Ok, so the Tau flechette dischargers sparked my interest in this. I thought we could hold some discussions on the rulings people don't think are well thought out in the INAT FAQ. I don't want to start any flame wars, but I think with Adepticon around the corner, maybe we can influence the writers of said FAQ or at least give them ideas on their current rulings.

So this thread is just a starting board for rulings people think are incorrect in said FAQ. After we get a couple, if people are interested, we can start having discussions on why they ruled the way they did, and discussions on whether the community is correct.

If you have any ideas to improve upon my original idea, feel free to share those as well.

(again, this thread isn't for arguing said rules, just for bringing them up)

God No! You'll have the deffrollas in here! Run while you can!

One thing I am hoping to avoid. Obviously its been answered and we have heard both sides of said argument. I was hoping for lesser known rulings and such. Like flechette dischargers, DA apothecaries ect ect

Heh. TBH, the INAT FAQ is full of Rules Changes disguised as clarifications. And to be fair, the DA Apothecary is labelled as a Rules Change.

I don't particularly care though, it's better than anything GW or you have come out with

I'm not saying its not. I am just saying some of these issues rules changes or "clarifications" maybe should be discussed by a larger community as new arguments may arise.

Just because something is well done, doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Timmah wrote:I'm not saying its not. I am just saying some of these issues rules changes or "clarifications" maybe should be discussed by a larger community as new arguments may arise.

Just because something is well done, doesn't mean it can't be improved.

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.0.pdf

Pg. 80 wrote:TAU.30E.01 – Q: In Annihilation missions, do vehicle
TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

Pg 82 wrote:TAU.36B.01 – Q: Can a Devilfish be taken as a stand-
alone Troops choice without a unit to transport?
A: No [clarification]

What a load of arbitrary b.s.


I find it very interesting also that Space Marine units such as the two listed below, don't count for two KP, while Tau drones that detach from vehicles do.

SM.89.01 – Q: Is Chronus worth a Kill Point if he
manages to escape his vehicle?
A: Chronus’s vehicle is worth 1 Kill Point and Chronus himself
is worth another Kill Point if (and only if) he manages to
escape and is later killed [clarification].

SM.73A.01 – Q: If a Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed
does then killing the Techmarine earn an extra Kill
Point?
A: No, the unit is only worth one Kill Point total when both
models are killed/destroyed [clarification].

Che-Vito wrote:

Pg 82 wrote:TAU.36B.01 – Q: Can a Devilfish be taken as a stand- alone Troops choice without a unit to transport?
A: No [clarification]

How is this Arbitrary? Devilfish cannot be taken as Troops, just like how Rhinos cannot.

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very interesting also that Space Marine units such as the two listed below, don't count for two KP, while Tau drones that detach from vehicles do.

SM.89.01 – Q: Is Chronus worth a Kill Point if he
manages to escape his vehicle?
A: Chronus’s vehicle is worth 1 Kill Point and Chronus himself
is worth another Kill Point if (and only if) he manages to
escape and is later killed [clarification].

Eh?

kirsanth wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very interesting also that Space Marine units such as the two listed below, don't count for two KP, while Tau drones that detach from vehicles do.

SM.89.01 – Q: Is Chronus worth a Kill Point if he
manages to escape his vehicle?
A: Chronus’s vehicle is worth 1 Kill Point and Chronus himself
is worth another Kill Point if (and only if) he manages to
escape and is later killed [clarification].

Eh?

I was about to say that too ;D

I was going to post yours as well.

Great minds think alike

Okay, I'll bite:

Che-Vito wrote:

Pg 82 wrote:TAU.36B.01 – Q: Can a Devilfish be taken as a stand-
alone Troops choice without a unit to transport?
A: No [clarification]

Yeah, they're really holding Tau back with that one. Now all those sneaky Imperial Guard players who flood their troops choices with stand alone Chimeras can just roll right up and... oh, wait, they don't work that way for anyone else? Rhinos either huh? Oh.. nevermind.

Che-Vito wrote:

SM.89.01 – Q: Is Chronus worth a Kill Point if he
manages to escape his vehicle?
A: Chronus’s vehicle is worth 1 Kill Point and Chronus himself
is worth another Kill Point if (and only if) he manages to
escape and is later killed [clarification].

SM.73A.01 – Q: If a Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed
does then killing the Techmarine earn an extra Kill
Point?
A: No, the unit is only worth one Kill Point total when both
models are killed/destroyed [clarification].

I'm not incredibly familiar with either of these units, however, I'm guessing the difference is that one gives up a KP because it's an upgrade character, and the other doesn't because it's not? Are tau drones a retinue? Are they an upgrade?

Che-Vito wrote:TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

I would suspect that ruling is there for LOS reasons. But really, landing gear is so near to useless in 5th edition that it's not a big issue anyway.

TAU.36B.01 – Q: Can a Devilfish be taken as a stand-
alone Troops choice without a unit to transport?
A: No [clarification]

Not sure what's arbitrary about that. The Devilfish is a Transport unit. It can't be taken by itself. Whilst the Tau codex is a bit less clear on that, it's standard in every codex that units listed as Transports (as opposed to simply vehicles with a Transport capacity... I'm referring to those listed under the heading: Transport) are only available as unit upgrades, not separately.

I find it very interesting also that Space Marine units such as the two listed below, don't count for two KP, while Tau drones that detach from vehicles do.

I suspect that the difference considered by the INAT team was that the Drones are always considered as a separate unit, and so count for the extra KP. Whereas Chronus is a part of the vehicle until it is destroyed, and the Tech and TF form a single unit until they separate. The Drones are considered passengers, rather than a part of the vehicle unit.

the INAT faq link is down

Err guys, Chronus and tank ARE worth 2 KP with the INAT FAQ. That was why I posted above. Well, one of the times.

kirsanth wrote:Err guys, Chronus and tank ARE worth 2 KP with the INAT FAQ. That was why I posted above. Well, one of the times.

Yeah, that wasn't too clear to me either. I thought what he was saying was that the two rulings were inconsistant. Then I reread it after posting and realized that he was saying that the two rulings were inconsistent and that they did not match up with how the Tau situation worked per the below statement.

Che-Vito wrote:I find it very interesting also that Space Marine units such as the two listed below, don't count for two KP, while Tau drones that detach from vehicles do.

Apologies if I'm just perpetuating the confusion; I'm just trying to rationalize what I'm reading.

If he escapes. If he is destroyed with the vehicle, they're one kill point... because they're one unit.

Happens to the best of us.

I miss a lot too. One of the fun parts about posting here, odds are someone will call you on it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:If he escapes. If he is destroyed with the vehicle, they're one kill point... because they're one unit.

Is that not true of the drones as well, though?

Or am I missing something?

Ok, once again, I'd rather not start any rules debates in here. (I know that's tough for some of you)

I will make threads as issues arise and we can keep this thread concise.

So far, we have what is the difference between the thunderfire cannon and things like chronus, drones ect.

Timmah wrote:Ok, so the Tau flechette dischargers sparked my interest in this. I thought we could hold some discussions on the rulings people don't think are well thought out in the INAT FAQ. I don't want to start any flame wars, but I think with Adepticon around the corner, maybe we can influence the writers of said FAQ or at least give them ideas on their current rulings.

So this thread is just a starting board for rulings people think are incorrect in said FAQ. After we get a couple, if people are interested, we can start having discussions on why they ruled the way they did, and discussions on whether the community is correct.

If you have any ideas to improve upon my original idea, feel free to share those as well.

(again, this thread isn't for arguing said rules, just for bringing them up)

Sounds good.

If you think a ruling is poor, the best thing is to present the argument of why you think it is bad. I can then try to give you some insight into why the ruling got made the way it did. If you can convince me that the ruling should be changed (which has happened many, many times) then I can do my best to bring that argument back to the rest of the council and try to get them to change their minds.

Another good idea is to run a 'how do you play it poll' regarding a situation you think we've ruled wrong. If a BIG majority of players tend to play the situation the opposite of how we ruled, then again, that's valuable information that can be used to potentially change the ruling.


For the flechette discharger, I'm pretty familiar with the argument for and against what we ruled, so the best idea would be to run a 'how do you play it' thread which includes the flechette discharger rules along with the squadron vehicle rules text and see how most people think it should be played. If we're way off the mark on how people play it (which we could well be), then it would be great information to have.

I think the Vendetta being allowed to outflank with Vets inside wasn't the right decision. Yes, I know I've been shouted down before, but still.



The rules for what can Outflank are clearly listed. Also, the ability for a unit to bring it's dedicated transport. Nowhere does it mention that Vehicles convey the ability to outflank on the squad inside. This has been my argument from the beginning.

The response: The Vets inside are NOT outflanking, they are just along for the ride in the Vendetta, which IS outflanking.


My response: There are only a couple of ways to enter play from reserves. 1. Deep Strike. 2. Outflank. 3. Moving onto the table from your own rear table edge. In a nutshell, the Vets MUST be doing one of these things to be deployed legally. So if they ARE NOT Outflanking, then what are they doing?


Figured I'd try one more time.



Clay

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Pg 82 wrote:TAU.36B.01 – Q: Can a Devilfish be taken as a stand- alone Troops choice without a unit to transport?
A: No [clarification]

How is this Arbitrary? Devilfish cannot be taken as Troops, just like how Rhinos cannot.

Well, in the Tau codex RAW, Devilfish CAN be bought as Troops choices. Does it make a big difference? No.
But this is not a clarification, rather a rules change, and a rather arbitrary one at that.

kirsanth wrote:Err guys, Chronus and tank ARE worth 2 KP with the INAT FAQ. That was why I posted above. Well, one of the times.

Whoops, my use of "units" as opposed to "unit" in my original post made it suddenly a reference to BOTH units...when I was trying to show the inconsistency. Thanks for the grammatical correction!

I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

Che-Vito wrote:I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

Again, it's because of how they act in game.

Yes, the Drones come standard with the vehicle. But they act as a separate unit, because they are treated as passengers rather than as mounted weapons.

The Techmarine and TF, however, are a single unit in all ways. They can't choose to wander off on their own, and can't act independantly while together. He's no different to any other model with a heavy weapon, aside from the fact that his weapon can be destroyed.

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

Believe me, the Kill Point issues get pretty sticky once you try to address them all across every codex and try to make them consistent. Once you do you realize how many weird things there are to deal with.

Our baseline for Kill Point rulings is this:

If something is a UNIT in the game then it gives up a Kill Point when destroyed.

In the case of Tau Drones, the rules clearly state that they form a separate unit when detached and therefore they are worth a Kill Point if, and only if, they successfully detach (i.e. aren't destroyed when the vehicle is).

In the case of Chronus its a little stickier, but to us, the rules seem to indicate that he is simply an upgrade to the vehicle UNTIL it is destroyed, at which point the unit of Chronus is effectively 'created', and therefore worth a Kill Point when killed.

In the case of the Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon, if the Cannon is killed he becomes an IC, but there is no indication that he has suddenly become a new unit and therefore it is only 1 Kill Point if both models are killed.


Believe me when I say we argued for a very long time on these issues and I truly believe that there is no one clear way to rule here that would make everything consistent and everybody happy, but I think we came up with a pretty decent solution, IMHO.

The key difference between Tau drones and Cronus is that drones can be dismounted voluntarily, in which case the enemy has to make an extra effort to attack them.

If the Tau player wants to avoid the possibility of the drones failing their emergency disembarkation roll and being killed for an extra KP 'free', he can let them go early.

Then you have the issue of drones from a vehicle squadron.

All these problems would be avoided by using VPs instead of KPs, but that isn't the way the game works now.

yakface wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

In the case of Chronus its a little stickier, but to us, the rules seem to indicate that he is simply an upgrade to the vehicle UNTIL it is destroyed, at which point the unit of Chronus is effectively 'created', and therefore worth a Kill Point when killed.

In the case of the Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon, if the Cannon is killed he becomes an IC, but there is no indication that he has suddenly become a new unit and therefore it is only 1 Kill Point if both models are killed.

You kill a Devilfish without disembarking the Drones = 1 KP
You kill Devilfish + disembarked Drones = 2 KP
You kill vehicle and Cronus = 2 KP
You kill TF Cannon and Techmarine = 1 KP

The arguement was made earlier that Drones disembarking makes "another unit to kill", but so does a Techmarine! I see no reason for this one unit to be an except, nor do I see the need to "clarify" the Tau codex when it clearly allows standalone Devilfish to be taken as Troops choices.

These are examples of the arbitrary rulings that are upsetting.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between Tau drones and Cronus is that drones can be dismounted voluntarily, in which case the enemy has to make an extra effort to attack them.

All these problems would be avoided by using VPs instead of KPs, but that isn't the way the game works now.

The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

Che-Vito wrote:
The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

Well thats kill points for you. If i ran GW I'd make drone, rippers, scarabs and other none scoring unit (/never scoring) not count as kill points.

Che-Vito wrote:The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

That is GW's Fault, not the INATFAQs. If you don't like it, boycott GW Products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

Well thats kill points for you. If i ran GW I'd make drone, rippers, scarabs and other none scoring unit (/never scoring) not count as kill points.

And If I ran GW we'd not need an INAT FAQ

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

That is GW's Fault, not the INATFAQs. If you don't like it, boycott GW Products.

If INAT FAQ is comfortable reversing a very clear GW decision in the Codex (Devilfish don't have to be taken with a unit, and are a Troops choice), then I don't see any reason why they can't establish some consistency on the issues I listed.

Che-Vito wrote:
You kill a Devilfish without disembarking the Drones = 1 KP
You kill Devilfish + disembarked Drones = 2 KP
You kill vehicle and Cronus = 2 KP
You kill TF Cannon and Techmarine = 1 KP

The arguement was made earlier that Drones disembarking makes "another unit to kill", but so does a Techmarine! I see no reason for this one unit to be an except, nor do I see the need to "clarify" the Tau codex when it clearly allows standalone Devilfish to be taken as Troops choices.

These are examples of the arbitrary rulings that are upsetting.

You've got it wrong.

You kill a vehicle without Cronus disembarking = 1 KP
You kill a vehicle and Cronus disembarks and you then kill him too = 2 KPs

Which is EXACTLY the same as the ruling on the Drones.


And as for the Thunderfire cannon, how has a new unit been created when the Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed? The Techmarine is still the same model on the table that he was before, the only change is that he has now become an Independent Character.

You may disagree with these rulings, but they are NOT arbitrary. A whole lot of thought and discussion went into making them. Trust me when I say however you think that they should be ruled, there would be a whole giant host of people who would disagree with you and scream that your rulings were completely arbitrary.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between Tau drones and Cronus is that drones can be dismounted voluntarily, in which case the enemy has to make an extra effort to attack them.

All these problems would be avoided by using VPs instead of KPs, but that isn't the way the game works now.

The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

The devifish entry also has a little label to the left that says Transport (it's a little hard to see) whereas the Firewarriors above them and the Kroot to the right have little labels that say Troops.

yakface wrote:
You've got it wrong.

You kill a vehicle without Cronus disembarking = 1 KP
You kill a vehicle and Cronus disembarks and you then kill him too = 2 KPs

Which is EXACTLY the same as the ruling on the Drones.

Yes, I shorthanded it by saying Cronus + vehicle...but I was saying exactly what you wrote out. My dilemma is with the Thunderfire Cannon ruling, which is contrary to the above two examples

yakface wrote:And as for the Thunderfire cannon, how has a new unit been created when the Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed? The Techmarine is still the same model on the table that he was before, the only change is that he has now become an Independent Character.

Are you arguing that Independent Characters are not separate units? When his vehicle is destroyed, Cronus becomes exactly that.

yakface wrote:You may disagree with these rulings, but they are NOT arbitrary. A whole lot of thought and discussion went into making them. Trust me when I say however you think that they should be ruled, there would be a whole giant host of people who would disagree with you and scream that your rulings were completely arbitrary.

Since the ruling is inconsistent for both the Devilfish, and the Drone, Cronus, TF Cannon rule...it seems it has simple been a "pick and choose" kind of ordeal.

yakface wrote:Again, I strongly disagree with you.

In most codexes there is a little grey box-out around transports (and other similar units), but beyond that there are no rules stating that those units cannot be taken as a normal 'choice' in the army list.

But as illustrated on page 87 of the rulebook, dedicated transports exist outside of the normal force organization chart, and the title of the Devilfish lists it as "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier". So unless you think the 'Transport:' is part of the title of the unit, then you have to assume that its inclusion has some sort of meaning in the game, and in this case it is fairly clear to most players that this is an indication that the Devilfish is a dedicated Transport.

You present a severely flawed logic.

Yes, it says "Transport", but it does NOT say "Dedicated Transport". It is listed under the Troops catagory, and has zero restrictions placed on taking it as a non-dedicated transport. Looking at the Codex in front of me, there is nothing against this argument that is based in RAW, and since it has neither been FAQed or Errata'd, clearly RAI supports it at the moment.

Thus why I again label this as an arbitrary decision on the part of the INAT FAQ. The rulebook as it was presented no problem with taking non-dedicated Devilfish, and ruling that the Tau cannot take it as such because other armies may not be able to take certain non-dedicated transports is scant excuse.

Start a poll on your Devilfish fantasy, guy. You're out to lunch.

Arschbombe wrote:Start a poll on your Devilfish fantasy, guy. You're out to lunch.

It won't fly. Reason: People would rather gripe about Tau having something that their army might not (which coincidently enough, isn't a big deal...) then follow RAW at about it's clearest.

Since the Codex, and FAQ's/Errata since then mentions nothing of this...I fail to see any problem with RAW.
I am actually interested to see WHAT exactly people's argument against this is...nothing has been presented besides the "popularity contest" logic (or things I have already refuted.)

Che-Vito wrote:

Yes, I shorthanded it by saying Cronus + vehicle...but I was saying exactly what you wrote out. My dilemma is with the Thunderfire Cannon ruling, which is contrary to the above two examples

Are you arguing that Independent Characters are not separate units? When his vehicle is destroyed, Cronus becomes exactly that.

Its not about whether the model is an Independent Character or not. The fact is, Chronus does not exist in the game as a model until the vehicle is destroyed. At that point, a NEW model is created in the game and that model is a unit unto himself.

With the Thunderfire cannon, again, no new models are being created. The ONLY thing that changes is that when the Thunderfire Cannon models is destroyed the Techmarine gains the IC rule. That is the only change in status. There is no new model created and there is nothing to indicate that a new unit has been created by the destruction of the TF Cannon.

Since the ruling is inconsistent for both the Devilfish, and the Drone, Cronus, TF Cannon rule...it seems it has simple been a "pick and choose" kind of ordeal.

You present a severely flawed logic.

Yes, it says "Transport", but it does NOT say "Dedicated Transport". It is listed under the Troops catagory, and has zero restrictions placed on taking it as a non-dedicated transport. Looking at the Codex in front of me, there is nothing against this argument that is based in RAW, and since it has neither been FAQed or Errata'd, clearly RAI supports it at the moment.

Thus why I again label this as an arbitrary decision on the part of the INAT FAQ. The rulebook as it was presented no problem with taking non-dedicated Devilfish, and ruling that the Tau cannot take it as such because other armies may not be able to take certain non-dedicated transports is scant excuse.

As was pointed out by Arschbombe, both the Firewarriors and Kroot are labeled as being 'Troops' (there is a little greyed out text next to their entries) while the Devilfish is labeled as 'Transport'.

While I know that this doesn't identify it as strictly a dedicated transport, it also doesn't allow it to be taken as a 'Troops' choice either.

And I say it again a thousand times until I'm blue in the face: The INAT FAQ does not simply rule by the RAW, as that is not the goal of the document. Trying to play by the strict, strict RAW creates all sorts of crazy arguments and headaches in a tournament setting. The goal of the INAT FAQ is to create a smoothly run tournament, which it does by frequently ruling with how the majority plays a situation, rather than what you happen to believe the RAW indicate.

If you truly feel that we've got this particular situation incorrect from THAT standpoint, feel free to create a poll to help back up your assertion, and perhaps we can get it changed!

You haven't refuted anything in this thread. The KP rulings have been explained to you in detail several times, but you seem not to be able to grasp it. You're approaching the issue from the perspective of one army, the Tau, and that bias is the root of your problem.

The devilfish is the only entry in the codex that doesn't have a FOC slot to the side of it. It's not a troops choice. It is clearly identified as a transport and there are two entries that identify when it can be purchased.

Che-Vito

How about you cry some more.
The thunderfire cannon is an artillery piece. If I shoot all the guns out of a grot artillery battery the grots can move around. Hell I could charge the techmarine and thunderfire across the table if I am correct on this, and i might be, I could charge you with the two of them. But they are one unit.

As for the devilfish, you have an outdated codex. And it has been brought in line with most of todays codexs by saying the devilfish is transport only, not a separate unit. This should be pretty straight forward, as I have never heard this in the 8 years Ive played.

I do semi agree with you on the drones issue. Personally I feel if the vehicle is blown up, they are not a kill point but cannot contest an objective. Which is another problem. I have had tau players contest objectives with the two gun drones of their devilfish. If it works in objectives, it should be a kill point. As far as im concerned if i blow your fish up and the drones can take objectives, they give me a kill point in kill point games.

yakface wrote:

Its not about whether the model is an Independent Character or not. The fact is, Chronus does not exist in the game as a model until the vehicle is destroyed. At that point, a NEW model is created in the game and that model is a unit unto himself.

With the Thunderfire cannon, again, no new models are being created. The ONLY thing that changes is that when the Thunderfire Cannon models is destroyed the Techmarine gains the IC rule. That is the only change in status. There is no new model created and there is nothing to indicate that a new unit has been created by the destruction of the TF Cannon.

The difference you are citing is that a new unit (in this case an IC) is placed on the board...

Would you then argue that a TF Cannon and Techmarine are the same unit with/without IC status? No.
The two rulings (Cronus and TF) seem similar in context enough to me, that it makes sense for both to be 2 KP

yakface wrote:While I know that this doesn't identify it as strictly a dedicated transport, it also doesn't allow it to be taken as a 'Troops' choice either.

It's in the Troops section, and has ZERO restrictions placed on taking it. What's the problem here?
It is not listed as a Dedicated Transport, but a Transport.

yakface wrote:And I say it again a thousand times until I'm blue in the face: The INAT FAQ does not simply rule by the RAW, as that is not the goal of the document. Trying to play by the strict, strict RAW creates all sorts of crazy arguments and headaches in a tournament setting. The goal of the INAT FAQ is to create a smoothly run tournament, which it does by frequently ruling with how the majority plays a situation, rather than what you happen to believe the RAW indicate.

I like and agree with the intention of the INAT FAQ as stated, but I also think that when RAW is fine and dandy, then leave it alone.

yakface wrote:If you truly feel that we've got this particular situation incorrect from THAT standpoint, feel free to create a poll to help back up your assertion, and perhaps we can get it changed!

As stated before, the "popularity contest" approach won't work, because people like to gripe about what their army can't have.

Yet, people will also have a problem stating what "headaches, complications, etc." is created by playing the RAW in the case of Devilfish as a non-dedicated Troops choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:
As for the devilfish, you have an outdated codex. And it has been brought in line with most of todays codexs by saying the devilfish is transport only, not a separate unit. This should be pretty straight forward, as I have never heard this in the 8 years Ive played.

I have all copies of the Tau codex, from the first to the latest. I am quoting from the latest.

Arschbombe wrote:You haven't refuted anything in this thread. The KP rulings have been explained to you in detail several times, but you seem not to be able to grasp it. You're approaching the issue from the perspective of one army, the Tau, and that bias is the root of your problem.

Since I play 3 armies, this is not the problem, the problem is that the ruling is very "picky-and-choosey", but ultimately is up to personal opinion.
I'm willing to let the TF Cannon argument go, as you think I'm not grasping what you say, and I think you're not grasping what I say.

I think that's a fair point to call it quits on that one.

Arschbombe wrote:The devilfish is the only entry in the codex that doesn't have a FOC slot to the side of it. It's not a troops choice. It is clearly identified as a transport and there are two entries that identify when it can be purchased.

It's identified as a Transport, not a Dedicated Transport. AT BEST, you could claim that it could be either and that this is a "grey area", but you cannot claim that it is specific as to which.

Since the Codex doesn't specify, or give any indication that it can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport, claiming otherwise is imposing your own rulings on what is written...and what is written seems pretty straightforward to me.

Che-Vito wrote:
The difference you are citing is that a new unit (in this case an IC) is placed on the board...

Would you then argue that a TF Cannon and Techmarine are the same unit with/without IC status? No.
The two rulings (Cronus and TF) seem similar in context enough to me, that it makes sense for both to be 2 KP

I fully understand that viewpoint, and when we made the ruling there was major support for both ideas. However, there isn't any clear cut way to rule this that doesn't break consistency somewhere, and that's the difficulty of it.

So all I can say on this particular issue is that we are well aware of your interpretation and that was discussed when we ruled on it but ultimately we decided to rule against your opinion. I know that ultimately doesn't help at all, but unless you've got something else to present I don't think there's any basis for us to re-argue this point in the INAT.

It's in the Troops section, and has ZERO restrictions placed on taking it. What's the problem here?
It is not listed as a Dedicated Transport, but a Transport.

Yes, its in the Troops section of the codex but it IS NOT listed as being a Troops choice, unlike the actual Troops choices on those two pages. It is listed as being a 'Transport' choice.

So if it isn't a Troops choice, what the heck is a 'Transport' choice? Either its nothing = can't take the Devilfish in your army as you have no 'Transport' FOC slots or 'Transport' = 'Dedicated Transport', in which case it falls into the rulebook rules for a dedicated transport (and has to be taken for a unit).

And finally, you keep saying that the whole 'popularity' contest idea 'doesn't work' because people always want to gripe about what their army doesn't have. But historical precedent does not back up this statement. There have been plenty of these types of polls run that do allow armies to do or take stuff that may not be completely apparent by the RAW.

Just one example being: I'm primarily a Tau player at this point in my life, but I strongly, strongly feel that it would be completely incorrect to take a Devilfish as a Troops choice on its own.

yakface wrote:[Yes, its in the Troops section of the codex but it IS NOT listed as being a Troops choice, unlike the actual Troops choices on those two pages. It is listed as being a 'Transport' choice.

It is listed under the bold page heading that says "Troops", making it a Troops choice in that Codex as it is not specified otherwise.
It does not say "Troops" directly in-front of Fire Warriors either (although that +1 is annoying...), but they are still Troops.

yakface wrote:So if it isn't a Troops choice, what the heck is a 'Transport' choice? Either its nothing = can't take the Devilfish in your army as you have no 'Transport' FOC slots or 'Transport' = 'Dedicated Transport', in which case it falls into the rulebook rules for a dedicated transport (and has to be taken for a unit).

As already posted, it isn't listed as a Dedicated Transport, but is listed under the Troops section, without anything that prevents it from being taken as a Troops choice, and it being placed in the Troops catagory as such makes it a Troops choice, non-dedicated.

Note: other Codexes may list vehicles in the Troops section, but usually it is made clear that this is only because it is being presented as a Dedicated Transport for specific units.

yakface wrote:And finally, you keep saying that the whole 'popularity' contest idea 'doesn't work' because people always want to gripe about what their army doesn't have. But historical precedent does not back up this statement. There have been plenty of these types of polls run that do allow armies to do or take stuff that may not be completely apparent by the RAW.

By all means, open a poll. I promise you this, it will be filled mostly with players who argue neither RAW, or present any reason with substance as to why it cannot be taken as a Troops choice.

yakface wrote:Just one example being: I'm primarily a Tau player at this point in my life, but I strongly, strongly feel that it would be completely incorrect to take a Devilfish as a Troops choice on its own.

Present a reason for this...are you talking RAW (which doesn't support you), fluff (the more viable of the options), or "popular vote" (which might as well be a pissing contest).

Having a ruling that makes gameplay smoother makes sense, but in no way does the INAT FAQ on this subject do that. If the rules are clear on their own, and create no imbalance or problem, I'll repeat it again, let them be.

Che-Vito, there are three units listed in the Tau Empire codex on pages 36-37. In the margin of two of those units is the word "Troops", in the margin of the other is the word "Transport". For every other unit listed from page 32 on through page 41 of the codex, there's a designation of either HQ, Elites, Troops, Heavy Support or Fast Attack.

Are you looking in the Tau codex instead of the Tau Empire codex or something?

solkan wrote:Che-Vito, there are three units listed in the Tau Empire codex on pages 36-37. In the margin of two of those units is the word "Troops", in the margin of the other is the word "Transport". For every other unit listed from page 32 on through page 41 of the codex, there's a designation of either HQ, Elites, Troops, Heavy Support or Fast Attack.

Are you looking in the Tau codex instead of the Tau Empire codex or something?

I have both the Tau and Tau Empire Codex...and while it is wonderful that the word Transport is listed in front of the Devilfish, that in NO WAY typifies it as a Dedicated Transport. Please read prior posts in a thread before posting things that have already been answered.

Che-Vito wrote:I have both the Tau and Tau Empire Codex...and while it is wonderful that the word Transport is listed in front of the Devilfish, that in NO WAY typifies it as a Dedicated Transport.

It does, however, strongly suggest that the Devilfish is not a Troops choice, despite being in the Troops section. Because if it were a standard Troops choice, it would say 'Troops' in the margin instead of 'Transport'

The only difference between the Devilfish entry and the entris for dedicated Transports in other codexes is that it's not divided off from the rest of the Troops section quite as well.

insaniak wrote:
It does, however, strongly suggest that the Devilfish is not a Troops choice, despite being in the Troops section.

That is an imposed suggestion on the reader's part. If it's in the Troops section, and not required to be a Dedicated Transport (as written per the Codex), then it can be taken as a Troops option. Quite frankly, it could say anything in front of the Devilfish entry and it would ultimately be irrelevant...unless it specified that the something contrary to the Devilfish being listed as a Troop option (such as the words: Dedicated Transport).

That's why I said that it 'strongly suggests' rather than that it 'clearly means'...

Obviously you disagree, but to me, the fact that it says 'Transport' instead of 'Troops' in the margin, and has 'Transport' listed in front of the unit name, combined with the precedent set by pretty much every other codex, is more than enough evidence for me that it's not intended to be a standard Troops selection in its own right.

On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

insaniak wrote:That's why I said that it 'strongly suggests' rather than that it 'clearly means'...

Obviously you disagree, but to me, the fact that it says 'Transport' instead of 'Troops' in the margin, and has 'Transport' listed in front of the unit name, combined with the precedent set by pretty much every other codex, is more than enough evidence for me that it's not intended to be a standard Troops selection in its own right.

In Troops section (RAW) > interpretations.

Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"? No. The overall section covers the fact that Fire Warriors are Troops. The Devilfish is listed as a Vehicle that counts as a Troops selection (non-dedicated Transport) or off the FOC (Dedicated Transport).

The distinction is made because some vehicles cannot be chosen as Transports at all, so all of them are given a "type", whether it be Fast Attack Piranhas or Troops Devilfish. Although you my not like it, RAW it can be taken...and again, nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc....I thought that the whole intention of the INAT FAQ was to help clear up such issues.

If this ruling is contrary to the intention of the INAT FAQ, then we come back to my original thought, that the ruling is arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

I've let that one go, and agreed to disagree. Read back to earlier posts in this thread for both sides of that argument.

I also disagree with the ruling on offices not being able to use Vox-Casters on their own squad.

+IG.71I.01 -- Q: If an Officer fails to issue an order to
his OWN Command Squad can they re-roll the result if
the squad has a Vox-caster?
A: No [clarification].

Lets Evaluate the RAW:

If an officer is attempting to issue an order to a friendly unit And both the officers squad and the chosen unit contain a model with a vox-caster, the leadership test to see if the order can be used may be re-rolled if failed.

Now lets examine this

Is a unit friendly with itself? I believe we can all agree it is.

Does the command squad contain a vox-caster? I believe this is a resounding yes.

Does the unit receiving the order also contain a vox? Again yes.

I am just perplexed at this ruling it seems as tho the INAT FAQ. It seems as though there is not justification for this ruling.

Because i've always imagined a Vox-caster repeating everything the officer says verbatim, so the order is heard twice (once by the officer once by the Vox-operator) so i am perplexed as to why this doesn't apply on his own squad. Almost as if the guy trained to repeat the officers words suddenly stops for seemingly no reason.

There are some times when people argue things. Most of the things people argue are confusing. For example, when was the last time you debated the color of the sky during the day. Or if your hands were really yours.

Then there are times when someone reads way too far into something, and insists on stupid interpretations.

So is that an agree or disagree with the INATFAQ with regards for vox-casters.

Because i do think they looked too far in their imaginations for a ruling based on "psudo-realism" over RAW

Che-Vito wrote:Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"?

No... because they're in the Troops section, and labelled as Troops in the margin.

The Devilfish is in the section, but is labelled as a Transport in two different places, rather than as Troops.

That suggests that it is a Transport, rather than a Troops unit.

and again, [b][u]nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc

Taking non-dedicated rhinos doesn't present these sorts of issues either. That's not the issue. The issue is that GW, throughout all of the codexes, have certain Transport vehicles that are only available to specific units rather than being selectable by themselves.

While I'm perfectly happy to agree that the Tau Empire codex isn't as clear on that as it perhaps should be, I don't think what you're suggesting is what was intended... because the Devilfish entry doesn't match any other entry in the Troops section, because it's specifically listed as a Transport in a section that lists other entries as Troops, and because of the way similar Transports work for everyone else.

But I doubt you'll be any more convinced that there is a valid opposing viewpoint by my repeating myself, so I'll agree to disagree and move on at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:There are some times when people argue things. Most of the things people argue are confusing. For example, when was the last time you debated the color of the sky during the day. Or if your hands were really yours.

Then there are times when someone reads way too far into something, and insists on stupid interpretations.

Sometimes things that one person sees as stupid or 'reading to much into something' someone else sees as a perfectly logical interpretation of a given text.

The whole point of this forum is to discuss the rules. If that's not something you're interested in doing, please refrain from derailing the thread for everyone else.

I'd just stop the Devilfish argument. Che-Vito does not believe what is written down in his codex, and no matter how many times anyone tells him he's wrong he will not listen. Just leave him be.

Red_Lives wrote:On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

The cannon is not a retinue, as the cannon is not a unit itself. If the Techmarine is killed before the gun, the gun cannot exist on its own. The Thunderfire cannon is a two-model unit that has a special rule giving one of the models the IC rule if the other dies. It's similar to the retinue rules, but it's distinctly not a retinue.

Pg. 80 wrote:TAU.30E.01 – Q: In Annihilation missions, do vehicle
TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

Che-Vito wrote:

In Troops section (RAW) > interpretations.

Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"? No. The overall section covers the fact that Fire Warriors are Troops. The Devilfish is listed as a Vehicle that counts as a Troops selection (non-dedicated Transport) or off the FOC (Dedicated Transport).

The distinction is made because some vehicles cannot be chosen as Transports at all, so all of them are given a "type", whether it be Fast Attack Piranhas or Troops Devilfish. Although you my not like it, RAW it can be taken...and again, nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc....I thought that the whole intention of the INAT FAQ was to help clear up such issues.

If this ruling is contrary to the intention of the INAT FAQ, then we come back to my original thought, that the ruling is arbitrary.

But it DOES say Troops next to the Firewarriors, right in the margin of the codex. The same thing for Kroot. But in the same exact place for the Devilfish, it says 'Transport'. So unlike the other two, which are clearly noted as being 'Troops' the Devilfish is noted as being 'Transport'.

I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

For the most part, these units all have a little statement that says "You may include one 'Unit X' for every 'Unit Y' you take in your army". However, nowhere in those little box-outs does it say those units are not standard choices for that part of the army list. For example, take a Space Marine command squad. Sure the rules say I can take one for every Captain I take in my army, but nowhere do they say they are not an HQ choice on their own.

Yeah, they're in a little grey box-out, but what exactly does that mean? Sure the rulebook has rules for 'other exceptions' on page 87 of the rulebook, but nothing in the SM codex clearly says that these units are one of those 'exceptions'.

And the same is true of nearly EVERY codex. Once you make this ruling you have to allow every army to be able to take these kinds of units that are supposed to be 'supernumerary' as a basic choice from whatever section of the codex their entry happens to be in.


Beyond that, you don't seem to understand why this would be an issue in tournaments. When I talk about creating a smooth running tournament, I'm talking about creating the most games possible that have the fewest rules arguments because the FAQ follows the way most people play.

If we ruled that Tau could take Devilfish as a Troops choice on their own, and most other people don't agree that this is how it should be played (which I'm pretty positive is the case), do you know what happens?

Most of the games you start your opponent will look at your list and ask you where your Troops choices are. When you explain that your Devilfish are your Troops choices they will say, 'no, those are dedicated transports'. You'll say, but the INAT rules that way. And they'll want to look at the codex, and then they'll see the part where Kroot and Firewarriors are labeled as Troops and the Devilfish is labeled as a 'Transport' and they'll say: "see! It does say they're a dedicated transport!" And you'll say: "Ah, but it doesn't say DEDICATED transport and we have no idea what a 'transport' on its own means."

And they'll say: "That's crap man, let's call a judge over". The judge will come over and agree with you (since the INAT is following your suggestion) and now your opponent will start arguing with the judge about how stupid the ruling is because the codex clearly labels a Devilfish as a 'transport'.

And because MOST people play that a Devilfish can't be taken as its own choice, you are likely to run into versions of this scenario more often than not.


Contrast that with how it is ruled now:

Believe me when I say that anyone who would be smart enough to come up with the idea that a Devilfish could possibly be taken as its own Troops choice is the kind of person who is also on top of every FAQ. So you, as this kind of Tau player has read the INAT FAQ ahead of time and although you hate the ruling if you do decide to attend a tournament using the INAT, you know ahead of time that you can't bring an army with a Devilfish as a standalone Troops choice, so you don't.

And no arguments on this issue occur in any of your games.


And even if you do happen to be a Tau player who hasn't read the FAQ, the bad situation is only going to occur ONCE in the tournament, where someone points out your army is illegal. You call over a judge and they inform you that the INAT disagrees with you and you're going to have to change your army list.

Once that situation is out of the way, you are now guaranteed not to have this same argument again in the rest of your games. While you personally might be a bit angry about the ruling, the tournament overall now has less arguments in it, and therefore runs smoother.


While I'm sure you don't agree with this reasoning, this is the idea behind the INAT.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'o Nom Nom wrote:

Pg. 80 wrote:TAU.30E.01 – Q: In Annihilation missions, do vehicle
TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

M'kay that's just dumb. Since when do the models actually have to act out what they're doing in the game. I think if terminators can't materialize on the field they can't deep strike. And if your plasma pistol is glued to your sergeant's belt he can't use it until you pry it off and move it to his hand. WTF.

Since 5th edition? Have you noticed that skimmers that are glued to their base 'float' in mid-air when they become wrecks by the rules?

Do you know that if a model is on its base or not affects how it draws line of sight to the enemy and how the enemy draws line of sight to it?

These are very different circumstances then the two examples you included. In 5th edition, the size, shape and position of your models on the table matters because of the rules and that means if someone has been silly enough to glue their skimmer bases to their model, then it is going to make it impossible to get the true line of sight you need.

Just wanted to point out that in the eldar codex, wave serpents are listed in a greyed out box in the elite section .... so then che is saying that they can be taken as an elite choice?

Its an absurd idea, because yes these ARE dedicated transports. We are told in the unit heading, TRANSPORTS. These arent vehicles that have a transport capacity and can be chosen as a separate entry, they are dedicated transports. We know they are dedicated transports from that little word in the heading................

Just because the word "dedicated" doesnt appear doesnt make them anything else, the word transport alone gives us the RAW in these cases.


Sliggoth

Y'know, this is not a new debate, and I haven't seen anything new presented by the pro-Devilfish as troops argument.

In fact, this argument first came up during 4th edition when some Tau players wanted to contend that Devilfish were not dedicated transports and could be used to transport any infantry unit.

Now that 5th is around, and any transport can carry any infantry unit, the only change to the argument is that they're now a Troops selection for the FOC.

(Seven page debate from 2006)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/82596.page

(More discussion from 2006)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/84845.page#84946

(Even more debate from January 2008)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/206844.page#229890

Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

yakface wrote:

Beyond that, you don't seem to understand why this would be an issue in tournaments. When I talk about creating a smooth running tournament, I'm talking about creating the most games possible that have the fewest rules arguments because the FAQ follows the way most people play.

If we ruled that Tau could take Devilfish as a Troops choice on their own, and most other people don't agree that this is how it should be played (which I'm pretty positive is the case), do you know what happens?

Most of the games you start your opponent will look at your list and ask you where your Troops choices are. When you explain that your Devilfish are your Troops choices they will say, 'no, those are dedicated transports'. You'll say, but the INAT rules that way. And they'll want to look at the codex, and then they'll see the part where Kroot and Firewarriors are labeled as Troops and the Devilfish is labeled as a 'Transport' and they'll say: "see! It does say they're a dedicated transport!" And you'll say: "Ah, but it doesn't say DEDICATED transport and we have no idea what a 'transport' on its own means."

And they'll say: "That's crap man, let's call a judge over". The judge will come over and agree with you (since the INAT is following your suggestion) and now your opponent will start arguing with the judge about how stupid the ruling is because the codex clearly labels a Devilfish as a 'transport'.

And because MOST people play that a Devilfish can't be taken as its own choice, you are likely to run into versions of this scenario more often than not.


Contrast that with how it is ruled now:

Believe me when I say that anyone who would be smart enough to come up with the idea that a Devilfish could possibly be taken as its own Troops choice is the kind of person who is also on top of every FAQ. So you, as this kind of Tau player has read the INAT FAQ ahead of time and although you hate the ruling if you do decide to attend a tournament using the INAT, you know ahead of time that you can't bring an army with a Devilfish as a standalone Troops choice, so you don't.

And no arguments on this issue occur in any of your games.


And even if you do happen to be a Tau player who hasn't read the FAQ, the bad situation is only going to occur ONCE in the tournament, where someone points out your army is illegal. You call over a judge and they inform you that the INAT disagrees with you and you're going to have to change your army list.

Once that situation is out of the way, you are now guaranteed not to have this same argument again in the rest of your games. While you personally might be a bit angry about the ruling, the tournament overall now has less arguments in it, and therefore runs smoother.


While I'm sure you don't agree with this reasoning, this is the idea behind the INAT.

You keep using logic that fails! If the INAT had ruled using the way I have suggested from the start (RAW), then the EXACT same scenario you have presented would occur. Universal acceptance, with a few who disagree and move on with life.

Arguing "this is the way we've had it for awhile" doesn't put it above being changed by any means.

I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

Sliggoth wrote:
Just because the word "dedicated" doesnt appear doesnt make them anything else, the word transport alone gives us the RAW in these cases.

Clearly it doesn't, as it doesnt define Dedicated or Non-Dedicated.

InquisitorBob wrote:I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Okay, I've found a rules issue. The INAT says that a techmarine can fix the vehicle he is in. The majority of players believe that you cannot, as you need to be in base contact with the vehicle. Base contact is not the same as 0'', as this would allow enemies to assault the units inside their transports by moving into base contact with the transport.

thebetter1 wrote:Okay, I've found a rules issue. The INAT says that a techmarine can fix the vehicle he is in

No, it doesn't. The latest INAT (v3.0) Fixed that error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:The majority of players believe that you cannot

This is irrelevant. If the rules said you could (they don't, but if they did) It wouldn't matter if "majority of players believe that you cannot", you can.

Okay, I had the old version.

Reading over the latest version, I found quite a few problems in the Space Marine section.

It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

yakface wrote:
I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

No, he doesn't, but he's not interested in other codices. All he cares about is the Tau codex. Even then he doesn't realize what he's asking for.

Devilfish as troops choices means:

- mech tau can only ever have 3 mounted fire warrior squads because 3 FW squads + 3 devilfish would take up all six troops slots.

- mech tau with those three 3 mounted squads could not take any pathfinders because the pathfinders are required to take a devilfish.

- a legal Tau army can be built without any scoring units because vehicles are never scoring even if they come from a troops choice.

Che-Vito wrote:

yakface wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
I find it very strange that Drones are part of a Tau vehicle (and NOT an upgrade, at least Gun Drones aren't.) but give an extra KP, while the Techmarine from a Thunderfire Cannon only counts as one if both the Marine and the Cannon are destroyed.

In the case of Chronus its a little stickier, but to us, the rules seem to indicate that he is simply an upgrade to the vehicle UNTIL it is destroyed, at which point the unit of Chronus is effectively 'created', and therefore worth a Kill Point when killed.

In the case of the Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon, if the Cannon is killed he becomes an IC, but there is no indication that he has suddenly become a new unit and therefore it is only 1 Kill Point if both models are killed.

You kill a Devilfish without disembarking the Drones = 1 KP
You kill Devilfish + disembarked Drones = 2 KP
You kill vehicle and Cronus = 2 KP
You kill TF Cannon and Techmarine = 1 KP

The arguement was made earlier that Drones disembarking makes "another unit to kill", but so does a Techmarine! I see no reason for this one unit to be an except, nor do I see the need to "clarify" the Tau codex when it clearly allows standalone Devilfish to be taken as Troops choices.

These are examples of the arbitrary rulings that are upsetting.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between Tau drones and Cronus is that drones can be dismounted voluntarily, in which case the enemy has to make an extra effort to attack them.

All these problems would be avoided by using VPs instead of KPs, but that isn't the way the game works now.

The problem arises when you realize that killing 2 Drones is equal to killing a mob of 30 Boyz, and that killing both a Devilfish that disembarks the Drones and it's Drones...is equal to killing two mobs of 60 Boyz. Seriously now?

No, the problem arises because of using KPs not VPs.

Under 4e the two drones would have been worth 24 points and the 30 Boyz would have been worth 200 points or whatever 30 Boys are worth.

That was a relatively fair and balanced system, which had the disadvantage that it made people have to do bigger sums at the end of the game.

Heh, I didn't even realize this thread was going on...

I have a request for the Tau Section. Can it be explained how Multi-Trackers work in situations not using Battlesuit Weapons Systems? Rules:

Tau Codex, p26 wrote:The multi-tracker is a sophisticated fire control system mounted in a sensor node, often upon a battlesuit's shoulder. It enables the model to fire two battlesuit weapon systems in the same turn

Tau Codex, p28 wrote:Hard-wired systems allow Tau without a battlesuit to benefit from some support systems normally only mounted on a battlesuit. See the Battlesuit section of the Armoury for each system's rules.

Obviously you can shoot two weapons from a battlesuit using a Multi-Tracker. But what happens if:

1. A Battlesuit Shas'vre/el/o fills 2 hardpoints with a twin-linked weapon, and its last hardpoint with a single weapon. If the suit takes a HWMT, can it shoot both the twin-linked weapon along with the single weapon, even though this exceeds the "two Battlesuit Weapon System" limit?

2. A Broadside Team Leader takes a HWMT. Or, a regular Shas'ui Broadside takes a regular Multi-Tracker and buys the Twin-linked Plasma weapon. Can either Broadside fire its secondary weapon (either SMS or Twin-linked Plasma gun) in addition to its Railgun? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System (except for Plasma).

3. A Firewarrior Shas'ui or Stealthsuit Shas'ui Team Leader buys a HWMT and a Markerlight. Can the Multi-tracker be used to fire the Pulse Rifle/Burst Cannon in addition to the Markerlight? If they can't, why give them the option to buy it? Neither is a Battlesuit Weapon System.


Each of these situations are pretty ambiguous. Obviously RAW dictates only Battlesuit Weapon Systems, which Railguns, SMS, Pulse Rifles, Burst Cannons, and Markerlights are not (since they're not listed on p25 under the Battlesuit armory). However, why give Firewarrior and Stealthsuit Shas'ui's the chance to buy one if not to use it with Markerlights? Or Broadsides the chance to buy it if not to use it in conjunction with a Railgun? If we accept true RAW, this destroys the meaning of a Firewarrior or Stealthsuit from taking one, which they are obviously supposed to be able to do, as it lists the HWMT in the infantry armory.

Any help the INAT could lend to this issue would be appreciated!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

InquisitorBob wrote:
Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

It just makes it clear that the combat is not just a free for all in which anyone can attack anyone. Models must still attack only those units with which they are engaged. Units are the engaged with more than one unit can choose. Those that are engaged with just one don't get to choose.

The 5,6 "Bzzap" result for the Shokk Attack Gun should not scatter. "Only the model under the template hole is hit..." The INAT FAQ says it should scatter but provides no guidance for what happens if two or more models are partially under the template hole if you scatter. Obviously, accepting that "Bzzap" does not scatter eliminates the need for making up rules.

olympia wrote:The 5,6 "Bzzap" result for the Shokk Attack Gun should not scatter. "Only the model under the template hole is hit..." The INAT FAQ says it should scatter but provides no guidance for what happens if two or more models are partially under the template hole if you scatter. Obviously, accepting that "Bzzap" does not scatter eliminates the need for making up rules.

Why should it not scatter? Where does it say it stops being blast?

InquisitorBob wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

A unit with many I4 models and a single I1 model charges multiple enemy units. The model with I1 is in base to base with one enemy unit (Enemy A) and within two inches of a friendly model in base to base with a second enemy unit (Enemy B). I4 models do a lot of damage to Enemy A, and leave it with a single model, which is not in base to base with the I1. This rule means that when the I1 model makes its attacks, it HAS to attack the unit it was formerly base to base with, and cannot spend its attacks on Enemy B.

Arschbombe wrote:

yakface wrote:
I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

No, he doesn't, but he's not interested in other codices. All he cares about is the Tau codex. Even then he doesn't realize what he's asking for.

Devilfish as troops choices means:

- mech tau can only ever have 3 mounted fire warrior squads because 3 FW squads + 3 devilfish would take up all six troops slots.
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

- mech tau with those three 3 mounted squads could not take any pathfinders because the pathfinders are required to take a devilfish.
READ YOUR CODEX. PATHFINDERS CAN STILL TAKE A DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

- a legal Tau army can be built without any scoring units because vehicles are never scoring even if they come from a troops choice.
This would in fact be true, but would be an army that could only contest objectives, therefore pointless.

I know exactly what I am opening...*seriously* I know you are capable of reading. Do it.
2/3 of the examples you listed above are false, ironically in a statement that is meant to challenge my knowledge of the Codex.

I currently play 3 different armies full-time, am looking at a 4th full-time, and previously had another army (Eldar) that I played and eventually dropped after a long time playing them.

If you ignore any of the above facts, then read what I have written below at least:
Yes, the use of Devilfish as Troops tactically is not very useful (unless you don't want to pay for Fire Warriors and want Mech Kroot for some reason...), but I am arguing that arbitrary decision here on the part of the INAT FAW. If RAW is fine, then leave it alone.

I'd just like to add that, although I'll probably never go to adepticon, nor any similar tournaments.

That, having a general read over the FAQ rulings, generally speaking... They seem rather.... sane.

This probably seems like backhanded praise or whatever... But from a casual gaming night player really, this is the most honest response I can give it.

A tournament faq that is actually sane.

Che-Vito wrote:
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

Might want to read yours before you tell me to read mine. That's not what it says at all. What it does say is:

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

Congratulations. You win. Devilfish are not dedicated transports. You broke the Tau codex.

Marty, tell him what he's won.

Arschbombe wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:
READ YOUR CODEX. FIRE WARRIORS CAN STILL TAKE AS DEDICATED TRANSPORT OPTION

Might want to read yours before you tell me to read mine. That's not what it says at all. What it does say is:

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

Congratulations. You win. Devilfish are not dedicated transports. You broke the Tau codex.

Marty, tell him what he's won.

I beg you, please read your Codex and BGB. Can you mount a squad of Fire Warriors in a Devilfish that isn't theirs, at the beginning of a game? No.
The passage you quoted, makes it quite clear that the Fire Warriors are taking it as a Dedicated Transport, otherwise this would be illegal.

Tau codex remains unbroken.
I am ready to debate a legitimate point, should one be brought up.

If Devilfishes are not dedicated transports you can start in one.

Che-Vito wrote:
I beg you, please read your Codex and BGB. Can you mount a squad of Fire Warriors in a Devilfish that isn't theirs, at the beginning of a game? No.

What has that to do with anything? All that bit says is that the fire warriors can get in a devilfish. It doesn't say they can buy one. It doesn't say they can deploy in one.

You were all hard core on RAW means devilfish are a troops choice and now you want to say we have to read between the lines to figure out that "may be mounted in" actually means "may purchase a devilfish as a dedicated transport" ?

The passage you quoted, makes it quite clear that the Fire Warriors are taking it as a Dedicated Transport, otherwise this would be illegal.

No. You've established that the devilfish is a separate troops choice and not a dedicated transport. The firewarrior entry just tells you how big the team can be and still fit in the devilfish because the you can buy a 12-man team and two drones and not be able to fit.

Che-Vito wrote:
I am ready to debate a legitimate point, should one be brought up.

What, like the huge glaring one you just glossed over as unimportant?
If you want to stick to strict RAW at all costs on this issue and demand written confirmation that they are strictly dedicated, then you can enjoy your 100% nondedicated transports that always take troop slots.

MasterSlowPoke and Arschbombe, I wanted to let you know that I will get back to you with my full thoughts on this is a day or two, things have taken a crazy turn in my personal life, and I lack the time to compose much more than this.

I appreciate your patience!
-CV

Arschbombe for the win in the Tau Devilfish debacle. Where I come from your winning argument would be followed by the two magic words "Your momma!"

Page 36. Tau Empire Codex. Beginning of Troop Choices.

Troop Choice: 1+ Fire Warriors... Transport option, in bold.
Right below option, Transport stats.

The reason for "Transport:" is to connect it with the option given above in the Fire Warrior section. This direct proximity and clear usage of "Transport:" is a logical answer.

As it is the norm, that no other army can take a transport as a troop, then the Game writers would have clearly pointed out that this army, and this particular transport is an exception to the rules, and because there is no such text stating such, they it will fall in with the lot of other transports and benefit from the 5th ed rules of no longer being truly dedicated after the start of the battle.

thebetter1 wrote:It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

It's different because the rules for No Retreat actually specify that units that automatically pass a morale test are subject to No Retreat.

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

That issue spawned at least one mega-thread not so long ago. Opinions were pretty divided as to whether PotMS works through smoke, so I would guess that the INAT crew went with the more restrictive interpretation to save arguments.

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Second paragraph of the Cluster Mines entry.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change.

I would suspect this ruling was made as some similar abilities for other armies actually specify that they can be used to move away from close combat. Since GoI doesn't, and since you normally can't voluntarily leave close combat, GoI shouldn't be used to do so.

And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

I suspect the logic here was that the rules for Falling Back specify exactly what must happen in the Movement Phase if you are falling back. Since Falling Back says that you must move a particular way, you can't choose to do something else (in this case Gate) instead.

It also opens a can of works with units that are Falling Back being able to escape dropping off the table by Falling Back and then just Gating to somewhere else on the table. A similar issue was discussed with Skyleap when the Eldar codex was released.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

The Orbital Bombardment rules in the Chapter Master's entry in the Codex states that it counts as firing a ranged weapon.

synchronicity wrote:Heh, I didn't even realize this thread was going on...

I have a request for the Tau Section. Can it be explained how Multi-Trackers work in situations not using Battlesuit Weapons Systems?

synchronicity: Can you repost this question into the sticky thread at the top of this forum for question submissions to the INAT?


Thanks!

Che-Vito wrote:
You keep using logic that fails! If the INAT had ruled using the way I have suggested from the start (RAW), then the EXACT same scenario you have presented would occur. Universal acceptance, with a few who disagree and move on with life.

Arguing "this is the way we've had it for awhile" doesn't put it above being changed by any means.

The INAT FAQ is not an official FAQ. Many, many people are unaware of it or choose not to use it for a variety of reasons. The fact is, whether or not we rule on something is not going to stop it being played a certain way by the majority of players.

Only certain types of players, like yourself and I are the kind of people who read every FAQ and pore over the rules finding little inconsistencies like the one we're arguing about. So it does not work if you simply reverse the ruling. The majority of people who don't keep up on every ruling in the FAQ are still going to be confused with why you're bringing a Devilfish as a Troops choice.


And beyond that, you have still to address my point about other codexes and their 'supernumerary' choices (the units in the greyed-out boxes). If we make the ruling on the Devilfish the way you propose then it completely opens up the door to allow anyone to take any of these choices as stand alone units in their codex, which is definitely going to cause all sorts of havoc.

Gorkamorka wrote:Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

This ruling, again is based on a rules argument that has been done many times over in this forum regarding whether or not ICs can gain special rules by joining units. Page 48 of the rule specifies that ICs do not gain special rules when joining a unit unless the special rule specifies that they do. This, of course, brings up the question of what level of specificity is needed. The example they give in the rulebook is 'stubborn' which clearly states that it affects ICs joining the unit.

Snikrot's special rules says it applies to 'his unit', so this has always raised the question of whether this is specific enough to apply to joined ICs as well. We had a long debate when making this ruling and ultimately decided that ICs already get plenty of bonuses in the game and it was probably safer to stick with the stricter interpretation of the rule and say that special rules are not conferred onto joined ICs unless the rule actually says that it applies to ICs.

So for Snikrot's Ambush special rule to apply to joined ICs it would have to say:

"When Snikrot, his unit and any joined Independent Characters become available from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge."

InquisitorBob wrote:I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

You need to check out the GW rulebook online FAQ. They made an errata to the section of rules you quoted. But beyond that, look at page 33 of the rules. The start of a "combat" actually happens after Assaulting units are moved and Defenders react. THAT is when you check to see which models are engaged with other models. . .GW even made it part of the errata to help make it a bit more clear.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

InquisitorBob wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

InquisitorBob wrote:Stuff.

Combat begins after all attackers have made their assault moves and all defenders have reacted. The INAT FAQ is correct.

Woaaaa... Okay... Then -when- does what I pointed out ever apply??

It applies to which models you are allowed to attack based on when models are killed in the combat.


Read the diagram carefully on the bottom of page 41 of the rulebook. Notice that Space Marine #3 is ONLY allowed to attack the Gretchin because he's in base contact with them?

That's what the errata'd rules in GW's FAQ clarify: If a model is in base contact with models from one unit they HAVE to attack that unit. They aren't allowed to 'lend' their attacks over to another unit that is also locked in the combat.

yakface wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

This ruling, again is based on a rules argument that has been done many times over in this forum regarding whether or not ICs can gain special rules by joining units. Page 48 of the rule specifies that ICs do not gain special rules when joining a unit unless the special rule specifies that they do. This, of course, brings up the question of what level of specificity is needed. The example they give in the rulebook is 'stubborn' which clearly states that it affects ICs joining the unit.

Snikrot's special rules says it applies to 'his unit', so this has always raised the question of whether this is specific enough to apply to joined ICs as well. We had a long debate when making this ruling and ultimately decided that ICs already get plenty of bonuses in the game and it was probably safer to stick with the stricter interpretation of the rule and say that special rules are not conferred onto joined ICs unless the rule actually says that it applies to ICs.

So for Snikrot's Ambush special rule to apply to joined ICs it would have to say:

"When Snikrot, his unit and any joined Independent Characters become available from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge."

Fair enough, and it's a solid interpretation. Probably the fairest one too.
I'd assumed in my head that the paragraph under ICs only applied to USRs for some dumb reason.
The wording of the rule (that when performing a normal action his entire unit gets to do something extra because he is there, rather than conferring a rule or bonus to the models, which seems distinct from the example where they cannot infiltrate at deployment because the IC is simply missing that ability or the models actually gaining a rule like Stubborn personally) suggested otherwise to me, but the extrapolation from the IC rules also makes sense.

thebetter1 wrote:

Reading over the latest version, I found quite a few problems in the Space Marine section.

No offense to you, as I appreciate any and all feedback, but these kind of responses don't actually provide me with any feedback. Rather than just listing off a set of rulings you disagree with, if you'd genuinely like something to be reversed then I at least expect you to do some research as to why we may have made that ruling (do searches in this forum for similar arguments and learn why other people may disagree with your interpretation) and then provide with me with actual rules quotes backing up why you think the ruling needs to be changed.

I know that's a lot of work on your part, but we've put a lot of work into researching and debating these rulings on our part, so if you expect us to change them the least you can do is put a similar level of effort into presenting your case.

It says that if Marneus Calgar's ability is used to auto-pass a morale check in close combat, this is no retreat. How is this any different from rolling the morale check and passing, which would not be no retreat?

The interpretation is that when you choose to pass the test this is considered automatic (as no dice were rolled for the Ld test). I understand that there are different interpretations, as you clearly have, but this is most certainly a valid interpretation on our part. If you don't have to take the test (roll the dice) then you can be said to have automatically passed the test. And units that automatically pass their Ld test are subject to 'No Retreat!'

Why can't Land Raiders fire a weapon when they use smoke? The case against it is pretty weak, relying on a specific interpretation of the word "normally," while the case for it uses the distinct wording in the rule which is basically impossible to argue against.

Again, we don't just make rulings based on the pure RAW. We also take into consideration how most people play the game in order to ensure a smooth running tournament. It has been our overall experience that most people don't play that the Machine Spirit can be used by a vehicle that has fired smoke, and this was backed up by a poll I took a while ago:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219946.page

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

I'm not totally convinced that you can't use an orbital bombardment out of a Land Raider. Is the Chapter Master firing a weapon? I would say he is not.

The rules clearly states that he counts as firing a ranged weapon. . .I don't know how much clearer it could be!

Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

The land Raider has 10 Mile Thick Ceramic Plating. Assume he is Maintaining Radio Silence

The rules are very clear, GBF.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:The rules are very clear, GBF.

Very true.
You know, If any one has a right to complain it psychic users that can't shoot without a fire point, Even those powers that don't need line of sight.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

I know its not a perfect science, but in this case it seemed to us that the rules are perfectly clear (even if they don't make complete sense from a 'real world' perspective) and none of us has witnessed most people trying to pull this in games.

If you think we've got it backwards from how most people naturally play, why not create a 'how do you play it' poll (but just make sure to include quotes of all the relevant rules in the thread).

Red_Lives wrote:I also disagree with the ruling on offices not being able to use Vox-Casters on their own squad.

+IG.71I.01 -- Q: If an Officer fails to issue an order to
his OWN Command Squad can they re-roll the result if
the squad has a Vox-caster?
A: No [clarification].

Lets Evaluate the RAW:

If an officer is attempting to issue an order to a friendly unit And both the officers squad and the chosen unit contain a model with a vox-caster, the leadership test to see if the order can be used may be re-rolled if failed.

Now lets examine this

Is a unit friendly with itself? I believe we can all agree it is.

Does the command squad contain a vox-caster? I believe this is a resounding yes.

Does the unit receiving the order also contain a vox? Again yes.

I am just perplexed at this ruling it seems as tho the INAT FAQ. It seems as though there is not justification for this ruling.

Because i've always imagined a Vox-caster repeating everything the officer says verbatim, so the order is heard twice (once by the officer once by the Vox-operator) so i am perplexed as to why this doesn't apply on his own squad. Almost as if the guy trained to repeat the officers words suddenly stops for seemingly no reason.

I posted this earlier and it seemed to have been skipped, i am also just curious as to WHY the INATFAQ ruled the way it did. Again i just don't understand why or how this could be the ruling.

I imagine 'both' heavily implies 'the two things'.

Red_Lives wrote:
I posted this earlier and it seemed to have been skipped, i am also just curious as to WHY the INATFAQ ruled the way it did. Again i just don't understand why or how this could be the ruling.

Sorry about that. I did miss it.

Its as Ridcully said: Ultimately we decided that 'both' meant two separate units.

But to be clear, we have several people on the council who often feel completely opposite on issues, and most of the issue brought up in this thread were ones we had to argue/discuss and eventually take a split vote over, with majority vote ending up as the winner. That tells you that the ruling is certainly not simple and is almost guaranteed to indicate that no matter which way we end up ruling a proportion of gamers (just like the proportion of the voting council) is going to disagree with the ruling.

And this particular issue is certainly no exception.

There were those who felt, by the RAW, that the Vox-Caster should allow an Officer to re-roll the Order Ld test on his own unit, while others felt that the use of the word 'both' in the rule indicated (to them, by the RAW) that you needed to have the Officer's unit AND another unit to be receiving the order.

Obviously at the end of the day the latter won out over the former in the case of the voting council.

I see what you are saying there, but the logic doesn't seem to hold out if you break it down.

The unit is both receiving and giving the order these two things are not exclusive of the other.

In this specific instance both the officer's squad and the unit receiving the order do have a vox-caster equipped model. Do they not?

I do agree with most of whats in the INATFAQ but this one just doesn't sit right with me.

Red_lives, I do really like that question and think we should make another post on it. In order to get more community feedback on it.

yakface wrote:

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

This rule provides two time periods in which the cluster mines must be placed. One is a general range (after terrain is placed could refer to any time in the game after the terrain is set up), while "at the start of the game" only has one possible meaning. Your interpretation completely ignores the part about setting up at the start of the game, which is clearly after the mission is rolled for.

yakface wrote:

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

thebetter1 wrote:

yakface wrote:

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

And with this interpretation, thebetter1 has crossed both yakface and Gwar! May the emperor have mercy, for they will not...

thebetter1 wrote:

yakface wrote:

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Primarch wrote:Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

I suppose I did! That ruling comes down mostly because of the majority of people playing the model before any FAQ was out naturally played that way. It also keeps the precedent set by Drop Pods allowing models to arrive via Deep Strike that don't have that special rule.

yakface wrote:

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

I forgot that you guys adopt the more restrictive interpretation in any given situation .

olympia wrote:
I forgot that you guys adopt the more restrictive interpretation in any given situation .

\


Well, not always. But when there seems to be two pretty equal interpretations, then it is usually the better way to go.

yakface wrote:

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Primarch wrote:Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

I suppose I did! That ruling comes down mostly because of the majority of people playing the model before any FAQ was out naturally played that way. It also keeps the precedent set by Drop Pods allowing models to arrive via Deep Strike that don't have that special rule.

The problem with the Drop pod association, is that the Drop Pod rules are fairly RAI, there is no other way to play them as a dedicated Transport. I will let it drop after this, but seriously, if the Vendetta was not allowed to bring in Vets in an Outflanking move, then it could still transport troops and work just fine within the confines of the game. Also, that is a different rule and should be brought up on its own, as I've argued before.


Clay

thebetter1 wrote:This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

Y'know, I was going to comment on the sheer amount of testicular fortitude it takes to make this comment to Yakface, but then I realized how short a time that TB1 has been a dakkaite.

At the risk of sounding confrontational (without meaning to sound anywhere near as confrontational as the above highlighted sentence is), I think just about any dakkaite that's been here 6+ months will agree that Yakface has done more research onto this and any other rule issue you can think of than yourself or anyone you know.

This is the second (I believe) year of the INAT, with a third on its way for the 2010 Adepticon. Yak, being one of the FAQ council members, has to study up on EVERY one of the questions that comes up. This goes so far as to posting threads here on YMDC that often run 10+ pages, then moving on to How do YOU Play It polls to try to mesh poorly worded rules with how the majority of players around the country/world choose to play it.

If you do make a little use of the search function, you will discover that your assertion is not new or original in the context of GoI. The question has been debated ad nauseum ever since the codex first came out. As obvious as it seems to you that the INAT's view of this question is inconsistent with RAW, there are other people who think it is completely obvious to them that the INAT view of the question is completely in line with RAW.

So, in short, be nice.

PS. Do a little research yourself; it's Veil of Darkness.

edit: Spelling (I really can't type today).

Primarch wrote:The problem with the Drop pod association, is that the Drop Pod rules are fairly RAI, there is no other way to play them as a dedicated Transport.

Sure there is. We can play by your "interpretation" where they are totally useless!

I still don't understand why you need to mix rules Gwar. The drop pod has NOTHING to do with a Vendetta, absolutely NOTHING.

If you want to bring up the merits of dropping or not dropping in pods, we can start a thread dedicated to that topic.


As for my personal beliefs, one more time, since you keep missing it.


I like to follow the RAI, when its blatantly obvious, things like Drop Pods being able to *gasp* Drop with Troops inside.


When the RAI is not blatantly obvious *Vendettas carrying Vets and Outflanking*, I do prefer to use the RAW. These are not the only 2 examples, but they are the ones that keep popping up here.


For the record, I don't play a Drop Pod army, or a Vendetta heavy IG list, so neither of these rulings will affect me unless I am playing against someone using them.


Clay

You brought it up. Why is it when I and others point out the flaw in your logic you suddenly accuse us of "mixing rules"?

So when a unit is embarked in a vendetta, does the vendetta have to obey that unit's restrictions on movement? Or is it just outflanking you find issue with?

Gwar! wrote:You brought it up. Why is it when I and others point out the flaw in your logic you suddenly accuse us of "mixing rules"?

Negative Gwar, this is what you keep accusing me of. Please read the ENTIRE thread before throwing out nonsense. I brought up the Vendetta outflanking, I did NOT bring up the Drop Pod Deepstriking.



As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....


Clay

Primarch wrote:As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....

So why do you not have a problem with Drop Pods Carrying Tactical Marines? Same situation. Smacks of Double Standards and Faulty Logic methinks.

According to the RaW, the Valk can outflank even with the Vets inside.

Gwar! wrote:

Primarch wrote:As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....

So why do you not have a problem with Drop Pods Carrying Tactical Marines? Same situation. Smacks of Double Standards and Faulty Logic methinks.

According to the RaW, the Valk can outflank even with the Vets inside.

No, it cannot. The rules tell you EXACTLY who can Outflank. Passengers are not included. There is no passage that says the ability to Outflank is conveyed to the Vets. The Vets, as per the rules for coming in from reserve, must enter the table in a couple of ways. If they come on inside a Vendetta, then they are indeed Outflanking, which by the Outflanking rules, is not allowed. Not much here that is unclear.


Clay

Passengers are are not included in the movement either, because they are not on the table.

Primarch wrote:No, it cannot. The rules tell you EXACTLY who can Outflank. Passengers are not included. There is no passage that says the ability to Outflank is conveyed to the Vets. The Vets, as per the rules for coming in from reserve, must enter the table in a couple of ways. If they come on inside a Vendetta, then they are indeed Outflanking, which by the Outflanking rules, is not allowed. Not much here that is unclear.

The rules also tell you exactly who can Deep Strike. Please stop Ducking the Question.

Sigh....

I am trying to be patient, but can you read?


The reason I think the Drop Pod can in fact drop WITH Troops in it, even though you are correct, by RAW it cannot, is because it is, at least to me, BLATANTLY obvious that it should work this way. It couldn't transport troops any other way. Is that clear enough for you? Ive said the same things to you at least 5 times now, but you choose to ignore this part of all my posts.


The reason I believe that the Vendetta cannot Outflank with Troops inside that DO NOT have the ability to do so on their own, is because if you take that interpretation, there are several ways a Vendetta can still function as a 40k unit. It can, transport troops that ARE allowed to Outflank and perform an Outflank move, it can Deploy at the start of the game with Vets or whatever can legally ride in it, and move/deploy/whatever on turn 1, or it can be held in reserves/off table, and move on NORMALLY, again with anything legally allowed to board the transport.


If you take away a Drop Pod's ability to drop with troops inside, then it, as you said above, becomes almost useless.

I hope you can read, and digest everything I have read here, and for once, instead of repeating your tired argument of me not answering you, come up with an ACTUAL argurment as to why the Vendetta should be allowed to Outflank with a Unit that cannot Outflank riding inside it.


Clay

Primarch - answer this simple question:

Do vehicles have to obey the movement restrictions of the units they carry inside them? If not, why not?

According to your faulty logic what is contained within the vehicle affects the vehicles ability to Outflank, so you should at least be consistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do vehicles have to obey the movement restrictions of the units they carry inside them? If not, why not?

If transports had to obey the restrictions of their passengers, then most of them wouldn't ever more more than 6" in the movement phase.

Primarch wrote:The reason I believe that the Vendetta cannot Outflank with Troops inside that DO NOT have the ability to do so on their own, is because if you take that interpretation, there are several ways a Vendetta can still function as a 40k unit.

That may be so, but ruling that a rule works one way for one unit and differently for another unit, regardless of how effective or ineffective that makes one of them, is confusing and awkward.

The INAT ruling keeps things consistent. A unit embarked in a vehicle gets to utilise that vehicle's rules for moving about.



Mod hat on: to everyone, please keep replies limited to the argument, not the poster. If you're finding yourself getting a little frustrated by others' responses, go take a walk before posting.

I know: however Primarch seems to believe that the unit inside the transport somehow dictates what the transport can do, namely if they don't have access to Outflank they cannot outlfank tin the vehicle.

This leads to the logical conclusion that, if a unit affects what a transport can do it must do so in a consistent manner - and as the unit does not have permission to move over 6" (as it is infantry) then the vehicle cannot do so either.

This is, of course, rediculous, and shows how flawed Primarchs argument is. Unfortunately I don't see them actually getting this, so we will have 3 mroe pages of "you can't Outflank Vets in a Vendetta!!!" despite having no actual written, relevant rules to support the argument.

You can outflank vets in a Vendetta as the Vehicle has permission to Outflank, and nothing ANYWHERE in ANY of the rules for vehicles states that an embarked unit puts constraints on what a vehicle may do. In fact the rules are written the other way round - the embarked unit is constrained by the vehicles actions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I know: however Primarch seems to believe that the unit inside the transport somehow dictates what the transport can do, namely if they don't have access to Outflank they cannot outlfank tin the vehicle.

This leads to the logical conclusion that, if a unit affects what a transport can do it must do so in a consistent manner - and as the unit does not have permission to move over 6" (as it is infantry) then the vehicle cannot do so either.

This is, of course, rediculous, and shows how flawed Primarchs argument is. Unfortunately I don't see Primarch actually getting this, so we will have 3 mroe pages of "you can't Outflank Vets in a Vendetta!!!" despite having no actual rules to back them up.

You can outflank vets in a vendetta as the Vehicle has permission to do so, and nothing ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THE RULES states that an embarked unit puts constraints on what a vehicle may do. In fact the rules are written the other way round - the embarked unit is constrained by the vehicles actions.

Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.


Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....



Clay

I think the transport rules are better suited for the issue.

They state that the embarked unit is removed from the table.

There is no reason to follow the contraints of a unit that is not on the table.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:I think the transport rules are better suited for the issue.

They state that the embarked unit is removed from the table.

There is no reason to follow the contraints of a unit that is not on the table.

/shrug

Oh really. Then how do you explain that thing about measuring ranges to and from embarked units from the vehicles hull. If they are removed from the table I cannot cast psychic powers, powers cannot be shut down etc.

Curious issue. The outflank rules state that units with the outflank ability confer that on a dedicated transport, but then when they outflank they must be embarked on that transport.

The scout rules, one of the rules that allows outflanking, says that a scout unit confers that ability on their transport, whereas the infiltrate rule states that units lose the ability to infiltrate if they are in a vehicle.

The vendettas have the scout rule and so can outflank and grant that ability to any passengers. What's the argument against it?

Primarch wrote:Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.

Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....

Clay

Stop putting words in my mouth - as you know VERY well from my other posts i am fully cogniscent of it being permissive. Something you don't seem to actually fully understand yourself however.

Yes, the rules for Outflanking tells you the vehicle with Scout can Outflank - so you can do so. Permission granted. Case Closed.

This is permission granted in exactly the same way that the vehicle rules tell you you can travel at speeds over 12", something infantry cannot do and do not have explicit permission to do while embarked - yet you seem to not see the problem there. So you have PERMISSION TO OUTFLANK - and the transport rules give you permission to move while a unit is embarked. So you now need to find something that removes this permission. You have provided.....nothing. Again. Even ducking the direct, simple question I asked to post the same, vapid argument again.

Can you answer the question I posted? It was very simple: Do vehicles have to follow the movment restrictions of those units embarked on the vehicle? This is EXACTLY the line of argument you are using, so I would be interested in your response. If you care to make one this time?

Arachbombe - there isn't a problem for anyone but Primarch, who seems to be looking for explicit permission for every action and combination thereof, while missing the seeringly obvious general permission given to perform the action. This has been "debated" previously to no avail - thankfully I will never playh against such a person willingly excpet at a tournament, when they would be laughed out for even suggesting such a preposterous hypothesis.

Eidolon wrote:Oh really. Then how do you explain that thing about measuring ranges to and from embarked units from the vehicles hull. If they are removed from the table I cannot cast psychic powers, powers cannot be shut down etc.

I do not explain it. I use the rules in the book governing the exceptions you mention.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Primarch wrote:Thats funny, you accuse me of doing something, but, you are just as, if not more guilty.

Please read the rules for Outflanking, where it tells you EXACTLY who can outflank. Where does it say that a Transport can ignore this rule and bring along whoever he likes? It does say that Units that have this ability can convey it onto DEDICATED Transports that they come with.

Again, I am quoting rules, unless you think that GW rules are restrictive and not Permissive? In which case, I can think of a lot of things the rules dont say I CANT do, which would change a lot of interps and the way the game is played.

I am posting rules, namely the one about what can Outflank. What have you posted? Nothing? Yeah.....

Clay

Stop putting words in my mouth - as you know VERY well from my other posts i am fully cogniscent of it being permissive. Something you don't seem to actually fully understand yourself however.

Yes, the rules for Outflanking tells you the vehicle with Scout can Outflank - so you can do so. Permission granted. Case Closed.

This is permission granted in exactly the same way that the vehicle rules tell you you can travel at speeds over 12", something infantry cannot do and do not have explicit permission to do while embarked - yet you seem to not see the problem there. So you have PERMISSION TO OUTFLANK - and the transport rules give you permission to move while a unit is embarked. So you now need to find something that removes this permission. You have provided.....nothing. Again. Even ducking the direct, simple question I asked to post the same, vapid argument again.

Can you answer the question I posted? It was very simple: Do vehicles have to follow the movment restrictions of those units embarked on the vehicle? This is EXACTLY the line of argument you are using, so I would be interested in your response. If you care to make one this time?

Arachbombe - there isn't a problem for anyone but Primarch, who seems to be looking for explicit permission for every action and combination thereof, while missing the seeringly obvious general permission given to perform the action. This has been "debated" previously to no avail - thankfully I will never playh against such a person willingly excpet at a tournament, when they would be laughed out for even suggesting such a preposterous hypothesis.

Obviously you can do nothing but attack me, so i will let it go. There is merit to the argument, you just choose not to see it.

No, vehicles do not have to follow the movement restrictions for the unit embarked on it. Unless you are talking about shooting, or disembarking, then all of a sudden, they DO. So you can now see that there are times when you must follow the unit's rules, and times when you must follow the vehicle rules. Not a great example, but you did ask, so the answer is yes, and no.


Clay

Sorry, you're completely wrong on that - the movement speed of the vehicle affects the unit inside it - i.e. if you move over 6" you cannot fire. Nothing, NOTHING, about the unit being inside the vehicle has any bearing on what the vehicle can or cannot do - excpet where it is explicitly overridden.

If you disagree can you find an example of the reverse? Where the unit places restrictions on the vehicle? Specifically movement and shooting here. You will note that Flat Out is still the vehicle restricting a units options (may not embark / disembark) and a unit giving a ded transport Outflank is a specific exception where the embarked unit DOES affect the vehicle - *all* the rules are written this way: what the vehicle does / does not do affects the unit inside. Nowhere does what the unit may do affect the vehicle unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If you can't do so, then perhaps you will now agree that the status of the unit inside makes no difference to the transporting vehicle? The capabilties of the transported unit (i.e. that it cannot move over 6" as it is Infantry) have NO bearing on the transport itself being able to move over 6". Same as the unit inside being able to Outflank is irrelevant as long as the vehicle can.

You still cannot refute that you have been given permission to Outflank the vehicle and that nothing in the transport rule removes that permission. There is only merit in your argument if you ignore this general permission, which it is clear you are choosing to do and for no logical reason.

Finally: I am attacking your argument despite having you explicitly attacked me by saying I had presented "nothing" and pretending I have said things I have not. I would suggest not throwing accusations around you cannot back up.

Well Primarch also clearly believes that a vendetta with troops inside it cannot make a scout move before the game too then right? Since the troops don't have scout

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, you're completely wrong on that - the movement speed of the vehicle affects the unit inside it - i.e. if you move over 6" you cannot fire. Nothing, NOTHING, about the unit being inside the vehicle has any bearing on what the vehicle can or cannot do - excpet where it is explicitly overridden.

If you disagree can you find an example of the reverse? Where the unit places restrictions on the vehicle? Specifically movement and shooting here. You will note that Flat Out is still the vehicle restricting a units options (may not embark / disembark) and a unit giving a ded transport Outflank is a specific exception where the embarked unit DOES affect the vehicle - *all* the rules are written this way: what the vehicle does / does not do affects the unit inside. Nowhere does what the unit may do affect the vehicle unless it is explicitly mentioned.

If you can't do so, then perhaps you will now agree that the status of the unit inside makes no difference to the transporting vehicle? The capabilties of the transported unit (i.e. that it cannot move over 6" as it is Infantry) have NO bearing on the transport itself being able to move over 6". Same as the unit inside being able to Outflank is irrelevant as long as the vehicle can.

You still cannot refute that you have been given permission to Outflank the vehicle and that nothing in the transport rule removes that permission. There is only merit in your argument if you ignore this general permission, which it is clear you are choosing to do and for no logical reason.

Finally: I am attacking your argument despite having you explicitly attacked me by saying I had presented "nothing" and pretending I have said things I have not. I would suggest not throwing accusations around you cannot back up.

I think you need to re-read all your posts my friend. You said I had presented nothing long before I did. Guess its only an attack when the other person does it to you? Its obvious this is getting nowhere and also obvious that the decision was made long ago, and no matter what I say now, nothing will change that. Not sure why I continue to argue with someone who doesn't matter in the scheme of things.

For the record, I believe its pretty clear that the Vendetta can't carry Vets and outflank, you disagree, fine. You can't prove your point any more than i can. Neither of us is seeing the other's point, and to be honest, I have better things to do with my time. It is what it is, according the INAT the rules state that a Vendetta can carry Vets and Outflank. If I choose to participate in tournaments that use that FAQ, then I will have to abide the rulings. Pretty simple.

No more responses from me in this thread as they are a waste of both our time.


Clay

emoragequit time then I guess.

The Vendetta can Outflank as it has Scout. You cannot show that this permission is removed, meaning your argument fails. It is that simple. Until you can argue that point your argument holds no weight.

I have tried to see your argument, as is obvious from the specific issues I have raised with it. You however have shown nothing similar about my arguments, as you have yet to respond in any meaningful way.

You will find that any tournament you attend you will be laughed out for that "interpretation", as it requires you to ignore entire parts of the ruleset. Good luck trying it though!

Edit: actually I posted that you had brought no written or relevant rules to the debate, and indeed you have not - you have failed to show any rules that remove the permission for a transport to use Outflank when containing a unit which does not have Outflank. On ther other hand I have provided rules. Yours is an attack on me, mine is an attack on your argument. You're still struggling I see....

yakface wrote:

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

Your interpretation is not supported by intent or fluff any more than mine is. Are you saying that it is completely unreasonable that a unit of trained infiltrators can place traps under the enemy's nose? Or are you saying that the only time a unit would ever place traps would be before it is known that the enemy is even going to enter that general area?


As for the Vendettas, I have to say that they can outflank with a unit. They do have permission to outflank, given in the outflank rules. They do not have a specific restriction that they cannot outflank when a unit is embarked. Therefore, they can. You might as well argue that a unit with an independent character joined to it is not allowed to run. Where in the rulebook does it say that they can? It doesn't, yet they can anyway (and even if it turns out that there is some reference in some obscure place, I can think of a bunch of other examples like this). Funny how that works out.

thebetter1 wrote:Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

I disagree.

The INAT interpretation assumes that when they say 'at the start of the game' they mean 'during the initial steps leading up to the game beginning' and 'after placing terrain' means 'immediately after placing terrain'... whereas your interpretation just leaves the question as to why they mention placing terrain at all.

If they meant that the mines should be placed immediately before the game begins, why would they have said 'after placing terrain' rather than 'after both players have deployed their forces'?

The fact that they specifically mention the deployment of the mines as being after an earlier step in the set-up process suggests that they meant for the mines to be deployed after that step.

insaniak wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Is your conclusion reasonable now? It completely ignores the part about placing them at the start of the game, while my interpretation does not ignore the part about placing them after terrain is set up.

I disagree.

The INAT interpretation assumes that when they say 'at the start of the game' they mean 'during the initial steps leading up to the game beginning' and 'after placing terrain' means 'immediately after placing terrain'... whereas your interpretation just leaves the question as to why they mention placing terrain at all.

If they meant that the mines should be placed immediately before the game begins, why would they have said 'after placing terrain' rather than 'after both players have deployed their forces'?

The fact that they specifically mention the deployment of the mines as being after an earlier step in the set-up process suggests that they meant for the mines to be deployed after that step.

The rulebook clearly defines the start of the game as occurring after both armies have deployed. You can't just change this definition to match the current INAT ruling. My interpretation has a problem with the reason GW put in a useless phrase, while yours has a problem with blatantly changing a rule that worked just fine on its own.

thebetter1 wrote:The rulebook clearly defines the start of the game as occurring after both armies have deployed.

It doesn't define it. It lists it as a step. You can as easily say that the entire list of events up to actually starting the game is the 'start of the game'... it's all stuff that happens in order for you to start playing.

And that interpretation removes the problem of the 'after setting up terrain' clause. Because instead of being a redundant piece of wording, it's a clarification as to exactly when at the 'start of the game' you place the mines.

TB1, you're up against some pretty hefty mod-based opinions here...

I personally agree with yak and insaniak's ruling on cluster mines.

Its important to remember that mine or anyone else's opinions are all equally valid!

yakface wrote:
Its important to remember that mine or anyone else's opinions are all equally valid!

Which raises the question of why the ruling is marked as RAW rather than a clarification.

Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

insaniak wrote:Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document. In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions). They could try to fix it and list it as a clarification.

thebetter1 wrote:Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document.

Of course it is. Since none of the people working on it are from the GW studio, the best it can ever be is the opinions of those who wrote it. I'm not sure why you would expect it to be anything else.

In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions).

I'm not a member of the INAT team, so not privvy to the thinking behind any given ruling. But if they've called their solution RAW, I can only assume that it's because they feel it is RAW.

You feel that your interpretation is equally valid... and that's an opinion that you're perfectly entitled to. But given that I've already pointed out why (in my opinion) your interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense, I can certainly understand if the INAT crew considered it and discarded it.

Then again, it's also possible that they hadn't considered it. That's pretty much the purpose of this thread: to discuss rulings that people don't agree with and offer their reasoning as to why. It's entirely possible that on some issues there were arguments that they either overlooked or didn't think of.

I know that I'm a pretty new Dakkite and I know the Deffrolla issue was beaten to death but... with Melta being king of 5th ed. and the strongest ork shooting attack being 8 (and the most powerful cc attack usally 9 with one IC at str 10) and a lot of people running mech lists, what was your thoughts behind your ruling that it dont affect vehicles?

It should be noted that GW used the Inat FAQ for the 'Ard Boys finals.

Throw your internet geek rage aside and acknowledge the fact with all the rules, pages of documents, and different interpretations, this set of FAQ's is better than anything you will come up with on your own.

If you house rule items you don't wish to follow, keep them in your house. If you care to play on the circuit, know you will be subject to these rulings.

Starting a new "Avatar" on a random (though awesome) internet chat board because you disagree with 1 or 2 things out of a 80+ page document . . .

And PLEASE - stop posting questions in this thread. As I re-call the OP stated just to list items.

It has been suggested MANY times that if you personally have an objection to how a situation/rule is played, put it up for vote and see how the rest of the 40k community on this board plays it.

thebetter1 wrote:

insaniak wrote:Probably because in the opinion of those who created the INAT document, it is RAW. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

Which shows that the INAT is an opinionated document. In a debate with multiple sides, both of which appear to be correct, they pick one and call it the RAW solution, when they have another category to show a ruling that had problems with RAW (such as two valid solutions). They could try to fix it and list it as a clarification.

You're absolutely correct. At the time it was written it seemed like the RAW to me. But having read your arguments I can absolutely see your perspective and I have no problems at all changing it to a clarification.

But, of course the INAT is opinionated/biased or whatever else you want to say. We are people with all the foibles of people and I don't know how you'd make something like this without opinion or bias not having some say in the matter. But I did my best to explain the goal and bias of the document right on the very first page so everyone knows where we're coming from when we created it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgob wrote:I know that I'm a pretty new Dakkite and I know the Deffrolla issue was beaten to death but... with Melta being king of 5th ed. and the strongest ork shooting attack being 8 (and the most powerful cc attack usally 9 with one IC at str 10) and a lot of people running mech lists, what was your thoughts behind your ruling that it dont affect vehicles?

Our first release of the INAT that addressed the issue ruled that the Deffrolla could be used against vehicles.

However, after speaking with both the folks writing the UKGT house rules and the GW US customer service we were assured by both of them that they had received word from 'down the pipe' that GW's official policy on the matter was likely to be that Deffrollas did not work during rams.

In an effort to try to keep the 'big issue' rulings similar between the UKGT house rules and the INAT FAQ we decided to switch the ruling to match theirs (which is how it stands today).


Personally, I still feel like the rules seem to indicate that the Deffrolla DOES work during rams, but I certainly can understand the argument as to why it shouldn't.

Of course, knowing how things usually go I'm sure GW will someday add this ruling to their official FAQ and say that Deffrollas DO work during rams...

I would like to hopefully get back to listing items on here. Then maybe we can bring up the rules that have the most opposition to them and bring them to light in here to re-discuss them. (maybe yakface would be cool enough to start polls for them once we get a good list since he gets a good draw on his )

There is an issue here that has not been a poll already?

---ignore---

kirsanth wrote:There is an issue here that has not been a poll already?

Pretty much everything raised so far has been hashed and re-hashed to the point of exhaustion already.

Ironically, if all of the points raised thus far with the INATFAQ were immediately reversed to make these posters happy, then there would (within about 15 minutes of making the changes) be a new thread with different posters wanting the changes reversed.

If you take away a Drop Pod's ability to drop with troops inside, then it, as you said above, becomes almost useless.

How is this any different from a Vendetta deepstriking with a unit...or deepstriking while empty? You know that Vendettas and Valks can as well deepstrike, right?