FOC location of army list entries for Tau lists is in the Tau Empire codex page 24. The criterion (and, it deserves to be stressed, sole criterion) given is which section of the army list the entry is found within.
Premise 2: The Devilfish entry is found within the Troops section.
Conclusion: A Devilfish may be taken as a Troops choice.

Now if you can actually disprove one of the premises, then you've disproved the argument. If you can't then you are just trying to argue that RaW are whatever you think the rules should be.

So basically, put up, or shut up.

i personally think where it is located has no bering on what it is. wave serpents are listed in the elite section of codex:eldar. obviously they are dedicated transports, but not just for elite choices, troops too. i just think it happened to where no elites could take a devilfish so they put it in the troops area to "make sense"

also bringing up the fact that no other tank in the game is listed as a unit type:transport but rather a dedicated transport or a tank and then later says if it can hold troops is important. i mean falcons are listed as a fast, skimmer, tank, and later states it can carry troops. in the land raider section, it lists it as a unit type: tank, and also later states it can carry guys. it seems to me that it would be very odd if they had this ability and no one else did. i know rhinos used to be able to be taken as heavy spots(its what i have been told) but they are completly going away with grey area vehicles. either they are a dedicated transport or not, and if not they are not, then they are not listed as a transport, but have the option of carrying guys, much like an option of equipping a weapon.

You, like others are using one army's codex entry to justify a different army's codex entry. In a RAW argument that just doesn't cut it... You must disprove some elements of the opposing argument if you want to win a RAW discussion. As it stands, Meep is correct in the way the Tau DF rules are written and the way they interact with the BGB- it is a transport that, by RAW, can be taken as a separate FOC entry all by itself. I don't play my Tau this way because personally I don't think that is what was intended (for one thing) and I find that the points DF would use up are far more usefully used taking units that provide more shots from the army (for another thing). That being said, I would not be able to justify denying an opponent of mine, by RAW, if he wanted to bring 6 DF as his troops choices. But in the next edition (5th) that comes out this summer, it looks like it would be scenario suicide to take 6 of them since they won't count as scoring (if rumors are true).

Must my $.02

Edit: grammar

skyth: Apparently people are if they are arguing that the Devilfish is a Troop choice for a Tau army because Army List Entries labeled "Transport: [Insert Vehicle Name Here]" are not HQ/Elite/Troop/Fast Attack/Heavy Support. They are dedicated transports which may only be taken when another unit have them listed as an option under their "Transport" note. Both premises of that quoted argument are false. The transport vehicle rules on P.62 of the rulebook also include rules about which vehicles are dedicated transports. The Devilfish Troop Carrier is not listed in the Troops section of Codex: Tau Empire. It is listed in the "Tranport" sub-section, just like the Chaos Rhino, the Wave Serpent, the Rhino, Razorback, and Drop Pod, and the Trukk are listed in their respective codicies. As huge_eldar points out, whether a Transport choice is included in the page(s) devoted a particular set of Force Organization Chart slots in any codex is irrelevant to the fact that it indicates dedicated transports that may only be taken as part of another Force Organization Chart selection.

Again nurglitch .... the rules on page 62 only tell us how a vehicle is chosen as a dedicated transport and who they can transport. It does not define any unit as a dedicated transport unless it is taken as an upgrade.

All the transport vehicles that you have sighted as evidence that the Devilfish must be a dedicated transport have one thing the devilfish does not. A RULE THAT MAKES THEM DEDICATED TRANSPORTS.

There is no rule that makes Transport:[insert name here] dedicated. You are infering from the rules that are in other army's codexes that the game's writers INTENDED for the devilfish to be a dedicated transport.

Meep357: Yes, by telling us how a vehicle is chosen as a dedicated transport that rule tells us how to tell which transport vehicles in an army list are dedicated transports.

I haven't cited anything but the rules in Codex: Tau Empire as evidence that Devilfish must be dedicated transports. There is sufficient evidence to certify proof in the Codex. I've merely brought up the cases of other Codicies for comparative purposes.

I'm certainly not inferring anything about the intentions of the game's writers. I'm pointing out that it is printed on the page in black and white that Devilfish are dedicated transports. The army list entries of Fire Warrior and Pathfinder teams can take Devilfish as dedicated transports and the information in those army list entries informing us that is labeled 'transport', not 'dedicated transport'. The corresponding transport entry is the Devilfish. The rules on P.62 tell us how to fit this information together, they tell us that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport when they are selected how the dedicated transport of a squad is selected.

The label itself is quite enough, but the fact that the Devilfish is chosen as a transport for teams of Fire Warrirs and Pathfinders, by the rules on P.62 of the Rulebook, removes all reasonable doubt.

Nurglitch- saying the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum does not make your argument correct or valid. This is a RAW discussion. Meep has outlined a RAW argument that is completely supported by the RAW. If you want to prove him wrong you must disprove one of the tenets of his argument. You have not even come close to doing that. Personally I agree with you that the DF should be a dedicated transport and, I in fact, play my Tau that way by choice. But in this RAW discussion Meep is 100% correct. If you want to convince people of your argument, then make a proposition and back it up with rules. The rule you keep quoting does not address Meep's premise and you must show how your theory interacts with the Tau DF in particular (not any other transport) with the rules that the DF has in its entry (and qoute them specifically with reference to how they interact with BGB). Until you do that, you aren't going to get anywhere from a RAW perspective. (BTW- your idea that the TAU codex says they are a "dedicated transport" is just flat wrong- nowhere in the codex does it say the words "dedicated transport").

Edit: spelling

Nurglitch wrote:I'm certainly not inferring anything about the intentions of the game's writers. I'm pointing out that it is printed on the page in black and white that Devilfish are dedicated transports. The army list entries of Fire Warrior and Pathfinder teams can take Devilfish as dedicated transports and the information in those army list entries informing us that is labeled 'transport', not 'dedicated transport'. The corresponding transport entry is the Devilfish. The rules on P.62 tell us how to fit this information together, they tell us that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport when they are selected how the dedicated transport of a squad is selected.

The label itself is quite enough, but the fact that the Devilfish is chosen as a transport for teams of Fire Warrirs and Pathfinders, by the rules on P.62 of the Rulebook, removes all reasonable doubt.

So, are Land Raiders dedicated transports only too, then?

They're transports, they can be taken as dedicated transports by some squads... so by your line of argumentation, they should be dedicated transports only as well, right?

Not that anyone cares what i think since i don't post here, or have any 'street cred' it's a slow day so i figured i would throw in my tuppence

Lowinor wrote:
So, are Land Raiders dedicated transports only too, then?

They're transports, they can be taken as dedicated transports by some squads... so by your line of argumentation, they should be dedicated transports only as well, right?

no the land raider is a Heavy Support choice, that through a special ruling in the CSM codex is allowed to behave like a dedicated transport baring certain restrictions. This is obvious and irrelevant to the discussion of the Devilfish.

Now on to the real matter, i agree with Nurglitch that RAW shows us that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport and can not be taken seperately. It also seems to me a lot of people are having trouble understanding what he is saying, which is why he has to keep repeating himself to everyone.

arguements using only BGB and Codex: Tau Empire:
(this is the part that i think most people are misunderstanding what nurglitch is saying)
BGB pg 62 "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

that above not only defines who can take a dedicated transport, but also what a dedicated transport is. a unit entry might include a transport option, these transports are known as dedicated transports. The devilfish is listed as a transport option for fire warriors and pathfinders it is therefore defined as a dedicated transport.

BGB pg 62 "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization Chart slot.."

'Other' means it's referring to transports that do not meet the above criteria,ie vehicles that can carry units but are not listed as a transport option for units. The Devilfish, since it is already mentioned in relation to the previous sentence, is therefore not one of the these 'other transports'

Tau Codex:
pg 36: The Devilfish is listed as "Transport" as the FoC type. It may be in the Troop section, however it is listed as Transport. Every other unit in the tau codex is listed under the appropriate FoC slot (HQ/Elite/Troops/Fast Attack/Heavy Support)


a. vehicles listed as a transport option for units are dedicated transports.
b. other vehicles exists that can transport units and they take up an FOC.
c. the Devilfish is listed as a "Transport" not a Troops" choice in the codex

that should be enough black and white for it to be seen that the Devilfish can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

now for non RAW arguments as other supportive clues.
The Land Raider 'argument':
The land raider should (by my point 'a') be a dedicated transport, however it is given a special ruling spelled out in the SM Codex that allows it to break these rules. This is a common practise in WH40k it is a restrictive game and rules are writen to overwrite other rules in special circumstances. Since this rule exists it is not related to the Devilfish arguement.

The Eldar Falcon:
It is not listed as a transport option and therefore falls under 'b' one of the 'other' units that can transport units. since this falls under 'b' it is irrelevant to any rulings on the devilfish.

Over all Book layout:
in he SM codex transports are given as a sub section of troops. You can tell this due to the difference in the font size of the headder. in the Sm codex HQ/Elite/Troops/Fast Attack/Heavy Support all have the same size font, Transports is done a smaller font making it a sub section. This is similar to how the Devilfish is done as a 'transport' type in the Troops section. These is no argument that the vehicles listed in the sub section of SM can be taken separately. This is also simlar to the Wave Serpent in Eldar. It is listed in a all Transport block in the Elite section of the codex, it is once again a transport done as a sub section of a larger section that included the first occurance of it's function as a transport.

Page flow
look at the entirety of pages in the tau codex, with specific reference to the Army list pages. There is no other section that the Devilfish could be listed in that would not result in an entire page having to be added to the codex. Due to the size of the kroot entry on the following page. It would have looked worse if that entry had been broken up to two pages so that the Devilfish entry would not be in the middle of the Troops section, hence why the Devilfish is specifically designated "Transport" in there to distinguish it form the actual Troops choices. and for people who think this doesn't matter, the number of pages in manuals such as this are taken into account. They are expensed per length, so throwing in a whole extra page for once vehicle is financially unsound.

Your argument doesn't follow from the rules. You are trying to twist the rules to say what you want them to say. I would love for it to be RAW that Devilfish are defined as always dedicated, but they're not.

Beast wrote:Nurglitch- saying the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum does not make your argument correct or valid.

No, but repeating the correct and only valid argument over and over is a way of catapulting the propaganda, so to speak.

Beast wrote:This is a RAW discussion. Meep has outlined a RAW argument that is completely supported by the RAW. If you want to prove him wrong you must disprove one of the tenets of his argument. You have not even come close to doing that.

I certainly have 'disproved' both the premises of the argument, although the technical term would be 'falsified'. I have shown that the rules on P.62 are relevant to the matter of what is a dedicated transport in the Tau Empire Codex. I have shown that the Tau Empire Codex contains the necessary information for Devilfish to be a dedicated transport. I have not done so through traditional "RAW" discussion because traditional RAW discussion is an error theory for working with rules and hence eminently ignorable. Fortunately there is an effective method for 'proving' that the Devilfish Troop Carrier is a dedicated transport, and I have done that. Whether or not people can follow it is irrelevant to what it proves.

Beast wrote:Personally I agree with you that the DF should be a dedicated transport and, I in fact, play my Tau that way by choice. But in this RAW discussion Meep is 100% correct. If you want to convince people of your argument, then make a proposition and back it up with rules.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. Either they are interested in addressing the facts of the matter, in which case they will convince themselves insofar as they wish to be rational and remind themselves to occasionally wonder whether the reasoning they subscribe to is incorrect or incomplete, or they will attempt to 'win' the argument by committing fallacies such as appeal to prejudice and popularity. Either way, the only important thing is to apply an effective method for extracting the salient information from the rules and checking it for validity and completeness.

Beast wrote:The rule you keep quoting does not address Meep's premise and you must show how your theory interacts with the Tau DF in particular (not any other transport) with the rules that the DF has in its entry (and qoute them specifically with reference to how they interact with BGB). Until you do that, you aren't going to get anywhere from a RAW perspective. (BTW- your idea that the TAU codex says they are a "dedicated transport" is just flat wrong- nowhere in the codex does it say the words "dedicated transport").

That is incorrect, which is odd since I have explained how the rules I've quoted are to be read and no one had pointed out any errors in my exegesis despite stating that my conclusion is wrong. Since one can either identify a premise as false and thus show that the premises of an argument are not true, or identify invalidity in reasoning and thus show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and no one has yet done that despite claiming the conclusion to be unsound I have no reason to consider the work I have checked myself to be incorrect. And since that work has true premises, unlike the counter-veiling arguments I have checked and found wanting, I have satisfied the reasonable doubt that may be attached to the conclusion that the rules tell us that Devilfish are dedicated transports.

wynforth: Any attachment of 'street cred' to one's argument is a fallacy either of popularity or authority. An argument is judged on grounds other than those used to judge the persons putting it forth.

And you have been unable to put an argument saying that Devilfish are solely dedicated transports. Only thing that you've proven with your argument is that they CAN BE dedicated transports. No one is disputing that.

Beast wrote:Nurglitch- saying the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum does not make your argument correct or valid. This is a RAW discussion. Meep has outlined a RAW argument that is completely supported by the RAW. If you want to prove him wrong you must disprove one of the tenets of his argument. You have not even come close to doing that. Personally I agree with you that the DF should be a dedicated transport and, I in fact, play my Tau that way by choice. But in this RAW discussion Meep is 100% correct. If you want to convince people of your argument, then make a proposition and back it up with rules. The rule you keep quoting does not address Meep's premise and you must show how your theory interacts with the Tau DF in particular (not any other transport) with the rules that the DF has in its entry (and qoute them specifically with reference to how they interact with BGB). Until you do that, you aren't going to get anywhere from a RAW perspective. (BTW- your idea that the TAU codex says they are a "dedicated transport" is just flat wrong- nowhere in the codex does it say the words "dedicated transport").

I agree with Beast. Just post the RULES AS WRITTEN, and there will be no discussion anymore.

Quoting the RAW is the right way, not inferring RAI.

I hate the rule, personally, but in no way does that mean that the RAW is any less valid.

One other thing .... I know that this is going to get me some flack (for some reason people just don't seem to like the red shirts).

All the Red Shirts I've spoken to have conceded that the devilfish isn't a dedicated transport as per RAW; however they've all said that they don't think that's the way it was meant to be.

I will say that I also feel that the devilfish SHOULD be a dedicated transport .... it just sucks that that's not the way it is under RAW.

skyth wrote:And you have been unable to put an argument saying that Devilfish are solely dedicated transports. Only thing that you've proven with your argument is that they CAN BE dedicated transports.

I not only have been able to put forth the argument that Devilfish are dedicated transports, I have repeated it over and over. Should I repeat it again?

akira5665 wrote:I agree with Beast. Just post the RULES AS WRITTEN, and there will be no discussion anymore.

I've done that. I've quoted the rules and received the bizarre response that those rules do not state what they do.

Rulebook. P.62. "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle":

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles.

So if some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles, and some transport vehicles are dedicated transport vehicles, what distinguishes one from another?

These rules tell us that all transport vehicles have the passenger capacity. And transport vehicles that are not dedicated transport vehicles are not included as another unit's transport option. We know that because the rules tell us that non-dedicated transport vehicles are "other" than the units chosen as transport options for other units.

In Codex: Tau Empire, which units have transport options, as described on P.24 of that book? Fire Warrior Teams (P.36) and Pathfinder Teams (P.38) each have the transport 'option' of taking a Devilfish troop carrier. The Devilfish Troop Carrier Army List Entry notes that it is a transport option, as it falls under the heading "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier" (P.36) The Devilfish Troop Carrier is a transport option for units in the Tau Empire Army List. This is because they are listed as a transport option for Fire Warrior Teams and transport 'option' (requirement) for Pathfinder Teams, and they are listed as a transport rather than an independent unit like all the independent units in Codex: Tau Empire.

The Fire Warrior Team, Devilfish, and Pathfinder Team all satisfy the requirements for a transport vehicle to be a dedicated transport vehicle of another unit, they have "Devilfish" listed as their transport option as per P.24. Codex Tau Empire has no additional rules providing an exception, as exist for the Land Raider in Codex Space Marines. They are dedicated transport vehicles and according to the rules for transport vehicles on P.62 of the rulebook may not be chosen independently of those units they are an option for.

Ok. Let us cut through the garbage and get to a definateve answer. got your codex handy.

The whole arguement revolves around thae fact that the Devilfish is listed in the same format as the troops, not in a seperate box unlike most transports.

- I say most because the Rhino and Razorback are also similarly formatted.

However that is not relevant.


THE DEVILFISH IS "CLEARLY" ANNOTATED AS A TRANSPORT.


Look at the grey lettering on the sidebar, yes the one with the erroneous troops symbol.

It says 'Transport'.

Look through the whole codex. Listed in completion to deny all arguements.

Commander = H.Q.
Bodyguard = H.Q.
Ethereal = H.Q.
Crisis = Elites
Stealth = Elites
Fire Warrior = Troops
Devilfish = Transport
Kroot = Troops
Gun Drones = Fast Attack
Pathfinders = Fast Attack
Piranhas = Fast Attack
Vespid = Fast Attack
Broadside = Heavy Support
Sniper Drones = Heavy Support
Hammerhead = Heavy Support
Sky Ray = Heavy Support


Devilfish are listed as transports, in greytone and they didn't put a box around it. End of discussion.

If that was the end of the discussion, this thread would have been over on the first page, when I first pointed that out...

Nurglitch wrote:Rulebook. P.62. "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle":

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles.

So if some transport vehicles are not dedicated transport vehicles, and some transport vehicles are dedicated transport vehicles, what distinguishes one from another?

What seperates a dedicated transport from a non dedicated transport? The rules that the transport has. Geez .... it's not that hard.

Nurglitch wrote:These rules tell us that all transport vehicles have the passenger capacity. And transport vehicles that are not dedicated transport vehicles are not included as another unit's transport option. We know that because the rules tell us that non-dedicated transport vehicles are "other" than the units chosen as transport options for other units.

In Codex: Tau Empire, which units have transport options, as described on P.24 of that book? Fire Warrior Teams (P.36) and Pathfinder Teams (P.38) each have the transport 'option' of taking a Devilfish troop carrier. The Devilfish Troop Carrier Army List Entry notes that it is a transport option, as it falls under the heading "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier" (P.36) The Devilfish Troop Carrier is a transport option for units in the Tau Empire Army List. This is because they are listed as a transport option for Fire Warrior Teams and transport 'option' (requirement) for Pathfinder Teams, and they are listed as a transport rather than an independent unit like all the independent units in Codex: Tau Empire.

Using this logic the SM & CSM Land Raider is a dedicated transport. SM Codex pg 30 says that a Terminator Command Squad may take a Land Raider as a transport, pg 31 says that the Terminator & Assault Terminator squads may also take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport. CSM Codex on page 94 it states that CSM Terminators can take a Land Raider as a transport option. Therfore the CSM Land Raider is a dedicated transport? I think not.

Nurglitch wrote:The Fire Warrior Team, Devilfish, and Pathfinder Team all satisfy the requirements for a transport vehicle to be a dedicated transport vehicle of another unit, they have "Devilfish" listed as their transport option as per P.24. Codex Tau Empire has no additional rules providing an exception, as exist for the Land Raider in Codex Space Marines. They are dedicated transport vehicles and according to the rules for transport vehicles on P.62 of the rulebook may not be chosen independently of those units they are an option for.

Have you read the Land Raider rules? The only exception rule that the Land Radier has is that it may still count as a scoring unit. pg 35 "Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports. Because Land Raidders are such formidable vehicles they do not count as dedicated transports for the purposes of holding objectives and scoring victory points. Treat them as vehicles instead." (emphasis mine) That rule says that a Land Raider, as taken as a dedicated transport, follows all the rules for a dedicated transport (i.e. doesn't take up a foc slot) EXCEPT for the one that says they're non-scoring.

This is why pointing to the Land Raider is not helpful to your argument.

Orlanth wrote:The whole arguement revolves around thae fact that the Devilfish is listed in the same format as the troops, not in a seperate box unlike most transports.

- I say most because the Rhino and Razorback are also similarly formatted.

THE DEVILFISH IS "CLEARLY" ANNOTATED AS A TRANSPORT.


Look at the grey lettering on the sidebar, yes the one with the erroneous troops symbol.

It says 'Transport'.

Look through the whole codex. Listed in completion to deny all arguements.

Commander = H.Q.
Bodyguard = H.Q.
Ethereal = H.Q.
Crisis = Elites
Stealth = Elites
Fire Warrior = Troops
Devilfish = Transport
Kroot = Troops
Gun Drones = Fast Attack
Pathfinders = Fast Attack
Piranhas = Fast Attack
Vespid = Fast Attack
Broadside = Heavy Support
Sniper Drones = Heavy Support
Hammerhead = Heavy Support
Sky Ray = Heavy Support

Devilfish are listed as transports, in greytone and they didn't put a box around it. End of discussion.

No the whole argument is based around the fact that the Devilfish, unlike the rihno, doesn't have a rule that means it doesn't occupy a FOC slot, ever, and must always be taken as a dedicated transport. The formatting of the page has nothing to do with it.

No one is debating that the Devil Fish is a Transport. As for the "erronous troops symbol". I didn't know you worked for GW and catagorically state that that is an error. GW has nowhere stated that it is an error (if you think they have please provide a link). Now as GW has not stated that this is an error, we must treat it as if it is not. Again I remind you of the rule on page 62 which states: "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it." Other transport vehicles - so those vehicles (transports included) not chosen as a dedicated transport. Note it says "other transports", it doesn't say "other vehicles which can transport infantry". Now clearly the Devil Fish is a transport, it clearly does NOT have a rule limiting its usage to dedicated duties (like the rhino, razor back, wave serpent, trukk & every other transport out there), it is clearly labeled as a transport in the troops section. Therefore when taken as a non dedicated transport, using the above rule, it uses a Troops FOC slot.

The problem is the rules on page 62 are DO NOT STATE which Transports are dedicated and which one's aren't. We can INFER that the game designers INTENDED for transports to be didicated ... however that's not the RULES AS WRITTEN. Under the current RULES AS WRITTEN you must look at the rules each transport has to determine their status as dedicated or non-dedicated. Unless GW comes out with a FAQ correcting their "errors" (troops symbol, no dedicated rule) then this is the way the RAW will stay.

Is feilding a DF as a troops choice a good thing? No
Is it a smart way to play the game? Probably not
Do I (& the majority of Tau players) play this way? No
Is it the way the rules are inteneded? No
Is it the way the rules are written? Yes

Is this a stupid argument? Yes

This is why I don't like pure RAW. I don't play pure RAW. Hell nobody I've ever played against, or seen play has ever played by PURE RAW.

I've seen this argument many many times. Neither side wins. We may as well agree to dissagree .... because for the last several posts all that's happened is both sides have mearly reapeated their arguments over and over. That does nothing but frustrate everyone.

My final thought on this is - If someone fields a Devilfish as a non-dedicated transport, you can use Nurglitch's argument to point out that the game designers did not INTEND for you to take a devilfish as a non-dedicated transport. Unfortunatley it doesn't go any further than that. If your opponent then chooses to ignore that intention and play the rules the way they're written - then DON'T PLAY THEM. You'll probably end up having a massive rules argument (about a different rule) with them durring game play.

Meep357 wrote:What seperates a dedicated transport from a non dedicated transport? The rules that the transport has. Geez .... it's not that hard.

What separates dedicated transport vehicles from non-dedicated transport vehicles is that the former are transport choices for other units and non-dedicated transport vehicles are not.

Meep357 wrote:Using this logic the SM & CSM Land Raider is a dedicated transport. SM Codex pg 30 says that a Terminator Command Squad may take a Land Raider as a transport, pg 31 says that the Terminator & Assault Terminator squads may also take a Land Raider as a dedicated transport. CSM Codex on page 94 it states that CSM Terminators can take a Land Raider as a transport option. Therfore the CSM Land Raider is a dedicated transport? I think not.

That's why the rules prefacing the Transport section of the Codex: Space Marine army list point out and explain the exceptions pertaining to the dedicated transport rule where the Land Raider is concerned. The exceptions are that the Land Raider is not necessarily a dedicated transport vehicle, and only when chosen as such, and when chosen as such counts as a scoring unit. There are no such exceptions for the Devilfish in Codex: Tau Empire.

Meep357 wrote:Have you read the Land Raider rules? The only exception rule that the Land Radier has is that it may still count as a scoring unit. pg 35 "Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports. Because Land Raidders are such formidable vehicles they do not count as dedicated transports for the purposes of holding objectives and scoring victory points. Treat them as vehicles instead." (emphasis mine) That rule says that a Land Raider, as taken as a dedicated transport, follows all the rules for a dedicated transport (i.e. doesn't take up a foc slot) EXCEPT for the one that says they're non-scoring.

Yes, I have read those rule and correctly as well. As I pointed out above, read correctly the rule about Land Raiders in the Transport section of the Space Marine list points out, in part, that Land Raiders may be selected as dedicated transports, and thus are an exception to Army List Entries that are only selected as dedicated transports.

Meep357 wrote:This is why pointing to the Land Raider is not helpful to your argument.

As I have pointed out, that is incorrect.

If the point that the Devilfish is a Transport is not contested, then it follows that the rules applying to transports, and thus dedicated transports, applies to the Devilfish. There is a rule on P.62 of the rulebook stating this:

Rulebook. P.62. "Who Can Use A Transport Vehicle":

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

So is there a unit entry in a Codex book that includes a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit?

Yes, there are two entries in Codex: Tau Empire that include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with these units, the Fire Warrior Team (P.36) and the Pathfinder Team (P.38). That transport option is listed as "a Devilfish troop carrier" in both entries.

This transport vehicle, the Devilfish troop carrier, is known as a dedicated transport.

Whether this is the intention of the writer is irrelevant. This is what the rules state. Feel free to play it otherwise, but don't kid yourself that the rules say anything but that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport.

It is a little know fact that an argument about rules was the start of the HORUS HERESY!!!111!!

First off, it's bad taste to label someone else's quote as being from someone else.

Second off, you still haven't proven that a Devilfish is only a dedicated transport. You've proven that it CAN BE a dedicated transport, but you have yet to prove that it is only a dedicated transport.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over again when it doesn't say what you say it says doesn't help.

skyth: Presumably you're addressing me, so where have I misquoted anyone?

Also, I have proven that a Devilfish is only a dedicated transport. I've cited the rule on P.62, and the information on P.36 and 38 to that effect. That rule on P.62 says that dedicated transports can only be dedicated transports.

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

This rule tells us that dedicated transport vehicles are not chosen separately from other army list entries, and do not occupy a Force Organisation chart slot.

What, in the Tau codex, denotes a selection as being a troop? Is it that
a) the entry is listed in the "troops" section, or that
b) the entry has the word "troops" written on its sidebar?

If the answer is (a), then the devilfish can itself be a troop choice. It is both a troop and a transport. If the answer is (b), the devilfish is a transport instead of a troop and so can be taken only as a dedicated transport.

As far as I can tell, the RaW do not tell us what criterion to use to make this determination. The rest of the codices are sufficiently clear in their wording and layout that this does not come up. Since the RaW do not state which criterion to use to identify a troop choice -- section or sidebar -- it is going to be a matter of player call no matter what. It's a shame that this wasn't addressed in the Tau FAQ.

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:I agree with Beast. Just post the RULES AS WRITTEN, and there will be no discussion anymore.

I've done that. I've quoted the rules and received the bizarre response that those rules do not state what they do.

I never posted what you quoted me as posting.

skyth: I've correction the attribution of that quotation. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

shirou: Whatever RAW says the rules themselves tell us how to determine whether a vehicle is a transport vehicle that occupies a Force Organization Chart slot, or whether a vehicle is a dedicated transport for a squad. On P.62 the rules tell us that if a transport vehicle is a transport option for another unit, then it is a dedicated transport. It is not listed in the Troop section of the Codex, it is a Transport. Codex: Tau Empire is sufficiently clear in its expression of the rules that this should not even be in question amongst literate people.

RAW is what it is and it contradicts you Nurglitch. I'm tired of wasting time by flogging this horse that has been dead for several months now... I suggest you go back and read the previous threads on this topic if they are still active. Your argument holds no water in relation to the BGB and DF rules in Codex: Tau Empire. That has been clearly and definitively demonstrated by Meep in his post. You actually have not falsified or disproven any part of his premise. We all want DF to be dedicated transports and we all think they should be dedicated transports, but wanting the rules to say something does not mean they actually do.

Beast: That is incorrect. The rules clearly state that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Any arguments reaching a contradictory conclusion are unsound, either because they are premised on false statements as Meep357's argument is, or made with invalid reasoning.

Meep357 has not only failed to clearly and definitively demonstrate the soundness of his argument, but has also shown his premises to be false, and thus demonstrated his argument to be unsound and thus eminently disproven. And unlike you and Meep357, I have actually demonstrated these things rather than merely declaring them. Simply saying that I have not when I have done so is dishonest.

I don't care what people want the Devilfish to be, as what people want is irrelevant to the meaning of words. I'm pointing out what the rules say to those who are either unable, or unwilling, to read them properly. It just so happens that the rules say that Devilfish are dedicated transports, and since the rules say that clearly and unambiguously.

As for myself I have made a commitment to telling the truth as part of my training, and my experience in teaching critical thinking and logic has shown me that patience is required when explaining things to recalcitrant interlocators. Thus I am neither tired of promulgating the truth, nor tired of refuting the untruths clouding the truth.

Nurglitch wrote:If that was the end of the discussion, this thread would have been over on the first page, when I first pointed that out...

Actually you pointed something else out, the title. The grey lettering on the sides is the only definative labelling, because it is used to describe EVERY unit in the main codex misting. As described above. There is no getting away from it. The title 'Transport: Devilfish' et al isnt quite so clear.

Stick to the verticle grey text and you cannot be argued against, well they can try, but its not worth answering as the grey text is consistent thoughout.

The vertical grey text is relevant, as is the "Transport" label. The "Transport" label is what distinguishes the Transport entry from the Troop entries. Either "Transport" satisfies the rule on P.62 of the rulebook, and their agreement simply confirms that neither is a typo. Neither can be reasonably argued against (and here I'm charitably including "No it's no!" in the category of argument...).

I think it's interesting that the last line of the Fire Warrior Team Entry is:

"Transport: If it numbers twelve models or less (including drones), the team may be mounted in a Devilfish troop carrier."

And the very next line on the page, titling the Devilfish entry is:

"TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER"

Which is, as Orlanth points out, in agreement with the Army List Entry typing in grey beside that entry.

Nurglitch wrote:Beast: That is incorrect. The rules clearly state that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Any arguments reaching a contradictory conclusion are unsound, either because they are premised on false statements as Meep357's argument is, or made with invalid reasoning.

As for myself I have made a commitment to telling the truth as part of my training, and my experience in teaching critical thinking and logic has shown me that patience is required when explaining things to recalcitrant interlocators. Thus I am neither tired of promulgating the truth, nor tired of refuting the untruths clouding the truth.

Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Trying to make yourself sound more educated than your discussion rivals also doesn't help your argument either. There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...


Edited for spellilisciousness

Orlanth wrote:Actually you pointed something else out, the title. The grey lettering on the sides is the only definative labelling, because it is used to describe EVERY unit in the main codex misting. As described above. There is no getting away from it. The title 'Transport: Devilfish' et al isnt quite so clear.

Stick to the verticle grey text and you cannot be argued against, well they can try, but its not worth answering as the grey text is consistent thoughout.

Actually, every unit has the symbol for their FoC slot to the side also. The Devilfish has the one for Troops, denoting it as being a Troops Choice.

Beast wrote:Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Okay, let's assume for a second that I'm not willfully blinkering myself to "RAW" when it is repeatedly shown to me. Let's assume I am merely an idiot whose hand needs to be held. Could you show me, the idiot, step by step how the argument I have put forth is incorrect? Remember that I'm an idiot and need it explained fully because I'm not smart enough or telepathic enough to understand what you mean.

Beast wrote:Trying to make yourself sound more educated than your discussion rivals also doesn't help your argument either.

I have no discussion rivals. My interlocaters are my companions on the journey to discover the truth.

Beast wrote:There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...

You know, I'd never claim that I was smarter than someone, but I would claim that I was gruner than someone. You see, by being gruner than someone I know that I am grune enough to be gerb, and if I am gerb than someone who doesn't pib with me must be ungerb and thus obviously not grune at all. And I must be gruner than someone who is not grune at all, right? I know that because I am grune, not because over any silly stuff like evidence or reasoning. Being gruner than thou is all I need to be gerb and thus someone to whom all must bow and pib with.

As you say, this is clearly an important issue for me, as my self-esteem and internet penis depend upon it. I have to prove that I am the grunest. Since I am clearly also an idiot, I implore you to take mercy on someone that is not as grune as you and help me pib with you such that I can partake in your grunes and thus also be grunest.

Ahem, seriously though, it would be nice if you carefully explained why I was wrong so I could understand. It would mean the world to me.

Beast wrote:
There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...

Nurglitch-You know, I'd never claim that I was smarter than someone, but I would claim that I was gruner than someone. You see, by being gruner than someone I know that I am grune enough to be gerb, and if I am gerb than someone who doesn't pib with me must be ungerb and thus obviously not grune at all. And I must be gruner than someone who is not grune at all, right? I know that because I am grune, not because over any silly stuff like evidence or reasoning. Being gruner than thou is all I need to be gerb and thus someone to whom all must bow and pib with.

Man you make me laugh! That was a pure Gold response.

Nurglitch-Exalt!!

Nurglitch wrote:

Beast wrote:Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Okay, let's assume for a second that I'm not willfully blinkering myself to "RAW" when it is repeatedly shown to me. Let's assume I am merely an idiot whose hand needs to be held. Could you show me, the idiot, step by step how the argument I have put forth is incorrect? Remember that I'm an idiot and need it explained fully because I'm not smart enough or telepathic enough to understand what you mean.

Been lurking a while, figured I'd create an account to answer your question, since no one seems to be able to do so. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have noticed you are presuming something.

nurglitch wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

Agreed. Some transports are dedicated. The issue is whether the word "transport" describes:
1) an entire entry
or
2) a vehicle

If the word "transport" describes an entry, then land raiders (because they can be taken by terminators) are dedicated. You get around this by pointing to a specific (C)SM rule that allows Land Raiders to be taken as non-dedicated transports. Under this argument, all Devilfish, no matter how assigned, are necessarily dedicated, and therefore cannot be taken as a troops choice.

However, if the word "transport" describes an individual vehicle, then when the vehicle is chosen at army creation distinguishes whether the vehicle is dedicated or not. Choose a Devilfish with a squad of FW, it's dedicated. Choose a Devilfish as a troops choice, not dedicated.

The issue between the two positions, I believe, boils down to the above choice. Do the rules point to entries in a codex or do they point to an individual vehicle. It is my opinion that, because of the language "directly assigned to that particular unit," that the rules are referencing individual models, and not the whole entry in the codex.

Hope I've at least contributed to the discussion.

egd: Certainly you have contributed to the discussion. It's nice to talk to someone willing to take the time. Please check the following for me, if you please:

In the case of the Devilfish the entire entry, the one labeled "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER", the entire entry and the vehicle in it are the same. So the term 'transport' on P.62 is satisfied either way, it seems.

Whether the rules in the rulebook point to the entry "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier" or to the vehicle with a transport capacity known as the Devilfish Trooper Carrier it appears that a transport satisfies the reference.

Part of my argument, perhaps the main part, is that when a vehicle with transport capacity is chosen as part of another unit, it is a dedicated transport as per P62. And it is other than a vehicle chosen as its own unit. Being able to take a Devilfish as a dedicated transport therefore excludes it from being chosen as an independent unit, such as a Troop selection.

Considering that the entire entry for the Devilfish is labeled "Transport", both in the title and in the grey sidebar where the Force Organization Chart slot names are usually written in Codex: Tau Empire it seems we have a candidate to satisfy the language of the rule on P.62.

If the individual Devilfish can be directly assigned to another unit, then Devilfish in general can only be dedicated transports.

If the Devilfish entry can be directly assigned to another unit, then the Devilfish entry can only be dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ahem, seriously though, it would be nice if you carefully explained why I was wrong so I could understand. It would mean the world to me.

Baaah! That, my friend, was spoken like a true grunemeister. Your grunish response sucked me back in (although it needs a bit more gerb but not so much that it becomes overly grune, lest you be seen as an arrogant gip that can only pib when he gets his way)... Go back and re-read Meep's first post in this thread or go search for the 10,000 other threads that deal with this... I don't think I can explain it any better than Meep or anyone else has already done. If you don't get it, then you don't get it... All the evidence, quotes and references are already there.

Now you can join with us, your interlocutors, and open your eyes as you continue your 'journey to discover the truth'.

Nurglitch wrote:
If the individual Devilfish can be directly assigned to another unit, then Devilfish in general can only be dedicated transports.

If the Devilfish entry can be directly assigned to another unit, then the Devilfish entry can only be dedicated transports.

This may be where you are going wrong... Since we are talking about BGB reference and general rules, substitute the words 'Land Raider' for 'Devilfish' in your quote above and then tell us that a Land Raider can only be a dedicated transport. You won't be able to because it can be either a dedicated transport for a unit or a FOC choice all by itself (as a Heavy Support choice). Now how is that different than a Devilfish being either a dedicated transport for a FW (or Pathfinder) team or taken as a FOC choice all by itself (a Troops choice in this case). The rules in the Tau codex allows it to be taken as its own FOC choice unlike all other codeci do for their 'truly' dedicated transports.

Edit: typos

The difference between a Devilfish and a Land Raider is that the Land Raider has additional rules stating it may be taken as a dedicated transport or it may taken as a separate unit. The Land Raider is an exception to the ordinary rules, not an exemplar of them.

The Devilfish lacks the additional rules that allow the Land Raider to be taken as either a dedicated transport or a Heavy Support choice. Since it can be taken as a transport for Fire Warrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams it cannot be taken as a Force Organization Chart choice.

The rules in Codex: Tau Empire appear to preclude the Devilfish from being taken as a Force Organization Chart option because Force Organization Charts admit only HQs, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. The Devilfish is listed as a Transport.

I still don't see what I'm missing here.

Well then I can't help you. Although you just validated my example. Actually the LR has the same rules layout as the DF. Both are listed as vehicles that have a troop capacity and both are listed in other unit entries, saying that they may be taken as a dedicated transport. And they are both listed as choices unto themselves and do not carry the same restrictions that say the Rhino/Razorback/Trukk/Chimera etc Transport entries do. The Land Raider is not an exception to the rules, it is in fact an exemplar of their type (like Falcons, Immolators, DF, etc...) Sorry if you don't see the distinction.

Nurglitch wrote:Considering that the entire entry for the Devilfish is labeled "Transport", both in the title and in the grey sidebar where the Force Organization Chart slot names are usually written in Codex: Tau Empire it seems we have a candidate to satisfy the language of the rule on P.62.

However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Nurglitch wrote:The Devilfish is listed as a Transport.

I still don't see what I'm missing here.

That it is also specifically listed as being a Troop choice as per the symbol in the grey area also.

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

Beast: So what is the point that I'm missing? Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that I'm just too stupid to understand?

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

Beast: So what is the point that I'm missing? Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that I'm just too stupid to understand?

I never characterized or said you were too stupid to understand. Those are your own sarcastic words. Trying to falsely ascribe them to me is underhanded at best, and most likely considered as a troll here. What I did say was that the points have all been laid out for you to read by numerous other posters here and that if you don't understand those points, then I can't explain it any better than them.

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

The same place it says that the word next to entries in the codex denote what choice they are.

Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

"Seriously, there's a thread in this forum where someone is claiming that Devilfish are not dedicated transports, and then you start this thread? What's up with you people? " quoted from Nurglitch in the "Are gretchen 'orks'?" YMDC thread...

The answer to your question is that someone needed RAW clarification on a rule to which they didn't know the answer. Okay with you if we discuss it and enlighten him on the various opinions/quotes/references of the issue so he can make his own informed decision (on his journey to the truth)? And I wouldn't say it is 'someone' claiming DF are not just ded. transports- it is a bit more of a widespread opinion than just one person... I personally don't like the ruling and refuse to play my own Tau that way, but RAW is what it is. So from a RAW perspective, we are the ones who should be taking your exasperated and supercilious attitude towards you... From a 'Rules As probably Intended' view , I agree 100% with you. But since this isn't a RAI thread we will likely have to just disagree...

Beast wrote:I never characterized or said you were too stupid to understand. Those are your own sarcastic words. Trying to falsely ascribe them to me is underhanded at best, and most likely considered as a troll here. What I did say was that the points have all been laid out for you to read by numerous other posters here and that if you don't understand those points, then I can't explain it any better than them.

Of course you didn't say that I was too stupid to understand or characterize me as being too stupid. I said that, not you. If I ascribed that to you I would have said:

"Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that you say I'm just too stupid to understand?"

Or:

"Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that you think I'm just "too stupid" to understand?"

However, given that apparently the reasons why my reading of the rules is incorrect has been, as you say, "demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways" (see that? that's attribution), then the only reason why I am unable to acknowledge the truth of the matter must be because I am stupid.

Or, just possibly, because my reading of the rules has not been demonstrated to be incorrect numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways (I love vague predicates, they just sound so learned!). Either/or.

skyth wrote:The same place it says that the word next to entries in the codex denote what choice they are.

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that on P.62 there is a sentence with that symbol describing how any transport vehicle with that symbol may be taken as a Troop choice as well as a dedicated transport? That can't be right, because there is no such sentence or text.

skyth wrote:Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

Ah, I think I understand. You meant to say that there is a rule describing how every Force Organization Chart choice is denoted by a particular symbol, rather than that there is a rule on the same page (P.62) as the rule that tells us that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Where in Codex: Tau Empire is this rule stated?

Nurglitch wrote:
Of course you didn't say that I was too stupid to understand or characterize me as being too stupid. I said that, not you.

However, given that apparently the reasons why my reading of the rules is incorrect has been, as you say, "demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways" (see that? that's attribution), then the only reason why I am unable to acknowledge the truth of the matter must be because I am stupid.

Or, just possibly, because my reading of the rules has not been demonstrated to be incorrect numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways (I love vague predicates, they just sound so learned!). Either/or.

Nice after-the-fact attempt at dodging responsibility for your words, but I'm certainly not buying it.

Your reading of the rules has in fact been demonstrated to be flawed "numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways". Just because I didn't want to list all the people (Meep , skyth, me, etc, etc, etc) as the individuals that comprise "numerous" did't make it incorrect or vague. Re-read the thread and you will see that it isn't a vague predicate at all- it is actually an accurate reflection of this (and other) threads on this topic.

This is getting a bit tedious and devolving into ad hominem attacks, so... Congratulations, your quest for truth is finally at an end! DF are only ever dedicated transports and anyone who claims otherwise is a non-grune simpleton who is utterly incapable of gerb and wouldn't be able to pib if his life depended on it! Yea!!!

Edit:
pesky spelling and grammar!

Dodging responsibility for my words? Is that what you call pointing out that perhaps your knee-jerk response was inappropriate? Buy whatever you like, I recommend the truth.

I've re-read the thread, I've read all the posts, and I still can't figure out how my reading of the rules is anything other than the truth of the matter. Now I'm relying, somewhat tenuously apparently, on your charity and good sense to help me see what I've missed.

Please, help me see what I'm missing. If I've re-read the thread several times and still can't see it, it would be a big help to me if you spelled it out in really simple and easy to understand terms. It seems unlikely that I'm so stupid that I can't see what must be right in front of my eyes, and I'm certainly curious about the matter.

Nurglitch wrote:Part of my argument, perhaps the main part, is that when a vehicle with transport capacity is chosen as part of another unit, it is a dedicated transport as per P62. And it is other than a vehicle chosen as its own unit. Being able to take a Devilfish as a dedicated transport therefore excludes it from being chosen as an independent unit, such as a Troop selection.

I think here is your problem. Your argument basically (from what I can see) hinges on the argument that if a transport can be taken as dedicated, then it must be dedicated (all transports of that type must be dedicated).

The opposition takes the position that a troop may take a transport, which makes it a dedicated transport. But if the transport is not selected as a troop option, then it is not dedicated.

Both sides seem to satisfy the rules on p. 62, and there are arguments to support each side. I think that RAW suggests that Devilfish can be taken separately, but RAI is unclear (although it slightly favors dedicated only).

egd: It's good to have you in this thread. Cheers.

The reason why my argument seems to hinge on that premise (that if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry and thus be a dedicated transport) is that's what the text on P.62 states.

Here's the thing: If another Army List Entry may take a transport, that makes it a dedicated transport, right?

Well, if another Army List Entry may take a transport that means whether it actually takes the transport option or not, it could have and that possibility is what makes the transport in question a dedicated transport.

Now if a transport (or vehicle with a passenger capacity) may not be taken as a transport option by another unit, then it is not a dedicated transport. It's hard for a vehilcle to be a dedicated transport when no unit has the option of taking it.

That's my argument, in part, that the option of taking a Devilfish as a dedicated transport is what prevents it from being taken as an independent Force Organization Chart slot. That's what the text on P.62 states.

The other parts of my argument are corroboration of the Firewarrior Team, Pathfinder Team, and Devilfish Trooper Carrier Army List Entrie. That's the part of my argument that says: "And because there's all this corroborating information, it is not only true that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport, but it is clearly the case that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport."

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

Ah, I think I understand. You meant to say that there is a rule describing how every Force Organization Chart choice is denoted by a particular symbol, rather than that there is a rule on the same page (P.62) as the rule that tells us that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Where in Codex: Tau Empire is this rule stated?

Although not written in text, the BGB and all the current codexes have that "Standard Missions" chart that shows Troops as having the triangle pointed to the right symbol. I don't have the Tau codex to see if it has the paragraph about how to use the FOC, but the Blood Angels has one on page 14. I guess if it isn't in paragraph form it isn't a rule to you?

And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must. Your bragging about your logical prowess has become irritating over time.

snooggums wrote:Although not written in text, the BGB and all the current codexes have that "Standard Missions" chart that shows Troops as having the triangle pointed to the right symbol. I don't have the Tau codex to see if it has the paragraph about how to use the FOC, but the Blood Angels has one on page 14. I guess if it isn't in paragraph form it isn't a rule to you?

Don't be silly. Being written in the text, rather than literally being text, is quite sufficient for the expression of a rule. It would be stupid to ignore diagrams about the rules, after all. But thank you for providing the requested information. However, now that you mention it, the "Troops" symbol is explained textually on P.77 of the rulebook, but that section does not appear to make any reference to the place of dedicated transports in the Force Organization Chart.

So what if the "Triangle Symbol" denoted that a Devilfish was a Troops choice? Well, the same thing applies. As no additional rules exist like those pertaining to the Land Raider that allow it to be taken as both a Troops choice and a dedicated transport, and that since it may be taken as a dedicated transport it cannot be taken as a Troops choice despite the labeling

Considering the location of the Devilfish Unit Entry in the Troops section of the Army List, and right below the first entry to have them as a dedicated transport option, it follows that the "Triangle Symbol" indicating that the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the Army List does not disagree with the labels and rules that mean it can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

snooggums wrote:And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must.

People have attempted to point that out, sure, but you cannot point out that which is false. It is true that being taken as a dedicated transport means an Army List Entry may only be taken as a dedicated transport. That's what P.62 states. The Land Raider is often mistaken as falsifying this, but it does not because has additional rules that allow it to be taken as both a dedicated transport and a Heavy Support choice.

snooggums wrote:Your bragging about your logical prowess has become irritating over time.

Since I haven't been bragging about it, you must be irritated by something else. Perhaps you will find my manner less irritating if you give up taking it as a personal insult to you. Or just leave your personal baggage at home, whichever.

Nurglitch wrote:So what if the "Triangle Symbol" denoted that a Devilfish was a Troops choice? Well, the same thing applies. As no additional rules exist like those pertaining to the Land Raider that allow it to be taken as both a Troops choice and a dedicated transport, and that since it may be taken as a dedicated transport it cannot be taken as a Troops choice despite the labeling

Considering the location of the Devilfish Unit Entry in the Troops section of the Army List, and right below the first entry to have them as a dedicated transport option, it follows that the "Triangle Symbol" indicating that the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the Army List does not disagree with the labels and rules that mean it can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

You are trying to get me to provide a special rule that is not required, as it clearly outlines what a transport is which is different than a dedicated transport. Clearly being marked with the symbol from the FOC hierarchy the Devilfish can be taken as a troop choice as a regular transport. It's location under a unit which is able to take it as a dedicated transport is irrelevant.

snooggums wrote:And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must.

People have attempted to point that out, sure, but you cannot point out that which is false.

I cannot prove a falsehood, yet it has been clearly stated where the rules state that the Devilfish is a transport and also that it can be taken as a dedicated transport. I cannot falsify your requirement that it only be dedicated because it doesn't say anything about that restriction that you are making up.

Nurglitch wrote:egd: It's good to have you in this thread. Cheers.

Thanks.

Nurglitch wrote:The reason why my argument seems to hinge on that premise (that if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry and thus be a dedicated transport) is that's what the text on P.62 states.

The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:
"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

"These" - does it refer to the "vehicle selected along with the unit" or does it refer to the "transport option?"

Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

Jesus, this is getting out of hand.


IMO, everyone needs to STFU with the insults.

All it does is take away from the discussion at hand. Every time you take a moment to insult another person in the thread, or respond to the insult, is energy & attention taken away from the discussion.
It's counter-productive.

...and annoying.

Here's the deal... egd seems to be the only one with his head on straight. He's not getting petty.
Nurglitch, no insult intended, I agree with your argument, if not your demeanor.

The same for beast, meep & skyth. Come on, guys. Let's take a deep breath and chill.
Disagreeing doesn't have to = arguing.

Now.

Forget the Land Raider for a moment.
Let's use the only 2 books that matter for the moment, the BGB & the Tau codex (note: I will mention the LR again).

This is the foundation of my post:
WH40K is a permission based game. I think we can all agree on that.
You can do what the rules tell you is possible. Agreed?
Otherwise, you'd have people bringing killed models back onto the table as reserves (since the rules don't say you CAN'T). AFAIK, only certain Tyranid units have that ability, and you have to pay for it.

So, we can only do what the rules tell us we can.

The rules say (not a quote) that any vehicle with transport capacity is considered a dedicated transport. That seems obvious, and I THINK we can agree on that.

IN GENERAL, a dedicated transport can NOT be taken as it's own FOC selection. We agree on that, too, I think.
Unless there is a rule stating that the transport can ALSO be taken as it's own FOC selection, then it may not be.

Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

I maintain that you cannot, because it does not exist.

Now, back to the Land Raider.
Based SOLELY on the BGB, the LR would be a dedicated transport and unable to use it's own FOC slot.

The Codex: SM, however, specifically makes the LR a Heavy choice with the OPTION to be used as a dedicated transport for a unit. It specifically mentions it in the unit description and makes it clear that it is an exception to the norm.

This is where the 2 become divergent. The Devilfish has no such text.

Warhammer 40K is not a game that allows you to do something because of words that were omitted from text. It is a game that allows you to do something because it specifically says you can.

If you disagree with me, fine. I understand.
If you want to point out that I'm wrong, I can take it.

If you want to tear down my "argument," I'm okay with that, too. Should you do so, please start at the foundation and address every point I made. I've noticed that, on both sides, there is a tendency to gloss over pieces you do not have a direct answer to.

If you don't address each point I make, I'll write off your response as unimportant.


Eric

snooggums wrote:You are trying to get me to provide a special rule that is not required, as it clearly outlines what a transport is which is different than a dedicated transport. Clearly being marked with the symbol from the FOC hierarchy the Devilfish can be taken as a troop choice as a regular transport. It's location under a unit which is able to take it as a dedicated transport is irrelevant.

I'm not trying to get you to provide anything more than you did, the section of the rulebook you thought indicated that the triangle symbol indicated a Troops choice in the Force Organization Chart. That section of the rules could equally have been rules like those about the Land Raider, as you seem to be saying that the symbol indicates the same sort of rule. Now, I didn't say the Devilfish Army List Entry location was relevant. I did suggest that its location made the Troops symbol irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, then it cannot clearly indicate that the Devilfish may be taken as an independent Force Organization Chart slot.

What is relevant is the fact that the Devilfish is labeled "Transport" (twice) and that it is a transport option for two Army List Entries.

snoogums wrote:I cannot prove a falsehood, yet it has been clearly stated where the rules state that the Devilfish is a transport and also that it can be taken as a dedicated transport. I cannot falsify your requirement that it only be dedicated because it doesn't say anything about that restriction that you are making up.

I am most certainly not making up anything about the rules on P.62. The rules state that transports are either dedicated transports because they are selected as part of another Army List Entry, or they are selected to fill their own Force Organization Chart slot.

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

The Firewarrior and Pathfinder unit entries satisfy this.

"These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transport vehicles."

The Devilfish is thus a dedicated transport vehicle.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization Chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

Other transport vehicles, i.e. those that are not dedicated transport vehicles, are chosen separately.

The first sentence indicates the conditions for being a dedicated transport, the second sentence names them as a dedicated transport, and the third sentences explains that only vehicles other than dedicated transports are chosen separately. So yes, the rules do make the restriction that I am reporting. They express it in the third sentence I have quoted. I have shown your denial of the restriction to be false.

egd wrote:The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:

Certainly the text you quoted does not make the distinction, but the quoted text is incomplete. It lacks the third sentence that I quoted to show how the text is to be read.

But with regard to the following text (re: "These"), surely the term "these transport vehicles" refers to the "transport option" in the previous clause rather than the "vehicle selected along with the unit" because of number agreement. If it agreed with the latter, it would be "this transport vehicle" indicating the particular vehicle rather than the type of vehicle.

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I do very much appreciate it. But can you understand why I, given this counter-argument, might reject it?

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

My argument, such as it is, can truly be quoted as "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry". But taking that to mean "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of that Army List Entry" would misrepresent my argument. As above, with the "these", my argument means: "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of other Army List Entries" or "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle".

egd wrote:Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

To be honest the more I actually walk the talk, so to speak, and apply what I teach in my classes to the problem of Warhammer rules I find those rules to be sufficiently precise such that the careful and critical reading I would give to scholarly articles yields clear and consistent results when applied to the Warhammer 40k rulebooks. RAI & RAW, being a flawed methods of reading, would naturally yield inconclusive results. I'm just trying to explain myself and the method I'm using here.

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

I think it is best to ignore RAW and RAI when reading the rules and to read the rules carefully and critically. When read carefully and critically (meaning avoiding things like number disagreement) as I've shown the question of whether Devilfish can be taken as Troops seems to be conclusively answered by "No."

Well written, egd.

egd wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

"These" - does it refer to the "vehicle selected along with the unit" or does it refer to the "transport option?"

"These," (and I agree with you re: wordsmiths) would refer to the vehicles. In the previous sentence, "the vehicles" (transport options) is augmented by the following text: "allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit"
Thus, any vehicle allowed to be selected along with the unit.

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I see what you're saying. I just don't understand how someone would choose to rad it that way since the general premise in 40K states that the more restrictive (i.e. weaker) option should be chosen when there is a discrepency.

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

Except that the units you refer to ARE CSM, they are simply marked CSM. They still qualify (plus, I believe their text states that they can take the Rhino).

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

Hopefully, I've made "our" side clearer.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Nurglitch, no insult intended, I agree with your argument, if not your demeanor.

That is not an insult, and I could not rightly take it as such. My demeanor is irrelevant to the argument and I certainly appreciated the fact that you are able to focus on what is relevant. More people like you and egd in this thread can only be a good thing.

MagickalMemories wrote:The rules say (not a quote) that any vehicle with transport capacity is considered a dedicated transport. That seems obvious, and I THINK we can agree on that.

I would have to disagree, although I suspect you have mispoken yourself here. The rules say that some vehicles with transport capacity are dedicated transports and that other vehicles with transport capacity are not.

MagickalMemories wrote:IN GENERAL, a dedicated transport can NOT be taken as it's own FOC selection. We agree on that, too, I think.
Unless there is a rule stating that the transport can ALSO be taken as it's own FOC selection, then it may not be.

The vehicles taken as dedicated transports are other than those that are taken as Force Organization Chart slots. So far only the Land Raider has a rule stating that it may be taken as either a dedicated transport vehicle or as a own Heavy Support slot.

MagickalMemories wrote:Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

MagickalMemories wrote:If you don't address each point I make, I'll write off your response as unimportant.

As a rule, one that I adhere to strictly, I've only addressed points that I think need addressing on the basis of technical merit. Otherwise it's good enough.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:

Certainly the text you quoted does not make the distinction, but the quoted text is incomplete. It lacks the third sentence that I quoted to show how the text is to be read.

But with regard to the following text (re: "These", surely the term "these transport vehicles" refers to the "transport option" in the previous clause rather than the "vehicle selected along with the unit" because of number agreement. If it agreed with the latter, it would be "this transport vehicle" indicating the particular vehicle rather than the type of vehicle.

I understand that, and it makes sense either way.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I do very much appreciate it. But can you understand why I, given this counter-argument, might reject it?

Yup. You had just stated earlier that you did not understand the counterargument, and I pointed it out to you. I think that both sides have merit, and continual bickering is not going to resolve the issue. The relevant rules have been quoted, everyone pretty much agrees that RAI is Devilfish <> Troops (and that you would be pretty foolish to take Devilfish as troops), so the only disagreement seems to be interpretation of RAW.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry", the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

My argument, such as it is, can truly be quoted as "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry". But taking that to mean "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of that Army List Entry" would misrepresent my argument. As above, with the "these", my argument means: "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of other Army List Entries" or "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle".

The problem is that "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is not supported by the rules. Either there's a 1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports (any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated), or there's a 1:1 relationship between troops that can take transports and dedicated transports (each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry).

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

To be honest the more I actually walk the talk, so to speak, and apply what I teach in my classes to the problem of Warhammer rules I find those rules to be sufficiently precise such that the careful and critical reading I would give to scholarly articles yields clear and consistent results when applied to the Warhammer 40k rulebooks. RAI & RAW, being a flawed methods of reading, would naturally yield inconclusive results. I'm just trying to explain myself and the method I'm using here.

I would have to disagree with you here. I do a lot of reading as well, and the 40k rulebooks are poorly done, from a professional writing perspective. But for rulebooks, they convey the general concepts well enough to play the game.

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

I think it is best to ignore RAW and RAI when reading the rules and to read the rules carefully and critically. When read carefully and critically (meaning avoiding things like number disagreement) as I've shown the question of whether Devilfish can be taken as Troops seems to be conclusively answered by "No."

Another point of disagreement, I think that the question is open, but other sources (inappropriate to forming the argument) would suggest "yes," but only if you bring in corollary evidence to support RAI.

egd wrote:I understand that, and it makes sense either way.

Okay, so could you show me how it makes sense both ways, because it seems to be that it only makes sense one way.

egd wrote:Yup. You had just stated earlier that you did not understand the counterargument, and I pointed it out to you. I think that both sides have merit, and continual bickering is not going to resolve the issue. The relevant rules have been quoted, everyone pretty much agrees that RAI is Devilfish <> Troops (and that you would be pretty foolish to take Devilfish as troops), so the only disagreement seems to be interpretation of RAW.

Okay, so if you understand why I might reject the counter-argument, how is it that you think both sides have merit when you understand how at least one side is incorrect? I can see understanding why I might reject the counter-argument and thinking neither side has merit, but I don't get the assignation of merit to both sides when you understand my argument.

Continual bickering certainly won't solve the disagreement, but putting some patience, care, and co-operation into the discussion usually does the trick.

egd wrote:The problem is that "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is not supported by the rules. Either there's a 1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports (any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated), or there's a 1:1 relationship between troops that can take transports and dedicated transports (each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry).

But the statement "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle" is supported by the rules, in particular the three relevant sentences on P.62 that keep getting thrown around. I've even shown how it is supported by those sentences.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's a "1:1 relationship between mounted troops & dedicated transports", either as "any extra transports that can be taken aren't dedicated" or "each troop entry needs its own dedicated transport entry"

The rules say that if a transport is taken as a transport option for another unit entry then it is a dedicated transport. It doesn't say that if a particular transport vehicle is taken as particular transport option for another particular unit. It's talking about types, not tokens.

egd wrote:I would have to disagree with you here. I do a lot of reading as well, and the 40k rulebooks are poorly done, from a professional writing perspective. But for rulebooks, they convey the general concepts well enough to play the game.

I'm saying they're sufficiently precise, nothing more. Certainly I have a bone to pick with them via style and presentation, but they can be deciphered.

Nurglitch wrote:So far only the Land Raider has a rule stating that it may be taken as either a dedicated transport vehicle or as a own Heavy Support slot.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

Precedent is set that some vehicles can be BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances (and for some units) while also being separate FOC choices in their own right. Every other 'dedicated' transport has a paragraph denying their use as anything other than a dedicated transport. The LR, Falcon, Immolator, DF (et al.) all lack this restrictive clause in their rules. Would any of you say that a LR or a Falcon can't be take as BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances AND a separate FOC choice in other instances. No of course you wouldn't. The rules for these vehicles (LR, Falcon, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and DF) are all written the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like this DF issue any more than anyone else, and I think it all stems from sloppy codex writing and a lack of standardization among the writers, but you can't get around the fact that some vehicles (the DF, LR, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and Falcon are all included) can be taken as BOTH a dedicated transport and a FOC choice if the player chooses.

Beast wrote:Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

The Falcon is not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Eldar. The Ork Codex explains how dedicated transports work in Codex: Orks, and Looted Wagons are not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Orks. The Immolator I couldn't say. So you're right in that the Battlewagon also has additional rules allowing it to be chosen as both dedicated tranports or independent Force Organization Chart select. Either way the point is that these extra rules are required and absent in the case of the Devilfish.

Beast wrote:Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

I have, earlier in the thread. Would it help if I repeated myself?

Beast wrote:Precedent is set that some vehicles can be BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances (and for some units) while also being separate FOC choices in their own right. Every other 'dedicated' transport has a paragraph denying their use as anything other than a dedicated transport. The LR, Falcon, Immolator, DF (et al.) all lack this restrictive clause in their rules. Would any of you say that a LR or a Falcon can't be take as BOTH a dedicated transport in some instances AND a separate FOC choice in other instances. No of course you wouldn't. The rules for these vehicles (LR, Falcon, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and DF) are all written the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like this DF issue any more than anyone else, and I think it all stems for sloppy codex writing and a lack of standardization among the writers, but you can't get around the fact that some vehicles (the DF, LR, Immolator, Battlewagon, Looted-wagon and Falcon are all included) can be taken as BOTH a dedicated transport and a FOC choice if the player chooses.

Precendent has not been set. All vehicles that can be taken as either dedicated transport vehicles or independent Force Organization Chart selections have additional rules permitting them to do so. As mentioned the Falcon and the Looted Wagon may not be taken as transport options for any other units, while the Land Raider and Battlewagon each have rules permitting them to be either.

Of course one can have their cake and eat it too, that's the point of cake. The fact is that Devilfish can only be chosen as dedicated transports for other units.

egd wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

In standard English, if you use a pronoun, it refers specifically to the last preceding noun. In the case of this sentence, the 'These' transport vehicles then applies to the vehicle that is selected along with a unit.

If a vehicle (The vehicle itself, not the entry) isn't selected along with a unit, then it is not dedicated.

If a Devilfish is taken as a troops choice (And not along with a unit), then it is not dedicated. If it is 'selected along with the unit' then it is dedicated.

Nurglitch: To humor me, go line by line through this argument and tell me where you are having a problem. Just trying to present the argument clearly.

Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option

No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1"

allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit

The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit

Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

are known as dedicated transports.

Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

Other transport vehicles

Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot

Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it.

Establishes rules not present in the "dedicated transport" section, irrelevant for now.

Nurglitch wrote:

Beast wrote:Ummm, only the LR has a rule allowing it to be both??? Falcon? Immolator? Battlewagon? Looted-wagon? Beuhler? Beuhler?

The Falcon is not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Eldar. The Ork Codex explains how dedicated transports work in Codex: Orks, and Looted Wagons are not a transport option for any unit in Codex: Orks. The Immolator I couldn't say. So you're right in that the Battlewagon also has additional rules allowing it to be chosen as both dedicated tranports or independent Force Organization Chart select. Either way the point is that these extra rules are required and absent in the case of the Devilfish.

Beast wrote:Who has shown the symbol to be irrelevant and the sideways text relevant? You? I've never heard GW make any such statement.

I have, earlier in the thread. Would it help if I repeated myself?


Precendent has not been set. All vehicles that can be taken as either dedicated transport vehicles or independent Force Organization Chart selections have additional rules permitting them to do so. As mentioned the Falcon and the Looted Wagon may not be taken as transport options for any other units, while the Land Raider and Battlewagon each have rules permitting them to be either.

Of course one can have their cake and eat it too, that's the point of cake. The fact is that Devilfish can only be chosen as dedicated transports for other units.

You are correct about the Falcon and Looted wagon-they are indeed different creatures all together. I also agree the Ork codex specifically describes how dedicated (and only-ever-dedicated transports work (namely the Trukk) just as the SM codex says the same thing about Rhinos/RBs and as the IG codex says about Chimeras and the WH codex says about Rhinos/Chimeras, etc... I am not talking about those vehicles and I rather suspect you know that. But the point here is that there are other vehicles that can be chosen in the same manner as DF (LR, Immolator, Battlewagon specifically). All their rules are written the same way and can be BOTH a FOC choice on their own and a dedicated transport for another unit.

As for you showing us all that symbols/text are/are not relevant... I guess we should take your word as from the mouth of GW? I think not... I hope your students aren't subjected to this kind of intellectual highway robbery. I feel for their skulls full of mush if so.

Precedent is indeed set... For the LR/BW/Imm to be both you must reference several rules to come to that conlcusion (ie the Terminator entry for the dedicated transport option and the HS land raider entry for its own FOC choice). Same thing for the Battlewagon (Nobz entry and its own unit entry), Immolator (Dominions/Retributors entry and its own unit entry) and DF (FW/Pathfinder entry and its own unit entry).

You can't get around these facts and you might want to have your cake and eat it too, but the rules will smush it in your face before you get to take the first bite.

skyth: In standard English we also employ number agreement. "These transport vehicles" refers to the entry, not to the tokens of that entry.

egd: I wouldn't call it humouring, since I have not dismissed anything you're said out of hand. I'd call it checking.

1. "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

egd wrote:No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1" The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

This is incorrect because the unit entry Firewarrior Team includes the transport option, not any particular Firewarrior Teams.

2. "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

Incorrect as well. #2 means that selections from the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to the particular unit selected from the unit entry mentioned in #1. Although you're right that given those selections any particular Devilfish has a corresponding unit which it is selected for.

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

The sentence in question, #2, indicates a conjunction. It could be paraphrased as two sentences:

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit. These transport vehicles are known as dedicated transports.

In both sentences "these transport vehicles" refers to the entries, not the particular transports chosen from those entries, as iterated above.

3. "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

egd wrote:Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

It can only be read as 'Other transport vehicles from those know as dedicated transports". Remember that transport vehicles are described on the same page as being those vehicles with a passenger capacity, called "transport" in their profiles (thus amphiboly is something to watch for here). The sentence in question thus divide transport vehicles into dedicated transports and those that are selected as Force Organization Chart slots.

egd wrote:Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

The first part is incorrect: It should be read to mean that they are not listed as an option for another unit. And the last bit's irrelevant so I think we can safely ignore it.

Nurglitch wrote:I would have to disagree, although I suspect you have mispoken yourself here. The rules say that some vehicles with transport capacity are dedicated transports and that other vehicles with transport capacity are not.

You would be correct. In my haste to, both, post here AND work (LOL), I was unsuccessful.
My point was that, if it can be taken as a transport option for a specific unit, it's a dedicated transport for that unit, barring rules to the contrary (See: Land Raider).

I'm like you in that, for the life of me, I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules in that manner (transports as troops).

Also...

Nurglitch wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

You're right that they are relevant but not for what I was asking for. I was asking for something that specified that the DF can be used in this way.
The existence of a triangle or lack of one word might IMPLY to someone what the meaning is, but it doesn't actually state what it is. That was the important part of that section. WK40K is permission based. No specific permission = you can't do it.


Keep fighting the good fight. I'm still lurking & supporting your (our) side but the inability of certain people to (IMO) think clearly makes my head hurt too much to get into it often.

Eric

Beast wrote:You are correct about the Falcon and Looted wagon-they are indeed different creatures all together. I also agree the Ork codex specifically describes how dedicated (and only-ever-dedicated transports work (namely the Trukk) just as the SM codex says the same thing about Rhinos/RBs and as the IG codex says about Chimeras and the WH codex says about Rhinos/Chimeras, etc... I am not talking about those vehicles and I rather suspect you know that.

Yes, you are talking about vehicles that can be chosen as either dedicated transports or as Force Organization Chart slots. Aside from the Land Raider and the Battlewagon there are apparently none (though perhaps the Immolator though I don't have the Witch Hunter Codex and therefore could not comment).

Beast wrote:But the point here is that there are other vehicles that can be chosen in the same manner as DF (LR, Immolator, Battlewagon specifically). All their rules are written the same way and can be BOTH a FOC choice on their own and a dedicated transport for another unit.

Their rules are not written in the same way. The Land Raider, for example, has a rule specifically describing how it can be chosen as either a dedicated transport or a Heavy Support choice. The Battlewagon is not specified in Codex: Orks but falls under the rules that book provides about dedicated transports. In both cases, and unlike the Devilfish, specific rules exist to allow this flexilibility.

Beast wrote:As for you showing us all that symbols/text are/are not relevant... I guess we should take your word as from the mouth of GW? I think not... I hope your students aren't subjected to this kind of intellectual highway robbery. I feel for their skulls full of mush if so.

I'm not asking you to take my word, I'm asking for you to check my work. Much like I ask my students, except you won't get extra credit for finding errors. I teach them that appeals to authority are fallacies and that arguments stand on their own merits. Call it 'intellectual snobbery' if you like. I suspect it's impossible to judge such things before you actually take a class under me. Call it a hunch.

Beast wrote:Precedent is indeed set... For the LR/BW/Imm to be both you must reference several rules to come to that conlcusion (ie the Terminator entry for the dedicated transport option and the HS land raider entry for its own FOC choice). Same thing for the Battlewagon (Nobz entry and its own unit entry), Immolator (Dominions/Retributors entry and its own unit entry) and DF (FW/Pathfinder entry and its own unit entry).

As mentioned there is a rule in the Transport section of the Space Marine army list that allows a Land Raider to be taken as dedicated transport for Terminators and Combat Terminators as well as a Heavy Support choice. Likewise there is a rule in the Dedicated Transport Vehicles section of the Ork army list that allows vehicles like Battlewagons to be taken as dedicated transports as well as Force Organization Chart choice as well as a dedicated transport for the units listing them as an option. I can only hypothesize the same for the Immolator.

In the case of the Devilfish there is no additional rule beyond the options available in the Firewarrior and Pathfinder unit entries and the Devilfish entry labeled "Transport". Incidentally now that I check I noticed that like the Dedicated Transport Vehicles entry in the Ork army list, the Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier is listed in the Troops section. An interesting congruency.

Beast wrote:You can't get around these facts and you might want to have your cake and eat it too, but the rules will smush it in your face before you get to take the first bite.

I don't need to get around these facts because they aren't facts, per se. In other words, it is not the case that the case of the Devilfish is sufficiently congruent with that of the Battlewagon or the Land Raider (although, again, I could not say about the Immolator). In fact the cases are significantly different. The Battlewagon and the Land Raider are both Heavy Support choices with additional rules allowing them to be taken as dedicated transports, while the Devilfish is neither an HQ nor Elite nor Troops nor Fast Attack nor Heavy support choice, and is in fact labeled a Transport.

MagickalMemories wrote:I'm like you in that, for the life of me, I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules in that manner (transports as troops).

It might be something here to note that when we say something like "For the life of me I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules to mean Transports are Troops" we mean "For the life of me I have not yet been able to see how anyone could read the rules to mean Transports are Troops unless they are reading the rules wrongly." The first way implicitly states: "Either I'm stupid or you're stupid" whereas the second way explicitly states that "Someone's making a mistake here, and I plan to get to the bottom of it."

MagickalMemories wrote:You're right that they are relevant but not for what I was asking for. I was asking for something that specified that the DF can be used in this way.
The existence of a triangle or lack of one word might IMPLY to someone what the meaning is, but it doesn't actually state what it is. That was the important part of that section. WK40K is permission based. No specific permission = you can't do it.

Depending on what other information is around symbols can be either relevant or irrelevant. In this case, it is the case that we'd need more information before the triangle symbol could be relevant to the status of the Devilfish entry. The information about the Force Organization Chart adds something, but not enough to make the connection explicit. And since what it implicit is subjective, and we're concerned with what the rules say, which is objective, only the explicit is relevant.

MagickalMemories wrote:Keep fighting the good fight. I'm still lurking & supporting your (our) side but the inability of certain people to (IMO) think clearly makes my head hurt too much to get into it often.

It's not a fight. It's about trying to figure out the truth. Personally I enjoy the communication, and it's quite educational. It's much nicer to be able to discuss these things with people than to find out during exam time that they weren't listening (or reading their textbooks, or apparently the course calendar..!).

Nurglitch wrote:I'm not asking you to take my word, I'm asking for you to check my work. Much like I ask my students, except you won't get extra credit for finding errors. I teach them that appeals to authority are fallacies and that arguments stand on their own merits. Call it 'intellectual snobbery' if you like. I suspect it's impossible to judge such things before you actually take a class under me. Call it a hunch.

Okay I will call it that if you insist (although I might edit-out the 'intellectual' part)... Just kidding... And your work (premise) has been checked... and found wanting in that it does not stand on its own merits. (Big smile, big smile- I'm still kidding) Everything else you commented on is a rehash of your same argument that doesn't hold water and that has been proven wrong by RAW. As I said 'numerous times' (is that too vague or do I need to list them all? ) before, I do agree with you that the DF should not be a FOC choice even though it is by RAW. It's a cryin' shame we must disagree about it. I can see your point of view, I just disagree that RAW supports you. Hopefully we will see eye to eye on some other, trivial game rules in the future though...

But this has been fun grunemeister... Stimulating at least...

Until next time then.

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: In standard English we also employ number agreement. "These transport vehicles" refers to the entry, not to the tokens of that entry.

Since nothing in the rules quote was plural before the 'These', you cannot hold this to be true.

If there was nothing, that would be correct. However:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

The adverb "sometimes" is plural, meaning more than once a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport options are dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:1. "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

egd wrote:No confusion here, Firewarrior unit Alpha has an option which allows them to select a devilfish. They exercise the option and select "Devilfish #1" The single Troops slot is occupied by the unit + vehicle (Alpha + #1, the tau player can take up to Zeta & #6 if he chooses)

This is incorrect because the unit entry Firewarrior Team includes the transport option, not any particular Firewarrior Teams.

I don't see how you can contradict this. If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes the transport option, then every individual unit selected from that unit entry includes the option.

Rule 1: Any Firewarrior Team can select a transport option
Alpha is a Firewarrior Team
Therefore Alpha can select a transport option

Nurglitch wrote:2. "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is assigned to Firewarrior unit Alpha. Cannot be assigned to Firewarrior unit Beta

Incorrect as well. #2 means that selections from the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to the particular unit selected from the unit entry mentioned in #1. Although you're right that given those selections any particular Devilfish has a corresponding unit which it is selected for.

As defined above, Alpha can select a transport option. This rule states that any transport option selected by Alpha cannot be a transport option for unit (not Alpha).

Therefore:
Rule 2: Each transport selected under Rule 1 is assigned to the selecting unit, and only that unit.
#1 is assigned to Alpha
#1 cannot be assigned to any unit not-Alpha (and by implication in the transport rules, cannot transport any non-Alpha)

Rule 3: Each transport satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport
Alpha selects Devilfish #1
#1 is a dedicated transport.

If a Devilfish is an option for "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, as opposed to an individual "Firewarrior Team Alpha", then any devilfish must be "directly assigned to that particular unit." But if there is no "particular unit" Alpha, then "particular unit" must apply to "Firewarrior Team." The result is that any devilfish can transport anything that satisfies the criteria "Firewarrior Team."

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Devilfish #1 is therefore dedicated transport, which implicates more rules, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

The sentence in question, #2, indicates a conjunction. It could be paraphrased as two sentences:

These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit. These transport vehicles are known as dedicated transports.

In both sentences "these transport vehicles" refers to the entries, not the particular transports chosen from those entries, as iterated above.

I'm OK with the first part, I think you're reading too much into the rule, however. All transport options must be dedicated transports, and all transport options must be transport vehicles. But not all transport vehicles must be transport options or, by implication, dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:3. "Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

egd wrote:Could be read as either "transport vehicles not selected with the unit" or "non-transport options allow[ed] to be selected along with the unit" (because a devilfish cannot be classified both as "transport vehicle" and "other transport vehicle allowed...")

It can only be read as 'Other transport vehicles from those know as dedicated transports". Remember that transport vehicles are described on the same page as being those vehicles with a passenger capacity, called "transport" in their profiles (thus amphiboly is something to watch for here). The sentence in question thus divide transport vehicles into dedicated transports and those that are selected as Force Organization Chart slots.

Transports can only be "Dedicated transports" or "Not Dedicated Transports."

If a transport is not a dedicated transport, then:
1) Transport may be chosen separately
2) Transport occupies a force org chart slot
3) Transport can provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it

Nurglitch wrote:

egd wrote:Are not part of the unit's options, occupy a force org slot, etc.

The first part is incorrect: It should be read to mean that they are not listed as an option for another unit. And the last bit's irrelevant so I think we can safely ignore it.

The first part is correct. Any non-dedicated transport may not be chosen as a unit option. Even if devilfish can be chosen as troops (assumed arguendo), any devilfish selected as such may not be part of a unit's options. Firewarrior Unit Alpha (Troop Slot A) cannot opt to have a non-dedicated Devilfish transport (Troop Slot B). Or in a shorter form, any non-dedicated transport is not part of any unit (so models can't start in the transport, models can't deploy with the transport, but the transport may carry any qualifying models)

I've stayed out of this since I realised that this had become a circular argument that was only going to end in a flame war. And I note that the same positions have been restated (over and over and over since the intial first few posts) and we're still at an impass.

Here's the summary:
One argument is that something being labed "Transport:" makes it dedicated automatically.
The other says that the rules that belong to the "Transport:" & how the Transport is selected is what makes a transport deidcated.


Some issues that are getting on my nerves:
You can't say that the transport label is valid and the troops icon is not. Either both are valid, or neither is. If it's one is repeated twice, that does not make that label any more valid or invalid than the other one.

If we're to take the "restrictive" rules approach .... look out .... the cheeze is coming (there's alot of things that you can do if you're only restricted by rules saying what you Can not do" -- to use the the casualty example ... there is no rule that prevents me from bringing them back).
If we're to take the "permisive" rules approach .... look out .... a lot of the options you like to have are gone. (i.e. it doesn't say that terminators have Terminator Armour therefore they miss out on the 5+ inv. save ... which isn't listed in their unit entry).

Some thoughts to ponder:
This thread is becoming a real waste of time and bandwidth. Neither side is going to give to the other.

This issue is EXACTLY the same as the Pathfinder Scout rule used to be.
It will not be resolved until GW puts it into a FAQ.

We disagree .... I'm afraid you'll just have to move on.

On a side note:
How about the Chaos Landraider? Is it a dedicated transport?

If we are to follow the opposition's logic. As the CSM LR can be taken as a transport option it must be a dedicated transport. It does not have the same rules as the loyalist land raider (ie. is always a scoring unit & can capture objectives).
Therefore it must be a dedicated transport and can only be selected as one.
Thus it never occupies a FOC, never counts as a scoring unit and can never capture objectives.

Finally:

Nurglitch wrote:
As mentioned there is a rule in the Transport section of the Space Marine army list that allows a Land Raider to be taken as dedicated transport for Terminators and Combat Terminators as well as a Heavy Support choice.

No such rule exists.

Nurglitch wrote:If there was nothing, that would be correct. However:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

The adverb "sometimes" is plural, meaning more than once a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport options are dedicated transports.

a) Sometimes is not unnecessarily plural. 'Sometimes I go down to the beach'. Nothing in there is plural.

b) Even if it was plural, it modifies the entire sentence. The 'These transport vehicles' still points back to the vehicle selected along with the unit, bring the previous applicable noun.

As a trained English teacher and grammar nerd, in the English language, adverbs do not take modification for number.

For example the adverbs "sometime" and "sometimes" have distinct meanings that are not necesarily synonymous. One is not a plural of another:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sometimes

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sometime

I can only pray I don't debate half as long as this thread is if I ever encounter a player trying to field a Devilfish as a troop choice. I think that Lascannon fire should be the victor of this circular argument...

Really it goes nowhere and you are looping all over the place with one piece of criticle information that is fairly ambiguous: Is it listed as a Troop selection or not. that, in the end, is the real argument that neither can really win. you might as well argue over what's someones real last name, what they were born or married into.

egd:

If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes a transport option, then every unit selected from that unit entry may have that transport option. If the unit entry "Pathfinder Team" requires a transport, then every unit selected from that unit entry includes the transport option. So:

Rule #1: All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team.
Therefore Fire Team Alpha can be selected with a transport option.

As defined above, Alpha can be selected with a transport option. This rule states that any transport option that can be selected as part of Alpha cannot be a part of any other unit.

Therefore:
Rule #2: Any transport entry with a vehicle that can be selected according to Rule #1 cannot be selected as part of any other unit.
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team with a Devilfish.
The Devilfish so selected cannot transport any unit that is not Fire Team Alpha.

Rule #3: Each transport entry satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport.
A Devilfish may be assigned to a Firewarrior Team.
The Devilfish entry is a dedicated transport.

If Devilfish are a transport option for the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, as opposed to a unit chosen from that entry such "Fire Team Alpha", then any Devilfish selected as part of a "Firewarrior Team" unit is "directly assigned to that particular unit." But if there is no "particular unit" such as Fire Team Alpha, then no Devilfish has been selected from the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry. And since the Devilfish may be selected for units selected from the "Firewarrior Team" troop entry, and must be selected for units selected from the "Pathfinder Team" fast attack entry, its entry is that of a dedicated transport and may not be selected independently of a unit it is a transport option for.

All transport options of units are known as dedicated transports, and all transport options for units are transport vehicles. Not all transport vehicles are the transport options of other units, they are "other" than dedicated transports; they are selected as independent slots in the Force Organization Chart.

Vehicles can either be "Dedicated transports" or "Not Dedicated Transports.", pending rules that allow them to be both (re: Land Raider, Transports, Codex: Space Marine; Dedicated Transport Vehicles, Codex: Orks).

If a vehicle is not a dedicated transport, then:
1) Its army list entry is labeled HQ or Elite or Troops or Fast Attack or Heavy Support.
2) It fills a slot in the Force Organization Chart.
3) If it has a passenger capacity (labeled: "transport") then it can provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that whose models can embark upon it.

A unit selected via the Firewarrior Team unit entry, such as Fire Team Alpha, would occupy a Troop slot on the Force Organization Chart. A vehicle that can be selected via the transport option of the Firewarrior Team unit entry, or must be selected via the transport option of the Pathfinder Team unit entry, is selected as part of those unit entries and does not occupy a slot on the Force Organization Chart. It is a dedicated transport. Only vehicles other than dedicated transports, those that cannot be selected as part of another unit entry because they are not a transport option and have their own unit entry in the army list, may provide transport to units that have not been selected for.

Meep357:

You should stay and help work out a solution. That would be the mature and productive thing to do. It's only a flame war if: (1) you can't criticize constructively, (2) take constructive criticism, (3) you deign to address non-constructive criticism, and (4) stick to what is relevant to deciding the matter. Saying that things are getting on your nerves, for example, is neither constructive nor relevant.

Your summary is incorrect.

One argument is that, according to the rules stated on P.62 of the rulebook, transport vehicles that can be selected as part of another entry in an army list are dedicated transport vehicles and may not be selected independently. Given this vital information this argument argues that because the Devilfish Trooper Carrier entry is labeled "Transport" in two different ways, and is a transport option for two other units (Firewarrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams), it is a dedicated transport and may not be selected independently in a Troops slot in the Force Organization Chart. An ancillary argument shows that the Troops badge beside the entry is irrelevant because other dedicated transports have similar badges because like the Devilfish entry they are located in the section of the army list devoted to Troops entries. Another ancillary argument shows that the Devilfish as no additional rules, like the Land Raider and the Battlewagon do in their respective codicies, that allow it to be taken as either a dedicated transport or as its own slot in the Force Organization Chart. The primary argument makes the case that the Devilfish cannot be selected as a Troops slot in a Tau Empire army, while the ancillary arguments assert that the conclusion of the main argument is clear and correct.

An opposing argument is that the rules stated on P.62 do not disallow a vehicle selected as part of another unit entry from being chosen as an independent slot in the Force Organization Chart of a Tau army, and that because the Devilfish Troop Carrier entry is located in the Troops section of the army list and marked with the badge (or "Triangle Symbol" as it has been called) associated with Troop choices, Devilfish Troop Carriors may be taken as Troop slots in a Tau Empire army. There is an ancillary argument that the labeling of "transport" on the Devilfish Troop Carrier entry is irrelevant, which I believe to be essentially that it doesn't say "Dedicated Transport" and hence does not indicate that the Devilfish is such a thing. There is also an ancillary argument that because the Devilfish is explicitly prohibited from carry Battlesuits that, because only transport vehicles that are not dedicated transports can transport units that they are not selected with, and the Devilfish cannot be selected as a dedicated transport for Battlesuit units.

So, as you can see by the corrected summary of the argument against Devilfish being a Troops choice (argumentation tip #1: people don't argument, avoid attributing them!) that we can indeed say that the transport label is relevant while the troops badge is not relevant. Contextual documents such as other codicies label their dedicated transport vehicles "Transports" (i.e.: Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Eldar), and often place them in the Troops section of their army lists (i.e.: Codex: Orks; Codex: Chaos Space Marines; Codex: Eldar). Reference to these contextual documents suggests that the label "transport" is relevant and that the specific badge appended is not. The argument against the Devilfish being a Troops choice takes the "transport" label as relevant because it is the term used on P.62 of the rulebook, the page of rules covering transports and dedicated transports, and because it is the term used to indicate transport options on P.36 and P.38 of Codex: Tau Empire.

I shall quote the additional rule allowing Land Raiders, a Heavy Support choice in Codex: Space Marines, to be taken as dedicated transports without always being dedicated transports:

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports (P.35, Codex: Space Marines)."

skyth:

In fact sometimes is necessarily plural. It is not synonymous with terms like "one". Saying "Sometimes I go down to the beach." means that you have gone down to the beach more than once. That is the very stuff of plurality. As plural the compound term "These transport vehicles" indicates the transport option, a compound noun referring to a set or group, rather than to any particular vehicles selected.

For example, suppose that I said: "Sometimes I have a book of matches that allow me to strike a match. These matches are known as Lucky Strikes." In the second sentence I am not referring to each individual match that I strike as a "Lucky Strikes". The group, the book of matches, is what the name "Lucky Strikes" refers to.

Saldiven:

I'm glad you brought this up and cited it, and not resorted to any claim of authority. According to the definitions you've cited:

Sometimes. adverb
on some occasions; at times; now and then

As you can see "sometimes" is indeed not synonymous with "sometime" in the modern sense. Yet they do differ with respect to number where their definitions are compared. If something happens at times, it happens more than once. If something happens at some point in time, some future time, that happening is singular.

Sometime. adverb
1. at some indefinite or indeterminate point of time: He will arrive sometime next week.
2. at an indefinite future time: Come to see me sometime.
3. Archaic. sometimes; on some occasions.
4. Archaic. at one time; formerly.

Ihavenoavatar wrote:I can only pray I don't debate half as long as this thread is if I ever encounter a player trying to field a Devilfish as a troop choice. I think that Lascannon fire should be the victor of this circular argument...

Why you would debate it at all I don't know. That's the difference between forums and playing games. In forums we have all the time in the world to figure these things out, whereas during games we don't. Incidentally a circular argument would be someone including the conclusion of their argument in the premise and thus "begging the question." What you're seeing in this thread is certain people refusing to engage in constructive argument.

Ihavenoavatar wrote:Really it goes nowhere and you are looping all over the place with one piece of criticle information that is fairly ambiguous: Is it listed as a Troop selection or not. that, in the end, is the real argument that neither can really win. you might as well argue over what's someones real last name, what they were born or married into.

Surprisingly this dicussion is going somewhere. The addition of people like egd to the argument means that real engagement is now happening. The critical piece of information you speak of is irrelevant, and one of the ancillary arguments above makes the case why it is so. In short it goes: Many codicies list their dedicated transports in the Troops section of the army list (i.e.: Codex: Orks; Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Codex: Eldar). Being listed in the Troops section of the army list has no effect on the entry being a dedicated transport for other entries. Hence it is irrelevant.

Now it's interesting that you think an argument can be won by being accepted. This is, to put it nicely, stupid. Arguments are 'won' when everyone involved comes together to develop a solution and check the proof of it. One can, so to speak, win an argument when the argument one puts forth has been shown to be unsound because in doing so one contributes to the discussion.

To twist a phrase arguing, on the Internet or otherwise, is like participating in the Special Olympics, though not in the nasty snobbish way the traditional phrase insinuates. The athlete's oath of the Special Olympics is "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

Being brave in the attempt and thus contributing is far more 'win' than simply being right.

Incidentally someone's real last name is the one they are legally documented as having.

Nurglitch, how much spare time do you have?!

Not much. I just write fast.

Nurglitch wrote:
If the unit entry "Firewarrior Team" includes a transport option, then every unit selected from that unit entry may have that transport option. If the unit entry "Pathfinder Team" requires a transport, then every unit selected from that unit entry includes the transport option. So:

Rule #1: All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team.
Therefore Fire Team Alpha can be selected with a transport option.

If you make a rule that "All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option" you are stating that all Firewarrior teams must have a transport if any have a transport. The choice is "have a transport option." If you opt for this, then you must fulfill the condition for "All Firewarrior Teams."

The phrase "Any Firewarrior team" means that you can satisfy the condition for any individual "Firewarrior Team." This gives the option uniquely to each subset of "Firewarrior Team" instead of giving the option to the class "Firewarrior Teams."

Nurglitch wrote:As defined above, Alpha can be selected with a transport option. This rule states that any transport option that can be selected as part of Alpha cannot be a part of any other unit.

Therefore:
Rule #2: Any transport entry with a vehicle that can be selected according to Rule #1 cannot be selected as part of any other unit.
Fire Team Alpha is a Firewarrior Team with a Devilfish.
The Devilfish so selected cannot transport any unit that is not Fire Team Alpha.

You're substituting "transport entry" (the Devilfish entry) for "transport option" (an individual Devilfish) without creating a rule to explain this.

Also, "These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit" is, I believe, the operative rule in this case. The words defining "these" and "that" must agree, "these" cannot be a class if "that" is a subset of a class.

Using the format: "These (transport vehicles) are directly assigned to That (particular unit), there are two results:

"These" (Transport: Devilfish) can be assigned to "That" (Firewarrior Team)
-or-
"These" (Devilfish #1) can be assigned to "That" (Firewarrior unit alpha)

If you choose the first option, I don't see what rule restricts the use of Devilfish #1 to Firewarrior Unit Alpha.

(as an aside, I think this is getting a bit esoteric of an argument for any type of play, casual or friendly)

egd:

Saying "All Firewarrior Teams can have a transport option" means that all Firewarrior Teams have the option of a transport. Since that's an option, rather than a necessity, some may take the transport option and some may not.

I'm substituting "transport entry" for "transport option" because a rule exists that makes them identical constructions; The transport option for Firewarriors is the Devilfish Troop Carrier and the transport entry in question is the Devilfish Troop Carrier. Therefore these things are the same since they are the same as a third, the Devilfish Troop Carrier.

"These transport vehicles" certainly refers to the class of transport vehicles and "that particular unit" certainly refers to the unit entry with the transport option. As you say, these terms must agree if they are to express that rule.

So given the first option is true, and we know that tokens of these entries are what are selected, then we know that tokens of the Devilfish entry are directly assigned to tokens of that particular unit (here either Firewarrior Teams or Pathfinder Teams), because they can be since they are transport options for them, and they are chosen as such.

That restricts any Devilfish vehicle to the Firewarrior Team unit it is selected for as an option.

Frankly that's not clear, so let me try it again, rearranging the text slightly and truth-functionally:

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

So the first part gives us the class terms, and the second part the object terms. We could rewrite this something like:

[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]], Unit e Unit Entry, Vehicle e Transport Vehicle → [Unit[Vehicle]]

"These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]] → Transport Vehicle = Dedicated Transport, Vehicle e Dedicated Transport

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot (for exampe, Eldar Falcons),"

~[Unit Entry[Transport Vehicle]], Transport Vehicle e Unit Entry → Transport Vehicle = Unit Entry

(Reply to aside: Which is why we're not doing it during play.)

Nurg:

Careful about the "sometime" interpretation you use.

Using "sometime" to refer to an indefinite act that may or may not happen in the future in no way implies that the act will only happen a single time.

In the English language, modifiers are not themselves modified by the words that are their (the modifier's) objects.

For Example, in Spanish, you have a "casa roja" (red house) and a "perro rojo" (red dog). This is the case throughout Romance languages. Notice that in English, the adjective is not modified by the noun.

Further Example, in Spanish, you have "gatos negros" (black cats) and "gato negro" (black cat). Note that, again, the number of the noun affects the adjective in Spanish, but not in English.

Now those examples are all of adjectival situations, but adverbs act similarly. That being said, there can be argued that some definitions of "sometimes" have the connotation of plurality while others do not, just as there is no definite denotation that "sometime" indicates a singular situation.

Ok, no more grammar today. For those who are interested in improving their grammar and writing style, I strongly recommend Strunk & White's "Elements of Style." It's one of the best style manuals I've ever run across, and I have to admit that I own about 5 style manuals, 2 high school grammar books, and my college grammar book.

That really does make me a grammar geek, doesn't it?

Nurglitch wrote:
Rule #3: Each transport entry satisfying Rule 2 is a dedicated transport.
A Devilfish may be assigned to a Firewarrior Team.
The Devilfish entry is a dedicated transport.

And here is where you are making up rules.

Saldiven: I am being careful. The "sometimes" in the "Who Can Use a Transport Vehicle" denotes a plurality because many entries in Codex books (Book books?) include transport options. There are two in Codex: Tau Empire alone.

skyth: No, I am not making up rules. I'm paraphrasing:

"[3]These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports." (Rulebook. P.62)

Where the Rule #2 being referred to is embedded in the prior sentence.

"[1] Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, [2]allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit." (Rulebook. P.62)

And funny how the entry for the transport is NEVER mentioned in the rule. It mentions the unit entry of the unit taking the transport and the individual transports that are taken with the unit.

Nurglitch wrote:Meep357:

You should stay and help work out a solution. That would be the mature and productive thing to do. It's only a flame war if: (1) you can't criticize constructively, (2) take constructive criticism, (3) you deign to address non-constructive criticism, and (4) stick to what is relevant to deciding the matter. Saying that things are getting on your nerves, for example, is neither constructive nor relevant.

Nurglitch the reason I've limited my contributions is that I find your condescending attitude and the insults you frequently level at anyone who disagrees with you to be very offensive. I don't care about your academic qualifications or how smart you are. You repeatedly insuniate that anyone who disagrees with you of doesn't see your point of view is either unitelligent or a flat out cheat. Now most forum goers are not as eloquent as you ... nor do we choose to use large words that most people are going to have to look up inorder to fully understand us. That does not mean that we am any more or less intelligent than you are.

I have no problem construictivly critisising or taking constructive critisism (it's part of what I do for a living). As for what is and isn't relevant ... the only time I have diverged is in trying to point out how my point of view is counter to yours & for the purpose of addressing your arguments.

Now nurglitch ... if you want to get me (& other people) more involved in something more serious than the roundabout that we're all stuck on .... I would suggest that you start avoiding the academic jargon and start using plain english; be straight to the point & stop throwing veiled insults around.

Now I'm sure you're going to report this as a flame .... well if that's the way you're going to take it ... then you've missed the point.

The summary I provided is esentailly correct .... you've just used more words to say the same thing I did.

Now for pointing out things that get on my nevrves - that was an attempt to point out inconsistencies in the arguments being put forth that haven not been addressed satisfactorially and were being ignored.

We've tried to put up conter arguments & provide construcive critisism for your point of view and it is you who deign to address the critisism or even consider the counter points.

Nurglitch wrote:I shall quote the additional rule allowing Land Raiders, a Heavy Support choice in Codex: Space Marines, to be taken as dedicated transports without always being dedicated transports:

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports (P.35, Codex: Space Marines)."

That be the same rule as on page 62 of the BGB. The same rule that the devilfish has.

And once again the label "Transport:" does not equal "Dedicated Transport:"

The term used on page 62 is "transport" meaning "any vehicle with transport capacity"
The term dedicated transport (again on page 62) means "any vehicle directly assigned to a unit by selecting it as an option for another unit"

The terms do not provided the restriction on how one unit can be used or not. It is the way that that unit is selected that provides the restrictions & the rules that each individual unit possess are what restrict how it can be selected.

The transport label merley identifys the unti's primary role as a transport (as opposed to a main battle tank). This is similar to the way jump infantry identifies the unit's primary role (however you have to go a bit further to find out how it actually moves). The role of a transport does not limit its selection and the only rules that limit the selection of transports are 1)pg 62 which states that IF selected as part of another unit it BECOMES a dedicated unit; and 2) the rules specific to the unit.

The label of transport is the same a the label of infantry. It does not limit how the transport/infantry is selected, merely how it is used.

Nurglitch wrote:So, as you can see by the corrected summary of the argument against Devilfish being a Troops choice (argumentation tip #1: people don't argument, avoid attributing them!) that we can indeed say that the transport label is relevant while the troops badge is not relevant.

And then your quote from the Gretchen thread: "Some of the rules stated in the rulebooks are encoded with charts, diagrams, formatting, and layout." (Highlight is mine)

Layout includes the 'badge' symbol you reference here...

How does your argument justify the first quote in light of the second quote?

With all the points made against your argument, it seems that you are cherry picking things to suit your argument. I'm not being sarcastic (for a change- I know... ), I really want to hear your justification for these two quotes. Thanks.

Meep357:

For no good reason you seem to need to make this personal. That's okay, because I find your condescending manner and style of posting deeply offensive (as I do skyth's, Ihavenoavatar's, Beast's, and MagickalMemories 's), and yet I swallow it and participate. It is quite true that my academic qualifications are entirely irrelevant (as I've pointed out), and since "smart" is an entirely meaningless term it's probably irrelevant as well. What you may imagine I am insinuating, connoting, or otherwise not explicitly stating is likewise irrelevant.

The words on uses are irrelevant, and given the accessibility of dictionaries it seems entirely fair for people to use whichever English terms their style prefers. It is preferable to using nasty little in-group Internet acronyms, netspeak, because at least people can look these words up. But then the meaning of words depends on the meaning of sentences in which they are used, and sentences have a grammar as well as words. I am quite confident that everyone on this forum is sufficiently equipped to understand me, should they care to give me the same care I should afford to them.

So how about we stop talking about each other, and give very thorough and careful treatment to the arguments in question, shall we?

Your summary was not essentially correct. Detail is very important and your was not merely lacking in it, but what it had was the wrong ones. Continually misrepresenting the argument makes communication particularly difficult. By continually making unsupported denials about the presence of rules, arguments that have been made, and facts that have been demonstrated you seem more interested in misleading readers than in solving the disagreement.

All of the attempts to point out inconsistencies in the arguments put forth to the effect that Devilfish Troop Carriers are not Troops have been shown to be inconsistencies in name only. Likewise all of the counter-arguments have been refuted and the constructive criticism has been pointed out to be either irrelevant or non-constructive. But since after I demonstrates these things, you go right back to asserting them, so no wonder we can't move on from them.

For example: People ask for the additional rule that allows Land Raiders to be taken as either dedicated transports or independent units, and I provide it. Then people demand it be provided again, and I do, and you deny it without any justification or reasoning. Simple denial.

The rule says that Land Raiders may be dedicated transport. Since they may be dedicated transports, they may also not be, and since they are most definitely Heavy Support choices this rule allows them to also be selected as dedicated transports. It is different from the rule on P.62 not only in form, but in references.

"Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports (P.35, Codex: Space Marines)."

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), (P.81, Rulebook)."

The label "Transport", as I have shown above, does in fact indicate that whatsoever vehicle has its army list entry labeled that is a dedicated transport. That's what it does. This label should not be confused with the passenger capacity of a vehicle, which is also labeled transport.

However, that's not why the Devilfish is a dedicated transport.

The Devilfish is a dedicated transport because it is selected as part of either the Firewarrior Team unit entry, or a Pathfinder Team unit entry. Being a transport option for these units is what makes the Devilfish Troop Carrier a dedicated transport. The labels just making it clear and unambiguous.

The rules on P.62 of the rulebook, which I've explicated ad nauseum, tells us that transport vehicles are vehicles with a passenger capacity. Sometimes those transport vehicles are dedicated transports, when they are selected as part of another unit, and sometimes those transport vehicles are independent units, and these are exclusive.

The rule on P.35 of Codex: Space Marines, which I've explained in this post yet again, tells us that Land Raiders are transport vehicles that can be taken, inclusively, as either dedicated transports, or as independent units.

Beast:

Nurglitch wrote:One argument is that, according to the rules stated on P.62 of the rulebook, transport vehicles that can be selected as part of another entry in an army list are dedicated transport vehicles and may not be selected independently. Given this vital information this argument argues that because the Devilfish Trooper Carrier entry is labeled "Transport" in two different ways, and is a transport option for two other units (Firewarrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams), it is a dedicated transport and may not be selected independently in a Troops slot in the Force Organization Chart. An ancillary argument shows that the Troops badge beside the entry is irrelevant because other dedicated transports have similar badges because like the Devilfish entry they are located in the section of the army list devoted to Troops entries. Another ancillary argument shows that the Devilfish as no additional rules, like the Land Raider and the Battlewagon do in their respective codicies, that allow it to be taken as either a dedicated transport or as its own slot in the Force Organization Chart. The primary argument makes the case that the Devilfish cannot be selected as a Troops slot in a Tau Empire army, while the ancillary arguments assert that the conclusion of the main argument is clear and correct.

Nurglitch wrote:Meep357:

For no good reason you seem to need to make this personal. That's okay, because I find your condescending manner and style of posting deeply offensive (as I do skyth's, Ihavenoavatar's, Beast's, and MagickalMemories 's), and yet I swallow it and participate. It is quite true that my academic qualifications are entirely irrelevant (as I've pointed out), and since "smart" is an entirely meaningless term it's probably irrelevant as well. What you may imagine I am insinuating, connoting, or otherwise not explicitly stating is likewise irrelevant.

I guess it isn't just me that thinks you are a total dick. The report button is in the top right corner of the post if you feel anyone pointing out your condescending attitude is flaming you.

snooggums:

Don't worry, the feeling is mutual.

Nurglitch wrote: An ancillary argument shows that the Troops badge beside the entry is irrelevant because other dedicated transports have similar badges because like the Devilfish entry they are located in the section of the army list devoted to Troops entries.

You didn't answer my previous question (other than to provide a quote we had all painstakingly read before which was your opinion, not RAW)....

Some other codeci do not have badges, labels or anything even remotely resembling them next to their unit choices. Does that make them not available as anything in the game? Yet other codeci have sections labelled 'Dedicated Transport Vehicles' like in Codex:Orks. The Tau codex has no such 'Dedicated Transport' label anywhere within its covers. Just because the DF entry is located in the Troops section doesn't make it a Dedicated Transport. It makes it a transport vehicle that offers the choice of deployment methods (Troops choice or Dedicated Transport) as has been explained 'by numerous people, numerous times in numerous ways'.

Yes, and I've explained that reading it as such is wrong.

So you are still not going to answer my previous question about your two quotes in any real or meaningful way... Ok, I understand.