Ok so not sure if how practical this is, but I'm just trying to find fun things to do with Piranhas. Ok so here is my question. I have 5 Piranha squad on the board all with flechette dischargers. The squad gets charged by 12 Orks. The Orks can only reach 1 of the Piranhas in the squad. So I know the one that got charged gets to roll 12 dice for the flechettes, but since the entire squadron is technically getting assaulted do the other 4 also get their flechettes giving me effectively 60 dice wounding on a 4+?

Rules in question: Tau flechette discharger p30 "Any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a 4+ before resolving its attacks"

BRB p64: "When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and armour penetration against the squadron as a whole"

You are correct. Each one fires it's flechette discharges. It's a great strategy that has turned the tide of many a battle for me.

... all of them fire off by the my reading ...

The only other option is if models charge the vehicle that it fires off.

Haha...

This reminds me of last weekend where a local Daemons player was complaining about having wounds taken off his 'Thirster after attacking a Hammerhead with Flechettes.

Saldiven wrote:Haha...

This reminds me of last weekend where a local Daemons player was complaining about having wounds taken off his 'Thirster after attacking a Hammerhead with Flechettes.

Nice. My broadside put 2 wounds on a greater daemon once; just goes to show that poor rolling (usually on my side but not in this case) trumps all. :-)

page 80 of the INAT FAQ covers them, iirc

Sweet thanks all that is what I thought I was just looking for clarification.

You should already realize this is an issue by your superb knowledge of picking which exact lines to quote. Popular RAW interpretation, including a poll on Dakka, is that the flechette dischargers will all launch if a member of the squadron comes under attack.

INAT FAQs have ruled against this IIRC. As i see it, RAI they wouldn't all launch, the rule just gets a bonus from the 5th edition squadron RAW. You will need to clarify how they're going to operate with your opponent before the game. A lot of clubs/tournaments use the INAT FAQs, in all respects. Saying everyone plays by the RAW for flechette dischargers, which isn't true, won't fly.

I think we should be careful about assuming what can happen when a codex doesn't explain everything. Just because the Tau codex doesn't say we don't reference vehicle squadron assault rules doesn't mean they automatically apply to Flechette Dischargers.

I see it as another case of codex trumps rulebook. While at first glance, no, the Discharger rules don't seem to hold any sway over rulebook squadrons, in fact all that you need is right there in the codex:

Tau Codex, p30 wrote:Any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a D6 roll of 4+, with saves allowed, before resolving its attacks.

In cases of codex > rulebook, we accept that because the codex rules state "model" (singular) and "vehicle" (singular), it is impossible for a Flechette to resolve attacks against models that are not locked in combat with that specific vehicle.

Yes, that is not how assaulting vehicle squadrons works. But a Flechette getting attacks on models not actually locked in combat with its vehicle goes against the codex ruling. That much is true, because the rules only specify singular vehicles, which vehicles still are even in a squadron.

To OP: if you try and play with those people's weird RAW loophole interpretation, you won't make yourself any friends (and you may lose all your Ork friends!). I'm not saying it wouldn't hold up in something like Ard Boyz, but if you were to go onto ATT and bring this subject up I can almost guarantee you that most Tau players will agree with me. Let the Greater Good triumph here!

Or to rephrase my previous answer: INAT has an answer. The rest is moot. See: This thread and others covering the issue.

synchronicity wrote:

Tau Codex, p30 wrote:Any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a D6 roll of 4+, with saves allowed, before resolving its attacks.

In cases of codex > rulebook, we accept that because the codex rules state "model" (singular) and "vehicle" (singular), it is impossible for a Flechette to resolve attacks against models that are not locked in combat with that specific vehicle.

If you use that interpretation, then Flechette Dischargers will never work, as vehicles without a weapon skill are never locked in combat.

kirsanth wrote:Or to rephrase my previous answer: INAT has an answer. The rest is moot. See: This thread and others covering the issue.

MY OPINION SHALL BE READ AND ACCEPTED BY ALL. SO IT IS WRITTEN.

Saldiven wrote:

If you use that interpretation, then Flechette Dischargers will never work, as vehicles without a weapon skill are never locked in combat.

Sorry, let me rephrase to use the actual wording: "it is impossible for a Flechette to resolve attacks against models that are not attacking that specific vehicle."

Better?

synchronicity wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Or to rephrase my previous answer: INAT has an answer. The rest is moot. See: This thread and others covering the issue.

MY OPINION SHALL BE READ AND ACCEPTED BY ALL. SO IT IS WRITTEN.

Actually, it's Yakface and Centurion99's and all the others on the FAQ Councils opinion.

And yes, you will accept it at 99.999997% of tournaments run by sane people nowadays.

Gwar! wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Or to rephrase my previous answer: INAT has an answer. The rest is moot. See: This thread and others covering the issue.

MY OPINION SHALL BE READ AND ACCEPTED BY ALL. SO IT IS WRITTEN.

Actually, it's Yakface and Centurion99's and all the others on the FAQ Councils opinion.

And yes, you will accept it at 99.999997% of tournaments run by sane people nowadays.

Way to steal my thunder...

synchronicity wrote:
Sorry, let me rephrase to use the actual wording: "it is impossible for a Flechette to resolve attacks against models that are not attacking that specific vehicle."

Better?

So they never work on squadrons?

(as no attacks are directed at any specific vehicle, just at the unit, or are you arguing that they work like Lukas the Tricksters cloak of the dopplegangrel and do nothing until the vehicle is alone and can thus be a legal target?)

Jack

synchronicity wrote:I think we should be careful about assuming what can happen when a codex doesn't explain everything. Just because the Tau codex doesn't say we don't reference vehicle squadron assault rules doesn't mean they automatically apply to Flechette Dischargers.

I see it as another case of codex trumps rulebook. While at first glance, no, the Discharger rules don't seem to hold any sway over rulebook squadrons, in fact all that you need is right there in the codex:

Tau Codex, p30 wrote:Any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded on a D6 roll of 4+, with saves allowed, before resolving its attacks.

In cases of codex > rulebook, we accept that because the codex rules state "model" (singular) and "vehicle" (singular), it is impossible for a Flechette to resolve attacks against models that are not locked in combat with that specific vehicle.

Yes, that is not how assaulting vehicle squadrons works. But a Flechette getting attacks on models not actually locked in combat with its vehicle goes against the codex ruling. That much is true, because the rules only specify singular vehicles, which vehicles still are even in a squadron.

To OP: if you try and play with those people's weird RAW loophole interpretation, you won't make yourself any friends (and you may lose all your Ork friends!). I'm not saying it wouldn't hold up in something like Ard Boyz, but if you were to go onto ATT and bring this subject up I can almost guarantee you that most Tau players will agree with me. Let the Greater Good triumph here!

The individual vehicles can be attacked/damaged as part of a unit, just as in a regular combat. It in no way conflicts with the flechette discharger entry. Just because a piece of wargear refers to the holder as an individual, does not mean that that individual is not being attacked when part of a unit being attacked.

Ridcully wrote:The individual vehicles can be attacked/damaged as part of a unit, just as in a regular combat. It in no way conflicts with the flechette discharger entry. Just because a piece of wargear refers to the holder as an individual, does not mean that that individual is not being attacked when part of a unit being attacked.

I'm not saying that Piranhas can't be attacked by the rules of vehicle squadrons. Indeed, it is a very good way to get rid of 5 Piranhas. I'm merely saying that getting 60 attacks from Flechettes onto 12 assaulting Ork Boyz is going against the wording on how Flechettes should work. I believe it to work on a per model basis, per vehicle being attacked.

But I don't think many share my view, which is fine. I don't mean to be sounding high and mighty here, and if I have, I apologize. I just don't think that you should be able to mulitply the number of attacks you get from Flechettes by how many vehicles have it in the squadron. One attack per attacker is how I read the rule to work.

Consider this: Let's say you have 5 Piranhas, and only one Piranha has Flechettes. Now a squad of Ork Boyz assaults one of the Piranhas, but doesn't assault the one with a Flechette Discharger. Should the squadron get 12 attacks against the Ork Boyz? I don't believe so, because it goes against the Codex wording of "any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded..."

Go with the INAT faq ruling its the most reasonably well written FAQ out there.


GW should just issue a press release and be like yeah this is what we use.

For what it's worth, every Tau player I've played has played it so that they get their attacks. I think in context of the rest of their codex it's entirely necessary for it to sway that way.

synchronicity wrote:Consider this: Let's say you have 5 Piranhas, and only one Piranha has Flechettes. Now a squad of Ork Boyz assaults one of the Piranhas, but doesn't assault the one with a Flechette Discharger. Should the squadron get 12 attacks against the Ork Boyz? I don't believe so, because it goes against the Codex wording of "any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded..."

But they are attacking the vehicle, the ork player gets no say in which vehicle his hits are assigned to, that's up to the Tau player.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

synchronicity wrote:Consider this: Let's say you have 5 Piranhas, and only one Piranha has Flechettes. Now a squad of Ork Boyz assaults one of the Piranhas, but doesn't assault the one with a Flechette Discharger. Should the squadron get 12 attacks against the Ork Boyz? I don't believe so, because it goes against the Codex wording of "any model attacking the vehicle in close combat will be wounded..."

But they are attacking the vehicle, the ork player gets no say in which vehicle his hits are assigned to, that's up to the Tau player.

Jack

Ah. But, the last few words of the Flechette Discharger rules read like this: "...before resolving its attacks." So no attacks of the Orks have been assigned at all, and the Flechette attacks must be resolved before any Piranhas are chosen to be targets by the Ork's attacks. Basically, the Orks attack but do not roll for hits until Flechette wounds have been applied and saved. This is normally never a problem because there is only ever one target for these attacks; except in squadrons.

I don't think you can say that non-attacked Piranhas can use there Flechettes, because whether the vehicle is assigned hits never enters into the Flechette rules. In fact, looking at Codex RAW, Flechette wounds occur before allocation of assault hits. The BRB states for squadrons: "When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and armour penetration against the squadron as a whole."

However, Flechettes happen before rolls to hit are made, even considering vehicle squadron rules. That's why I firmly believe you look at it by a vehicle by vehicle basis, and not a squadron allocation basis.

As a squadron, the combat operates as a squadron... against the squadron. Every vehicle is involved in the combat, and none can be excluded.

Ridcully wrote:As a squadron, the combat operates as a squadron... against the squadron. Every vehicle is involved in the combat, and none can be excluded.

Well then to that, I say the Flechettes don't work period in a squadron, since the wording is "...any model attacking the vehicle..." rather than "...any model attacking the squadron..." The Flechette RAW simply doesn't cover what happens in a squadron.

If you're attacking the squadron, it only follows that you must be attacking the vehicles in said squadron. Seriously, the requirements are met.

The only option is following the INAT FAQs, coming up with your own house rule, or following the overpowered non RAI RAW.

I respectfully disagree with your first line, because I think attacking a vehicle and attacking a squadron are two different situations, and Flechettes only work in the latter former.

I respectfully agree with your second, with exception to the fact that RAW Flechettes can cause more wounds than models attacking.

It's just one of those things where we will have to disagree.

EDIT: Meant former, not latter!

I think you mean the former... Unless you're finally seeing things my way, in which case... hurrah but i would say both.

lol

Ha! You are correct, I did mean former! Thanks for the save!

I'm confused, why does the INAT faq seem to say that your vehicle squadrons should only ever take 1 discharger?

It's not saying you should necessarily only take one discharger, but that only one discharger will launch during the combat and only one discharger is needed to for it to work when the squadron is attacked. But if you lost the only vehicle that had the discharger, you would lose your flechette benefit in future combats. If all your vehicles had dischargers, that obviously wouldn't be an issue.

Ridcully wrote:It's not saying you should necessarily only take one discharger, but that only one discharger will launch during the combat and only one discharger is needed to for it to work when the squadron is attacked. But if you lost the only vehicle that had the discharger, you would lose your flechette benefit in future combats. If all your vehicles had dischargers, that obviously wouldn't be an issue.

I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

kirsanth wrote:The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

ok...

Target priority tests being removed is obviously just an update to current rules. (and could be argued that they should be removed anyways since the rule no longer exists)

However this fundamentally changes how something works, even in previous editions.
If you have an actual answer please say what it is. I don't want to just have a response like the one above.

kirsanth wrote:The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

So people would have a chance of winning?

I don't know why people are so keen to shaft the Tau on the basis of things like Targetting Priority.

The poor old Tau have an outmoded codex half the time, because they get released halfway through editions.

They have very few unique features, rules or abilities compared to most codexes, and a smaller selection of units.

Why deny them the tiny advantage of Target Lock because the Target Priority rule has gone? That rule being gone helps everyone else.

(Sorry for OT.)

I think most of the animosity comes from the small but vocal player base of Dark Eldar, Necron, Inquisition and (until recently) Space Wolf Players, who resent that an unwanted, unneeded army created solely to take cash off the anime fan playerbase have gotten a codex AND THEN ANOTHER ONE, while they still are using 10 year old codexes.

Hell my puppies have a super codex now and I still hate the Tau.

Besides, it means I can't bring my 15 piranha list to adepticon. :p

The Tau codex is the one 4th edition codex which seems to require house rules in order to work in 5th. I'll have to read up on vehicle and assaults rules, but for now it seems like it depends on how many of the flying bases he's touching, as only those models could use their flachette dischargers.

Edit: At least the 3rd edition codexes didn't mention 'target priority' (well ok, the Space Wolf codex mentioned 'outnumbering'....but that was when it was old!)

starbomber109 wrote:The Tau codex is the one 4th edition codex which seems to require house rules in order to work in 5th. I'll have to read up on vehicle and assaults rules, but for now it seems like it depends on how many of the flying bases he's touching, as only those models could use their flachette dischargers.

Its stated in the rules that you engage an entire vehicle squadron no matter how many bases you are touching. Its not like you can only kill the one you are touching, why shouldn't all of my piranhas be able to kill you?

That was an actual answer.

If you want more detail, that is fine -- and in fact would be a nicer request than implying my answer was fake/wrong/snide/worthless.

They went with (as I read it) RAI from a codex that is outdated.

Squadron rules were added, TP removed, in fact many changes were made. So they went with what was the intent of the rule in question prior to these changes, as they saw it.

I am not inclined to shaft any one codex more than another. Nor am I inclined to let any one codex gain advantage more than any other.

/shrug

Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

Yes, from what I recall.

I played a fair amount, but have done what I can to purge the rules from my brain.

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

Timmah wrote:

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

OR, the INAT FAQ is staying true to RAI as well as RAW. The Flechette rules make it pretty clear you get one attack for each model assaulting the vehicle. The rules were simply not made with squadrons in mind, just like Multi-Tracker rules were not made with weapons other than Battlesuit Weapon Systems or twin-linked weapons in mind. There are a host of these kind of problems in the Tau codex, all of which have been debated over and over again. Just agree with your opponent beforehand how they should work or use the INAT.

synchronicity wrote:

timmah wrote:
Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

OR, the INAT FAQ is staying true to RAI as well as RAW. The Flechette rules make it pretty clear you get one attack for each model assaulting the vehicle. The rules were simply not made with squadrons in mind, just like Multi-Tracker rules were not made with weapons other than Battlesuit Weapon Systems or twin-linked weapons in mind. There are a host of these kind of problems in the Tau codex, all of which have been debated over and over again. Just agree with your opponent beforehand how they should work or use the INAT.

So are my railguns updated too, since in 4th they were never intended to blow up vehicles easier after scoring a penetrating hit?

I understand what they are trying to do. But by doing it, it causes a ton of double standard situations.

So now do you better understand my post?

kirsanth wrote:So now do you better understand my post?

I better understand what their reasoning was to change it.

It just seems like it leaves a lot of double standards by changing the rules to update some wargear to 4th ed RAI and not others.

Timmah wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So now do you better understand my post?

I better understand what their reasoning was to change it.

It just seems like it leaves a lot of double standards by changing the rules to update some wargear to 4th ed RAI and not others.

This is the world we live in, because GW won't update the FAQ's but once or twice. So we have to get by with what we got; which are opinions, page numbers, quotations, and INAT.

Question #2

In 4th ed couldn't you only get a damage result against the model in the squadron you were assaulting?

Timmah wrote:Question #2

In 4th ed couldn't you only get a damage result against the model in the squadron you were assaulting?

That's the short of it. You could only kill what you could get into Base to base with. That was the rules for all of 4th, only engaged models could fight or be killed.

Yes.
And immobilized was not destroyed, and a slew of other changes, like only being able to kill models in range of the attack.

Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

They were in a number of cases.
There are no kill zones now, all models in a squad can be hit, for example.
You can allocate the hits to models without flechette to keep them around, instead of having to take hits on the one assaulted - and still use them.

etc.


That said, I think everyone can find issues with any FAQ.
The idea is to let the creators know and realize that they are widely used regardless of problems/errors/personal issues.

Timmah wrote:Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

The INAT picks a side. It doesn't need to be right or wrong, just make up their minds and choose a side. In this case i feel that they are wrong but far better that they have pick an option, then people have to dice off over every thing.

Very true to both replies. I'm just trying to make sense of why I don't agree with the FAQ in this situation.

Obviously its good it picks a side. But a quality argument might sway them to change there FAQ in the future. (possibly) And I'm not sure whether this was brought up for items like this.

INAT does change rulings, and I can only assume it has been for quality arguments.
I would recommend submitting ideas to them.
iirc, there is either a thread or folks to PM about it.

Timmah wrote:Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

I have to agree with this stance a little bit. One of the things I absolutely hate about WFB is the fact that you can kill models in ranks that could never possible swing back that turn.

This smacks of the same thing. Here, we have a vehicle that has the capacity to "swing back." However, the INAT ruling seems to think that it's perfectly ok for those vehicles to potentially be destroyed without being able to use their "swing."

It seems like a highly imperfect compromise between 4th and 5th rules.

Saldiven wrote:This smacks of the same thing. Here, we have a vehicle that has the capacity to "swing back." However, the INAT ruling seems to think that it's perfectly ok for those vehicles to potentially be destroyed without being able to use their "swing."

It seems like a highly imperfect compromise between 4th and 5th rules.

In 5e the same is true of everyone in CC, not just squadrons.
That is why I mentioned kill zones.

Models not able to swing can indeed be removed as casualties in CC even if they cannot possibly swing back.

Timmah wrote:I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

Basically for the same reason Synchronicity is using, the gut feeling that a unit shouldn't take flechette hits at a 5 to 1 ratio to the attacking units models. They just chose an option that's slightly closer to the actual rule then what Synchronicity was saying here (no offense Synchro ).

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

Timmah wrote:I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

Basically for the same reason Synchronicity is using, the gut feeling that a unit shouldn't take flechette hits at a 5 to 1 ratio to the attacking units models. They just chose an option that's slightly closer to the actual rule then what Synchronicity was saying here (no offense Synchro ).

Jack

Hey, as long as it doesn't result in 60 attacks against 12 Orkz, I'll take it!

Yea, its just imo, that you should take the bad along with the good when rules get updated. And this seems to be getting rid of the good part.

I thought that the good part was that a non-walker vehicle could kill models in CC? Even before they swing, iirc.

Well, they could do that in 4th though.

Timmah wrote:Well, they could do that in 4th though.

and in 4th you could only aim you attacks at models in B2B (or with 2" for infantry)

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Well, they could do that in 4th though.

and in 4th you could only aim you attacks at models in B2B (or with 2" for infantry)

Which is all flechettes would hit in 4th ed...

Which is how they got both the good and the bad.

But they didn't both get good & bad.

Then:

Only vehicles in a squadron that were based up with assaulters could be damaged, and only those vehicles could use their flechettes.

Now:

All vehicles in a squadron can be damaged, regardless of whether they're based up, and still only the vehicles in base contact with an assaulting model can use their flechettes.

So, currently, assault is more deadly to vehicle squadrons, and no more deadly to units assaulting squads with flechettes.

Currently they can kill models that are 10 feet away.

kirsanth wrote:Currently they can kill models that are 10 feet away.

Flechettes can still only attacks back against those models that are attacking...unless the opponent wants to remove one from 10 ft away thanks to wound allocation.
In fact, this makes them worse, because you can remove models that couldn't strike anyways.

Actually, I misread, I think.
Not only does it not allow 10 foot hits, as that model is wounded, it denies wound allocation.

That seems a plus to me, as allocation is a bonus for the unit.

But that still doesn't change the fact that a cagey opponent could assault all his troops against a single model in a squadron and wipe it out, which is not what could happen when the rule for flechettes was written.

Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly, while the rules for the flechettes remain the same. This, functionally, reduces the effectiveness of the flechettes.

Saldiven wrote:Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly

Sums up a major change to 5e well enough.

synchronicity wrote:
Hey, as long as it doesn't result in 60 attacks against 12 Orkz, I'll take it!

Personally I have no problem with some units being things you ought to shoot (even with orks) and god knows lootas can deal with Piranhas more then adequately.

Jack

Gwar! wrote:I think most of the animosity comes from the small but vocal player base of Dark Eldar, Necron, Inquisition and (until recently) Space Wolf Players, who resent that an unwanted, unneeded army created solely to take cash off the anime fan playerbase have gotten a codex AND THEN ANOTHER ONE, while they still are using 10 year old codexes.

Hell my puppies have a super codex now and I still hate the Tau.

That's petty and unproductive.

You and the others should be hating GW for their slack publishing schedule, not the Tau codex. Enough hate at them and they might pull their finger out and publish a new codex for the other armies.

kirsanth wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly

Sums up a major change to 5e well enough.

In 5th edition, close combat got more deadly for both sides of the assault.

In this case, it is only more deadly for the vehicle squadron being assaulted.

Hence my feeling of imbalance in this interpretation.

I feel the same way, however I don't see a better way of solving the problem except to junk the core rule of assaulting vehicle squadrons and say that the models individually engaged are the ones that shoot and fight. There are several arguments against making that change.

As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

Looking at it in the wider context, no-one is forced to assault Piranhas. They are thin-armoured, open topped vehicles and can be shot at instead.

Kilkrazy wrote:I feel the same way, however I don't see a better way of solving the problem except to junk the core rule of assaulting vehicle squadrons and say that the models individually engaged are the ones that shoot and fight. There are several arguments against making that change.

As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

Looking at it in the wider context, no-one is forced to assault Piranhas. They are thin-armoured, open topped vehicles and can be shot at instead.

got agree. Also 30 orks can fire a massive amount of Str4+ on there own. If they do charge it should be to kill the last 1-2 that they failed to kill with shooting.

I may be playing Devil's Advocate here, but just because an imbalance occurs because of a BRB rules change doesn't mean it's up to us to rebalance it. As a Tau player, I stand to gain the most out of anybody from an "all Flechettes fire" ruling. But we have to make the distinction between what we want to happen, and what should happen. Arguing that all Flechettes should fire because squadrons are now more vulnerable to assaults in order to rebalance what was once balanced is not a reason to argue for it. We can't update rules for 5th ed (unless you want to house rule it, which I see as perfectly acceptable).

All we have is RAW. And when RAW is ambiguous/contridictory/unclear (as it usually is) we have RAI/Spirit of the rules. It's a crappy situation, but we shouldn't decide what works and what changes in order to give our Piranha squadrons a leg up in this edition, no matter how much they have been shafted.

Unless you want to house rule it!

Timmah wrote:Yea, its just imo, that you should take the bad along with the good when rules get updated. And this seems to be getting rid of the good part.

Saldiven wrote:In this case, it is only more deadly for the vehicle squadron being assaulted.

Hence my feeling of imbalance in this interpretation.

Killrazy wrote:As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

You've got a point there, and let me address it in two ways.

1. The BRB RAW suggests that Fire All Flechettes is correct. It's INAT which disagrees, and the choice is between the two interpretations.

To be fair, the INAT decision wasn't just tossed out, it was thought through (perhaps better than the basic rules) and could be right.

2. By RAW, Valkyries can't dismount troops because their base is over 2 inches high.

No-one serious suggests that Valkyries should not be allowed to dismount troops. Here is a clear indication that people are happy to accept a rebalancing in the case of a specific unit being shafted by RAW. The question is whether the Piranha becomes a death machine by virtue of FAF and needs to be rebalanced.

As I said above, assaulting Piranhas isn't the only way to attack them, and the flechettes are not a factor if you don't assault. Being open-topped, light armoured skimmers they are pretty vulnerable to fire.

Plus, if I remember the points correctly, a squadron of five Piranhas with flechettes is 350 points. It's a expensive unit and should be powerful.

So to me, and I freely admit I'm biased, there are arguments both ways; I prefer the one that favours the Tau and I don't think it's outrageous or hugely game unbalancing.

On a general note, all units shouldn't be and aren't easily killable by all other units, so it is not reasonable to find a unit which is a total **** to assault, as long as it can be attacked a different way. We should be wary of looking at things in isolation.

Despite all the above, I respect the INAT docs and much prefer a clear decisive FAQ to arguing about lots of petty points in the rules.

synchronicity wrote:Unless you want to house rule it!

I don't disagree with folks house ruling whatever they like, but I actually think this is a scenario where the RAW is fairly clear, it just spits out a result that is very different from the prior edition and seems over the top to some (most even) folks, the combination lends them an excuse to argue against it even though the rules say what happens.

Jack

Killrazy wrote:1. The BRB RAW suggests that Fire All Flechettes is correct

Jackmojo wrote:but I actually think this is a scenario where the RAW is fairly clear

People see what they want to see. We're all guilty. To me the RAW is fairly clear as well, but not in your interpretation. I believe RAW supports my position, and you believe it supports yours. There's not much we can do for each other, other than shake hands and part ways. I'll admit, I see the case for your objections, but I think I've made an equally sound case. Current INAT ruling supports the outcome of mine, too, but I'm not submitting it as evidence for anything other than the fact that the problem is not a simple answer that can be summed up with "well RAW supports 'x'"

The RAW in my eyes is not clear enough to say it supports anything other than a known problem. But it's been a fun debate over the week! Let us not forget each other's postions in the future should revisions be made to FAQ's, GW or INAT. I'm not bowing out because I don't think it's worth debating further, but I think we've all reached the point where we can't do much for each other! I wish I could give you guys a longer run for your money, but I'd just be restating stuff I've already written. Peace.

~Sync

Just being clear through all this the flechettes attack first in an assault or at the same time or after?

It strikes before any attacks occur.

I'm not sure how useful this will be to anyone, but my gaming group found a middle ground that irritated everyone, but less.

The number of flechette discharged is the lesser of: The number of attacks the squadron is receiving, or the number of piranha.
I'm not sure if that reads clearly, so an example:

A ten man IG squad charges a five piranha squad. Each guardsman has 2 attacks, and threatens 2 piranha. (20) Twenty flechette attacks.
Some ginormous CARNIFEX (oh noes!) charges a two piranha squad. The carnifex has 97 attacks! and threatens both piranha. (2) Two flechette attacks.

Our reasoning is that a threatened piranha activates it's individual wargear against individual attackers, rather than a threatened squad of piranha activating their collective wargear at units.

Perhaps not RAW or RAI, but it seems to work fairly.

But to be clear, the INT FAQ says any model assaulting the "squadron" receives a wound on a 4+.

So it seems there is no benefit for taking more than one in the squadron. And since you can't separate models from it's parent unit, then all the models making up the unit would take a wound on a 4+.

So there's no multiple hits.

The unit of 20 ork models assaulting the unit of 5 piranha's would let the Tau player roll 20 dice, wounding on 4's.

The advantage is that you have more than one model to remove before the Flachettes stop being able to apply.

edited so the sentence makes sense.

I would assume that's a choice the other player would be willing to take. Seems the scenario with a Nob assaulting with his 19 other wounds (boys), he would take the chance.

I mean that if you only put flachettes on ONE vehicle, and that one gets destroyed, no more flachettes apply.

If you put them on every vehicle, all vehicles need to be destroyed before flachettes can no longer be used.

Ah - I see. True enough.

I'd suggest using the INAT ruling with another change to the Tau Codex. On page 30, change the following part of the Tau Vehicle Upgrades list on the top of the page:

Flechette discharger...... XX pts

changed to

Flechette discharger...... XX pts (per vehicle or squadron)

The upgrade is cheaper, but then it's less useful as well. And it'll keep working for every vehicle in the squadron until they're all gone

This is another problem. I have used it both ways, but I will say that I feel that the language needs a huge update in a new codex. The problem is its says models that approach the vehicle. I mean wtf does that mean. Is that a tank shocking hammerhead, or being assaulted, or just moving close to the vehicle. I mean you really could go nuts with the wording. Its like the Deathrolla debate, and every other wtf written rule.

The way I play it. If a vehicle is used attacked. In close combat, before attacks are made, you make a wound roll for ever model in the unit. That is assaulting.

And thats it, I mean i could go crazy with it, but I dont want to. Its powerful enough.

I have killed 3 out of 5 termies. 20 out of 30 ork boyz, 7 out of 15 kommandos. All before they even made a hit attack. You can never tell me the flechette discharger isn't good. Hell, One time I killed 15 orks out of 25, then got assaulted again, and killed another 17. And since the piranhas was being hit on 6 and glanced on 6 nothing went through.

Timmah wrote:

Ridcully wrote:It's not saying you should necessarily only take one discharger, but that only one discharger will launch during the combat and only one discharger is needed to for it to work when the squadron is attacked. But if you lost the only vehicle that had the discharger, you would lose your flechette benefit in future combats. If all your vehicles had dischargers, that obviously wouldn't be an issue.

I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

And the squadron rule wasn't around when the Flechette rules were written. I'ts only clear cut by some interpretations of RAW.

I know i already posted here, but i got to say. I love Piranhas with flechette. If I am playing a horde army or any unit that will assault me. I love running a piranha out 24 inches right in from of some ork boyz or a full squad of gaunts. They assault, getting a 4+ to wound, lets go on the law of averages, half, say 15 boys make it after the flechetts. They get 60 attacks if sluggas. They hit on 6s meaning, 10 of them hit, then they hit back armor on 6, so 1.6 of them make it. Killing half the squad and then only 1.6 hit. lol

1.6.... yeah

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:I know i already posted here, but i got to say. I love Piranhas with flechette. If I am playing a horde army or any unit that will assault me. I love running a piranha out 24 inches right in from of some ork boyz or a full squad of gaunts. They assault, getting a 4+ to wound, lets go on the law of averages, half, say 15 boys make it after the flechetts. They get 60 attacks if sluggas. They hit on 6s meaning, 10 of them hit, then they hit back armor on 6, so 1.6 of them make it. Killing half the squad and then only 1.6 hit. lol

1.6.... yeah

You would round it up to 1.7, not down to 1.6. You've also neglected to include their armour save in your calculation, which would again bring the figure up.

Ridcully wrote:

Gold tooth Jerry wrote:I know i already posted here, but i got to say. I love Piranhas with flechette. If I am playing a horde army or any unit that will assault me. I love running a piranha out 24 inches right in from of some ork boyz or a full squad of gaunts. They assault, getting a 4+ to wound, lets go on the law of averages, half, say 15 boys make it after the flechetts. They get 60 attacks if sluggas. They hit on 6s meaning, 10 of them hit, then they hit back armor on 6, so 1.6 of them make it. Killing half the squad and then only 1.6 hit. lol

1.6.... yeah

You would round it up to 1.7, not down to 1.6. You've also neglected to include their armour save in your calculation, which would again bring the figure up.

Granted, I usually don't worry about it to much, because its a 6 to save on ork boys and its still a horde of dead guys on your opponents turn.