Can Broadsides take A.S.S. and a Drone Controller and Drones? Or, can a broadside unit with A.S.S. take more than 2 drones from the team leader's hard-wired drone controller?

From this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/235239.page

Please keep in mind that when you read the entry for the A.S.S. it will make your brain cells commit Hari Kari because it is so poorly written.

You have to read and really understand the Tau Crisis rules and weapons to have even a beginning of an idea of what the wargear is "Implied"to be used for.


Now that this has been brought up it will become apparent that by its own words that the A.S.S. does absolutely nothing and that there is no benefit from this wargear by RAW.




Now I will be arguing two points in this thread.

First, that the ASS convey no benefit what so ever. The easy one.

Second, I'll be arguing for the for the side that says you can take more than 2 drones if its agreed that the ASS actually does convey some benefit.


Any takers on either debate?

The rule seems very straight forward to me. When you use it, you become Slow and Purposeful, which gives you Relentless, and thus lets you count as stationary when firing so you can move and shoot heavy weapons. Sounds like a benefit to me.

The rule states that every MODEL in the unit must have it if one member does. Drones are a MODEL in the unit, but unable to purchase the system, and thus the rules writes in an exception stating the that UNIT may still take them, but not each member.

The whole thing seems very straight forward and easy to understand to me.

Where does it state relentless? For matter of fact where does it say that you get to fire heavy weapons. It implies such but doesn't state so clearly.

If the rule is about firing of heavy weapons then why does it comment on sacrificing the Crisis jump move in assault?
Tau jet-packs crisis suits don't have access to heavy weapons.



The drones as wargear would never be able to purchase wargear. Why would an "exception" rule be specially written to "support" a rule already laid down in the codex, under the Who can take wargear portion.

Debates? About the Tau Codex? With all their Clear and Concise rules???

Heresy!!!

And not having the Tau codex to hand, but running off memory, Id have to agree with focusedfire here on whatever it is he is arguing (just kidding but yeah I do agree with focusedfire here)

Relentless is stated in the definition of slow and purposeful.

You guys utterly fail at reading.

p 25 Tau codex

During the movement phase the battle suit may choose to use the Slow and Purposeful universal special rule for the remainder of the turn, though if it does it may not make an additional jetpack move in the assault phase.
Also, if one model in a team has advanced stabilization then all models in the team must be similarly equipped, and if one model makes use of the system all must do so.
THE UNIT MAY STILL TAKE DRONES.

Slow and purposeful gives relentless as a rulebook effect, as the above poster mentioned.

So in conclusion if you pay for the teamleader upgrade on a Broadside suit he may take a HWDC and the ASS.

No you fail at reading.

So what? The unit may still take drones? Woop de flipping do. No one was saying you couldn't. What we are saying is you may not use the A.S.S because of the "and if one model makes use of the system all must do so. " bit.

It doesn't say all non drone models, or battlesuit models, just all models. As it stands, a Unit with A.S.S and Drones may not ever use the A.S.S while a drone is around because the Drone cannot use the A.S.S because it doesn't have it, and because ALL MODELS must use it.

Gwar! wrote:No you fail at reading.

So what? The unit may still take drones? Woop de flipping do. No one was saying you couldn't. What we are saying is you may not use the A.S.S because of the "and if one model makes use of the system all must do so. " bit.

It doesn't say all non drone models, or battlesuit models, just all models. As it stands, a Unit with A.S.S and Drones may not ever use the A.S.S while a drone is around because the Drone cannot use the A.S.S because it doesn't have it, and because ALL MODELS must use it.

Isn't it a universal special rule that is conveyed to them? I thought with slow and purposeful if one model in the squad had it they all moved at that speed. The sorcerer in the thousand sons squad does not have slow and purposeful but he doesn't get to move faster.

That it is. A unit always moves at the speed of its slowest model. However, just because 1 model is S&P doesn't mean the others get to move and fire Heavys.

The thing here is the wording of A.S.S. In order to use it (and have the S&P USR conferred) every single model in the unit must use it. Since Drones do not have it, they cannot use it, so none of the unit can use A.S.S if there are any drones in the unit.

That it is. A unit always moves at the speed of its slowest model. However, just because 1 model is S&P doesn't mean the others get to move and fire Heavys.

The thing here is the wording of A.S.S. In order to use it (and have the S&P USR conferred) every single model in the unit must use it. Since Drones do not have it, they cannot use it, so none of the unit can use A.S.S if there are any drones in the unit.

Ah, i see. Do drones actually count as squad members for the purpose of this sort of thing or are they just representative wargear markers? Either way i think the RAI is fairly clear cut.

Given that the drones are the same unit type as their owner, would there be room for interpretation that the Slow&Purposeful or Relentless parts are confered to it, as for the turn where A.S.S. is used, the model counts as relentless?

Its rather chilling to read, as I can fully expect to be facing the arguments against this weekend now that its around.

Drones are considered part of the unit, forming a unit with ICs (that just happens to be able to still join/leave other squads) and counting for purposes of scoring and unit strength. But they ARE just wargear, and bought that way. Does "all models" extend normally to wargear when talking about restrictions on models which cannot even access the armory in the first place?

It doesnt matter that they count as part of the unit.
They dont have A.S.S so they cannot use it.

Since A.S.S requires every model to use it in order for even one to use it.... well its simple after that isn't it.

Uhm, are we discussing whether the ASS provides an effect or whether or not it takes up a hardpoint? I thought Focusedfire's argument was that he could take a drone controller and ASS on the same model, thereby having a 3-man team of broadsides with six drones and ASS?

I believe the counter argument is that all models in the unit must have ASS. Since drones can't purchase ASS then you can not have drones in the unit.

If you buy ASS for one broadside you might as well buy it for all broadsides in that squad because otherwise you can't use it.

This means none of the broadsides can have a drone controller support system.

One broadside can be a team leader and hardwire one, giving you a maximum of 2 drones.

The rules are that a unit of broadsides with ASS support system and a team leader with hardwired drone controller and 2 shield drones can use ASS.

That's not what the rules say, that's what the rules are. It is useful sometimes to know what the rules are, just as it is useful sometimes to know what the rules say. Now because of this thread, you know both. Expect to be moving and shooting your broadsides with shield drones against all opponents, especially in all tournaments.

Huh, RAW gone mad indeed...

Why do they have the last sentence in the ASS description then? Do they often insert meaningless sentences in the rules like that? It's obvious the RAI is that they may still take Drones, even though they obviously cannot have ASS. It's like they ended it with "Apples are red." if you don't take it like that.

onlainari wrote:That's not what the rules say, that's what the rules are. It is useful sometimes to know what the rules are, just as it is useful sometimes to know what the rules say. Now because of this thread, you know both. Expect to be moving and shooting your broadsides with shield drones against all opponents, especially in all tournaments.

Errrr.... what?
"What the rules say" and "what the rules are" are the exact same thing? You can pretend it doesn't work that way, but RaW a squad with A.S.S and Drones cannot use the A.S.S

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:You can pretend it doesn't work that way

Okay. Thanks. It's not like there's anyone out there that doesn't.

I repeat:

Expect to be moving and shooting your broadsides with shield drones against all opponents, especially in all tournaments.

It is useful to sometimes know how people will actually be playing the game, as well as knowing what the rules say.

Read they sentence carefully. There is no seperation between the equipped suit and jet-pack.


(Quote from Tau Empire codex)
"During the movement phase, the Battlesuit may choose to use the Slow and Purposeful universal special rule, though if IT does it may not make an additional jetpack move in the assault phase."(Emphasis/itallic mine on the word it)


Broadsides don't have jet-packs.

So Jet-packs can make use of the rule but have no heavy weapons. Thus, no benefit and no purpose to the rule as by the sentence structure in the paragraph precludes the broadsides from getting the A.S.S.



Now, about the drones. If it is deemed that the broadsides may actually be able to take the A.S.S., Then I stand by "The unit may still take drones." Meaning the UNIT not MODEL.

This is one of the few clear statements GW makes in the entry and they chose to use the plural not the singular.

This brings up questions,

Why write that single seperate little sentence?
If only one model benefits from the statement, then that model already had the rule in place from being a team leader under the who can take wargear rules.

If it is for only one model as some suggest then why did GW make a special effort to use the plural unit?
The rest of the rule was written from a very specific single model point of view, then suddenly this one sentence jumps to the whole unit.

This would indicate that the whole unit gets to take them.

In this instance I invite you to remeber that take drones is a player slang term that includes the drone controller. The reason for this is that the drone controllers cost 0pts. Hence the slang of taking drones usually being accepted to include the controller. Its not good writing or RAW but does give the logic behind the term.


Said something like this before, will say things like it again. Some of the the crisis wargear entries make your brain cells want to turn emo and cut themselves. Just for laughs, everyone read the Cyclic Ion Blaster entry.

Edit for spelling

For the record, I hate the Tau codex. RaW do not allow the use of the ASS if the unit includes drones. RaI is probably that they can, since the drones just float about at the same speed as the unit and count as... jet-bikes or jet-pack infantry, I forget which. Either way, they're at least Relentless.

Stupid codex.

Some of the wording in the codex indicates that at some stage of development Crisis suits were intended to have the option of taking some sort of heavy weapon. This option didn't make it to the final edit, but some legacy wordage remained. The fact that the upgrade is of no use to Crisis suits in their current form is not in dispute.

The rule forbidding use of a jet pack move in the assault phase does not mean that a Broadside can't take the upgrade. It just means the Broadside can't use that ability (the fact that it didn't have that ability in the first place is irrelevent) while using ASS.

In 4th edition, the "jetpacks" part was just barely off the 'stupid mentions' level as the only possible actual setup that could involve ASS being required and jetpacks being used was the overpriced "stealth markerlight" team, where the m.drones and team leader could thus fire heavy weapons, as the jetpack only allowed rapidfire back then.

So it was doable, moreso if you used the 81 or 84 from forgeworld.... but pretty damn useless in actual practical value.


edit: As for the broadside lacking the ability, Its sorta like the bad wording on Vulkan Hestan right now, or older editions of marines where (OH NO!) you 'lost' (*COUGH*) two fast attack slots to gain an extra heavy support, because you SO were gonna use those fast attack slots in the first place, with iron warriors... Its pretty common in the various 'rules exceptions' to have something that removes an ability you don't have or don't/can't use anyways.

That's not being argued, Raxmei. The point is the interaction between ASS and the use of Drones.

Actually Kaloran, it is. Whitedragon,Maj Tom, and myself started this debate in another thread. The wording of the Title of this thread does not preclude this argument and I opened this subject up for debate with my first post.

There are 2 debates here. The first is about the drones and the the second, is looking at the entire rule.


@Raxmei- It actually could be taken to mean that the broadsides wouldn't be able to use it. The paragraph/run on sentence that actually gives the Slow and Purposeful rule can be read that the model has to have a Jetpack move to sacrifice in order to use the ASS.

Ah, my mistake. Carry on.

Kaloran, I sympathise with your feelings about the Tau codex.

I love my Tau armies and their style of play but do sicerely hope that the writing is much clearer in the next codex.

focusedfire wrote:@Raxmei- It actually could be taken to mean that the broadsides wouldn't be able to use it. The paragraph/run on sentence that actually gives the Slow and Purposeful rule can be read that the model has to have a Jetpack move to sacrifice in order to use the ASS.

It actually doesn't say anything at all about "sacrificing" or anything that could even be implied that way. It simply says that you aren't allowed to make a jetpack move if you choose to take the A.S.S. The fact that a broadside suit isn't allowed to make a jetpack move because of another rule (i.e. not having jetpacks) is irrelevant. Saying you can't do something isn't the same as saying you have to give that something up in order to take this.

During the movement phase the battle suit may choose to use the Slow and Purposeful universal special rule for the remainder of the turn, though if it does it may not make an additional jetpack move in the assault phase.
Also, if one model in a team has advanced stabilization then all models in the team must be similarly equipped, and if one model makes use of the system all must do so.
THE UNIT MAY STILL TAKE DRONES.

The interesting thing for me is that it says "if one model in a team has advanced stabilization then all models in the team must be similarly equipped..." It says models in the TEAM, not models in the UNIT. Of course, per GW's usual crappy wording on things, there is no formal definition of what "team" means. Some people interpret it to be the suits, ignoring the Drones. Others interpret it to be synonymous with "unit" and therefore since the drones don't have an A.S.S. option, the unit can't use them. It's an ambiguous area, like most arguments end up being, so just determine before the game starts how it's going to work (and RaI is pretty obvious, so the discussion shouldn't be too hard).

Yes, I think we are all in agreement about how poorly worded some of the rules are in the Tau codex *coughorkfighterscough*

The ASS confliction is, and in my personal opinion, an oversight by the writer. ASS were designed to be taken by Broadsides only, since they are the only suits that could make use of it (SMS & Railgun).

However, since they are battlesuits too, I believe they had to put the sentence in there about not making a jet-pack move after the Slow and Purposeful move, simply because there would be crazies out there who would put it on a regular Crisis suit because it was available in the Battlesuit wargear list. One example might be to use an imaginary heavy weapon they thought up, or an imaginary SMS. Who knows. They may have had plans to give Crisis suits heavy weapons, but then decided to scrap it, and forgot to cover the paper trail of rules that allow those types of choices.

However, the two sentences about how every model must take it if one takes it, and still being able to take drones, are directly parallel together. They are there to let you know that if one Broadside takes an ASS, the other 1-2 must also take it, but the Team Leader/Shas'vre may also take 1-2 drones if they desire, without having to purchase the ASS for them (which you can't anyway).

Very poorly written indeed, but obvious (to me) in its operation. Its too bad any Marker Drones taken with Broadsides with ASS can't make use of it, since the ASS doesn't change the Broadside's unit type to something other than infantry.

synchronicity wrote:However, the two sentences about how every model must take it if one takes it, and still being able to take drones, are directly parallel together. They are there to let you know that if one Broadside takes an ASS, the other 1-2 must also take it, but the Team Leader/Shas'vre may also take 1-2 drones if they desire, without having to purchase the ASS for them (which you can't anyway).

That's the way I interpreted it. Until recently I wasn't aware there was another interpretation. Another way to look at it is that since 1. All models in a team that includes an ASS must be equipped with ASS 2. Drones can not be equipped with ASS and 3. The unit can still take drones, then drones clearly are not counted among the models in the team for ASS purposes.

Raxmei wrote:3. The unit can still take drones, then drones clearly are not counted among the models in the team for ASS purposes.

"Clearly" doesn't belong anywhere near that codex. Ever. If it's spawned enough debate, it can't be that clear. That doesn't mean I don't agree with your interpretation.

Synchonicity-This ignoring that drones when wargear become the same unit type as their controller under their description.

It also ignores the duality of the drones. They have stats because they can defend in CC but also because gun drones can be in seperate independent squads.

The current trend of thought on these is that when attached to an infantry type model they are counted as being just wargear except where otherwise noted in their rules. {The drone casualties count towards assessing if the unit has to make a moral test}(paraphrased) being an example of one of those exceptions.

Now as wargear they would already recieve the benefits of the ASS because of their base rule of making them same unit type as their owning/controlling model. The drones wouldn't need the exception rule for using the ASS because their base rule states that they would benefit.

There is a difference between drones as a squad(gun drones) and drones as wargear.

Drones can't take wargear but the Tau have a precedent of the drones benefitting from some wargear such as markerlights. This combined with unit type same as owner would indicate no need for the sentence as your defining it.

With this established then the statement leans towards all of the suits being able to take the drones.

Poorly written entry. The way I play it is that ASS is given to the broadsides and then the team leader can take drones with the hard wired drone controller.

asugradinwa wrote:Poorly written entry. The way I play it is that ASS is given to the broadsides and then the team leader can take drones with the hard wired drone controller.

Please read what the thread is actually about.

First and fore most drones are NOT team members.
They are wargear. They are considered as models for the purposes of determining unit/squad size. How is it different you might ask?

You can take 1-3 Broadside Team Members so a Team can be from 1-3 members of broadside suits. A squad or unit of Broadsides can be anywhere from 1-3 suits and 1-6 drones for a max unit/squad size of 2-9.

I agree that the connotation is there that a unit without a team leader can take drones HOWEVER the wording for drones in the wargear section SPECIFICALLY STATES they can't be used without a controller.

SO a unit without a team leader can still take drones IF they are some how able to take a drone controller.

a B.A.S.S unit can most certainly include a Team leader who is equipped with a Hard Wired Drone controller and take 1-2 Drones Shield/Gun/Marker.

On another note, in 4th edition you could give A.S.S to stealth suits with a marker light... pointless but still possible. An example covered by the jet-pack reference.
Cheers
C

focusedfire wrote:The current trend of thought on these is that when attached to an infantry type model they are counted as being just wargear except where otherwise noted in their rules. {The drone casualties count towards assessing if the unit has to make a moral test}(paraphrased) being an example of one of those exceptions.

Now as wargear they would already recieve the benefits of the ASS because of their base rule of making them same unit type as their owning/controlling model. The drones wouldn't need the exception rule for using the ASS because their base rule states that they would benefit.

With respect, I disagree. Drones as wargear take the unit type as per their owner, that has been established. A USR and Unit Type are two separate things, however. Because the ASS temporarily gives a Broadside the option to use Slow and Purposeful for that turn, it doesn't change the fact that it is still an "Infantry" Unit type. That's all the Drone knows about its controller, it has no idea about its controller's USR's. When you are infantry, you cannot move and shoot heavy weapons, and that's all a drone is when taken with a Broadside.

That's why Marker Drones are able to move/shoot when taken with a Stealth team. Their unit type is "Jump Infantry (Jet Pack)" by default, and and any drones inherit that unit type, thus making them relentless. My point is, ASS changes the suits USR's, not its unit type. A drone's abilities come from its unit type, not USR's.

Also, whether Marker Drones can fire when their controller has moved with an ASS, has been FAQ'd by GW (its the last Question on the FAQ). It says they may not fire, since they don't have an ASS.

Yes. The Raw arguement is cute. However, its the same arguement that Orks had before.. if you replace your sluga and choppa with a shoota, and Ork nobs with powerclaw.

I look at it like this, I bought the A.S.S. all models have it. Then I buy the drones, they are wargear. In play, yes I have models to represent them, and they behave as models, but they are wargear for purposes of do all models of the unit have A.S.S. and they count as models for morale checks and all that. Why do they count as models for that, cause the Tau rules say that they count as models for purposes of blah blah blah, which kinda tells us they are NOT full models on their own.

But yeah, there's the RAW argument, probably more solid sounding than my dribble :p

whitedragon wrote:Can Broadsides take A.S.S. and a Drone Controller and Drones? Or, can a broadside unit with A.S.S. take more than 2 drones from the team leader's hard-wired drone controller?

From this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/235239.page

Since an ASS takes up a Broadside's only system hardpoint, the only model in a Broadside team that can take a Drone Controller is the Team Leader, with a Hard-Wired Drone Controller. You must take a Drone Controller to take drones, whether or not they are wargear.

Then there is the argument that would state that the drone controller is implied as being included.

What we have is a sentence. If you take the stance that drones are limited to just the Team leader from the sentence then the sentence itself has no purpose for being there.

This is because the Team lead would already have access to the HW controller and Drones.

The drones in this situation are counted as Wargear as opposed to seperate models.

In order to treat the drones as seperate models you would have to specify first that they counted as such in this situation before writing a rule addressing them as such.

The rule states the Unit not the Team leader.



Then there is still the argument that Broadsides technically can't even take this system.

Well, you know what, you make me question my beliefs. Thanks a lot. I wish we could write to Andy Hoare...

However, I still hold my ground about Markerdrones, Broadside ASS, and firing.

"The unit may still take drones" just clarifies that it is possible to take drones even though drones can not themselves take the upgrade. Is it necessary to say so? Possibly not. See also the cyclic ion blaster.

The team leader is part of the unit. A unit of crisis suits (legal, if pointless) could also take drone controllers and ASS.

I maintain that Broadsides can take ASS. Nothing in the ASS rules specifies that the model must have a jetpack, or must lose a special jetpack move in order to use it. Yes, it is unnecessary verbage when applied to the only sensible unit. See also the cyclic ion blaster.

@Synchronicity- Stick to your guns. I'm debating for the fun of it at this point. I could just as easily changed sides. You've brought up some very good and valid points.

The reason I'm just debating for fun is that the dirty little secret is now out. People that play against Tau or just Hate the Tau army are going to start using this whenever we play our Tau.

If you look at the first thread, I pointed out how poorly it was worded but that I didn't want to push it really. This is because I knew that if Dakkites really started examining the Tau codex there won't even be a fieldable army by RAW.

This last part may be a bit of an exageration but a hard look at the Dex could take away broadside mobility and Markerlights due to the lack of a definition as to what is Tau.
Is it Fire warriors?
Does that count drones?
What about vehicles? They can fire a Seeker but do they benefit from the cover reducing and BS increase abilities.

Personally, Im not that anal about the rules and their wording. The thing is there are people who are that anal.

I usually just roll off if there is an in-game debate. If its a Tourny I let the judges/refs decide if we can't compromise. The over copetitive the game is life or death won't roll off even in a casual game. The thought of some guy questioning/arguing every ambiguity in my codex during a game is a real put off.

I really hope the next Codex has better wording.

PS- I'll tell you that I agree about the marker drones not being able to move and fire with the broadsides even if equipped with ASS.

Raxmei wrote:"The unit may still take drones" just clarifies that it is possible to take drones even though drones can not themselves take the upgrade. Is it necessary to say so? Possibly not. See also the cyclic ion blaster.

Its the switch from model or battlesuit to unit and the fact that the Shas'vre would already be able to take drones that kills the Team leader only interpretation.
Yes, I've seen the CIB entry. I was the one to point out the poor wording on it also.

Raxmei wrote:The team leader is part of the unit. A unit of crisis suits (legal, if pointless) could also take drone controllers and ASS.

Yes, the Team leader is a part of the unit but he is not the whole unit unless he is running as a Monat. If running as a single model unit, it seems it would have been noted. As would the line The Team leader may still take drones. But that is not what was written. Instead a blanket generalization that taken as is stating that the unit may take drones. This is a carte banche statement. It says in this situation the UNIT may take drones. There is no limiting modifier of having to buy drone controllers mentioned. Just the blanket statement.

Raxmei wrote:I maintain that Broadsides can take ASS. Nothing in the ASS rules specifies that the model must have a jetpack, or must lose a special jetpack move in order to use it. Yes, it is unnecessary verbage when applied to the only sensible unit. See also the cyclic ion blaster.

Problem is that the sentence made no seperation but instead actually stated the such model couldn't use its jet-pack move during assault if it used the Slow and Purposeful ability. The broadsides do not have jet-packs and as such the Slow and purposeful sentence as written couldn't apply to the broadsides.

Once again, Ive seen the CIB entry. I used as an example of how poorly the book was written. Beyond that they have no further bearing on the debate at hand.

I agree that it can't apply exclusively to broadsides. Interpret the sentence as referring to crisis suits and broadsides simultaneously. The model can not make _an_ additional jetpack move, if applicable. The indefinite article is less prescriptive than a possessive pronoun.

The bit about drones doesn't say you ignore other restrictions on taking drones. You will still be able to play the piano after your operation. The unit may still take drones. In other words, taking this upgrade does not affect the unit's previously existing ability to take drones within the usual restrictions. Getting into the fussy english bits again, 'may' is about permission, in contrast to 'can' which is about ability. This upgrade does not forbid you from taking drones, as opposed to this upgrade gives you the ability to take drones.

focusedfire wrote:The current trend of thought on these is that when attached to an infantry type model they are counted as being just wargear except where otherwise noted in their rules. {The drone casualties count towards assessing if the unit has to make a moral test}(paraphrased) being an example of one of those exceptions.

Now as wargear they would already recieve the benefits of the ASS because of their base rule of making them same unit type as their owning/controlling model. The drones wouldn't need the exception rule for using the ASS because their base rule states that they would benefit.

There is a difference between drones as a squad(gun drones) and drones as wargear.

Drones can't take wargear but the Tau have a precedent of the drones benefitting from some wargear such as markerlights. This combined with unit type same as owner would indicate no need for the sentence as your defining it.

With this established then the statement leans towards all of the suits being able to take the drones.

I disagree with everything you said. Drones are purchased as wargear, but once purchased:

1) They are represented by models
2) They may move, shoot and assault
3) They may be killed, and used armor saves and be allocated hits/wounds
4) They count towards the squad's number
5) They benefit from other effects of other gear and wargear

Why would they continue to enjoy some special "status" from being wargear? They don't, once purchased, they function just like other models or troopers except that if the drone controller dies, they are removed.

The only real rule that still is hanging out there that we can't agree on is whether or not a BASS team with 2 drones can use their ASS since the drones can't. The BASS does not imply anything about getting a free drone controller, that's wishful thinking. You can only take 1-2 drones on the team leader's HW Drone Controller if you equip your team with ASS.

Technically in 5e the slow and purposeful has been replaced by relentless which Jetpackers have by default. So technically it provides nothing at all.

In 4e though yes you could still take drones up to 8 on broadside teams (2 for each mem as they must take a suppourt system if one of em does, and another to for shas'vre as he can also take hardwired controller.

Replaced? You mean that Relentless was added to Slow & Purposeful, right?

yeah my bad

@Whitedragon- You bring up some valid points about the drones. The only problem with your argument is that everything you mentioned was had it own special section in the book to denote their special rules that lets them be different from other wargear.

Also did you notice that the paragraph you insist on attaching the line to also says that all models must be similarly equipped. That sets more of a precedent for the intention than your Team leader argument. the entire paragragh is stressing sameness within the unit.

Now your either gonna hate me or love me for this next one.

Finally, Show me where in the Tau Codex that it says that I HAVE to take a drone controller to take drones.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Not a single unit in the army can purchase drones, so it's a pointless question focusedfire.

Lots of models can purchase drone controllers though, do you want me to point out where drone controllers give me 1 or 2 drones? Surely you know where to find that rule.

Go ahead and re-read the drone controller entry. There is no stipulation stated that in order to buy drones that you have to buy a controller.

Actually by RAW if you buy the drone controller you end up suffering all sorts of negatives that are unnecessary.

Here are the GW rules from both the battlesuit wargear entry and the seperate drone entry:

"Drone Controller"
"A drone controller acts as a hub for communications between the operator and a number of drones. A model with a drone controller must take one or two Gun, Marker or Shield drones, in any combination, from the Wargear list."


"Drones"
"Drones are independent artificial intelligences, programmed to protect the Tau. Unlike the Imperium, The Tau make extensive use of machine intelligences. Normally drones will require regular orders from a Tau, but when several intelligences are networked together in a squadron they become capable of acting independently for a long period."

"Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assing if the unit they are with should take a morale check having taken 25% casualties. They are similarly counted when determing if the unit is strong enough to claim an objective. If their unit suffers losses, drones are counted when determing if it is below 50% for Victory Point purposes."

"Drones must maintain coherency with the unit their controller is in. If he is an independent Character then the drones and character form a unit but the character and drones may still join another unit. If the character with the drone controller is killed then all his drones are removed at the end of the Shooting or Assault phase in which he died."


First, Tons of horrible wording here.

Second, If you take a drone controller then all sorts of negatives, restrictions, and mandatory drone purchases apply.

Third, Nowhere does it state or restrict a Tau player to buying a Drone Controller in order to buy drones.

Where the hell does it let a team leader buy drones?

onlainari wrote:Where the hell does it let a team leader buy drones?

Upgrade to Shas'vre and buy a hard-wired drone controller

Woot to focused fire's last statement. The wording can be taken that anyone with access to battlesuit wargear can take drones (since they are listed under wargear), but those without can take the DC which requires them to take 1-2 of any type(s) of drone.

And as to whether or not broadsides can take it i say they can because:

codex wrote: During the Movement phase, the battlesuit may choose to use the Slow and Purposeful universal special rule for the remainder of the turn, though, if it does it may not make an additional jetpack move in the Assault phase.

Had it said "must give up its additional jetpack.." then the ability would be dependant on said sacrifice.
As it stands it states that use of the S&P invalidates any jetpacking privileges the battlesuit would have for that turn.

Also, the use of the word BATTLESUIT implys that drones are not counted among the models per sé, and therefore are not required to take the ASS with the rest of thier unit

By Raw you don't have to buy Drone Controllers to get the drones, Gwar.


@Olanari- The drones are listed under wargear and at the top of the Crisis/Battlesuit Armoury it does cover the part about crisis suits being able to buy wargear. Probably not in the way intended but it is covered.

It says that, "A model in a Battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Thing is, as laid out all XV-8 and XV-88 Battlesuits have access because all the weapons and support systems lists are listed in the Battlesuit Armoury. This gives them auto access to the wargear list by RAW.

Maj. Tom, that's a horrible example of selective quoting, the rest of the rule details:

Also If one model in a team has advanced stabilisation then all models in the team must be similarly equipped, and if one model makes use of the system, all must do so.

Note how it says "model" not "battlesuit"
Yes its poor writing but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Did anyone catch that by RAW any XV-8 or XV-88 can take from the wargear list.

This means that even though there is nothing forcing you to take the Drone Controller in order to take drones, You can Take a Hard Wired controller on any XV-8 or XV-88.

Edit for incorrect statment that is stated correctly a few post down.

focusedfire wrote:Go ahead and re-read the drone controller entry. There is no stipulation stated that in order to buy drones that you have to buy a controller.

Actually by RAW if you buy the drone controller you end up suffering all sorts of negatives that are unnecessary.

Here are the GW rules from both the battlesuit wargear entry and the seperate drone entry:

"Drone Controller"
"A drone controller acts as a hub for communications between the operator and a number of drones. A model with a drone controller must take one or two Gun, Marker or Shield drones, in any combination, from the wargear list."


"Drones"
"Drones are independent artificial intelligences, programmed to protect the Tau. Unlike the Imperium, The Tau make extensive use of machine intelligences. Normally drones will require regular orders from a Tau, but when several intelligences are networked together in a squadron they become capable of acting independently for a long period."

"Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assing if the unit they are with should take a morale check having taken 25% casualties. They are similarly counted when determing if the unit is strong enough to claim an objective. If their unit suffers losses, drones are counted when determing if it is below 50% for Victory Point purposes."

"Drones must maintain coherency with the unit their controller is in. If he is an independent Character then the drones and character form a unit but the character and drones may still join another unit. If the character with the drone controller is killed then all his drones are removed at the end of the Shooting or Assault phase in which he died."


First, Tons of horrible wording here.

Second, If you take a drone controller then all sorts of negatives, restrictions, and mandatory drone purchases apply.

Third, Nowhere does it state or restrict a Tau player to buying a Drone Controller in order to buy drones.

I really am struggling to infer the same things you are from my reading of the codex. I think you are looking for something that is not there, and I think you are making conclusions based on false assumptions. I also don't have my book with me at the moment, but I will go over it more closely when I get home.

Hmmm, @focusedfire, yes and no

dumbA.S.S. Codex wrote: All models with battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems, as detailed in their army list entry. These may be in any combination, up to any points cost within the normal limits. A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list. No model can pick the same item twice, and all equipment, other than wargear (which is assumed to be integrated), must be represented on the model.

1st sentence, rephrased - A model wearing a battlesuit is assigned xnumber of items from the Battlesuit Weapons Systems and Battlesuit Support Systems lists, in any order no more than one time(twin linked is considered one item that fills two allotted spaces).

3rd sentence, rephrased - A model wearing a battlesuit, that also happens to have access to the Battlesuit Armoury, in addition to it's allotted requirements, may take up to 100 points worth of items from the wargear list.

Codex wrote: Equipment: Each team member is equipped with a XV8 Crisis battlesuit, and must select three battlesuit weapons systems or support systems.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points, giving him access to Special Issue wargear.

Equipment: each team member is equipped with a bust cannon and Stealth armour with integral stealth field generator. Each team member may select one battlesuit support system. If this option is taken, all members must do so, though each may select a different system.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the battlesuit wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points. The team leader or Shas'vre may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

Equiptment: Each model is equipped with an XV 88 Broadside battlesuit, and is armed with a twin linked railgun and Smart missile system.
Options: The Broadside team members must choose one battlesuit support system. The smart missile system may be replaced with a twin-linked plasma rifle at +10 points.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A Shas'ui may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an aditional 5 points.

The fact that it is mentioned specifically when a model may choose from the wargear list implies that the others may not. This incongruence is evidence of the fact that the codex was written by a committee of college dropouts.

Also, "Each model is equipped with an XV 88 Broadside battlesuit" that means that for the purposes of A.S.S., and indeed all equiptment, drones are not considered models in the unit, but as wargear

@Whitedragon-I was very careful to quote very precisely. Even to the Horrid punctuation and sentence structure. My Sentence structure and punctuation may not always be excellent, but then I'm not writing a rule book for sale.

Please to tell me what false assumptions. I am merely quoting the rules. The rules I went looking for to find the limitations and restrictions everyone was saying applied.

What I found was that there are no such limitation by RAW and that I'd been operating under the same assumptions that everyone else had with a few small exceptions.

I was as surprised by some of this as you may be. I am now very thankful that you made this a YMDC discussion.

Come now gentlemen, let's keep our heads here! focusedfire, are you prepared to explain what you just explained to us, word for word, to a tournament opponent whose blood pressure is quickly rising and a skeptical tourney ref whose breathing down your neck?

There are things in the Tau codex we can slip by with: i.e. multitrackers or Drone deep strike assault moves, but at some point you have to realize no one in their right mind would allow you to take 6 drones without controllers...I certainly wouldn't!

Edit: If you didn't need to take controllers to take drones, nothing is also stopping you from taking as many drones as you want! Is that to be allowed as well?

@Maj Tom- You are having to rephrase to make your case vs a RAW. This isn't the strongest position to be in.

It is the Third sentence in the Battlesuit Armoury header paragraph that is the Devil in this detail.

By its actual wording it gives all of the XV-8 and XV-88 suits access due to the hardpoint slots they have to/may fill. After rereading the Stealthsuit entry they would qualify also from being allowed to take one support system.

So by the wording of that third sentence it made the Shas'ui team leader access to wargear wording superfluous/redundant/unnecessary.

The rephrasals were a way of my stating just what i thought the particular wording meant, as RAW, we interpret all words, so RAW could not technically exist because words are an expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

The point I was making was that All battlesuits (other than stealth, due to the word 'may') are assigned a specific selection of options from lists that happen to be in the armoury. They have no choice they *must* take any X# weapons systems/Support systems in any combo. Whereas the word *access* represents that the model in question has optional extra equiptment, and it is not a mandatory assignment.
E.X. A janitor may have a keycard to the same building as a CIA agent, but the Agent has higher *access*. The janitor must go in said buildings to clean, The CIA agent may enter those building. The janitor obviously cant go into restricted areas, where they keep the alient mutant attack bunny, while the CIA agent can.

Also, the fact that it sates that the team leader may select items from a battlesuit Wargear list indicates that his access to the Wargear list specifically is dependant on his team leader status.

@Sychronicity- I'm already used to spending time explaining the Tau to my opponents.

Now, I was just as surprised to find that by RAW there was no requirement for a controller to take drones. I DON'T EVER INTEND to play it that way(Not yelling, trying to let people know). I'll be happy to let this dirty little secret die. This would leave the door open to drone anarchy.
I, also, don't need to use the "drone controller not being mandatory" RAW interpretation in order to make my case about the ASS/Broadside/drones question.

It turns out by the wording from the Battlesuit Armoury lead paragraph that all Battlesuits have access to the wargear list.

Now, this I will use this to support my broadsides taking drones while equipped with ASS.

Whats funny is that it has never really come up. It didn't become a debate untill some other Tau players questioned it because they had never read it that way.


Edit for spelling

If anyone could take items from the wargear list, why would they specify in the team leader option that they can take from the wargear list.

"One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may ____ select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

The two possible interpretations for this (even as RAW) both involve the insertion of an implied word

I1 inserts the word "thus"
I2 inserts the word "still"

I tend to go with interpretation 1

@Maj Tom- Your operating under the false assumption that somewhere in those paragraphs there was wording that seperated the Battlesuit Weapons and Support list from the Armoury.

There is no such wording.


I also have to politely disagree about paraphrasing. Words have meaning. Using synonyms to twist the meaning to your end is not fitting for a RAW argument.

This is because 2 words that are synonyms can have slightly differing meanings. Also, those 2 words can have other synonomous words that don't relate to the first synonym.

Maj. Tom wrote:If anyone could take items from the wargear list, why would they specify in the team leader option that they can take from the wargear list.

Broken Record says, "Because the Tau Codex is a poorly-written pile of poodoo."

@ KaloranSLC: Given
@ Focusedfire: the same word will not mean the same thing to two people. An excessive example is the word "Boot". to You an I it means a form of footwear, To a german, it means a type of floating vehicle that is propelled either by wind, engine, or paddles(or some other creative manner of locomotion)
We equate words to other words subconsciously, and thus a word has two or more meanings depending on which synonym we equate it to. A skilled writer uses context clues to goad us and guide us to equate it with the same synonym that he/she intended when writing. A drunken irishmen stomping on a keyboard, river-dancing, does not have this grace, and as these are undoubtedly the authors of the great and *infallible* codex, there is great room for interpretation, even while remaining within the realm of RAW.

HOLD The Phone!

Where does it even say that A.S.S. takes up a hardpoint?! Structurally speaking, stabilisation would not be of much use mounted on top of a railgun (where the HP is), It would either be withing the suit body, on/on the legs, in/on the arms or shoulders, or all 3. thusly it could take drones, (as in any HP mounted support system)

Maj Tom-Actually to a german it might mean a type of drinking glass also.

Thing is that the Germans have a codex translated to their language. Now due to the fact that nothing of the scope of a codex can be truly translated. There is always something lost. Paraphrasing just complicates this.

This means that when trying to determine the rules if your dealing with a translation then its meaning has been degraded from the orignal to some extent. This isn't intended as a slight to non-english speaking countries, just an observation based on the fact of linguistic and cultural differences.
This could also be viewed from the other side as to the English version is somewhat innacurate. It all depends upon your cultural perspective.

What I working from is the English version. It only compounds problems in translation by paraphrasing. In the case of RAW its best to not change the words when debating but instead work from the original print words from the Codices or rulebooks.

@Maj Tom-Now your beginning to see the depths of this rabbit hole.

I knew it was deep but some of the stuff being found is still a complete surprise to me.

Now the standard answer to the hardpoint question is, its listed under support systems and as such uses up the available space.

Heck, is the term hardpoint still even used in this codex?

I think we may end up needing Yakface in here to help sort this mess out.

focusedfire wrote:I think we may end up needing Yakface in here to help sort this mess out.

I doubt even he can sort it out.

I totally agree with the view of synchronicity. If broadsides can't use it, what's the point of having it? anyway, drones are wargear, and assumed to be represented on the model, so I don't see the argument.

I too am working with an english version, i was just making an example.
And i agree that we should work off of the original rules, which is why i posted my intepretation after i posted the Codex entry verbatim. What im trying to say is that even verbatim, depending on the quality of writing, and too on the person reading it, can have differing meanings for different individuals, even when in the original language.

I think we should tell Yakface to redo the codex while sober.

How would we question this man with the face of a Yak?
I cant figure it out because GW's site is impossible to navigate

The ASS is a support system. The last time I checked, that took up one of the mandatory "Battlesuit Support/Weapon" system slots. You cannot make the argument that it does not use a hardpoint.

The argument you guys are using here is not traditional RAW. I know that may seem ridiculous, but hear me out. Your argument relies on the absence of clarification and specifics.

Clearly an argument based on the absence of a written rule has no right to be called Rules As Written, because the rules aren't written, their implied.

I can tell you what is written. It is written that a Team Leader or Shas'vre has access to Wargear, and may buy 100pts worth of it. It is written that a Drone controller allows you to buy two drones. It is not written that you may choose wargear without being a Team Leader/Shas'vre, and it is not written that you may do this without a Drone Controller.

You see why it's impossible to be a RAW argument, because the rules to support your claims don't exist, merely the absence of them.

We call that a "Loophole," but certainly not "RAW."

@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Now, both the Weapons systems and the Support systems are loctated in the armory.

Hence, all battlesuits that take either weapons or supports systems gain access to the wargear list.

Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.


Gotta go, things to do IRL.

focusedfire wrote:@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.

C'mon, that is one sentence against several that say otherwise! In all other instances, it states that you must be a team leader or above to use wargear! Just because it's a contradiction doesn't mean you automatically get to do it. It means its a contradiction, read my sig!

focusedfire wrote:Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

You know as well as I do it's not RAI, because let's be reasonable here. If GW wanted every battlesuit to take wargear (i.e. the rule you keep quoting), they wouldn't have stated on several occasions that you must be a team leader or above to do so. Explain that!

And I mean that in the most lighthearted, friendly, slap-on-the-back-and-laugh kind of way, my friend!

synchronicity wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.

C'mon, that is one sentence against several that say otherwise! In all other instances, it states that you must be a team leader or above to use wargear! Just because it's a contradiction doesn't mean you automatically get to do it. It means its a contradiction, read my sig!

focusedfire wrote:Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

You know as well as I do it's not RAI, because let's be reasonable here. If GW wanted every battlesuit to take wargear (i.e. the rule you keep quoting), they wouldn't have stated on several occasions that you must be a team leader or above to do so. Explain that!

And I mean that in the most lighthearted, friendly, slap-on-the-back-and-laugh kind of way, my friend!

We know that rule-book trumps codex, but does codex trump codex?

@Sychronicity-What are the other sentences that say otherwise. They say if a model is promoted it may take from the wargear list.

It never says only promoted models.
There is no statement that says team leaders only.
Not even a you must be Shas'ui to enter this portion of the armoury.

It doesn't say that the other models can't, just that the Team Leader will be able to. This does not contitute a limitation on the other models.

The only limitation clearly addressed in any of the entries your referring too is the limitation to special issue wargear. This is completely seperate from regular wargear.

In summation I, again, propose that the rules as written state, when taken at face value and literally, that any Battlesuit model that can take an item from the weapons or support entries in the Armoury are allowed to take wargear also.

@focusedfire: I feel you are abusing a stray rule from an admittedly poorly written sentence. Explain to me why they feel they need to specify what access a team leader is able to take under the entries for an HQ, Bodyguard, Stealth, Broadside, and Crisis suit entries if every suit already has access to the full armory?

Do you really think that is how the wargear selection system is supposed to work for Suits? When different rules become redundant, you have to consider intent. That's all I'm saying.

How things are "supposed" to work have no bearing on how things DO work.

The sooner people realise that the easier this all becomes.

I understand that some might see it as "abuse" but in all honesty, Look at the tau Codex. Can you really justify NOT letting him abuse the gak out of it?

synchronicity wrote:Do you really think that is how the wargear selection system is supposed to work for Suits? When different rules become redundant, you have to consider intent. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you for arguing my original point as to why the entire UNIT of broadsides would be allowed to take drones. What you and several others proposed made the line "The unit may still take drones." redundant by giving the drones to a single model that already could take them. Yet, at that time, you were not willing to consider intent.

What it comes down to is that I've shown there is a case for the entire broadside unit taking drones from both a RAW and RAI points of view.

I've also shown that by RAW you could build a monster drone army. Would never try this at tournament, I'll leave that to someone else. But the idea of the monster drone blob of doom does seem like a fun way to pass a friendly gaming afternoon.


Someone said something earlier in this thread about having a talk with Andy Hoare. Thing is I'd love to and not in the way implied. I'd also like to talk with the team that added additional text.
Why? Because this was an incredibly rushed book and it shows. I'd like to find out what it was like trying to turn this codex out in such a short time and what the actual intentions were for how these rules worked. How much did the editing process hurt the clarity of the rules?

Becuse of this lack of clarity and that diggin deeper only muddies the waters I'm still going to try to bring this thread to Yakfaces attention and see if there is anything here FAQ worthy.

@Maj Tom- Yakface along with Legoburner are the owners of Dakka Dakka or as close to it as you can get.

This Thread was linked to TO where I normally post - http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=82016.0 - which lead me to read the thread on Dakka Dakka...which I read with a growing sense of disbelife!

focusedfire wrote:What it comes down to is that I've shown there is a case for the entire broadside unit taking drones from both a RAW and RAI points of view.

I've also shown that by RAW you could build a monster drone army. Would never try this at tournament, I'll leave that to someone else. But the idea of the monster drone blob of doom does seem like a fun way to pass a friendly gaming afternoon.

No you havent - what you have shown is rules lawyering and a deliberate misunderstanding of the basic rules based on the misreading and taking out of context of 2 sentences from the Codex.

Lets look at the facts.....

The Sentence the "Unit may still take drones" is part of the A.S.S entry - it simply states that the UNIT - ie the team that has brought the A.S.S may still take drones (in context meaning that the unit may take drones despite the earlier part of the section that says all members of the unit must buy the A.S.S if one does. - Very Clear.)

What is does not say is that the A.S.S lets you control drones, or take drones, or make love to drones, or become best mates with them. It says you "MAY Take Them" - if you take them you have to have a drone controller, this is a prerequisite for having drones [there is no argument here] - so the unit MAY take drones if they have a free Hardpoint for the Drone Controller, or if they have access to the Wargear section and may buy a Hard Wired Drone Controller.

This brings us neatly on to your contention that any model has access to the Battlesuit Wargear list - Rubbish - Sorry but Rubbish, Both in terms of the Codex and the Main Rule Book. - Basically you are basing that decision on the deliberate misreading of one sentence in the header of the armouy section, and ignoring the section before it that very clearly states the suits have access to the various systems as detailed in there army list entry.

Lets start with RAI -

The Entry for Crisis Suits for example, states -

"......and must select 3 Battlesuit weapon systems or support systems"

Note - no mention of Wargear.

It then goes on to say -

".....may be designated a TL at 5 points and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear List".

So - it specifically states that the TL can buy Battlesuit Wargear, it does not say the Crisis Suits can. You are just adding that bit in yourself, its not RAW. The First line in the Battlesuit Armoury section tells us to consult the army list entry to define what the suits can have, the army list entry does not give the normal suits access to wargear...It's that simple.

Look at it this way, when you buy a Team Leader for your suits it costs you an extra 5 Points - so what are you paying that 5 Points for? Better Stats? - No, the TL has exactly the same stats as the normal suit. Better Weapons? - No, the TL has access to the same weapons. So whats the 5 points for? - The 5 points pays for you to have access to the Battlesuit Wargear list - thats why you pay it - if everyone had access to that list whats the point in paying 5 points extra for a model exactly the same in every way as the basic, normal Infantry?

However you are claiming that this is irrelevant and that as a loophole under a RAW reading [based on one misread sentence] that any model can buy Wargear and have access to the list - Ok lets assume that this is correct by RAW standards [it isnt but lets pretend for a second] have you actually examined the BS Wargear list and its associated rules? - Because he who lives by the RAW dies by the RAW.

If you read the Hard Wired section of the armoury it states.

"..........the only difference is that only Characters [under Raw in the BOB, Team Leaders and 'VRE's are upgrade CHARACTERS within the unit] with access to Wargear may choose them"

So two points there - only CHARACTERS can take HW systems - (Not Normal Suits) and only Characters with access to Wargear may choose them..IE. The Units mentioned Specifically as having access in there Army Entry List.

Now lets look at the Wargear List - there are 12 items on it:

3 Types of Drone (which as we established you must have a Drone Controller to buy and use).

4 Special Issue Items - Which again you can only use if it specifically says you can take them. ["....and only by those Models whose army list entry states they make take special issue systems."]

4 Hard Wired Systems - Which can only be used by a Character as stated above.

1 Bonding Knife. - Can be used by anyone with access to Wargear.

So - If we go along with the ridiculous assumption that any Model can buy 100 pts of equipment from the armoury (despite it being contradicted/overuled/out of context with the rest of the list) we can see very very clearly, that under the exact definition of RAW the only thing on the Wargear list a normal trooper could buy would be the Bonding Knife - He has no independant access to anything on that list, in fact - the opposite - it is mentioned specifically in the Codex that they can't take any of the items. [And if you look at the entry for Bonding Knives it says ".........Carried by the leader". ]

The rest of the CODEX - through RAW, and the MAIN RULEBOOK combine to show that under an exact RAW reading normal suits can not actually purchase or use Special Issue Systems or HardWired Systems [IE. anything on the BS Wargear list] - So No, under the RAW (and the RAI) there is NO WAY AT ALL that you can create your massive drone army, and that BROADSIDES with the A.S.S only have access to DRONES if they have a teamleader or 'Vre who can actually use the Hardwired Drone Controller to purchase the maximum 2 Drones.

That's RAW, Thats RAI, - Thats the way its played and if someone tried this on me in a friendly game I would refuse to play them, if someone tried it in a tornament I would take great pleasure in seeing them physically ejected by security and disqualified for having a blatently illegal list.

being fair focusedfire you can still take drone controllers as the support system + the hard-wird one in the team leader thats 8 drone (nearly 4 time the normal number of models you can take in the unit)

Just for clarity's sake Myself and, i believe, focusedfire are merely playing devil's advocate and do not truly believe the points we are arguing, nor would we use them, whether we are deemed right or wrong, b/c common, it would be cheap

@focusedfire: I don't know friend, I just can't see your argument. You are completely convinced you have this figured out, and I am completely convinced it' a pile of doo. So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. If we met at a tournament, I, like my talkative friend above me, would call a GW ref to check out your list. If you would be able to convince him, I would be happy to play you.

I think we can all agree, however, that the codex could use a tune up as far as clarification goes.

Maj. Tom wrote:Just for clarity's sake Myself and, i believe, focusedfire are merely playing devil's advocate and do not truly believe the points we are arguing, nor would we use them, whether we are deemed right or wrong, b/c common, it would be cheap

However, I believe focused wants his ASS Broadsides to have multiple drones, and that's why we've been going 'round for so long.

synchronicity wrote: However, I believe focused wants his ASS Broadsides to have multiple drones, and that's why we've been going 'round for so long.

Or, he, like myself, enjoys locking blades and matching wit with his fellow man, not t prove a point, not to accomplish anything, but merely to test his argumentary mettle

@Gonefishing-Please to use the little flame icons or the soapbox icons when attempting to flame or preach. It lets us know your intent.

Now, in reference to what you posted. Please to read the whole thread and you'll understand that I could argue either side of this debate.

My intial contention, in the thread where this debate started, was that the codex and especially the battlesuit wargear section is so poorly worded that when you begin to try and examine it the meanings only become more muddled and murky as opposed to clearer. I've warned of this several times but there was a serious desire by the OP to get to the bottom of this.

Whitedragon wanted clarification on the A.S.S. debate as much as I do. Heck, probably more so becuase he started the this thread.
I had already been down this rabbit hole far enough to know that every entry dealing with the Battlesuits would have to be looked at in order to discuss this. It's why I commented on this and expanded the scope of the debate.

I seriously feel, that if Whitedragon thought my initial argument had no merit, he is wise enough to not have wasted the band-width to discuss the topic in the first place.

Now my friends Maj Tom and sychronicity understand that this was only a debate.

The OP also understands this and if he felt that I was being unreasonable he'd call me out on it. And if Whitegragon did so I'd listen very closely. I'd listen because even though he and I often have different veiwpoints I respect his opinions and experience.



Now to reply to the very long list of assumptions you gave.

Please to think about what is RAW. There is never an "exclusive" type modifier on any of the wargear.

They could have typed that,"Only the team leader may take these items". But they didn't. Which in itself is odd because so many of GW's other books do say things like that.

Now your character argument from the Hard-wired section is a very good one. There is a big hole that I can see in it though.

First, is by wording the book conveys this ability upon any suit coosing from the list. Codex overides BRB if it is given as an ability.

All in all though it is a good reference point and I would concede except that Codex trumps BRB in this case.

Same goes for the drone controllers. It is never written that in order to take drones you have to take the drone controller. You make an assumption about the controllers but don't have the wording in the rules to back it up.
Flame all you want but just because you say so doesn't alleviate the glaring lack of wording to back up your postion. This is RAW not Rules as you Wish them to be.

Next(New point of contention Alert) By RAW no one could take drones if they had to buy a drone controller because their cost is zero. You can't buy something if it has no cost. Without the exchange of points for item there is no transaction that would constitute a purchase.

You've accused me of twisting the meaning and to that I say, No sir. GW twisted the meaning with poor wording and a rushed codex.

This codex makes me wonder if it was the cause for GWs move to abandon the Wargear style lists.


You also make or allude to a false assumption about my character. I remember the most important rule. Debating in interweb land or metagaming with a friend is completely different than when its time to play.

If my opponent has a problem with something. I'm usually willing to work with them. I still win the majority of my games and do my best to make sure it is a good time no matter who wins or loses.

And Maj Tom, you called it. Just enjoying the debate. Gotta go, things to do IRL.

Nowhere in the codex nor in the rulebook does it say you can't use the easter bunny with A.S.S. and 6 Drones and two railguns and 3 burst cannons

focusedfire wrote:
Now your character argument from the Hard-wired section is a very good one. There is a big hole that I can see in it though.

First, is by wording the book conveys this ability upon any suit coosing from the list. Codex overides BRB if it is given as an ability.

All in all though it is a good reference point and I would concede except that Codex trumps BRB in this case.

Actually no it doesent. Codex overwrites BRB only when there are rules in direct contention - an example of this would be Sensor Spines - The BRB says that if a Skimmer Ends its move in Difficult Terrain etc, it must make a DT test. The Codex entry for Sensor Spines however tells us if you take Sensor Spines you don't need to take the test - Codex has overwritten the BRB.

In this case there is no rule in contention for the codex to overwrite. The only reference to the BRB is that Team Leaders etc count as "Upgrade Characters" within the unit they are attached to. - There is nothing in the Tau Codex that overwrites or cancels this out, so Codex cannot trump BRB on this issue.

The actual part that precludes normal troops buying Hard Wired items is in the armoury section of the Codex, the TAU CODEX itself is specifically saying that only characters can buy Hard Wired Items. If we then look at the BRB it gives us a definition of what a character is, and therefore who that rule applies to, but the BRB itself places no restrictions on the Wargear or the Tau Codex - so the Codex has nothing to overwrite, except itself!.

So under RAW - Gained from the TAU CODEX, normal suits can not buy Hard Wired systems or Special Issue items. If we agree with your argument (which to be clear I dont) that anyone can buy things from the Wargear Section than the only Item they would be able to buy would be the Bonding Knife.

The Bonding Knife entry however, while not explicit in its wording clearly shows the RAI of the situation, its in the Wargear section which only Team Leaders, 'Vres, Characters etc can buy from, and the listing itself states - ...."Carried by the Leader". In this case it does not state this explicitly as a rule (RAW), but it is yet another example of the RAI. The one item that you could theoretically buy under the terms of your argument is also a fairly explict guide to the RAI against it!

focusedfire wrote:

Same goes for the drone controllers. It is never written that in order to take drones you have to take the drone controller. You make an assumption about the controllers but don't have the wording in the rules to back it up.
Flame all you want but just because you say so doesn't alleviate the glaring lack of wording to back up your postion. This is RAW not Rules as you Wish them to be.

The Drone Controller is clearly there for this purpose, in fact it states in the DC entry of the Codex, - "a model with a Drone Controller must take one, or two Gun, Marker and Shield Drones, in any combination from the battlesuit wargear list". - So by taking the Drone Controller as a Item it entitles you to buy Drones (upto a maximum of two) from the Wargear List (even if you would normally have no access to that list). Infact look at it another way, a normal suit (without a Drone Controller) would be unable to buy any drones without taking the controller, because they have no access to the Battlesuit Wargear section. Every other rule listing about Battlesuit/Infantry Drones in the Codex refers to the Drone Controller, the Model with the Drone Controller etc - the RAI is very very clear and it is backed up by the RAW readings from many different sections - the only section which does not clarify with an exact RAW reading is the Drone Controller entry - but the RAW reading it does specify is when models are entitled to buy drones.

focusedfire wrote:
Next(New point of contention Alert) By RAW no one could take drones if they had to buy a drone controller because their cost is zero. You can't buy something if it has no cost. Without the exchange of points for item there is no transaction that would constitute a purchase.

This is not RAW - this is an assumption of RAW based on the principles of economics lol. The RAW does not state, anywhere in the CODEX or the BRB that you cannot buy an item that has a cost of Zero, nor does the Codex state you have to buy an item, it says "...These may be in any combination, up to any points cost within the normal limits". There is absolutely no RAW case for this anywhere in the Codex.

I apologise if you think I am preaching or casting aspersions on your character, this is not my intention. But as far as I can see from reading this whole thread you are claiming a case that you are adamant is listed under RAW - it isnt. The exact rules as written do not support your case at all, and the RAI blows it out of the water in all situations. - It simply is an illegal way to play, and I would rather point this out now then go into my local shop and have an argument with a fellow Tau Player who has a completely illegal list because he read on a forum that he could manipulate the rules under a RAW reading that does not exist!

Gonefishing wrote:
The Drone Controller is clearly there for this purpose, in fact it states in the DC entry of the Codex, - "a model with a Drone Controller must take one, or two Gun, Marker and Shield Drones, in any combination from the battlesuit wargear list". - So by taking the Drone Controller as a Item it entitles you to buy Drones (upto a maximum of two) from the Wargear List (even if you would normally have no access to that list).

Wrong. RAW does not entitle a model with a DC to drones, It says they must take 1-2, it is mandatory, not optional. For example, if i tell you you must eat a McMuffin for breakfast on tuesdays (assuming you would listen), that does not give you exclusive access to the McMuffin selection once a week, others may still order it to make a pitiful attempt at deriving nutritive value from rubber eggs, all it does is take away your option of not eating a McMuffin on tuesdays.

Gonefishing wrote:
Infact look at it another way, a normal suit (without a Drone Controller) would be unable to buy any drones without taking the controller, because they have no access to the Battlesuit Wargear section.

This is taking an assumption that is not given by your earlier Wargear argument. Drones are neither hard-wired nor are they intended/restricted to Team leaders/characters.

Gonefishing wrote:
Every other rule listing about Battlesuit/Infantry Drones in the Codex refers to the Drone Controller, the Model with the Drone Controller etc - the RAI is very very clear and it is backed up by the RAW readings from many different sections - the only section which does not clarify with an exact RAW reading is the Drone Controller entry - but the RAW reading it does specify is when models are entitled to buy drones.

Again, must ≠ entitled, so no, RAW does not support this, and yes, RAI is fairly obvious, but obvious or not it is not RAW, and unfortunately Common Sense is a misnomer.

Gonefishing wrote:

I apologise if you think I am preaching or casting aspersions on your character, this is not my intention. But as far as I can see from reading this whole thread you are claiming a case that you are adamant is listed under RAW - it isnt. The exact rules as written do not support your case at all, and the RAI blows it out of the water in all situations. - It simply is an illegal way to play, and I would rather point this out now then go into my local shop and have an argument with a fellow Tau Player who has a completely illegal list because he read on a forum that he could manipulate the rules under a RAW reading that does not exist!

Both focusedfire and i have both stated clearly that these are not the views we hold, and should we be proven wrong, then you will not have to fight illegal lists made by those who hold naturally the visage that the two of us hold as a masquerade. If not, and the thread goes long enough, then yakface(whose name is on the official GW FAQ) Might list corrections in the errata to elimminate the possibility of these rule-benders Focused and I caricature-ize so accurately.

Ditto


Maj Tom has replied so well that I find almost nothing else to add. Also, Maj Tom thank you for your post previous to the last. I always appriciate it when someone makes me chuckle.


@Gonefishing-What do you use for definition when a word isn't covered in the Codex or BRB?

I use the dictionary. This is the fundamental basis of RAW. Now, if you look up the definition of the words purchase and buy, you'll then see the problem of 0 pt wargear.

focusedfire wrote:Ditto

@Gonefishing-What do you use for definition when a word isn't covered in the Codex or BRB?

I use the dictionary. This is the fundamental basis of RAW. Now, if you look up the definition of the words purchase and buy, you'll then see the problem of 0 pt wargear.

Well dictionary definitions aside, the Codex and BRB make no mention that you cant buy things that cost nothing, its not written down so its not RAW - its an assumption based on a dictionary definition.

That being said its also a totally irrelevant assumption, if you look closely at the Tau Codex you will see that at no point (anywhere) does it use the words purchase or buy in relation to Wargear - it uses the words choose and take. There is nothing therefore within RAW that stops me choosing or taking a Drone Controller for zero points. (Unless you can read me the exact passage I am missing in the wargear section that uses the words buy and purchase?.....or are you just making another assumption?).

Maj. Tom wrote:

This is taking an assumption that is not given by your earlier Wargear argument. Drones are neither hard-wired nor are they intended/restricted to Team leaders/characters.

Well i see you are now accepting Hard Wired systems are off limits to normal suits. - Under the terms of your argument Drones are restriceted to team leaders. - You are claiming that you dont need to buy a Drone |Controller to take a Drone right? - Well a normal suit can only take a Drone if he buys a drone controller, because the Drone Controller is the only thing that gives him access to the drones in the Battlesuit Wargear list - a section he would have no access to without the specifc wording in the Drone Controller entry that says he can. Whereas - any unit that can take/choose a Drone Controller can take Drones so there is no restriction.

Now I know what section we are going to move into now - someone is going to come back at me and say "Yes, but your wrong, because the codex gives everyone access to the Wargear list".........So lets look at this argument in a little more detail.

As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong by all means - your argument for this is the line in the Codex that states:

"A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armouery may also choose upto 100 pts from the battlesuit wargear list."|
Now ill start with the obvious RAI and then move on to the RAW. First the RAI is obvious that this section is only tor Team Leaders and above - you can see this in the listing for the Team Leaders themselves, they cost 5Pts more, have exactly the same stats and there entry gives the specific permission to use the Wargear (this is what you pay the 5 points for). - If you look at the sentence you will see it does not say "Any Model in a Battlesuit may choose etc." - It states any model with access to the armoury - I think again the RAI intent is clear here. That being said that moves us onto the RAW, because I dont think you are denying the Rules as intended, you accept what the ruling should be, but you claim by RAW it could be done the other way because of the exact wording of the Codex Section.

So your argument becomes -
1. the Codex says a Model with access to the Armoury can buy upto 100 points of wargear.
2. Everyone has access to the Armoury.
3. Therefore everyone can buy from the Wargear list under RAW.

Well no - I am afraid not - Now we have shown under RAW that Hard Wired and Special Issue items can obly be used by Team Leaders and above. So at this point your argument becomes that the normal suits would still have access to the Battlesuit Wargear list to buy Drones (without a controller) and the Bonding Knife (as the only items they could take from the Wargear list).

Now this argument is clearly against the RAI - but is it against the specific Raw? - Yes it is.

The top of page 25 is entitled "ARMOURY" and it goes on to tell us the armoury is split into 3 sections - Battle Suit, Infantry and Vehicle.

The Section that the line: "A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armouery may also choose upto 100 pts from the battlesuit wargear list."| is below this in the BATTLESUIT ARMOURY section.

Lets look at the line carefully however, it does not say that a ...Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the BATTLESUIT ARMOURY - it just uses the word Armoury. Well the section above in the Codex point out that the Armoury (not the Battlesuit Armoury) consists of 3 parts - so by the RAW reading of this line a model that had access to the Battle Suit Armoury, the infantry armoury and the Vehicle Armoury would be entitled to buy 100 points worth of Wargear. - No Model in the Codex has access to all 3 sections therefore no model can take items from the Battlesuit Wargear.

...but wait a second! It seems some still can!! Because Team Leaders and above all have a seperate entry in there listing stating that they "May Select Items from the Battlesuit Wargear list".

In order for you argument to work under RAW the entry would have to specifically state the model had access to the BATTLESUIT armoury, it doesent, it says "Armoury"- and no model has access to the armoury as a whole. So under a Strict RAW reading, it doesent work.

The RAW is there.
The RAI is specifically against you with every example.
The Argument does not work under either guideline.

The RAW and RAI is extremely clearcut and this is clearly just going to degenerate into argument for arguments sake.

@ Gonefishing: Well done excellent cath on the Armoury v. Battlesuit Armoury. Except for one thing... Your argument states that i can put Battlesuit wargear on my Spotter, not the other way around. Also, it doesn't work (your argument that is).


It says "A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Thus it is contained to our original point, but broadened to include pretty much 'any battlesuit that takes any equipment whatsoever can access the Battlesuit wargear'

And yes i do concede the H/W-special issue-bonding knife argument, well played sir.

But nevertheless that leaves the problem of taking drones without controllers.
(ironically, look at my rank)

Gonefishing wrote:
The RAW and RAI is extremely clearcut and this is clearly just going to degenerate into argument for arguments sake.

Oh good sir, it did that long ago, and only when you win, or when Yakface FAQ-ificates these points, will the matter be laid to rest.
And note, winning does not mean proving your point beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond doubt altogether.

Maj. Tom wrote:@ Gonefishing: Well done excellent cath on the Armoury v. Battlesuit Armoury. Except for one thing... Your argument states that i can put Battlesuit wargear on my Spotter, not the other way around. Also, it doesn't work (your argument that is).


It says "A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Thus it is contained to our original point, but broadened to include pretty much 'any battlesuit that takes any equipment whatsoever can access the Battlesuit wargear'

No - I am afraid it does not - Look at the whole sentence. -"A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." .

What that sentence basically says is - "a model WEARING a Battlesuit and that has access to the Armoury". So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

In order for you argument to actually work under a RAW basis the entry would have to say either -"A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Battlesuit Armoury [b] may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." Or - -"A model in a battlesuit [b] OR ONE that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." It does not - So your argument (Which you were basing on this one line) does not actually have any basis in RAW at all.

Gonefishing wrote: That being said its also a totally irrelevant assumption, if you look closely at the Tau Codex you will see that at no point (anywhere) does it use the words purchase or buy in relation to Wargear - it uses the words choose and take. There is nothing therefore within RAW that stops me choosing or taking a Drone Controller for zero points. (Unless you can read me the exact passage I am missing in the wargear section that uses the words buy and purchase?.....or are you just making another assumption?).

Very good catch sir, I salute you.

Gonefishing wrote:Well i see you are now accepting Hard Wired systems are off limits to normal suits. - Under the terms of your argument Drones are restriceted to team leaders. - You are claiming that you dont need to buy a Drone |Controller to take a Drone right? - Well a normal suit can only take a Drone if he buys a drone controller, because the Drone Controller is the only thing that gives him access to the drones in the Battlesuit Wargear list - a section he would have no access to without the specifc wording in the Drone Controller entry that says he can. Whereas - any unit that can take/choose a Drone Controller can take Drones so there is no restriction.

Now I know what section we are going to move into now - someone is going to come back at me and say "Yes, but your wrong, because the codex gives everyone access to the Wargear list".........So lets look at this argument in a little more detail.

....................(And a whole bunch of stuff that is overly complex for the assumption that is made.)

Actually it boils down to these three points.

1)A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armoury may also choose up to 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list.
2)Drones are located in the wargear list
3)The codex "Fails" To establish a mandatory connection between Drones and drone controller.

This is why any battlesuit could by RAW "Take or Choose"(Again I salute you) Drones.


With RAW you have to take the sentence at face value unless there is something written in a subsequent sentence or rule that specifically states the modification to the rule.

I will state that due to the points made by others in this thread that I will limit my ASS equipped suits to 2 drones. Not because of anything in the Tau Codex but because of the most improtant rule(To have fun). By the wording in the Codex I could take up to 100pts worth of drones per Battlesuit but unless I have a friend that thinks playtesting something like this would be fun I'll leave the contentious wording arguments to the forums and play my pick up and tourney games without the ASS if running drones.

And this doesn't alleiviate the basic problem of poor wording. The wording in the first point is an invite to some smart ass to make the point that unless you actually model the Battlesuit to show a model inside you wouldn't be able to take wargear. Thus making the argument moot until we all re-worked our Crisis suits. This may seem bizzare and over the Top but I have run into this individual more than once. Each time this guy had a different name and face but he was still the same person.

Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Gonefishing wrote:
So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

Ah, but riddle me this; how can a suit without access to the armoury equip itself with the mandatory weapons and support systems therein? II never said unrestricted access, because as you pointed out there are some obvious restrictions. But to get anything IN the armoury, you must access it. For example, say you have your pet rock in a safety deposit box at the bank, and you said you wanted to see it, they would not deny you entry into the bank vault by saying "No, because the Faberge Egg in the box above you does not belong to you." but they also wouldn't say, "Yeah, here are a bunch of keys, dun know which one's urs so figure it out. And uh... Oh yeah, dont steal nuffin." Now what GW has done is instead of installing locks in some of the boxes, they have written on sticky notes affixed to each one "Hey, uhh.. You probably shouldn't look in this box. -management-"

Black-sun filter (i think we can agree that any suit can take this), is in the Battlesuit support system list, which is in the Battlesuit Armoury, Which is in the Armoury. Therefore, If no

Gwar! wrote:Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Bah-ZIIiinngg!!!

"All battle suits take X Weapon systems and Y support systems... A model in a battle suit with access to the armoury may also choose up to 100pts of war-gear from battle suit war-gear list" In this case RAI is clear even if it is badly worded

I would also like to point out this technically correct reading (which is why you can't always play RAW)...

Drone Controller "...must take one or two gun, marker or shield drones in any combination ..."
...so each drone controller lets you take 1-2 drones

you can also take drone controllers as support systems & hardwired

now technically you may also take one (of each type) as war gear on characters. Drones are listed as war gear

... sooo you could have on a commander and bodyguards with 21 drones (a marker, a gun and a shield drone + any other 4 others)
er... commander Farsight+ 7 bodyguards would let you take 56 drones (i can imagine the panic this could cause deep striking in ... well if it can find enough space)

.... but this just looks wrong ...

Maj. Tom wrote:

Gonefishing wrote:
So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

Ah, but riddle me this; how can a suit without access to the armoury equip itself with the mandatory weapons and support systems therein? II never said unrestricted access, because as you pointed out there are some obvious restrictions. But to get anything IN the armoury, you must access it. For example, say you have your pet rock in a safety deposit box at the bank, and you said you wanted to see it, they would not deny you entry into the bank vault by saying "No, because the Faberge Egg in the box above you does not belong to you." but they also wouldn't say, "Yeah, here are a bunch of keys, dun know which one's urs so figure it out. And uh... Oh yeah, dont steal nuffin." Now what GW has done is instead of installing locks in some of the boxes, they have written on sticky notes affixed to each one "Hey, uhh.. You probably shouldn't look in this box. -management-"

Black-sun filter (i think we can agree that any suit can take this), is in the Battlesuit support system list, which is in the Battlesuit Armoury, Which is in the Armoury. Therefore, If no

Lol nice try - but no - utterly irrelevant - the Battlesuit Armoury says that - "All Models with Battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems as detailed in there Army Entry list" - the line we are arguing about is later in the passage and refers purely to Battlesuit Wargear options. It does not in any way deny access to the mandatory Weapon and Support systems, both the Battlesuit Armoury section and the individiual codex entries tell you that you can take them, and when you have access to them.

The RAI intent of the line we are discussing ("A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Battlesuit Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." ) cannot be denied, however if we insist on a strict RAW reading of the line (which you are) it denies access to the Wargear to anymodels that do not have it specifically stated in there Codex entries. - However the Line does NOT deny access to Weapon and Support systems because this is covered earlier in the same section and in the individual codex entries by a RAW basis. They are given access specifically to the Weapon and Support systems - they are not given access to the the Battlesuit Wargear - which is the point we are discussing.

No, because as you said yourself, The Armoury includes battlesuit, infantry, and vehicle systems/upgrades. Therefore, any model, in a battlesuit, that has a selection from any segment of the armoury, BSF/PR/FC/w/e, and this includes ALL battlesuits [since even stealths can get a support system), may then get up to 100 points in the battlesuit Wargear. As you have stated, special issue items can only be used when explicitly stated, and HW systems can only go on characters (though i noiced in the codex it is not capitalized). This still leaves the matter of drones. And nowhere does it explicitly prohibit the use of drones as wargear without a controller.

Gwar! wrote:Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Nah, I'm about the same age as he is. This means that I play in gaming groups that are in the 40+ age bracket so I never get to see him.




@Gonefishing and Maj Tom- We have now hit the Round Robin portion of the debate. Both sides have now established there positions and cited their the portions of the rulebook that supports their stance. All parties have now formed their opinions and are dug in. The debate will go circular for a couple of pages until someone gets upset or flames or ect...

Would anyone care to switch their stance and argue the point from the other side?
Would either of you like to debate one of the other points brought forth?

Certainly

I concede your point about the bananas.

I started writing that I was the farthest thing from dug in but when i tried to play devils advocate against myself i lost the monargument.

So maybe i did dig a little, but its only cause i thought there was pirate treasure at the bottom!

Maj Tom- This will sound biased but I believe that you had the edge in the debate up to this point. It has to do with the last offer I made and the reponses recived.

Now, the debate had definitely nudged up to the round robin portion. That was the primary reason for my offer to reverse stances or move to a different point. The other reason is its an old debate trick to avoid emotional attachment to one side of the debate and to get people out of their entrenched thought processes.

Also, there is a tendency where if someone is growing emotionally invested in one side of the debate and they subconciously(or conciously) feel that their position is weaker they will refuse the offer to switch. In order to prevent derailing the thread I won't go into the pychology behind this tendency. Instead, I'll just state, IMHO, that your willingness to make the attempt and to be candid with both yourself and the rest of us speaks very well of your skills in debate, ability to think critically/logically, and personality as an individual.

Now, back to the offer. I'll be gaming today but if you'd like to switch or debate a different point/facet then please let me know. You can pick what point I'll be arguing. Then we'll start either late today or sometime tomorrow.


@Gonefishing- Some excellent points made. Please to continue with the input. I feel that both sides were getting to the point of becoming emotionally invested in the debate. This, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a negative thing. Being passionate about the subject is a great motivator. Letting such ardour get to the point that it clouds the ability to see where the other side is coming from is counter-productive.

Again I wish to compliment you upon your keen intellect and really do hope that you will stick around for this exploration of the Tau codex wording.

Im not sure how eloquent ill b today since i was up all night with a friend playing Left4Dead (great game highly recommended), but i did come up with something, The codex, to my knowledge doesn't explicitly prohibit the buying of drones sans controller, but it also doesn't expressly give permission either, which is the point i believe Gonefishing is taking.

A similar example is that in the bible it says "A man shall not lay with another man for it is an abomination towards God"(not my view btw) ... Nothing about a woman laying with another woman. However, i can't picture the pope watching the Elen degenres show.


food for thought,...thousands....

Off-Topic- I noticed that line myself years ago and came to the conclusion that it was an intentional omission.

Go ahead. Try to convince a man with multiple wives that a god that forbids him to enjoy the one pleasurable benefit of having multiple spouses is the one he needs to follow.

And naw, The Popes watching the Telly Tubbies at that time slot.



On-Topic-Now, to this point of "if" there is no express permission to take the drones. "If" this were so then by the same logic no one could take the Drone Controller or any wargear for that matter.

Fortunately the line in question at the top of Battlesuit wargear does give us that permision. By being in the wargear section we know that we can take the drones

But only one. By reading the rules at face value all the drone controller does is allow you to violate the no model may pick the same item twice rule. Maybe thats why it is considered worth 0 pts, becuase it only allows you to double up on a type of drone.(I know this isn't RAI but by the reading it "Looks" that way.)



Food for thought, women living in close proximity have a tendency to sychronize biologically. Hhmmm,.......a monthly apoc game that lasts a week.....Nah it'd never fly, I'd end up ripped to shreds and dumped in a river.

Sorry* Darned double posting interwebs

synchronicity wrote:We call that a "Loophole," but certainly not "RAW."

I think this is a fun, lively debate, and I'm glad to see that those pushing the envelope of rules interpretations say they wouldn't ever actually use them this way

In computer games these kinds of things are called "exploits" rather than "bugs". Bugs are a technical error. Exploits are things that were left open to abuse... and were subsequently abused

I can agree that RAW may leave open the possibility of all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean you should try to get away with them. That's an exploit, and not in the spirit of the game (according to one of the first pages of the rulebook!)

But an interesting debate nonetheless... especially the part about drones not having ASS (you could take that all sorts of ways )

Cheers all

Another interesting tidbit from the book. I can usually grasp the meaning of the written word pretty easily. This one made my head hurt for a second.

Pg 24 Tau Codex, Page says TAU ARMY LIST at the top.

By the rule entry titled:

Character: Some entries may include an option to upgrade one team member to a character. If the team is allowed models with upgrades then these must be given to ordinary team members not the character.


This as written has far reaching consequences. This could be used to directly change how we equip our models.

So does this have any bearing upon the primary discussion of drones on broadsides with A.S.S. ?

How does it affect upgrades in general? Remeber that the character is a model that was up graded in the unit. Also the wargear he takes would be considered upgrades.

Now I'm pretty sure this rule was written for the Pathfinders but the wording is just plain problematic. Who wants to go first and which side do you want to take?

I'm still twitching from the brain aneurism that sentence caused.
Until i figure out what it is trying to mean, i will argue the bowl of RAI, once i figure that out i will probably start to argue at the sieve of RAW


The thing that popped into my head was the options of rocket launcher and flamer not being viable to a sm commander (dont know if this is true! its just how i played my starter set.)

The next was not being able to give the upgraded FW a carbine.

Then i looked at it in context and i decided that i will take the position of the following
::If a model is upgraded to a character, then all the equipment options of the team cease to apply, and that any options must be stated in it's Character entry::

*Then goes to read all the option v character entries.*

XV8 Crisis Battlesuit Team wrote:
Equipment: Each team member is equipped with an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit, and must select three battlesuit weapons systems or support systems.

Options: NA

Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points, giving him access to the Special Issue Wargear.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealth Team wrote:
Equipment: Each team member is equipped with a burst cannon and Stealth armour with integral stealth field generator. Each team member may select one battlesuit support system. If this option is taken, all members must do so, though each may select a different system.

Options: One in three models (including the team leader or Shas'vre) may replace their burst cannon with a fusion blaster at a cost of 2 pts per model.

Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points. The team leader or Shas'vre may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1+ Fire Warrior Team wrote:
Equipment: Pulse rifle.

Options: Any number of Fire Warriors in the team may exchange their pulse rifle for a pulse carbine at no extra points cost. The team may carry photon grenades at an additional cost of +1 point per model and EMP grenades at an additional cost of +3 points per model.

Character: One Fire Warrior Shas'la may be upgraded to a Shas'ui team leader at +10 points, and may select items from the Infantry Wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kroot Carnivore Squad wrote:
Equipment: Kroot are armed with a Kroot rifle, Krootox Riders with a Kroot gun, and Kroot Hounds with their ferocious fangs.

Options: If a Shaper is included in a Carnivore Squad, its members may acquire a 6+ Armour Save at a cost of 1 point per model.

Some Shapers carry weaponry gifted from the Tau. For an additional cost of 5 points, the Shaper's Kroot rifle can be replaced with either a pulse rifle or a pulse carbine.

Character: One Kroot may be upgraded to a Shaper at an additional cost of 21 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pathfinder Team wrote:
Equipment: Pulse carbine with markerlight target designator.

Options: Pathfinders may carry photon grenades at an additional cost of 1 point per model and EMP grenades at an additional cost of 3 points per model. Up to three Pathfinders in a team (but not the team leader or Shas'ui) may replace their pulse carbine and markerlight with a rail rifle and target lock at a cost of 10 points each.

Character: One Pathfinder Shas'la may be upgraded to a Shas'ui team leader for an additional 10 points, and may select items from the Infantry Wargear list.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

XV88 Broadside Battlesuit Team wrote:
Equipment: Each model is equipped with an XV88 Broadside battlesuit, and is armed with a twin-linked railgun and smart missile system.

Options: The Broadside team members must choose one battlesuit support system. The smart missile system may be replaced with a twin-linked plasma rifle at +10 points.

Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points.

Maj Tom-My apologies for having cuased the brain twitching mini aneurism.


I am actually struggling with how to debate this. Its like trying to play soccer on oil coverd ice while wearing dress shoes. There is no solid footing in any direction.

I could say that it means wargear selected by the upgraded character goes on to the team members as opposed to the character.

Ordoes it mean a never ending circle of one suit giving the character option to the next?

Off-topic-In my gaming group the majority turn to me for quick answers to rules questions. They joke that I'm a living rule book. It was never my intention to be so well versed, Just had to spend so much time in the books trying to make sense of sentences like this last one that a lot of the info just stuck.

This wording has gotten to me to the point that I'm now attempting to write a fan-dex just to see if I can both update and introduce concise rules that make sense. The idea for this started on the, "How would you fix the Tau for 5th ed?" thread.

May I ask to use you as a sounding board at some point? That is if you don't mind.

sound away friend

I think it means that the "Options: xyz" section only applies to unupgraded models, and that the Character models have thier own options listed under the "Character: abc" section. except the shaper in which he is mentioned specificly in the options

Which is maybe why it specifies the TL/Shas'vre in the stealth options

I didn't really read any of this thread past the very start, so sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has said or otherwise being disruptive.

The Adepticon FAQ says that units with drones may still use their advanced stabilisation systems (the drones gain no benefit). I see why people would think strict RAW prevents the A.S.S. working when there are drones in the squad, but you have to see why this is a circumstance in which RAI makes more sense, and the Adepticon ruling supports this.

Now ya see, that post would be wonderful were it not for the fact that this is a rules debate forum, and we debate on what the rules actually say (That is, Rules + Errata).

The Adeptecon FAQ and GW FAQ's are nothing but house rules, so to bring them up is counter-intuitive.

Not to mention, as admitted by the main parties in this thread, its all just one huge thought experiment and that no-one in their right mind would play this way.

P.S. Please don't ever mention RaI in a Rules Debate thread. Until Cavatore/Whoever wrote the stupid codex comes and delivers in writing and sealed with his blood what the "intent" of the rule is, Claiming what YOU think RaI is to be better than what I think RaI just makes you appear Arrogant and dickish.

Haha, the Games Workshop FAQs don't count as RAW? That's ridiculous.

I just think it's valuable to consider semi-Official-ish sources like the Adepticon FAQ. The fact that it weighs in for one side of the argument might help some people make a decision. If you're on the side of only examining letter of the law, 100% RAW, that's fine, but not everyone agrees that you should never think about intent.

Except, every major tournament uses those house rules, and the vast majority of all players except you (and your group I guess) use them as well. You really need to get off this "they are only house rules and don't mean anything." Of course you can keep on it, be an army of one, plus its very good for giving you a boost to your thread count.

However, you are correct, no one plays where the drones must have A.S.S. or you can't take drones and have ASS on broadsides at the same time. Therefore I believe the intention was that you are not required to take wargear on wargear and I believe it was the intention of the codex writers that drones taken as wargear are not team members. And I believe that it was intentionally left unclarified because it was intentional that you can take A.S.S. and have the team leader buy a drone controller with some drones and have the whole thing work the way everyone already plays it.

Gwar! wrote:Now ya see, that post would be wonderful were it not for the fact that this is a rules debate forum, and we debate on what the rules actually say (That is, Rules + Errata).

The Adeptecon FAQ and GW FAQ's are nothing but house rules, so to bring them up is counter-intuitive.

Not to mention, as admitted by the main parties in this thread, its all just one huge thought experiment and that no-one in their right mind would play this way.

P.S. Please don't ever mention RaI in a Rules Debate thread. Until Cavatore/Whoever wrote the stupid codex comes and delivers in writing and sealed with his blood what the "intent" of the rule is, Claiming what YOU think RaI is to be better than what I think RaI just makes you appear Arrogant and dickish.

Yah, but we're arguing RAW, not RAI. Were basically trying to highlight the fact that the codex was obviously written while the author was drunk and being mauled by a bear wearing a short-skirt

Maj. Tom wrote:Yah, but we're arguing RAW, not RAI. Were basically trying to highlight the fact that the codex was obviously written while the author was drunk and being mauled by a bear wearing a short-skirt

yay for innuendo. This gave me a big grin