762
Post by: spmusubi
Hey all,
More fun with the newly updated Pathfinders for you all to look at. Pathfinders have the Scout USR instead of their 'Forward Scouts' rule from the old codex. However, their attached Devilfish does NOT. This results in some changes from the way Pathfinder units were played previously.
As the Devilfish does not have Scout, it cannot benefit from the pre-game movement. This negates a long-held tactic, using the Devilfish to shift Pathfinders 12" and dropping them into forward locations. The Pathfinders themselves may move on foot, but the vehicle remains stationary.
Although this weakens the unit a bit, this does clear up the question if Devilfish count as moving fast during the pre-game move, since moving fast only applies for moving during the previous turn. The pre-game move is not a prevoius turn obviously, but most players played it that the Devilfish still counted as moving fast.
Unfortunatley, another rules issue does appear in this new codex. In Escalation games, units with the Scout USR may start on board even if they were not normally legal to deploy. The deployment rules say that units are deployed as a single entity, including dedicated transports. Now, in an Escalation game, how do Pathfinders deploy?
A) The Pathfinders and their Devilfish start off-board in Reserve. Although Pathfinders have the Scout USR, the deployment rules override this and since the Devilfish does not have Scout, the entire unit cannot deploy.
B) The Pathfinders and their Devilfish start on-board. Although the Devilfish does not have Scout, the Pathfinders do and since the entire unit must deploy together, the Devilfish will start on board.
C) Only the Pathfinders start on board. Since the Devilfish does not have Scout and is bound by Escalation, it may not start on-board. The Pathfinders do have Scout and as such, are deployed as usual.
D) Only the Devilfish starts on board. The power of conflicting rules throws the game design into a temporal vortex, and the Infinite Improbability Drive rule means that the most unlikely choice is the correct one.
Thoughts, comments? Personally, I lean toward interpretation C as the deployment section tells us how to place units, which is a general rule. General rules can be overridden by specific ones (i.e. the Scout USR). I do recognize that this is a definite change from the way it was played previously. I believe that if the Pathfinder Devilfish was intended to move with the Pathfinders, it would have been given the Scout USR also. There is also precedent for vehicles having a USR, as the Imperial Guard Sentinel has Scout as part of its rules.
60
Post by: yakface
I learn to towards C too.
I am hopeful that it was all just a mistake and when they get around to producing new FAQs (as they've publicized) it will be addressed that the Devilfish also gets the Scout rule.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
GW blew it. Again.
As far as I can tell, it's A. I don't want it to be A, but it's got ot be A. How can you deploy a unit without the dedicated transport purchased for it?
405
Post by: Antonin
I have to agree with Chris.
The rule in the old book did not allow the devilfish to scout; the same exact situation exists here. Really, nothing has changed. Worst of all, however, is the fact that while we have been talking about that earlier omission for over a year, no FAQ has covered it and no change was made in the new book.
2166
Post by: Basileus66
I don't see the problem. At least in Spanish seems pretty clear:
P1: Scout rule allows to deploy on board even if the scenario forbid it (escalation would be one of those scenario special rules)
P2: The description of the Pathfinders team says that the team is formed by 4-8 pathfinders plus Devilfishs and that they have scout rule.
C: Both can deploy as per scout rule in escalation.
Anything else makes no sense in any circumstance. Not per RAW, not per logic.
428
Post by: ironkodiak
Basileus66 - Actually the problem arises because the codex states "Pathfinders have the Scout Universal rule". It actually doesn't state that the squad, or the Devinfish, does. Unless the Spanish Codex is phrased different. I can see this either way. I've always moved the Devilfish before the first turn since my Pathfinders are always in it, but I don't know about escalation....... Seems to me that I'd probably let my opponent have the tank, since the fluff intent seems to be that the Pathfinders use the Devilfish to keep ahead of the rest of the army.
762
Post by: spmusubi
Actually, the 3rd edition Tau FAQ DOES allow the Pathfinder Devilfish to move in the pre-game along with their Pathfinders. So I've never really had a problem moving my Pathfinders at high speed in the pre-game. I have had people bring up issues like if the 'Fish could be penetrated and whatnot.
So now we have the choice of breaking the deployment rule (with the Devilfish coming in from Reserve) or breaking the Scout USR (by keeping the Pathfinder infantry off-board). Whereas the Infiltrate USR has the language that it does not allow units that would not deploy normally to appear on board (i.e. Stealthsuits or Veteran Raptors in Escalation), Scout has no such langugage and in fact says the opposite!
405
Post by: Antonin
Right, you said it - the third edition FAQ. If you use the old FAQs, why not just keep applying the spirit of them to the current rule? Of course you haven't had any problem - everyone realizes this is one of those messed up rules, and plays it like it should be writting, i.e. with "scout" written in the Pathfinder Devilfish entry. Is it correct? No - but that hasn't changed how it's handled.
What I'm saying is that the rules-correct answer is that neither come onto the table if either only could using "scout". However, in the real world, they both count as having "scout". Of course, your mileage may vary. I would say check with your tournament organizer before going to a tournament, but as we have seen, that doesn't seen to work either.
2354
Post by: mughi3
pathfinders and devifish are part of the same unit. they must go together as per the rules. since pathfinders have the scout abilty and the fish must be part of the unit,. the fish is part of the units allotment of equipment and thus has the scout abiltiy.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
since pathfinders have the scout abilty and the fish must be part of the unit,. the fish is part of the units allotment of equipment and thus has the scout abiltiy.
Not true. Pathfinders have the scout ability. Their dedicated transport is purchased simultaneously, and it goes in the same place in the FOC; however, the two are distinct units. You certainly would not argue that a dedicated Razorback would be given the Tank Hunter special rule if you took some Elite Devastators with Tank Hunter using Honor Your Wargear, would you? Of course not. Two distinct units. One has the ability to scout. One does not. The Pathfinders get screwed in Escalation. As I said almost 9.5 hours ago: " GW blew it. Again."
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By mughi3 on 04/10/2006 10:24 PM pathfinders and devifish are part of the same unit. they must go together as per the rules.
Chris has it right, this is absolutely untrue. They are part of the same FOC slot, not the same unit. Were they both part of the same unit, the devilfish would never be able to move more than 6", etc.
2166
Post by: Basileus66
They are not different units. The rule in Tau Codex says when defines the pathfinders team as a unit formed by 4-8 pathfinders and a Devilsfish, not as 4-8 pathfinders to whom you must purchase a Devilfish.
Scout rule says, also clearly, that takes priority even in those scenarios where the unit could not normally be deployed.
Per rules as written both deploy on board even in escalation and can make a scout move.
226
Post by: blue loki
Very well, Basileus.
But make sure you are taking all of the negative effects of the two parts being in the same unit, and not just the benefits. Remember that all models in the unit must maintain coherency and move at the speed of the slowest model. The devilfish will never be able to gain the "skimmers moving fast" benefit unless the rest of the unit is dead. All models can be hit by the fire from one enemy unit. Mixed armour. Majority toughness.
Are you sure you want to go down that road? EDIT: Oh, and I forgot, no splitting fire...
305
Post by: Moz
I think there's some weight to giving the Devilfish scout as well. I know you guys hate this, but if you look at the other entries in the codex you can start picking up on some similar problems.
First up, for the Pathfinder Team entry.
"Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish"
"Scouts: Pathfinders are scouts... yadda yadda"
Lets jump over to Vespid
"Team: The units consists of a Strain Leader and 3-10 Stingwings"
"Fleet of Wing: The Stingwings are suprisingly agile for their size, fluff fluff. They are Fleet, ..."
In the case of other mixed-type teams, such as the Sniper Team, extensive measures are made to show what each seperate model in the team is equipped with. Each drone is equipped with a Rail rifle, the spotter is equipped with a pulse pistol. Etc...
My premise then is that Special rules regarding the Unit name: "Vespid Stingwings, Pathfinders" refer to every model included in the "Team: ..." entry.
This leads to the conclusion that the Devilfish is indeed equipped with Scout, and a Strain leader is Fleet as well.
Thoughts?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well, RAW versus common sense... oh dear! This is surely an occasion where the clear "intent" (kof kof) of the rules clashes with the RAW.
Common sense says that all Vespids should have Fleet because they are all the same species and carry the same equipment except for the leader who has a Communication Helm. in other words, it's only the designation of them into Stingwing and Strain leader that makes a difference, unless you suppose that the Helm makes him slow down.
You are not allowed to take a Stingwing team without a Strain leader. Therefore, the whole team loses Fleet if the leader doesn't have it.
By following RAW you ruin the point of Stingwings, and no-one would use them.
For what it's worth, I would ignore the RAW in this case. However the situation is different to the Pathfinder D'fish so I would not say it set any precedent.
305
Post by: Moz
The situations are quite similar as far as I can tell. The gist is that you are assuming that the term Pathfinders applies only to the Shas'la models, where I think you can safely say that Pathfinders as a term refers to both the Shas'la and the Devilfish. There is evidence that the term Pathfinders refers only to the Shas'la: such as the wargear they may take (unless you think you can give a Devilfish grenades?). I am using the Stingwings entry to present counter evidence that the term Pathfinders refers to the entire team, as both entries are completely workable if you understand the meaning of the term Stingwings and Pathfinders to be the contents of the Team entry.
And yes, this is a method of the argument where I'm holding common sense hostage for a rule interpretation that I prefer.
662
Post by: scramasax
The unit in the codex is called a pathfinder team.
a team is defined in the tau codex as : "this shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the force organisation chart"
The devilfish is a model that is part of the same force organisation chart so it is part of the team but not of the same unit.
When you read the scout section of the pathfinder team entry it only say pathfinder but it does not answer at all what happen when the pathfinder are deployed inside the devilfish.
The 3rd edition FAQ was giving the move to the devilfish and nothing has really changed since that time except that the pathfinder now have the choice to deploy or not in escalation. Without the FAQ it is difficult to give the move to the devilfish but if you don't give the move it create problem about what happen when the pathfinder are deployed inside the devilfish.
2354
Post by: mughi3
But make sure you are taking all of the negative effects of the two parts being in the same unit, and not just the benefits. Remember that all models in the unit must maintain coherency and move at the speed of the slowest model. The devilfish will never be able to gain the "skimmers moving fast" benefit unless the rest of the unit is dead. All models can be hit by the fire from one enemy unit. Mixed armour. Majority toughness.
Are you sure you want to go down that road?
except you are forgetting the other rules 1.the razorback is a transport OPTION for a tac squad, not a rquirement as it is with pathfinders. nor does a tac squad have a scout option. 2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
But Mughi, Basileus just stated that the unit consisted of both the devilfish and the pathfinders. If so, they must maintain coherency and move at the speed of the slowest model.
Of course, that's nonsense, but that's what he said. How can you possibly defend him?
786
Post by: Sazzlefrats
BigChris1313... forget that basileus stated that the devilfish and the pathfinders are a unit. They are a team as per the codex. Lets not hang on the specific obvious errors that people say in arguements and figure out if and why the pathfinders and required devilfish can scout or not. Now lets defend the rest of what basileus said.
USR says the unit deploys and does all their special mojo even if they could not legally otherwise be deployed... So I'm ready to say that pathfinders and the devilfish both scout.
55
Post by: Bad55
Ahoj!
This is identical to the SM codex mess with TDA ICs and Terminator Command Squads.
ICs in TDA - can Deep Strike if mission allows
Terminator Command Squad - can always Deep Strike
Yet you can't buy a Terminator Command Squad without an IC in TDA. So Rule As Played is that the Terminator Command Squad always Deep Strikes, with its beloved Leader included ...
Here we have a Pathfinder Team which has the Scout rule. And you cannot take a PathfinderTeam WITHOUT the Devilfish. So the rule should extend to the transport as well.
Borys
157
Post by: mauleed
Ugg. People, no one has even come close to making any logical argument that the devilfish has scout. Yes that creates a sticky situation, but too bad. It's a sticky situation. One thing is for certain. If you scout your devilfish, you're at best being unethical, since you certainly aren't sure it's legal. I would go so far as to say you're cheating, but I'm too lazy right now to debate it. And yes, I own a devilfish and pathfinders.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By mughi3 on 04/11/2006 7:49 PM 2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.
No. A transport can not "act independent of the unit it is a part of", as it is not a part of the unit that it is purchased with. It is a completely seperate unit which just so happens to be purchased along side a different unit by using the same FOC slot, and that is why it acts independently. Yes, a transport is associated with a specific unit, but (so far) it is never a part of the unit that it is associated with.
There is no rule on how vehicles should act when part of a non-vehicle unit. Since we lack any rule on how they should act, we must treat them just like any other part of the unit. So, if you want to treat the D-Fish as part of the unit, you may grant it any benefits that the unit has, but you must also accept the bad with the good and accept all of the negative effects as well.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
borys said:
Here we have a Pathfinder Team which has the Scout rule. And you cannot take a PathfinderTeam WITHOUT the Devilfish. So the rule should extend to the transport as well.
This, in a nutshell, is the most common mistake made about the Pathfinders/Devilfish/Scout question. It's a simple matter of misreading the RAW.
The Pathfinder Team does not have the Scout rule and the Codex says nothing of the kind. It clearly states that the Pathfinders get Scout. It does not state that their Devilfish does. End of story.
All the arguments about whether or not the Devilfish is part of the unit or not are irrelevant.
So, to answer spmusubi's original question, in Escalation missions the unit cannot deploy 'on-table'. A unit cannot be divided and deployed at separate times. Each FOC choice must be deployed at the same time. Thus because the Devilfish must start 'off-table' as per the Escalation rules, so must the Pathfinders.
305
Post by: Moz
Don't forget, Vespid units cannot fleet because the strain leader doesn't.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Are there any other units which comprise infantry and vehicles?
145
Post by: Spooky
ridiculous.
the only way to resolve the puke-mess of this is to consider Scout as applying to the whole Pathfinder FOC selection, which is a bit of a stretch perhaps but doesn't break anything.
if you do it otherwise, its immediately broken as how do you then deploy.
also it then as a bonus breaks vespid as mentioned, they then can't fleet which is clearly not what it was supposed to mean.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
How does GW screwing the pooch with the Pathfinders/Devilfish also screw Vesepids, exactly?
(Seriously. I don't own the codex.)
305
Post by: Moz
Because the wording is terrible.
Pathfinder team:
"Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish"
"Scouts: Pathfinders are scouts... etc."
Vespid Stingwings:
"Strain: The units consists of a Strain Leader and 3-10 Stingwings"
"Fleet of Wing: The Stingwings are suprisingly agile for their size, ... They are Fleet, ..."
If you make the decision that special rules for the Pathfinder team don't apply to the Devilfish, it's hard to then justify position that special rules for the Stingwings *do* apply to the Strain Leader.
226
Post by: blue loki
Chris,
Moz posted earlier:
Lets jump over to Vespid
"Team: The units consists of a Strain Leader and 3-10 Stingwings"
"Fleet of Wing: The Stingwings are suprisingly agile for their size, fluff fluff. They are Fleet, ..."
All they are saying is that:
If Devilfish don't get "Scouts" because only Devilfish are not "Pathfinders",
then Strain Leaders don't get "Fleet" because Strain Leaders are not "Stingwings".
This is heading off topic, but does the Strain Leader have a different statline printed in the codex?
If the entry reads like this,
Stingwing - BS3 WS3 .......
Strain Leader - BS3 WS3 .......
Number/Squad: Strain Leader and 3-9 Stingwings
then I would say that the Strain Leader is NOT a "Stingwing" per the RAW and would technically not receive Fleet (although I wouldn't play it that way).
However, if the entry reads like a Space Marine entry,
Stingwing - BS3 WS3 ........
Number/Squad: Strain Leader and 3-9 Stingwings
then I would say that the Strain Leader IS a Stingwing as there is only one statline, labeled "Stingwing", which is used for both model types, and it would therefore receive the benefits of Fleet.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The strain leader has a separate stat line.
Actually when you start to examine the semantics in detail it often falls apart. For example, the Pathfinder entry says that the Tau for Pathfinder is Shas'la. Actually that just means trooper -- FCW are Shas'las as well. If you upgrade the team leader to a Shas'ui he is no longer a Pathfiner.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
I dont see the real issue. You people seem to be looking for reasons why they can not. since the new tau codex is an update, and not a rewrite..I would say, sure they had it before, and they still have it. That is clearly what the game designers wanted. They did not expect such confusion.
From a rules stand point.
Entry: Pathfinder Team.
Team: 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish.
Special Rules: Pathfinder [teams] are scouts, see the universal special rules for details.
So, They all stick togeather.
-Legacy40k
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Surely a new codex replaces the old codex and any FAQs relating to it? You can't assume any continuity.
GW have demonstrated they simply copy and paste material forward when they want to, so anything new or changed is genuinely a specific decision by the designers, I should have thought.
It's just as likely that GW decided the Pathfinders should come on by themselves, as come on with the 'Fish with Scout.
Overall it's obviously just another GW rules manglement, but we can't decide what they really wanted to do.
157
Post by: mauleed
Want they wanted to do is irrelevant. What they did is all that is relevant.
305
Post by: Moz
So breaking it down:
-There's no way to claim the Devilfish and pathfinders are a single unit, that's just not going to fly anywhere.
-It *may* be possible to interpret the term 'Pathfinders' under the special rules heading to refer to the Pathfinder team (which includes the Devilfish), this is however suspect and you should not attempt it without speaking with your opponent first.
-It *may* also be possible to interpret the term Stingwings under the special rules heading to refer to all members of the Vespid Stingwing Strain (which would then include the Strain Leader), again this should be discussed with your opponent.
-If you agree with your opponent that the Devilfish does not have scout, the devilfish will definitely start off the board. The remaining issue is wether the Pathfinder Shas'la may start on the board. You may either claim that Scout overrides the deployment rules regarding deploying with a dedicated transport, or you may claim that the dedicate transport rules override the scout USR.
Would anyone like to add anything?
1066
Post by: happypants
Posted By mughi3 on 04/10/2006 10:24 PMpathfinders and devifish are part of the same unit. they must go together as per the rules. since pathfinders have the scout abilty and the fish must be part of the unit,. the fish is part of the units allotment of equipment and thus has the scout abiltiy.
I would agree, basing this on the fact that Pathfinders are not models but a 'unit' of models that includes the fish as part of said unit and therefore the scout rule does not get 'added on' to the fish but is inherent to it.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By blue loki on 04/12/2006 7:50 AM Posted By mughi3 on 04/11/2006 7:49 PM 2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.
No. A transport can not "act independent of the unit it is a part of", as it is not a part of the unit that it is purchased with. It is a completely seperate unit which just so happens to be purchased along side a different unit by using the same FOC slot, and that is why it acts independently. Yes, a transport is associated with a specific unit, but (so far) it is never a part of the unit that it is associated with.
There is no rule on how vehicles should act when part of a non-vehicle unit. Since we lack any rule on how they should act, we must treat them just like any other part of the unit. So, if you want to treat the D-Fish as part of the unit, you may grant it any benefits that the unit has, but you must also accept the bad with the good and accept all of the negative effects as well.
taking all the rules together i do not see the problem
read the entry a pathfinder TEAM includes the fish as such it is part of the unit and therefore benefits from the scout ability given to the TEAM(just as in previous FAQs), but it is also a VEHICLE and as such benefits from the vehicle rules for a transports ability to operate independant of the squad. there is no need to have more rules as to how a vehicle should act as part of a non vehicle unit since the rules already exhist in the vehicle/transport section. my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ i don't like the fact that 2 mystics can concievably kill my entire deathwing if it deepstrikes by allowing a single dev squad within 12" to shoot a half dozen times at different targets during the same round, but it is legal as written and i will still take the army on by adjusting my tactics accordingly.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
mughi3 said:
taking all the rules together i do not see the problem
Then I suggest you follow your own advice and "read the entry". Contrary to what you claim the Scout ability is not given to the team; it is given to the Pathfinders only. A Devilfish is not a Pathfinder. It does not, therefore, get the Scout ability.
And again, a single FOC choice must be deployed at the same time (there is only one exception IIRC, namely IG LI units, but I believe that deploying pregame is 'the same time' even if divided into 'separate times'), and therefore in Escalation missions the Pathfinders cannot deploy.
mughi3 said:
my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ
Then you're not using the Scout move as written. In fact, you've acknowledged the rules and chosen to ignore them. Cheating, in other words.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
Posted By mughi3 on 04/13/2006 7:50 PMPosted By blue loki on 04/12/2006 7:50 AM Posted By mughi3 on 04/11/2006 7:49 PM 2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.
No. A transport can not "act independent of the unit it is a part of", as it is not a part of the unit that it is purchased with. It is a completely seperate unit which just so happens to be purchased along side a different unit by using the same FOC slot, and that is why it acts independently. Yes, a transport is associated with a specific unit, but (so far) it is never a part of the unit that it is associated with.
There is no rule on how vehicles should act when part of a non-vehicle unit. Since we lack any rule on how they should act, we must treat them just like any other part of the unit. So, if you want to treat the D-Fish as part of the unit, you may grant it any benefits that the unit has, but you must also accept the bad with the good and accept all of the negative effects as well.
taking all the rules together i do not see the problem
read the entry a pathfinder TEAM includes the fish as such it is part of the unit and therefore benefits from the scout ability given to the TEAM(just as in previous FAQs), but it is also a VEHICLE and as such benefits from the vehicle rules for a transports ability to operate independant of the squad. there is no need to have more rules as to how a vehicle should act as part of a non vehicle unit since the rules already exhist in the vehicle/transport section. my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ i don't like the fact that 2 mystics can concievably kill my entire deathwing if it deepstrikes by allowing a single dev squad within 12" to shoot a half dozen times at different targets during the same round, but it is legal as written and i will still take the army on by adjusting my tactics accordingly.
I agree completly. Sometimes codex's omit things or have spelling errors, does this mean you should use those instead of common sense? no! I remember when the chaos codex came out and thralls with T1 with 3 wounds. Thats what was written. Was that how it should be played? no. What about the wargear book that cameout recently that states that an Eldar Exarch dire sword is a chaos only item. That is what is written, but common sense dictates that it should not be played like that. I dont understand why people need to look for tiny reasons to neuter armies instead of using common sense. Is it some sort of a thrill to find these errors, point them out and then try and prove them as law? GW's editing is often sub par and they make extensive use of copy and paste, mistakes happen, words are ommited, and as I recall the design team once mentioning. They expect people to use common sense when issues like this come up, they should not have to address them in an FAQ. -Legacy40k
145
Post by: Spooky
Want they wanted to do is irrelevant.
What they did is all that is relevant.
Ridiculous. That brand of literal interpretation of the rules breaks the game, several ways in this topic alone. There is another way to play the game, which is to allow a sliver of variation in how you interpret the rules, to allow for not completely rigorous rules writing. Its clear they don't write the rules hyper-rigorously, so why is the prevailing view on this forum that we should read the rules so rigorously? It clearly breaks the game all over the place. Sure, if you allow a little common sense to creep in then different people will think you play the game differently as we don?t all share the same reading of words & sentences. But we have that anyway already right here.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Its clear they don't write the rules hyper-rigorously, so why is the prevailing view on this forum that we should read the rules so rigorously? It clearly breaks the game all over the place.
Because if you don't, you're not playing 40k? Instead, you're playing some home-grown version. And by following RAW as much as possible, we're not breaking the game. We're merely breaking your home-grown wishing of what the game might be.
The PF/DF-Svout issue was a problem in 3rd edition. It was cleared up in the FAQ. It would not be hard to amend the 4th edition Codex with the FAQ. This was not done. Therefore, there is an implication that the intent argument sides with the RAW.
Not that this matters, of course, because as several people have said already, intent is irrelevant. Follow the rules and don't cheat.
305
Post by: Moz
Assuming the rules were written tight enough to allow for only one interpretation in any given instance Stu, you would be correct, and there would be no YMDC. Alas...
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Agreed. And there is only one interpretation in this case. As has been said countless times by numerous people, Pathfinders have the Scout ability, their Devilfish does not. That is what the rules state and thus their is no interpretation needed. Saying otherwise is ignoring the rules, which is 'house-ruling' at best and cheating at worst.
There are other cases where the rules contradict themselves and thus YMDC will be needed to reach a consensus. This is not such a case however, as the rules are 'tightly written' and perfectly clear.
And besides, YMDC will always be needed because there will always be people who have questions, be they stupid or clever (the people or the questions), and I include myself among that number.
305
Post by: Moz
And as many people have also said, giving equal credit to a second interpretation which you ignore, the term 'Pathfinders' under special rules applies to the Team.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Moz said:
And as many people have also said, giving equal credit to a second interpretation which you ignore, the term 'Pathfinders' under special rules applies to the Team.
If enough people said all Land Raiders should have AV10, would that make them have AV10? Would that make the rules rewrite themselves so Land Raiders did have AV10?
No, of course not. A miilion people or more in agreement can still be wrong, you know.
There is no credit, equal or otherwise, in an interpretation of a rule that totally denies that rule.
Again: Pathfinders have the Scout ability because the rules say they do. The Devilfish does not have the Scout ability because the rules say it does not. Or more accurately, does not say it does.
There is no other possible interpretation of that except that Pathfinders have the Scout ability and the Devilfish does not.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10. Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.
When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?
-Legacy40k
305
Post by: Moz
And by exactly the same interpretation, Vespid Stingwing Strains do not have fleet as the Strain Leader that is part of the Team does not. No one buys that, and few people buy that the pathfinders lose their Scout USR due to the mandatory devilfish (that is part of the team) as well.
RAW it can go a few different ways, Rules-as-played you will see it played as the FAQ from 3rd ed defined most likely.
305
Post by: Moz
How many people played their terminators with 3+/5i after the first print of the wargear book came out?
I'm thinking of a number between 0 and.... 0
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By Legacy40k on 04/14/2006 9:49 AM
What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10. Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.
No, not 'obviously'. You are assuming it is a misprint, and your assumption is not backed up by the rules. Assumptions have no place in this forum.
Ha! 'Everybody knows better.' That's funny. Wars have been fought over the premise that 'everyone knows better', but it does not make them correct. At one time, it was theorized that the world was round, not flat. The theory was ridiculed, because 'everyone knew better'.
Mob mentality does not truth make.
When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?
Absence of a similar error elsewhere is no basis for an argument. There is ALWAYS a first time for everthing.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Let me see if I understand your argument. Am I correct in saying that you argue that because the Devilfish is listed as an option (well, as a mandatory upgrade really) under the Pathfinder Team heading, you believe that same Devilfish to be a Pathfinder? Does that sound right? Well, if that?s your argument, then it?s a crock. For the following reasons: 1. My ?team? is my fellow employees and myself. It does not include the vehicles we use to travel to and fro. No one in his or her right mind would argue otherwise; 2. The rule in question refers to ?Pathfinders? and not ?Pathfinder Team?, which presumably it would if the Devilfish was meant to be included; and finally, the big kahuna? 3. If the Devilfish is part of the Pathfinder Team as you suggest and thus a Pathfinder, presumably the same logic applies elsewhere. So a Devilfish bought with a Fire Warrior Team is obviously a Fire Warrior and we can upgrade it?s Burst Cannon to a Pulse Carbine for no extra cost, right? Heaven forbid we apply logic. Here?s this argument in a nutshell: Parent: ?Rules say blue.? Little Timmy: ?I want red!? Parent: ?You can?t have red as the rules say blue.? Little Timmy: ?Red is the intent! I want red! Waaaagh!? Parent: ?Red is possibly the intent but it seems more likely that blue is the intent.? Little Timmy: ?I want red!? Parent: ?Rules still say blue.? Little Timmy: ?I want red. And red is a kind of blue, right?? Parent: ?No, blue is blue and red is red. The rules say blue.? Little Timmy: ?I want red. Mom (i.e. old Codex) said I could have red.? Parent: ?No, mom said green. This is irrelevant, as your Mom (i.e. old Codex) is dead and she told you that years ago. And the new rules say blue.? Little Timmy: ?I want red. And Mommy said on her deathbed (i.e. the old FAQ) that I get red!? Parent: ?Yes, but what Mommy said on her deathbed (i.e. the old FAQ) no longer applies. The new rules take precedence. And the new rules still say blue.? Little Timmy: ?I want red. Everyone else has red!? Parent: ?Everyone else has blue but has stupidly been listening to your Mom and is going to end up in jail.? Little Timmy: ?I don?t care what you say! I want red! I want red! I want red! I want red!? ? and so on and so on ad nauseum, like one of those oh-so-pleasant screaming tykes you?ll encounter in the grocery store whose parents have no control over them. Sigh. 
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
Are you trying to imply that if an ork truck is painted blue, it may not take the "red ones go faster" upgrade?
-Legacy40k
305
Post by: Moz
Because the 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish', no I don't think it's crazy to assume that they mean for the Devilfish to be included in the Team. Because special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases, I don't think it's a stretch to apply them to the Team.
Lets go into the Kroot entry:
"Squad: The squad numbers from 10-20 Kroot, 0-12 Kroot Hounds, and 0-3 Krootox Riders."
Special rules:
"Fieldcraft: Kroot gain +1 to their Cover Save in woods or jungles. Kroot etc.. etc.."
So, kroot hounds and krootox riders don't recieve this benefit either eh?
No one buys this. The special rules sections for every single mixed unit in the codex reference the rules for the team/squad/strain by referring to the name of the entire unit, it is all throughout the codex and if you deny it in one place you logically deny it everywhere and a solid 3rd of the units in the list are consequently busted. Your interpretation of the term 'Pathfinders' in the special rules heading is flat wrong.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Legacy40k said:
What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10. Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.
Who?s everyone? If everyone knew better, why are we having this argument? Rules, common sense (such as it is), and intent all side with the Devilfish not having the Scout rule yet ?everyone knows better?. Why wasn?t I informed?
Legacy40k said:
When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?
Lots of times. Pulse Carbines for Fire Warriors under the old Codex, for example. Or lots of doctrines for IG (Light Infantry, Slave Levies, Close Order Drill, Carapace Armour, etc.). Any time you buy an optional upgrade that the whole unit can take but you buy it for only half the unit. And Majority Armour. That?s a biggie. Any unit with a transport, that?s another. Unless when you buy the Smoke Launchers upgrade for your Dreadnought your Droppod gets them for free. Oh, but wait? the droppod isn?t part of the unit, is it? It?s only a transport. Kind of like the Devilfish, I suppose?
But I take it that by ?only be bought one way? refers to the mandatory inclusion of the Devilfish, right? Still plenty of examples, I?m afraid to say. Or are you arguing that the Chimera of an Armoured Fist squad with the Jungle Fighters doctrine may Infiltrate? Or ignore jungle terrain? Or see 12? through jungles?
Moz said:
And by exactly the same interpretation, Vespid Stingwing Strains do not have fleet as the Strain Leader that is part of the Team does not. No one buys that, and few people buy that the pathfinders lose their Scout USR due to the mandatory devilfish (that is part of the team) as well.
I don?t buy that because the Strain Leader is a model that is described as a Stingwing. The Devilfish is a model that?s described as a transport that can be taken by units of Pathfinders or Fire Warriors. Two completely unrelated concepts. Apples and oranges.
And no one has sad that Pathfinders lose their Scout USR. If people would only read things carefully, we wouldn?t have half these problems.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Moz said:
Your interpretation of the term 'Pathfinders' in the special rules heading is flat wrong.
But you've just used it yourself! :-? Your argument is that I am wrong because of BLUE and you are right because of BLUE. That makes no sense.
Moz said:
Because the 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish', no I don't think it's crazy to assume that they mean for the Devilfish to be included in the Team. Because special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases, I don't think it's a stretch to apply them to the Team.
Okay, let's break this down. See the use of the terms 'Pathfinders and a Devilfish'? So Pathfinders are separate concepts to that of a Devilfish, agreed? The rules have stated as much (here and elsewhere).
So, as (contrary to what you keep trying to claim that 'special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases' which the rules clearly state they do not) the rules state that only Pathfinders get the Scout USR, you therefore agree that they do and the Devilfish does not.
Or are you just having fun contradicting yourself and getting dizzy from all the circular logic you seem to want to apply?
Legacy40k said:
Are you trying to imply that if an ork truck is painted blue, it may not take the "red ones go faster" upgrade?
I don't know whether or not this was meant to be funny but it made me laugh.
305
Post by: Moz
First up, Strain Leaders are never mentioned to be stingwings in the rules. Perhaps in the fluff, are we using fluff for rules now?
Second, a single word can have multiple meanings, particularly when dealing with plurals. Pathfinders is a common term for the team, pathfinders is also a common term for the shas'la models. A precedent is set by all units in the codex that specific models are called on by the plural term when talking about wargear issues, equipment choices, stuff that must be modeled. When moving to special rules, the precedent is set through every other unit in the codex that the plural term is used to reference the team. I again point you to the Kroot, Stingwings, and Pathfinders entry which are coincidentally the only 3 mixed units in the codex with special rules, and are coincidentally all written in the same manner using the term Kroot, Stingwings, and Pathfinders to refer to the team as a whole.
I agree that a Pathfinder is different than a Devilfish, I agree that a Krootox is different than a Kroot, and I agree a Stingwing is different than a Strain leader. I also believe each of these units benefits entirely from the special rules it is given. I wish you the best of luck convincing any player otherwise, as it's not going to happen.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Okay, in brief, here's the argument:
I say: "A Strain Leader is a Stingwing because he's part of a Stingwing unit."
You counter: "Ah, but then you must admit that a Devilfish is a Pathfinder because it is part of the Pathfinder Team."
And I counter: "No, because the Devilfish is a transport that can be bought for various different units, while the Strain Leader is not. A Devilfish is still not a Pathfinder. If it was could it take Pathfinder upgrades (i.e. a Rail Rifle)? Would a Devilfish in a Fire Warrior squad be a Pathfinder or a Fire Warrior or a Devilfish? None of the above, obviously. Therefore, the Devilfish is one concept, the Strain Leader another. You are comparing apples and oranges again and coming to a false conclusion."
How does that sound?
226
Post by: blue loki
Saying that 'Pathfinders' means 'Pathfinder Team' is an assumption. We don't work with assumptions in here unless there are no other options.
Without making any assumptions, 'Pathfinders' means 'Pathfinders'. Pathfinders are a specific model type to which the rule can validly be applied, hence we need not make any assumptions in order to apply the rule.
145
Post by: Spooky
i doubt you're deliberately mis-construing this argument stu but its sure belabouring the point.
the arguement is not that the devilfish becomes a pathfinder. duh.
the assumption made, for sake of the game actually making sense and functioning better (hah) is that the Scout rule is applied to the whole pathfinder force-org selection. ie: "pathfinders" (as a FOC selection) have Scout.
doing this is admittedly a stretch. i take this stand because it causes the least other rules problems. how do you handle their deployment otherwise?
the pathfinder issue aside, its all well and good aping this toughguy literal stance, but you run into just as many stupid problems as you would do with a more 'human' (?) interpretation. and, the literal stance isn't some gold standard of purity and equality anyhow, it is taken to different lengths by different people in different areas and in different tournaments.
if you persue that path as far as you possibly can, the game becomes ridicious. there's plenty of examples of bizarre, ugly things you can do by literal interpretation. people will not play the game when its that twisted and slowed. but, people will accept some things which are minor.... its just a limit at which people will be forced to take a step back and say "thats slowed, it can't mean that surely" (ref: termies in termy armour)
for different people, this limit is different. its not cheating to use common sense, its actually required for the game to work properly, and GW themselves say so quite regularly. the game is not designed for literal interpretation, as its just not written that rigourously.
i admitt, the stance i'm taking on this comes with its own set of problems, its back to the way different people interpret the wordings and at what limit people will say 'they can't have meant that' and so on. all i am saying is a truely literal interpretation is not practical, a interpretation that is only strict in parts is hypocritical, and the only answer is to use some common sense and accept the problems that come with that (ie. your opponent might be an idiot)
305
Post by: Moz
Loki - That's one way to handle it, but without making any assumptions we break a lot of stuff. Kroot are specific model types, and Stingwings are specific model types with a defined statline etc... We must make assumptions to link Krootox, Kroot hounds, and Strain Leaders to these terms. if you want to play the RAW as strictly as possible without making these assumptions, very odd things occur like the vespid unit losing fleet, kroothounds and krootox losing the field craft benefit, and pathfinders with the scout USR starting off the table in Escalation.
Stu - In regards to taking upgrades, the codex through all entries mentions the specific models that are applicable. In regards to special rules there are numerous instances where it appears the plural term for the primary model of the unit is used to apply abilities to the unit as a whole. This is an assumption made to preserve not just the use of the Pathfinders scout ability during escalation, but to preserve the given abilities of Kroot and Vespid.
I will concede that if you approach this topic in a logical step by step analysis where a term is defined and made unique, where all references to the term apply only to that referenced definition, and where the entry 'Team: 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish' qualifies as a suitable and unique definition for the term 'Pathfinders' - that these and only these models get the Scout USR.
I wont speculate how this will effect the game having a mixed unit of Scout models and non scout models because I feel that I have ample logical ammunition to show that the term is not uniquely defined in the form of the Stingwing and Kroot entries. I will discuss these options with my opponent before the game, and barring a concensus of our opinions on the interpretation we will D6 it. Life will go on.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By Moz on 04/14/2006 12:01 PM
Loki - That's one way to handle it, but without making any assumptions we break a lot of stuff. Kroot are specific model types, and Stingwings are specific model types with a defined statline etc... We must make assumptions to link Krootox, Kroot hounds, and Strain Leaders to these terms. if you want to play the RAW as strictly as possible without making these assumptions, very odd things occur like the vespid unit losing fleet, kroothounds and krootox losing the field craft benefit, and pathfinders with the scout USR starting off the table in Escalation.
Oh, I completely agree. However, when arguing your stance, you must admit that you are making an assumption. If you can get your opponent to agree with your assumption, then more power to you. But know that it IS an assumption, and assumptions are flawed by definition.
In effect, you are arguing Rules-as-Played directly against Rules-As-Written. And, when called on it by someone who is arguing the RAW standpoint, the RAW argument will win by default, as the RAP argument is based on an assumption. RAW wins. Is it broken? Yes. Is it unplayable? Maybe. Is it something to hash out with your opponent beforehand? Most definately.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
I'm just happy that where I play... People use common sense instead of literal interpretation of questionably ruling.
-Legacy40k
1066
Post by: happypants
READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!
I have it right in front of me, there is NO SUCH THING as a PATHFINDER MODEL in the book (although you can buy one from GW)
There is a PATHFINDER TEAM a TEAM consists of Shas'las (same thing as firewarriors), a Devilfish & possibly a Shas'ui.
A Pathfinder TEAM has scout, under the special rules it notes "Pathfinders are Scouts, the the USR in the Warhammer 40k Rulebook"
There is NO argument to be had. I don't understand how anyone could interpret this as meaning that the Pathfinder Devilfish (because it IS a pathfinder Devilfish, just as the Shas'las in the group are Pathfinder Shas'las) does not get Scout.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
Posted By happypants on 04/14/2006 12:30 PM
READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!
I have it right in front of me, there is NO SUCH THING as a PATHFINDER MODEL in the book (although you can buy one from GW)
There is a PATHFINDER TEAM a TEAM consists of Shas'las (same thing as firewarriors), a Devilfish & possibly a Shas'ui.
A Pathfinder TEAM has scout, under the special rules it notes "Pathfinders are Scouts, the the USR in the Warhammer 40k Rulebook"
There is NO argument to be had. I don't understand how anyone could interpret this as meaning that the Pathfinder Devilfish (because it IS a pathfinder Devilfish, just as the Shas'las in the group are Pathfinder Shas'las) does not get Scout.
Haha, very valid. So based on many of these people interpretation... Pathfinders get scout.. However, the Shas'la, Shas'ui, and Devilfish in a Pathfinder Team do not have scout as they are not called "pathfinders". -Legacy40k
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
happypants said:
READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!
Take your own advice. It doesn't say anything of the sort. That's the problem.
And arguing that there are no such thing as Pathfinder models falls down flat. If it were true, then logically we'd run into lots of problems. Pathfinders wouldn't be able to take any upgrades or the Devilfish would be able to too. There would be no such thing as a Fire Warrior. Or a Crisis Suit. And so on...
226
Post by: blue loki
So, where did 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish' come from then?
I had assumed it came from the Codex. Of course that was an assumption and therefore suspect.
Ok, so using absolutely no assumptions at all, a 'Pathfinder team' consists of exactly 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish, correct?
To create a 'Pathfinder Team' you must then locate a minimum of 4 'Pathfinder' models and 1 'Devilfish' model, and combine them together.
Yet there is no model called a 'Pathfinder' in the Tau Codex, according to Happypants, so the team cannot be formed as it must contain a minimum of 4 'Pathfinders'.
Apparently the rule is so broken that the unit cannot be fielded, ever.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
No. You are forced to assume that everything under the entry for "Fire Warrior" is part of a fire warrior unit, everything under "Crisis Suit" is a crisis suit unit, and everything under "pathfinder" is a part of the pathfinder unit.
-Legacy40k
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By Legacy40k on 04/14/2006 12:46 PM
No. You are forced to assume that everything under the entry for "Fire Warrior" is part of a fire warrior unit, everything under "Crisis Suit" is a crisis suit unit, and everything under "pathfinder" is a part of the pathfinder unit.
-Legacy40k
So, are you claiming that the Devilfish is under the "pathfinder" heading and therefore a 'Pathfinder'?
If so, why not take a unit of 5-9 Devilfish as a 'Pathfinder Team'? If 'Devilfish' = 'Pathfinder', why cannot this type of 'Pathfinder' be used to fulfill the "4-8 Pathfinders" requirement? Its either always 'Pathfinder' or its never a 'Pathfinder'. Choose.
305
Post by: Moz
Ugh god, Pathfinders aren't even in the unit summary. There's Crisis Shas'o, Firewarrior Shas'la, Firewarrior Shas'ui, etc... no Pathfinder term here.
So you can't even put a Pathfinder on the table without making an assumption that the Shas'la entry under the pathfinder team refers to a Pathfinder.
Can we stop arguing RAW now? This entry is boned.
226
Post by: blue loki
Yes.
Ha ha, you said boned... Where's Honkey Bro? Is he on vacation again?
157
Post by: mauleed
The idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread. If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot. If you use the words "common sense" in a rules argument as cut and dry as this one, you're definitely an idiot.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The entire unit entry is complete rubbish.
2166
Post by: Basileus66
The idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread. If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot. If you use the words "common sense" in a rules argument as cut and dry as this one, you're definitely an idiot.
Behold, mortals! The Word of All-knowing God of W40K has been spoken! Really man, you need a life.
2354
Post by: mughi3
i think it is time we took a step back and looked at the order of succession 1-.3rd edtion comes out with a tau dex 2-.3rd edition tau dex says pathfinders are a fast choice and have scout 3-.3rd edition dex says pathfinders must have a devilfish transport 4-.gamers say waaaaahhhh! it doesn't say the devilfish has scout 5-.GW comes out with 3rd edition tau FAQ that says the devilfish is part of the pathfinder unit and thus has scout skip ahead several years: 1-.4th edition comes out with a tau dex 2-.4th edition tau dex says pathfinders are a fast choice and have scout 3-.4th edition dex says pathfinders must have a devilfish transport 4-.some gamers still say waaaaaahhhh! it doesn't say the devilfish has scout de-javu anyone?
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Basileus66 on 04/14/2006 4:27 PMThe idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread.
If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot.
If you use the words " p quote]< idiot.[ an definitely you?re one, this as dry and cut argument rules in sense? common> Behold, mortals! The Word of All-knowing God of W40K has been spoken! Really man, you need a life.
That's the best retort you could come up with? Come on man. There's no need to rush it. Take your time and come up with something of merit here.
Then again, I shouldn't expect much from someone that, even after repeatedly having it explained to them, insists that the pathfinds and the devilfish are one unit?
443
Post by: skyth
Sounds like a straw man again. I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit. What they are claiming is that since pathfinders are listed as being x number of pathfinders and a devilfish, then the devilfish gets the special rule 'scout' that the pathfinders have. Similar to terminator command squads where the terminators get the 'always deepstrike' rule and the character gets it because he's part of the squad in the description.
1547
Post by: Fenris-77
Similar to terminator command squads where the terminators get the 'always deepstrike' rule and the character gets it because he's part of the squad in the description.
Yeah, but the DF isn't part of the squad. If it said "Pathfinder teams get the scout USR" you'd be gold, but it doesn't and you're not. I really don't see why all you scouting DF guys are getting so worked up. It's obvious that you can't prove the RaW here, all of the posted arguments are junk, but that doesn't mean that you won't get to scout your DF nearly every time you play anyway. Most gamers, even at tourneys, will let you have your way without a fuss. But don't get all bent out of shape because a close reading of the rules doesn't support your emo Tau sensibilities. RaP if you like, but remember that there's no crying on YMDC. Cheers
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By skyth on 04/15/2006 9:34 PM Sounds like a straw man again. I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit.
You're mistaken. It was indeed claimed, by him, that they are one unit.
428
Post by: ironkodiak
The problem with not considering the Pathfinders/Devilfish as a team with scout is that designers intent has been shown with the old codex/FAQ. And while the new rules were not properly clarified, we know what they intend. While I know fluff can never be used to make rules intepretations, it also supports the idea of Pathfinders and their Devilfish scouting ahead for the army. Along the same vein per RAW, vehicle-detached drones have leadership N/A (and are the same type as their vehicle they detached from) since it doesn't specifically state that they become a Gun Drone Squad when they detach (or whatever the actual Fast Attack unit is called), instead it states that they becone a "Drone Team" (or something close, but not the same name as the FA option).
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
ironkodiak said:The problem with not considering the Pathfinders/Devilfish as a team with scout is that designers intent has been shown with the old codex/FAQ. And while the new rules were not properly clarified, we know what they intend. While I know fluff can never be used to make rules intepretations, it also supports the idea of Pathfinders and their Devilfish scouting ahead for the army.Unfortunately, as has been said before (ever get the feeling we're just talking in circles?) on this thread, the intent proves the complete opposite. If they wanted PF/ DV to have Scout as the 3rd ed FAQ allows, why not allow them to in the 4th ed Codex? After all, it was supposed to be the 'easy fix', wasn't it? We can assume that if they did something not easy (i.e. not updating a Codex problem that has already been resolved) there must have been a reason for it. Hence their intent was for PF/DF not to have Scout. But any interpretation on intent is just assumption, which - and this has also been said many times before - is totally irrelevant. ironkodiak said:Along the same vein per RAW, vehicle-detached drones have leadership N/A (and are the same type as their vehicle they detached from) since it doesn't specifically state that they become a Gun Drone Squad when they detach (or whatever the actual Fast Attack unit is called), instead it states that they becone a "Drone Team" (or something close, but not the same name as the FA option).I said exactly this in a much earlier thread(s), at which point I was shouted down for being too pedantic.  Oh well, it is true all the same.
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By mauleed on 04/17/2006 8:29 AM Posted By skyth on 04/15/2006 9:34 PM Sounds like a straw man again. I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit.
You're mistaken. It was indeed claimed, by him, that they are one unit.
Ahhh...Missed that post in the first page. My apologies.
2078
Post by: thelosttau
I do not have the new Tau Codex in front of me, so i cannot quote directly from it; however, the old tau codex states under Pathfinder team
" Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders" so if the new codex states a Team: Consists of 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish, then all the special rules under the heading Pathfinder Team, would apply to the whole team, pathfinders and transport. In the old rules there was a legitament question about whether the pathfinders and devilfish were a single unit, but in the new rules it is written in black and white. Lets look at some other codii (sp?) an Armoured Fist Squadron consists of a "seargent and nine guardsmen" (Codex Imperial Guard, p45) and later it states "the squad must be mounted in a Chimera transport" This means the transport is different from the armoured fist squad because it sistis not include in the description of what an Armoured fist squad consists of. So, if the stated as consisting of "4/8 pathfinders and a devilfish" then it can be reasoned that all the rules applying to the shas'las making up the team also apply to the devilfish. On the other hand, what if a vehicle everyone knows should be in a unit is not included in the list, for example in the Space Marine Codex: An Attack bike squadron consists of "2 to 3 Space marine Attack biikes, each with 2 Space Marine Crew."
but a Bike squadron consists of a "Sergeant and 2 to 4 Space Marine Bikers" it mentions nothing about their vehicles. No one seems to be arguing that a Bike squadron cannot contain bikes because the "Number/Squad" does not include the vehicles while the attack bike squadron does. This would be absurd; however, we are arguing that unit description must state wha thte unit is composed of.
To take that arguement to the extreme, A scout bike squadron consisting of "1 sergeant and 2 to 4 space marine scout bikers" has the Scout rule. It does not say that their bikes have the Scout rule only the Scout bikers. The only mention of bikes is that the Scouts cannot turbo boost in their Scout move. But if their bikes are not part of the scout bike squadron (because RAW do not include them even though they are included in a unit (we hope)) thus in an escalation game scout bike squadrons must start the game in reserve or only move dismounted, because Bikes are a transport and even though the Scout bike squadron has the universal rule scout, bikes are not part of the squadron just the bikers are.
Just my fuel for the fire.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
An Armoured Fist Squad is descibred as 'wepaons + upgrades + transport', so that part of your argument is false. thelosttau said: So, if the stated as consisting of "4/8 pathfinders and a devilfish" then it can be reasoned that all the rules applying to the shas'las making up the team also apply to the devilfish. Not true. At all. By any stretch of a demented imagination. But even if it were you're still ignoring the text. If the team consists of '4-8 pathfinders and a Devilfish' and if 'Pathfinders have Scout' then only the Pathfinders get Scout. The Devilfish does not. How can the rule apply across the board? And so, taking your argument to the extreme, and assuming the vehicle is automatically part of the unit, you could upgrade the Chimera of the Armoured Fist Squad to have Frag Grenades, correct? Or if you gave the squad a doctrine, say Jungle Fighters, the Chimera would be able to see 12" through woods/jungle? Or could the Devilfish upgrade its burst cannon to a rail rifle? I don't think so.
Your argument is basically the same as others who claim Strain Leaders aren't Stingwings by ignoring the overall model name in the unit. Likewise, IG players could be screwed because the Rough Rider Sergeant is never referred to as a Rough Rider and thus is not Cavalry, cannot take a Hunting Lance, and is not Fleet of Hoof. But as the Sergeant is bought in a Rough Rider unit, we know he's a Rough Rider. The same cannot be said of a Devilfish, or the rules become screwed up and we can start mixing vehicle/infantry wargear.
Point, counter-point.
EDIT: Oh, and bikes aren't transports. They're vehicles, sure, but not transports. So your whole argument falls flat there.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
According to the main rulebook, bikes aren't vehicles, they are bikes.
Which further undermines the "Fish has Scout because it's part of a unit" argument.
305
Post by: Moz
Ugh, can't believe your innane examples are pulling me back into this thread. > Or could the Devilfish upgrade its burst cannon to a rail rifle? Only if it has a pulse carbine and markerlight to trade in for it. (it doesn't) > The same cannot be said of a Devilfish, or the rules become screwed up and we can start mixing vehicle/infantry wargear. We all agree that vehicles cannot take infantry wargear, there is a distinction in the wargear section (in that there's a vehicle armory and an infantry armory) that prevents it. So as this is a non-issue that is already handled by the rules, it does nothing for your argument against the Devilfish being considered part of the team's special rules. You'll have better luck attacking the term 'Pathfinders' applying to the Team or the FOC heading (good luck defining Pathfinders) than this 'Vehicles with infantry wargear OMG!1!1!!! nonsense.'
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
You'll have better luck attacking the term 'Pathfinders' applying to the Team or the FOC heading (good luck defining Pathfinders) than this 'Vehicles with infantry wargear OMG!1!1!!! nonsense.'
Wow, such maturity. And if it's nonsense it's because it's your argument. You (and anyone else who thinks the Devilfish gets Scout) are trying to claim that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. That's your primary argument and it's weak at best. Your other arguments are: that it was the intent (which it is impossible to prove, is likely to imply the opposite, and is irrelevant); and that the 3rd edition FAQ changed things (which brings us back to intent). Can't anyone come up with a better argument than this?
Only if it has a pulse carbine and markerlight to trade in for it. (it doesn't)
Oh. You know, you're right... but... hang on... it says Pathfinders have a Pulse Carbine and a Markerlight... and as the Devilfish doesn't, it can't be a Pathfinder... so guess what? That's right, the Devilfish doesn't have the Scout ability.
Can we end this thread now? Pathfinders get the Scout ability, as stated in the text. The Devilfish does not, as stated in the text. The Devilfish is not a Pathfinder, as stated several times in the text.
Although if it was, because then we could field an unlimited - up to the game's points limit of course - number of Devilfish. After all, Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. So the Devilfish would have to take one. And then that one would have to take one. And then that one... well, you get the idea.)
Sheesh. Give it a rest already, play the game and stop trying to get around the rules and cheat.
1066
Post by: happypants
@moz
Give up man, I keep reading and am also having a hard time holding myself back but you don't have to play these guys (who I am SURE never teleport thier terminators or take the 5+ inv. save with them either because that would be against the RAW)
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
Accept it or not.. the way I see it is this:
A new printing of rules only invalidates past printings if it is different.
For example: You may use the rules for assasins as found in the deamonhunters codex, even though witchhunters is newer and therefor its rules for assasins are more up to date. However, since they are the same, the deamonhunter version is not invalidated.
The rules for pathfinders in the new book and the old book are the same in terms of squad composition: 4-8 pathfinders + devilfish. Both codex's address that the pathfinders have scout. Neither one specifies that the devilfish may use the scout move. A FAQ made for the past version of the codex made it clear. The devilfish may make a scout move with the unit of pathfinders inside it.
Now, we have the new codex. where the unit composition is the same (sure there are minor equipment changes, but that does not affect the point at hand) it does not specify that the devilfish may move with the unit. However, we know from the last version of the entry which is virtually the same, that they can. So, why does the new codex invalidate that?
It does not say that the unit may not scout, changing it from the past version. It is just.. unclear. So... I don't care how much of a rules lawyer you are, but you have to accept that making the assumption that the unit may scout is a fair and expect that a lot of people are going to assume that they can. You may choose not to play it this way if you like, however, you may not hold it against people for making a fair assumption in an unclear area.
-Legacy40k
405
Post by: Antonin
If you employ the conflict of rule approach that Mauleed appears to, you must take the position less inclined to give yourself an advantage, if it is not clear. Thus, here, the Tau player should opt not to scout with the devilfish.
2443
Post by: Legacy40k
Perhaps, but one has to accept that the vast majority of tau players that played tau before the codex will play with the devilfish being allowed a scout move because the new codex does not tell them otherwise, and that is what they have learned is correct.
That in mind, you can't start an arguement with every tau player you come across on the issue during a game, unless you want to quickly find yourself without anybody wanting to play you. Most tournament organizers and other players would side with the tau player on the issue as well, so like it or not, expect to come across people playing it this way.
-Legacy40k
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By Antonin on 04/19/2006 2:22 PM
If you employ the conflict of rule approach that Mauleed appears to, you must take the position less inclined to give yourself an advantage, if it is not clear. Thus, here, the Tau player should opt not to scout with the devilfish.
and any tau player that chose not to use his scout move would be an idiot. i run a tank tau army, i rely on the scout move to keep my pathfinder teams alive by moving thier fish over 6" to get the skimmer glancing rule which works better than diruption pods. it also allows me to not have to hid them behind terrain since they are moving before the game starts anyway......does away with some of the parkinglot syndrome.
33
Post by: droidman
Mughi3: Unfortunatly, the pre-game move doens't fufill the requirements of the skimmer glancing rule so your tactic is illegal.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By Legacy40k on 04/19/2006 10:20 AM
So, why does the new codex invalidate that?
Because the new codex completely replaces the old one. There is none of this "pick and choose from the new or old codex as you see fit" mumbo-jumbo that you are talking about.
The old codex no longer exists.
257
Post by: Harkainos
so ther rule is broken....
what are its implications?
If a squad(which has a special rule) must always take a transport (which doesn't have the special rule), how does this get implicated into an actual game. I mean, you do play the game right - lets fix it.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By droidman on 04/20/2006 12:02 AM
Mughi3: Unfortunatly, the pre-game move doens't fufill the requirements of the skimmer glancing rule so your tactic is illegal.
well nix that idea then.......i'll just stick to my diruption pods 
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By Harkainos on 04/20/2006 6:49 PM
so ther rule is broken....
what are its implications?
If a squad(which has a special rule) must always take a transport (which doesn't have the special rule), how does this get implicated into an actual game. I mean, you do play the game right - lets fix it.
it isn't broken-the new codex does not change the pathfinder team organization in anyway, since there is no conflict-pathfinders have the scout ability listed in thier entry. thier entry also says pathfinders consist of a team of 4-8 and a devilfish. this does not conflict in any way with the 3rd edition FAQ that specifies this scout abilty includes the fish...the downside it is really only an issue in escalation games which almost never get played at least where i am at. .
157
Post by: mauleed
One more time: Pathinders have scout. Devilfish do not. Neither does the "team".
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Keep saying it, Ed, maybe one day soon it will sink in.
And for the love of God, mughi3, read the damn Codex.
mughi3 said:
the new codex does not change the pathfinder team organization in anyway,
Yes, it does. Or why else do you think this thread even exists?
mughi3 said:
pathfinders have the scout ability listed in thier entry
Correct.
mughi3 said:
thier entry also says pathfinders consist of a team of 4-8 and a devilfish.
Incorrect.
mughi3 said:
this does not conflict in any way with the 3rd edition FAQ that specifies this scout abilty includes the fish...
Incorrect and irrelevant.
mughi3 said:
the downside it is really only an issue in escalation games which almost never get played at least where i am at.
Whoop-de-do for you. Escalation is now 50% of standard GTs and (I think) 33% of RTT missions. But if you claim there is no conflict, why are you also claiming it is an issue? Try to get your argument straight before posting.
I wonder if you only play Alpha? And Marines, perhaps...
157
Post by: mauleed
Yes, I also find it very frustrating to try to have a rules discussion with someone like mughi that doesn't seem to be familiar with the word "precise". His stance seems to be that if it almost says what I need to support my argument that's good enough. He's attempting to apply GW's own low quality standards of rules writing to his own arguments. Sadly that won't work here. Perhaps he can persuade some of the less educated posters over at Warseer or the EoT that he's right.
157
Post by: mauleed
Who said shield drones do nothing? They work rather well. Don't make the mistake of reading someone's flawed argument and assuming it's correct.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
I'm not sure what Shield Drones have to do with the topic at hand, Ed, but basically Shield Drones are only effective against low AP weapons if you take Shield Generators on the suits too. Otherwise, according strictly to the RAW, the suits get pulled first. Is that what you're talking about?
1066
Post by: happypants
New sheild drone rules give them the same save as the suits they are protecting, so if a broadside has drones they have 2+/4+ INV.
330
Post by: Mahu
I believe that they are refering to the "No Save" rule, where it can be argued that the Broadsides have to removed first because they get "No Save" from a low AP weapon. But I have never seen people play it that way and if I was the Tau player, I might actually consider stopping the game if my opponent was being an *donkey*about it.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Stu-Rat on 04/21/2006 10:38 AM
I'm not sure what Shield Drones have to do with the topic at hand, Ed, but basically Shield Drones are only effective against low AP weapons if you take Shield Generators on the suits too. Otherwise, according strictly to the RAW, the suits get pulled first. Is that what you're talking about?
Except the RAW doesn't support any of that. But whatever. That's a different thread. Feel free to open it if you like and I'll explain.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 9:43 AM Yes, I also find it very frustrating to try to have a rules discussion with someone like mughi that doesn't seem to be familiar with the word "precise". His stance seems to be that if it almost says what I need to support my argument that's good enough. He's attempting to apply GW's own low quality standards of rules writing to his own arguments. Sadly that won't work here. Perhaps he can persuade some of the less educated posters over at Warseer or the EoT that he's right.
going in circles- stop being a damn rules lawyer. if we went by your "precise" interpritation then we could not use pathfinders at all since pathfinders (tau shas'la) are the same damn thing as firewarriors (also tau shas'la). in fact in the fulff entry it refers to pathfinders helping other firewarrior teams...thus indicating pathfinders are in fact firewarriors with a special mission.....yet they are not troops in the FOC like a firewarrior team and thus as stated before there is no individual model called a pathfinder......there is however a "pathfinder team" designated in the overall FOC entry. and saying the devilfish as a mandatory part of the team does't get special abilities like scout because it is a vehicle is assinine since the pathfinders which consist of 4-8 shas'la and a devilfish are under the same FOC entry that states they get it. the devilfish is also specifically stated to have aditional special comms that allow for special deepstrike rules it doesn't cost more points it is simple a special model issued as part of pathfinder teams. GW already cleared this up in the 3rd edition FAQ, looks like they will have to do it again for people like you. and yes i am usings GW's "low quality standard of rules writing" because those are the only ones that matter. the only 2 options as you read it-pathfinders cannot function because the explanation is not "precise" or as GW wrote it...since they obviouly are not telling us about a unit we cannot possibly use- pathfinders are a scout team of 4-8 shas'la with a mandatory transport that is capable of special mission roles not usable by other shas'la firewarrior teams. if you play me or those who agree with me, my devilfish is going to have the ability to scout, i may never use it, but if i do and you go "rules lawyer" on me you can just pack up your army and go play somebody else. i can find somebody who is more fun to play. and to the other poster yes i do play marines(dark angels) and i also play tau
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
mughi3 said: stop being a damn rules lawyerContrary to what you might think, a 'rules lawyer' is not someone who plays by the rules (no matter how strictly). Definition of a rules lawyer: a player who uses loopholes in the rules to their own advantage. Side A (the 'no-Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We won't use the Scout rule for the Devilfish, because that's what the rules clearly say, and it puts us at a disadvantage, which is the honourable thing to do." Side B (the 'Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We'll ignore the rules and/or use old and out-of-date rules to get the Scout rule for the Devilfish just so we can have an advantage." So who's the rules lawyer, mughi3? I suggest you stop throwing insults and start thinking. mughi3 said:if we went by your "precise" interpritation then we could not use pathfinders at all since pathfinders (tau shas'la) are the same damn thing as firewarriors (also tau shas'la).No, we wouldn't. Shas'la is the rank. Pathfinder is the unit name. Two completely different things. The term Pathfinder is applied to the unit but not its transport. Therefore, Shas'la or Shas'ui, if the Tau are in a Pathfinder Team they are Pathfinders. Simple, really. And to use such a stupid and extreme argument in return, if we went by your interpretation we would not be able to field a Tau army at all, because every 'Pathfinder' Devilfish would have to have a Devilfish transport ad nauseum. You still don't get it, do you? Let me point out your errors in logic: mughi3 said:there is however a "pathfinder team" designated in the overall FOC entry. Correct. ... since the pathfinders which consist of 4-8 shas'la and a devilfish Incorrect. are under the same FOC entry that states they get it. Incorrect.
There, does that help you understand?
mughi3 said:
GW already cleared this up in the 3rd edition FAQ,
For the last time, this is irrelevant!
mughi3 said:
the only 2 options
as you read it-pathfinders cannot function because the explanation is not "precise"
or
as GW wrote it...since they obviouly are not telling us about a unit we cannot possibly use-
No, the three options are as follows:
1. Follow the rules and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish without, and have no problems;
2. Ask your opponent's permission to break the rules and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish with Scout, and see what he says. Most players will agree, I'm sure; or
3. Cheat and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish with Scout.
mughi3 said:
pathfinders are a scout team of 4-8 shas'la with a mandatory transport that is capable of special mission roles not usable by other shas'la firewarrior teams.
Nope. Completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the new Tau Empire Codex yet?
2354
Post by: mughi3
Side B (the 'Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We'll ignore the rules and/or use old and out-of-date rules to get the Scout rule for the Devilfish just so we can have an advantage."
actualy that is "we will use the rules as they have consistantly been used and even clarified by GW" So who's the rules lawyer, mughi3? I suggest you stop throwing insults and start thinking.
the person ignoring GW rules and intent of the "fairly abstract rules, with a theoretical ground scale" to deny an opponant an option in his army I.E. the NO-scout camp The term Pathfinder is applied to the unit but not its transport.
kindly show me wear it says that. what it does say is that a pathfinder team(unit or other descriptor of your choice) consists of 4-8 pathfinders and a transport-hence the transport is part of the team/unit and the term pathfinder team in the FOC chart applies to it For the last time, this is irrelevant!
actualy no it isn't it shows intent and consistancy Nope. Completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the new Tau Empire Codex yet?
yes, but obviosly you have not..so i will quote it for you "the devilfish transports issued to pathfinder teams are equipped with enhanced optical processors and long range communication systems." do any of the fire warrior team optional devilfish have this option? is it anywhere in the fire warrior entry? hell do any other vehicles in the tau army have this option? can any other unit in the game alter a deepstrike scatter by simply being in LOS of the deepstriking unit? the answer to all of those questions is of course no because the pathfinder team devilfish is outfited for a special mission role and nobody else has access to it or it's abilities. pathfinders are fast advanced scouts...except if you continue to ignore the GW rules, intent and consistancy they are suddenly a fast scout unit that isn't fast. 
390
Post by: Aeon
Hey guys,
Thought I might share with you that I saw the raw FAQs that GW is giong to be releasing in the next two weeks (by raw I mean just plain text before it is put into the pdf documents) Mind you I briefly only looked at the Tau and Tyranid one, the Space Marine one was also availiable but I didnt see it except for the fact I was told that Fury of the ancients dont need LOS
For what its worth this is what I recall from the Tau one;
Pathfinder devilfishes dont get scout as they arent part of the unit (crappy I know)
Shadowsun cannot join other units until her drones get killed
O'Shava does not count as the compulsary commander (Im like wtf! on that one)
But the really crazy thing is that Tau Etherals in a honour guard are essentially upgrade characters. Havent looked at the wording but I got the impression that ICs that take a retinue suddenly become invisible in combat and count as a veteran sergeants until after there units are killed (crazy huh?)
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Thought I might share with you that I saw the raw FAQs that GW is giong to be releasing in the next two weeks
Where can we find these " raw" FAQs? And how reliable is your source that says that they will be released in the next two weeks?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I can't believe that GW could have collected all the questions about the Tau Empire codex to answer them. It's only been out for four weeks.
161
Post by: syr8766
I can't believe they didn't fix the language for the bloody Pathfinder rule; 4th ed. has only been out a year+.
390
Post by: Aeon
Where can we find these "raw" FAQs? And how reliable is your source that says that they will be released in the next two weeks?
Well I saw the printouts, I have asked for them to be emailed to me (the guy and myself just spent a w/e at a tournament so I should expect it today or tomorrow.) The guy in question works for GW (unsure of his actual role, but he had the Fall of the Necromancer already suggesting that he is not a store boy) and as for being released in two weeks, thats what I was told, thou I dont think that he would know when the timeframe for release dates is; so 2 weeks is just a guess. Ill try to post them up as soon as I get them (as long as the guy doesnt get in trouble for leaking them too me; dont want to get tapped next time I face him in a tourny.)
1066
Post by: happypants
Pass me your email address, I can send you some very official looking FAQ pdf's that note that pathfinder fish can not only scout but can scout 24"
287
Post by: Zubbiefish
Posted By syr8766 on 04/22/2006 4:58 PM
I can't believe they didn't fix the language for the bloody Pathfinder rule; 4th ed. has only been out a year+.
I was just looking at that. Morons. I thought for sure that would be the one thing they made sure not to mess up on. How hard would it be to add a line of type that said that the Devilfish shared the scout rule.
Annoying to say the least.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By Zubbiefish on 04/23/2006 10:50 PM
How hard would it be to add a line of type that said that the Devilfish shared the scout rule.
Annoying to say the least.
Ha Ha! But this is only annoying if they did indeed intend for the Devilfish to receive "Scout". If in fact they did not, then why would the text read any different than it currently does?
Yes yes, previous edition precedent and all that. Blah Blah Blah. 4th edition Tau is different from 3rd edition Tau. Embrace it. Evolve or be left behind.
1507
Post by: Ryo
Huh. I think I've been doing this wrong then (as a Tau player), though only for the pregame move. (I haven't used the ability to be on the field in omega/escalation at this point, so I only feel a little bad).
I agree on one thing though. GW knew that this was something that had to be errated on the last codex. Why did they not explicitly spell it out either way? Either say "The pathfinders, but not the mandatory devilfish, gain the scout special rule..." or "Both the pathfinders and the mandatory devilfish gain the scout special rule... etc etc etc" There really is no good excuse for this *sigh*
*waiting for the actual new FAQ*
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
They didn't spell it out because they just copy-and-pasted the old codex text forwards into the new codex. There wasn't an editor on the project (according to the credits) so there was no-one organising the inclusion of any necessary updates from the FAQ, or tidying the loose ends. Hence the cockup with the CIB, and numerous other problems with the book.
1066
Post by: happypants
What kills me is that if they are going to half @$$ it that much why not just release codices more often, not like they put much work in to them
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think GW think people like us, always complaining about the badly-edited rules, are just natural moaners. After all, we still buy their products however much we whinge about them.
231
Post by: MattBaby
That's fine, if my pathfinder's Devilfish doesn't get a Scout move then your Terminators have to wear Power Armor.
1507
Post by: Ryo
Actually, technically they don't wear any armour at all. Their thick skin gives a 2+ armour save all by itself  Just not any invulnerable save.
305
Post by: Moz
[Posts multiplying like rabbits]
305
Post by: Moz
And there's the only reason in the world to buy the wargear book. To defend your own intent arguments against space marine players.
"If they had meant for a terminator to have a 2+/5i save, they would have printed that, eh?"
514
Post by: Orlanth
Pathfinder Devilfish DONT SCOUT.
For a start this restriction doesnt affect the Pathfinders and any drones that are part of the team as Pathfinders Scout and are deployable as Scouts i.e seperate from their transport. This is valid as Scouting units overule the normal deployment rules, thus overuling the transport deployment rule.
You may choose to deploy with the transport as you may choose not to scout if you wish. Scout rules are not mandatory. But if you dont scout you must deploy with the transport as normal and if you are delayed by escalation your bad tactics are to blame.
Its CLEAR that Pathfinder Devilfish dont scout as the Marker Beacon rule they benefit from only applies if the Devilfish is on the table. So Devilfish can be off table in reserve as part of normal deployment.
1066
Post by: happypants
They can also be off the table if they are destroyed. That doesn't prove anything.
Why are we even discussing this? According the the Tau codex there are no stats or price allocated to anything called a pathfinder, pathfinders don't exist. They are nothing but a myth.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
Posted By happypants on 04/24/2006 8:02 PM
They can also be off the table if they are destroyed. That doesn't prove anything.
Why are we even discussing this? According the the Tau codex there are no stats or price allocated to anything called a pathfinder, pathfinders don't exist. They are nothing but a myth.
Wicked, so I won't be seeing any of them on the table tomorrow night then? 
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Why are we even discussing this? According the the Tau codex there are no stats or price allocated to anything called a pathfinder, pathfinders don't exist. They are nothing but a myth.
I lost you.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You might see a Pathfinder Team consisting of 4-8 Shas'la and a Devilfish.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Well, in that case, Happypants, Fire Warriors don't really exist either, right?
1066
Post by: happypants
@bigchris, that is totally right, in fact because you need at least 1 firewarrior team and firewarriors don't exist it is impossible to field a tau army under the RAW
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By Orlanth on 04/24/2006 4:13 PM
Pathfinder Devilfish DONT SCOUT.
kindly show me were it says they do not in the codex
the entry for pathfinders says 4-8 shas'la and a devilfish = a pathfiner team
under the special rules for the pathfinders-IE pathfinder teams as it appears in the FOC
they have scout.
to me this is a no brainer. it is a description in the entry for a fast attack selection called pathifnders in the FOC and the descriptions for the entry says that entry has scout. and just because it is a vehicle does not mean it does not get scout. guard sentinels are vehicles treated like walkers yet they also get scout.
here is a simple solution for the no-scout camp, until GW comes out with another specific FAQ on the subject like they did in 3rd ask any tau player you intend to play if he is going to scout with his pathfinder team(including the fish) . if they answer yes and you you are not cool with that then simply refuse to play them. if it is a RTT or some other sanctioned event simply tap the outrider/judge to make a call on it for the game in question.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
under the special rules for the pathfinders-IE pathfinder teams as it appears in the FOC
Invalid conclusion. If Pathfinders = Pathfinder team, then every model can scout. In that case, the Devilfish can be armed with EMP grenades and/or photon grenades. In addition, the Pathfinder team "must select a Devilfish troop carrier." I guess each pathfinder team gets 2 transports, only one of which may scout. Pathfinders =/= Pathfinder team. Based upon the "must select a Devilfish" phrase alone, this is self-evident.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By bigchris1313 on 04/26/2006 1:40 AMunder the special rules for the pathfinders-IE pathfinder teams as it appears in the FOC
Invalid conclusion. If Pathfinders = Pathfinder team, then every model can scout. In that case, the Devilfish can be armed with EMP grenades and/or photon grenades. In addition, the Pathfinder team "must select a Devilfish troop carrier." I guess each pathfinder team gets 2 transports, only one of which may scout. Pathfinders =/= Pathfinder team. Based upon the "must select a Devilfish" phrase alone, this is self-evident.
your argument is flawed the vehicle transport rules and upgrades for vehicles/troops are already clearly defined in the core rulebook and the tau dex wargear sections. as per the FOC chart entry pathfinders = a team of 4-8 troops with thier allowed upgrades and a mandatory devilfish transport with it's available upgrades plus it's special role as a pathfinder devilfish. this applies to pathfinders as found in the FOC entry which includes thier ability to be forward scouts and a fast attack choice.
390
Post by: Aeon
Q. Can the Devilfish bought for a Pathfinders squad make a Scout move before the game?
A. No, the squad has the Scout rule, but the vehicle does not. So the Pathfinders may use the special rule?s extra move only if it begins the game not embarked on their transport.
Dont be suprised to see this exact wording in the next few weeks (with minor editing I guess)
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Codex Tau Empire. Page 39: ...... Strain: The unit consists of a Strain Leader and 3-10 Stingwings ...... Fleet of Wing: The Stingwings are surprisingly agile (snip). They are Fleet, as described in the (snip) Can the Vespid Stingwings Fleet? Codex Tau Empire. Page 37: ...... Squad: The squad numbers from 10-20 Kroot, 0-12 Kroot Hounds, and 0-3 Krootox Riders. ...... Fieldcraft: Kroot gain +1 to their Cover Save in woods and jungles. ...... Do Hounds and Oxes gain a +1 to their Cover Save in woods and jungles? Codex Space Marines. Page 34: ..... Number/squad: Sergeant and 4 to 9 Space Marine Scouts .... Stealth Training: All Scouts posses the Infiltrate and Move Through Cover skills (snip) .... Can a Scout Squad Infiltrate and Move Through Cover? Codex Tau Empire. Page 38: .... Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish. ..... Scouts: Pathfinders are Scouts, see the universal special (snip) ..... Can a Pathfinder Team Scout? --------------------- It all boils down to; does this "Pathfinders" refer to a Pathfinder Team? Does this "Scouts" refer to a "Scout Squad"? Does this "Kroot" refer to a Kroot Carnivore Squad"? Does this "Stingwings" refer to "Vespid Stingwings"? Some say "Yes", some say "No". Some say "Yes" to some of them, some say "No" to some of them. I'd say the chance for a reasonable conclusion to this problem is long past, and all we do now is getting Mauleed agitated.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
Hey, if Vespids with their 'strain leader' get to fleet, would not a Broolord with his genestealer retinue also get to fleet?
The only (slight) difference is that the stingwings (which fleet) are required to have a Strain Leader (who does not fleet, and is not an IC)). Whereas it is the Broodlord (who does not fleet, and is an IC) who is required to have a genestealer retinue (which fleets).
Hmmm...fleeting Broodlords might actually become worth taking...
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Its not even remotely the same thing.
You are not helping.....at all!
Your example would work if Genestealers couldnt "Fleet" and the Broodlord entry said " Fleet: The Broodlord may fleet coz its mighty fast!." But it doesnt.
Codex Witchhunters. Page 36
----------
Number/squad: Sister Superior and 4-9 Seraphim
----------
Hit and run: At the end of a round of close combat, the Seraphim may choose to break.....(snip)
----------
Can a Seraphim Squad Hit and Run?
60
Post by: yakface
Steelmage:
The two examples you provide are not similar in the least. Stingwings are a single unit with a single entry in the codex, their unit special rules apply to the unit.
The Devilfish/Pathfinders are a different beast. You have two seperate units with two different codex entries.
Does the Devilfish's codex entry list that it has the Scout special rule? If not, then you will be hard pressed to prove that it does.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
No, we have one entry; Pathfinder Team. The Pathfinder Team consists of two separate elements.
"Stingwings (Pathfinder Team) are a single unit with a single entry in the codex, their unit special rules apply to the unit."
One side insists the wording of the Scout rule in the Pathfinder Team entry excludes the Devilfish, since only "Pathfinders" are mentioned in said text. Should the same insistence not be applied to the wording of the Vespid Stingwing entry?
The fact that the Devilfish can be found other places in the Codex does not exclude
this particular Devilfish from being affected by a separate set of rules.
The Veteran Sergeant appears several times in the Space Marine Codex, but only the Veteran Sergeant in a Scout Squad gets to have "Stealth training".
Not all Veteran Sergeants are exactly alike, though they share the same name. Not all Devilfishes are exactly alike though they share the same name.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By Steelmage99 on 04/28/2006 10:09 AM
No, we have one entry; Pathfinder Team. The Pathfinder Team consists of two separate elements.
"Stingwings (Pathfinder Team) are a single unit with a single entry in the codex, their unit special rules apply to the unit."
One side insists the wording of the Scout rule in the Pathfinder Team entry excludes the Devilfish, since only "Pathfinders" are mentioned in said text. Should the same insistence not be applied to the wording of the Vespid Stingwing entry?
The fact that the Devilfish can be found other places in the Codex does not exclude
this particular Devilfish from being affected by a separate set of rules.
The Veteran Sergeant appears several times in the Space Marine Codex, but only the Veteran Sergeant in a Scout Squad gets to have "Stealth training".
Not all Veteran Sergeants are exactly alike, though they share the same name. Not all Devilfishes are exactly alike though they share the same name.
could not have said it better myself 
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Either the "Pathfinder-Devilfish can't scout"-side have conseded or they cant be bothered to reply. So in conclusion.....a Devilfish accompaning a Pathfinder Team can indeed scout.
257
Post by: Harkainos
so whats the point here. sounds like you guys are all saying the same rhetoric over and over and over and over and over again.
@ Neighsayers to the devilfish having the scout ability: neither you or anyone else in their right mind would actually implement this into a game, or you'll be hardpressed to find opponents. If what you are saying is true (which after 7 pages I don't care) then you need to also come to a general concensus on how to actually play it. as you can see no one is truly satisfied with RAW... ever. 1/4 of the time RAW doesn't make sense and so you must have 'house rules' to actually accompany them.
@ yaysayers to the devilfish having the scout ability: are you guys seriously falling for this argument once again? you guys know that if they are right, then the rule is broken and needs 'house rules' to fix them. there is no point trying to argue (expecially with people who you would never play, simply because RAW doesn't always work.)
422
Post by: onlainari
Posted By happypants on 04/25/2006 11:46 AM
@bigchris, that is totally right, in fact because you need at least 1 firewarrior team and firewarriors don't exist it is impossible to field a tau army under the RAW
ROFLOFL. Ok I didn't ROFL but I did LOFL.
The point about the Marker Beacon is a good one. How couldn't the devilfish be on the table if it has the scout rule? Well I believe that's because the scout USR says they may start on the table, yadda yadda yadda.
That does bring up another point though. Can you still use the Marker Beacon after the devilfish has been destroyed by a glancing 6 (leaving it on the table)?
Note: read my sig, new today.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Steelmage99 on 04/30/2006 7:39 PMEither the "Pathfinder-Devilfish can't scout"-side have conseded or they cant be bothered to reply. So in conclusion.....a Devilfish accompaning a Pathfinder Team can indeed scout.
If it makes you happy we'll say it again. But nothing's changed in the last 6 pages.
Pathfinders may scout. Devilfish may not. Happy?
55
Post by: Bad55
Ahoj! Pathfinders may scout. Devilfish may not.
And a Devilfish with Pathfinders inside? Borys
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Well, Mauleed. You could at least try to say something constructive.
But by your definition Scout Squads cannot Scout either.
RAW does not prevent us from using common sense. If a given interpretation of the rules lead to a massive breakdown within the rules-framework then said interpretation cannot be valid. RAW is modifiable, for instance by the "Break No Rule" (Dakka TM).
If the "Pathfinders" in the Pathfinder Team's Scout rule only apply to the Pathfinders themselves and not the Devilfish, then the framework collapses. This collapse lead to the Scout Squad not being able to Scout.
So, my question to you, Mauleed, is this; By using you interpretation, Can Space Marine Scout Squads Scout?
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
And a Devilfish with Pathfinders inside?
Be carefull not to fall in to the trap of thinking that all Devilfishes are alike just because the share the same name. Because they most certainly are not. Mauleed insists that they are, but conviently dodges the issue of Scout Veteran Sergeants and the ability of Scout Squads to Scout....oh well. PS. im almost certain to be accused of being either stupid or a cheater in short time.
1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
PS. im almost certain to be accused of being either stupid or a cheater in short time.
Probably, but you're not helping yourself by getting your terminology wrong. Space Marine Scout Squads can't Scout no matter what rules you look at. You probably mean Infiltrate.
157
Post by: mauleed
I could restate the same simple point over and over, that the devilfish can't scout because they lack a scout rule, but I said that on page 1.
226
Post by: blue loki
Holy frijoles!
Can we start over here?
The last, and only, premise-conclusion formatted post on why Devilfish can have Scout was posted back on PAGE 1 IN THE 5th POST by Basileus66, and was immediately shot down.
Can one of you in the pro-scout camp PLEASE post a properly formatted argument stating why the Devilfish can Scout? It is you who is attempting to give a vehicle a rule normally reserved for troops after all, and you must prove that you can do something before you do it.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
(Pg 24, Tau Codex)
Unit Name: In addition to the name, this may also show a limitation on the maximum number of choices you can make of that unit type (0-1, for example).
Number/Team/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart. Often this is a variable amount, in which case it shows the minimum and maximum unit size.
Further down,
Special Rules: This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the UNIT. (Caps for emphasis).
On this page, it clearly states that all models under the Number/Team/Squad entry form ONE UNIT. Then, under the special rules it clearly states that those rules apply to the UNIT. And, because as per the Team Entry for Pathfinders, one UNIT of Pathfinders is made up of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish. As such, they form one UNIT.
From this, and the Pathfinder entry, the obvious conclusion is that unless specifically mentioned (As in the case of the Marker Beacon rules for the Pathfinder's Devilfish) that the Special Rules listed in the UNIT ENTRY apply to the entire UNIT.
Otherwise, Stingwings cannot fleet of foot, Veteran Sergeants in Space Marine Scout squads cannot Scout, and numerous other special rules would be negated. However, this is clearly not the case.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Probably, but you're not helping yourself by getting your terminology wrong. Space Marine Scout Squads can't Scout no matter what rules you look at. You probably mean Infiltrate.
Your right. Im sorry. I actually meant to say "Stealth Training" as that is the correct name for the Space Marine Scout Squad special rule.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Holy frijoles!
Can we start over here?
The last, and only, premise-conclusion formatted post on why Devilfish can have Scout was posted back on PAGE 1 IN THE 5th POST by Basileus66, and was immediately shot down.
Can one of you in the pro-scout camp PLEASE post a properly formatted argument stating why the Devilfish can Scout? It is you who is attempting to give a vehicle a rule normally reserved for troops after all, and you must prove that you can do something before you do it.
P1: Codex Tau empire, page 38 gives "Scout" to Pathfinders specifically, not a Devilfish. Therefore the Devilfish cannot scout. P2: Codex Space Marines, page 34 gives "Stealth Training" to Scouts specifically, not a Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant. Therefore the Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant cannot infiltrate/Move Through Cover. P3: Codex Withchunters, page 35 gives "Hit and Run" to Seraphims specifically, not a Veteran Superiors. Therefore the Veteran Superiors cannot hit and run. C: Claiming that a Devilfish bought as part of a Pathfinder Team cannot Scout requires an interpretation of the rules that also prevents a Seraphim Squad from ever using Hit and Run, and prevents a Scout Squad from ever using Infiltrate/Move Through Cover. The Devilsfish entry on page 36 does not have to have the "Scout"-rules written into it for it to apply to the particular Devilfish bought as part of a Pathfinder Team. It is quite obvious that not all Devilfishes are supposed to have the "Scout"-rule. Only the ones bought as part of a Pathfinder Team. Why does the "Scout"-rule apply to both the Pathfinders AND the Devilfish? Because any other application of that special rule in that entry will have a devastating effect on the system as a whole.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
I could restate the same simple point over and over, that the devilfish can't scout because they lack a scout rule, but I said that on page 1.
Watch him dodge and dance! So, my question to you, Mauleed, is this; By using you interpretation, Can Space Marine Scout Squads Infiltrate/Move Through Cover?
2354
Post by: mughi3
GeneralIrecar Special Rules: This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the UNIT. (Caps for emphasis).
thanks man i missed that part of the codex that official rule from GW ends this debate-pathfinder teams can scout and so can thier fish since it is part of the team/unit that is affected by the special rule.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
From this, and the Pathfinder entry, the obvious conclusion is that unless specifically mentioned (As in the case of the Marker Beacon rules for the Pathfinder's Devilfish) that the Special Rules listed in the UNIT ENTRY apply to the entire UNIT.
pathfinder teams can scout and so can thier fish since it is part of the team/unit that is affected by the special rule.
Oh, Pathfinder teams and their fish form a unit, which can scout. That makes sense. Ok. Just as long as you keep the Fish in unit coherency with the Pathfinders and count it as a member of the unit when determining morale checks and half-strength.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Just as long as you keep the Fish in unit coherency with the Pathfinders and count it as a member of the unit when determining morale checks and half-strength.
tau codex p36 "transport: devilfish troop carrier" 40K core rulebook p58 "vehicle characteristics-vehicles do not fight in the same way as creatures of flesh and blood. thier characteristics are different" note: their characteristics are different as thier are a dedicated transport and also an independant vehicle. this does not affect any special rules given the unit that the vehicle is part of. p62 "disembarking [from transports] the vehicle can then move off seperately at up to full speed" you have no argument as the basic rules for vehicles already exhist
383
Post by: bigchris1313
you have no argument as the basic rules for vehicles already exhist
So you're now allowed to ignore the rules for units? You said that the Pathfinders and their Devilfish formed a unit. ICs are allowed to leave units. Infantry cannot leave units. Vehicles cannot leave units.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
So you're now allowed to ignore the rules for units? You said that the Pathfinders and their Devilfish formed a unit. ICs are allowed to leave units. Infantry cannot leave units. Vehicles cannot leave units.
Only in the same way that a Space Marine Squad and a Rhino bought as a transport forms a unit. The BGB is not very clear on the rules concerning their interaction when it comes to this problem. A strict RAW reading does not allow any transport to leave unit coherency with the models it is bought for. Maybe Marines are only allowed to run around in circles around their Drop Pod. (Perhaps they left something in the glove-compartment) Maybe we have all been playing how transports work wrong or maybe such a strict reading is not correct.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Steelmage99 on 05/01/2006 6:06 PMI could restate the same simple point over and over, that the devilfish can't scout because they lack a scout rule, but I said that on page 1.
Watch him dodge and dance! So, my question to you, Mauleed, is this; By using you interpretation, Can Space Marine Scout Squads Infiltrate/Move Through Cover?
Whether they can or can not has no relevance on this argument. Open another thread if you'd like that addressed.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By mughi3 on 05/01/2006 9:47 PM GeneralIrecar Special Rules: This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the UNIT. (Caps for emphasis).
thanks man i missed that part of the codex that official rule from GW ends this debate-pathfinder teams can scout and so can thier fish since it is part of the team/unit that is affected by the special rule.
Look people, another idiotic "The pathfinders and the devilfish are actually one unit" argument.
If you make this argument, I suggest you stop posting now, as rule rules for 40k are too complicated for you.
226
Post by: blue loki
And it comes full circle, back to the 'unit' argument.
Look,
Either the DFish is a part of the unit, or it is not. It is not "part of the unit some of the time" (when you would gain a benefit), and "not a part of the unit the rest of the time" (when it would hurt you).
CHOOSE ONE AND PROVE IT.
Some of you are claiming that the "UNIT ENTRY apply to the entire UNIT" rule grants the DFish Scout because the DFish is part of the unit. If you choose this path, you MUST take everything else that goes along with it, including: maintenance of unit coherency, inability to split fire, movement restricted to the slowest model, etc...
Others of you are claiming that the DFish is part of the unit "Only in the same way that a Space Marine Squad and a Rhino bought as a transport forms a unit". This particular claim is based on a false idea, Dedicated Transports are NEVER part of the unit they are purchased with. Don't confuse FOC slots and Units.
Choose one people! Either the DFish is part of the unit, or it is not.
@ Steelmage
Right idea, bad execution. Focus on the scout rule within the Tau Codex and build your premises around that, your P1 is actually the conclusion that you are trying to prove/disprove.
Afterwards we can debate the other Codices using the same format in a different thread. Drawing parallels to other broken rules does not help your argument, it simply clouds the issue. Focus and persevere, divide and be conquered.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Interesting, blue loki, but completely irrelevant.
Fact: The Devilfish is part of the unit. The Codex clearly states as much (something along the lines of "a team consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish").
Fact: The Devilfish is not a Pathfinder. The Codex clearly states as much (something along the lines of "a team consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish", thus differentiating between what is a 'Pathfinder', i.e. a Shas'la or Shas'ui, and what is not, i.e. the Devilfish).
Fact: The Devilfish does not get the Scout ability. The Codex clearly states as much (something along the lines of "Pathfinders get the Scout USR").
Now, whether you, I, Ed, or anyone else on this forum believe this to be right or wrong (and personally I believe it's wrong) is of no consequence whatsoever. That's what the rules say. And, to repeat myself, that leaves everyone with three choices: play by the rules, house-rule it, or cheat.
157
Post by: mauleed
"Fact: The Devilfish is part of the unit. The Codex clearly states as much (something along the lines of "a team consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish")." I have no rebuttal other than you simply must be a moron to beleive what you wrote, and it's pointless to argue with a moron. For everyone who isn't a moron: the pathfinders and devilfish can't form a single unit. You can't have a unit of vehicle and non-vehicle models. When you see an argument that depends on them being one unit, simply ignore it. It's the ramblings of the inept.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Hey, leave the insults at home Ed. I'm on your side, remember?
And get your facts right. I never said that the Pathfinders and the Devilfish are a unit. I said they are each part of the unit. The Pathfinders are the unit, the Devilfish is the unit's transport. (Thus it has different rules to the unit.)
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/02/2006 10:13 AM
Hey, leave the insults at home Ed. I'm on your side, remember?
And get your facts right. I never said that the Pathfinders and the Devilfish are a unit. I said they are each part of the unit. The Pathfinders are the unit, the Devilfish is the unit's transport. (Thus it has different rules to the unit.)
You contradict yourself.
The devilfish and pathfinders are exactly two units. Not one. Not sometimes two, but sometimes one. Not sometimes 1.5. Exactly 2. Always. Obviously you don't understand what a unit is, and you're confused. Bow out, do some reading and weigh in after you understand that a "team" isn't a unit.
2354
Post by: mughi3
you MUST take everything else that goes along with it, including
and so must you. it means taking all the various rules that apply. 1.as per the core rulebook for vehicle rules the devilfish that is part of the pathfinder team is a dedidcated transport vehicle and is capable of dropping off the pathfinders and operating independant of them. 2.as per the tau codex the special rules section of the entry applies to the entire team. 3.as per the tau codex the entry for a pathfinder team consists of 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish transport. . the special rules that apply to the team is the ability to scout. even for GW i don't know how much clearer they could make it-the team has the special ability to scout, the team includes the devilfish transport. hence the entrire team can scout and the fish being a vehicle can do so independant of the troops it is dedicated to carry.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By mughi3 on 05/02/2006 10:50 AM
1.as per the core rulebook for vehicle rules the devilfish that is part of the pathfinder team is a dedidcated transport vehicle and is capable of dropping off the pathfinders and operating independant of them.
But you are not claiming that the Devil Fish is a 'dedicated transport'. You are claiming that it is an actual part of the unit. Either that or you are claiming both.
These are two very different things. If you are claiming both sets of rules, you must abide by both of them. Dedicated transports act in that way because they are NOT a part of the unit. If in fact the DFish IS a part of the unit, then this is a completely new concept in the world of 40k. Unless you are specifically told that you can ignore the inherent rules which apply to every independent aspect of this new unit, then you must abide by each and every one of them fully.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
Posted By blue loki on 05/02/2006 7:57 AM
And it comes full circle, back to the 'unit' argument.
Look,
Either the DFish is a part of the unit, or it is not. It is not" some="" gain="" benefit="" and="" not="" a="" part="" unit="" rest="" of="" the="" time="" (when="" it="" would="" hurt="" you="">
CHOOSE ONE AND PROVE IT.
Some of you are claiming that the "UNIT ENTRY apply to the entire UNIT" rule grants the DFish Scout because the DFish is part of the unit. If you choose this path, you MUST take everything else that goes along with it, including: maintenance of unit coherency, inability to split fire, movement restricted to the slowest model, etc...
Others of you are claiming that the DFish is part of the unit "Only in the same way that a Space Marine Squad and a Rhino bought as a transport forms a unit". This particular claim is based on a false idea, Dedicated Transports are NEVER part of the unit they are purchased with. Don't confuse FOC slots and Units.
Choose one people! Either the DFish is part of the unit, or it is not.
If you use that opinion to try and tie the Pathfinder's Fish to them with Unit Coherency, you have to do so to every other transport that is dedicated because, as per the rules, when you take a Dedicated Transport it becomes part of that unit. So, that means all those Rhinos, Fire Warrior Fishes, Dark Eldar Raiders, etc., must move and maintain unit coherency with the units they are assigned/dedicated to. Why? You can't field dedicated transport by themselves, they must be ASSIGNED to a unit much like our Pathfinder's Fish. Because of this established precedent, that vehicles who are dedicated to a unit do not inherently need to form Unit Coherency with the Unit they are assigned to (And, in fact, only form 'squads' that need to maintain Unit Coherency with other vehicles), one could argue that a Devilfish can be part of a unit (Particularly so with Pathfinders, as you CANNOT field a Pathfinder team without a Fish) and not need to maintain Unit Coherency as you claim it would while benefitting from any 'squad-wide' Special Rules that apply to the Unit.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 10:25 AMposted="" by="" stu-rat="" on="" 05/02/2006="" 10:13="" am="">
Hey, leave the insults at home Ed. I'm on your side, remember?
And get your facts right. I never said that the Pathfinders and the Devilfish are a unit. I said they are each part of the unit. The Pathfinders are the unit, the Devilfish is the unit's transport. (Thus it has different rules to the unit.)
You contradict yourself.
The devilfish and pathfinders are exactly two units. Not one. Not sometimes two, but sometimes one. Not sometimes 1.5. Exactly 2. Always. Obviously you don't understand what a unit is, and you're confused. Bow out, do some reading and weigh in after you understand that a "team" isn't a unit.
But a team can be a unit, because it expressly states on Pg. 24 of the Tau Codex: " Number/Team/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the UNIT, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart." And the Team entry for Pathfinders says " Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish" One would think that, much like a Veteran Sergeant in a Space Marine Scout squad, or a Vespid Strain Leader in a Stingwing Unit, the Devilfish would benefit from the 'universal/squad-wide' rules of the Unit/Entry, however, that is obviously the issue.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't see how vehicles and infantry can be combined in the same unit. There are too many difference for how they work in the game, for example, no Leadership for vehicles.
It would be reasonable to claim that the team comprises pathfinders and a Devifish (separate units) because this is what the codex entry says.
If the team had the Scout ability, then obviously both components would have it regardless of any other characteristics they might have individually. Thus the meaning of the rule depends on how one interprets the phrase giving "Pathfinders" the Scout ability. If it said "Pathfinder Teams" there would be no controversy.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By GeneralIrecar on 05/02/2006 11:06 AM
when you take a Dedicated Transport it becomes part of that unit.
This is completely false and at the core of some of the misunderstanding involved here.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
This is completely false and at the core of some of the misunderstanding involved here.
Yeah, I tried explaining this last night, but then they started insisting that there was an alternate definition for units. You know, some defintition not in the rulebook.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
(Pg 62) "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but where in that statement does it not imply that the transport is assigned, and therefore part of, the unit?
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Assigned does not necessarily mean "part of." If it is part of the unit, then it's stuck with all the rules that govern units: unit coherency, unit strength, etc.
You're part of a unit in the rules sense or you aren't. And there's no way that a Devilfish is actually part of the unit.
226
Post by: blue loki
You are assuming that "assigned" = "part of".
This is false. The dedicated transport is under the command/control of, yet not a part of, the unit that it is assigned to.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
Then, using that same logic, you would say that as the Pathfinder Devilfish is required, it can take the scout rules. However, as a transport option it is a "Dedicated Transport" and thus not subject to the Unit Coherency rules, being assigned to, but not part of the unit.
This specifically becomes evident when in the Pathfinder entry, it mentions you MUST take a transport, yet lists the Devilfish as in the "Transport: " entry in the Pathfinder's list, clearly marking the Devilfish as both part of the unit, yet as a Dedicated Transport.
So, it could be considered as required and subject to rules that apply to Pathfinders as a unit, yet not part of that unit as a dedicated transport.
Also, if the scout special rule would not apply to the Devilfish, as the Special Rules entry only applies to models in the unit, then the only way to use the Marker Beacon rule that applies to the Devilfish would be to assume that it is part of the unit, and thus subject to Unit Coherency.
However, there is no precedent or rule for vehicles and infantry within the same unit, sharing coherency with each other (As far as I am aware). There are units of vehicles, and units of infantry, but no infantry-vehicle units (Again, as far as I am aware). Thus, it seems strange they would mean for the Devilfish to be 'unitized' with the Pathfinders.
I think that perhaps, my earlier idea could be GW's intention. It is certainly plausible in the rules, or in the arguments we have been having.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By GeneralIrecar on 05/02/2006 1:16 PM
(Pg 62) "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but where in that statement does it not imply that the transport is assigned, and therefore part of, the unit?
You are wrong. There, you've been corrected!
If anything, it implies that the unit and the transport are two distinct things (which other rules confirm is the only option).
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
You cannot read a single rule out of context. It has to be seen within the framework of the entire rule-set. Hence it is relevant to compare this issue to the Seraphim/Hit and Run and Veteran Sergeant/Infiltrate.
The rules collapse if you enforce the "Devilfishfish (as bought as part of a Pathfinder Team) cant Scout"-doctrine, forcing Scout Squads never to Infiltrate and so on. This in turn forces players to either cheat or make house-rules. The way we read rules must be applied unifomly across the board.
NP. Note that I do not in any way, shape or form think that Devilfish and the Pathfinders form one unit.
157
Post by: mauleed
First, that's a slippery slope falacy. You can't say "well X can't be true because it would mean Y is a bad thing" and have that prove your argument. Y may indeed be true and bad. Regardless, this is completely different from the scouts infiltrating or stingwing fleeting example. And again, perhaps scouts don't infiltrate (yes, obviously they do) and perhaps vespid don't fleet until their leader dies.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
I think people skipped this post I made, that may (Or, probably not) try and explain the issue..
Then, using that same logic, you would say that as the Pathfinder Devilfish is required, it can take the scout rules. However, as a transport option it is a "Dedicated Transport" and thus not subject to the Unit Coherency rules, being assigned to, but not part of the unit.
This specifically becomes evident when in the Pathfinder entry, it mentions you MUST take a transport, yet lists the Devilfish as in the "Transport: " entry in the Pathfinder's list, clearly marking the Devilfish as both part of the unit, yet as a Dedicated Transport.
So, it could be considered as required and subject to rules that apply to Pathfinders as a unit, yet not part of that unit as a dedicated transport.
Also, if the scout special rule would not apply to the Devilfish, as the Special Rules entry only applies to models in the unit, then the only way to use the Marker Beacon rule that applies to the Devilfish would be to assume that it is part of the unit, and thus subject to Unit Coherency.
However, there is no precedent or rule for vehicles and infantry within the same unit, sharing coherency with each other (As far as I am aware). There are units of vehicles, and units of infantry, but no infantry-vehicle units (Again, as far as I am aware). Thus, it seems strange they would mean for the Devilfish to be 'unitized' with the Pathfinders.
I think that perhaps, my earlier idea could be GW's intention. It is certainly plausible in the rules, or in the arguments we have been having.
2517
Post by: Tacit
The Rhino/Marines and Devilfish/Pathfinders comparison is poor. Page 35 of the Space Marine Codex shows that the transports function as separate units but take up only one FOC slot. The argument that if the Pathfinders and Devilfish form a single unit so they both have the Scout USR, then they are a single unit for the purposes of movement, etc., does not lead to a slippery slope argument that Rhinos must also maintain coherency with the infantry because Rhinos function as a separate unit as shown in their codex. Page 62 of the BGB shows how transport options are assigned to a unit as dedicated transports, but that does not support the conclusion that form are one unit. A slippery slope argument does not support any conclusions, and in this case the slippery slope argument is also known to be false. So you can't argue that the Pathfinders and Devilfish are a single unit so they both get the same upgrade, but they operate like separate units because otherwise Rhinos would have to remain in unit coherency. I don't have the Tau Codex, so can someone tell me if it states that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport for the Pathfinders? I know that you can take the Devilfish as a dedicated transport for other squads, but I want to know the specifics about the Devilfish and Pathfinders, and it is possible that it is not a dedicated transport, but has other specific rules described in the codex.
31
Post by: nobody
The wording from the codex:
Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish
Transport: Pathfinders must select a Devilfish troop carrier...
Scouts: Pathfinders are scouts...
Marker Beacon: The Devilfish assigned to Pathfinders...
An interesting side note: The marker beacon rule makes mention that the devilfish must be on the board at the start of the turn for deep striking units to be able to use it. If it had scout, why would this line be necessary? Wouldn't it already be on the board from turn 1 onwards anyway?
Also, if the Devilfish can scout because of this rule, does this mean I can also have it buy grenades as well? I mean, a Devilfish armed with emp grenades could be quite useful.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
Thats what I was trying to say before.
Basically, from the wording of the Tau Codex, the rules state the Pathfinder's Devilfish as part of the unit, but also as a dedicated transport entry...
This leads me to the conclusion it is part of the unit in terms of rules, but not subject to the Unit Coherency rules because it is a dedicated transport.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
This leads me to the conclusion it is part of the unit in terms of rules, but not subject to the Unit Coherency rules because it is a dedicated transport.
You can't honestly be serious?
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
Well, look at it at least.
The Pathfinder Team entry states that the unit is made of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish.
This means the Devilfish is 'in' the unit. Ordinarily, this would mean they are subject to Unit Coherency.
However, you purchase the Devilfish from the "Transports" option of the Pathfinder entry, instead of the Unit stat-line entry like the Pathfinder members. This means it is a dedicated transport.
As such, logically, you would have to say that the Devilfish is in the unit, but functions as a dedicated transport in terms of Unit Coherency.
As part of the unit, it benefits from all the Special Rules that apply to the entire unit. However, as it is listed and purchased from the "Transports" Option, it functions as a Dedicated Transport.
You can't field a Pathfinder Team without a Devilfish as it is part of the unit, and further, as we've established a transport that is assigned to the unit through the "Transports" section of the unit's entry is a dedicated transport, it seems logical that the Devilfish would be 'part of, yet different' from the unit. It is part of the unit, yet follows the Dedicated Transport rules in respect towards Unit Coherency. Its the rules as written.
31
Post by: nobody
I wasn't agreeing with you.
The wording for the team states that yes, it does consist of 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish.
It then goes on to say that the pathfinders have the scout rule and that the devilfish has the marker beacon rule.
It says nothing about the Devilfish having scout.
You never did answer my question either. If the rules mean it gets to scout, do I buy grenades for it if I buy grenades for the rest of the squad? Photon grenades could come in handy in several cases, and I could always use it as a suicide missile against Defilers/Basilisks using EMP grenades.
2354
Post by: mughi3
An interesting side note: The marker beacon rule makes mention that the devilfish must be on the board at the start of the turn for deep striking units to be able to use it. If it had scout, why would this line be necessary? Wouldn't it already be on the board from turn 1 onwards anyway?
Also, if the Devilfish can scout because of this rule, does this mean I can also have it buy grenades as well? I mean, a Devilfish armed with emp grenades could be quite useful.
1.the marker beacon rule is no differant than the teleport homer rule as far as this is concerned. it must be on the table to use. this line is neccisary if your pathfinder/devilfish team is not scouted(it's an option not a forced action), or all your pathfinder assigned fish are already destroyed when you want to deepstrike. in such cases even though you have markerbeacons in your army list you cannot use them since they are not on the table on the turn you wish to use them.
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry.. are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.
if you take all the applicable rules for 40K into cosideration this isn't even a valid argument.
Posted By nobody on 05/03/2006 7:45 PM
It says nothing about the Devilfish having scout.
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule. in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team. the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.
1066
Post by: happypants
I'm right.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
Wicked, I can't wait to use my fleeting Broodlord on ya
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
I can understand the intent argument, really I can. It?s stupid, irrelevant, and what little circumstantial evidence there is for it actually favors the opposite result of what most of its supporters believe, but I can understand at least where they?re coming from.
I can even understand the assumption argument, although this suggests its believers are stupid as well as their argument.
What I cannot understand is when people are either ignorant, poor readers, or out-and-out liars. Mughi3 is one (or more) of these, unfortunately.
mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
mughi3 said:
are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.
First, EMP Grenades are not Wargear Upgrades. Read the Codex.
Secondly, you?re contradicting yourself. If USRs apply to the ?team? ala page 24 as you suggest (which they don?t, but let?s go crazy and assume your misreading of the Codex is correct for a moment) then, following the rules, any model in the unit may benefit from the upgrades. And (if we are likewise stupid enough to believe that EMP Grenades are wargear) the Infantry Wargear text implies that ?A model not equipped with a battlesuit,? (which the Devilfish obviously isn?t) is counted as infantry. So the Devilfish can buy EMP grenades.
Of course, another argument put forward by some foolish people on this thread is that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. I know, I know, it?s ludicrous. But the same problem applies ? if the Devilfish is indeed a Pathfinder, should it not have access to EMP grenades? (And my personal favorite: does that mean you have to buy a Devilfish Transport for the Pathfinder Devilfish? which becomes a Pathfinder Devilfish so you have to buy another Devilfish for that? which becomes? and so on and so on.)
mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
mughi3 said:
in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team.
True, but irrelevant.
mughi3 said:
the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.
Nope. Read the Codex.
Can you sense a running theme here, mughi3? I?m strongly suggesting that you read the Codex thoroughly before posting any more idiotic statements. Hell, before posting anything. Can you please do that, as a favour for me? Thank you.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
(Pg 24.)
"Number/TEAM/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the UNIT...."
"Special Rules: This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the UNIT."
Not to be snide, but apparently you can't read.
In the Pathfinder Team entry, the Devilfish is listed as a requirement to the team. However, unlike the Pathfinders, whose points costs are listed in a stat-line entry, the Devilfish is listed in the "Transports" section of the Pathfinder Team unit list.
Using the rules as writting, this would mean it is part of the unit (It is specifically pointed out in the team entry), yet subject to the Dedicated Transport coherency rules (Because it is purchased from the Transports entry). Either you people are ignoring this statement, or don't have anything to refute it.
You can try to seperate this argument from those of Vespid Stingwings or Space Marine Scout squads, but in the end, the argument is the same.
The Special Rules entry of a Vespid Stingwing unit specifically references that STINGWINGS are Fleet, and not a Strain Leader. Using your perspective of the rules as written, they couldn't fleet.
The Special Rules entry of the Space Marine Scout Squad says "All Scouts possess the infiltrate and move through cover rule.." Because it doesn't say that the sergeant can have it, and you must purchase a Scout Squad with a Sergeant... Using your perspective of the rules as written, they couldn't use any of their special rules either.
You can't split these arguments up from the Pathfinders as they are linked. The only difference is that one involves a vehicle, and the other two involve 'character' models. In all three cases, however, intepreting the RAW to exclude the 'unique' models of the unit destroys the purpose and intent of those units.
31
Post by: nobody
I'll save him the trouble. This is the wording on pg 24:
Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.
Special Rules This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the unit
It seems to me that the arguement for devilfish getting scout is relying on the first definition for Number/Team/Squad and daisy-chaining the rules together so it benefits that person the most. In this case, by stating that the Devilfish is part of the unit only when it suits them.
This is done by completely ignoring the second definition provided, which doesn't require any rules jury-rigging to work, and simply means that the special rule for pathfinders has to be ignored because their Force Organization choice includes a unit that cannot start on the board in Escalation.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Thank you, nobody. I couldn't have said it better myself. But... just so people get it (repeating the obvious might work, I guess )... Yes, mughi3 and GeneralIrecar, a 'team' is not a 'unit'. Two completely different things. There are at least three errors in your post, GeneralIrecar, all of which point to poor reading of the rules. But right now, I'm so tired of this fruitless argument that I can't be bothered to point them out to you. GeneralIrecarYou can't split these arguments up from the Pathfinders as they are linked. The only difference is that one involves a vehicle, and the other two involve 'character' models. In all three cases, however, intepreting the RAW to exclude the 'unique' models of the unit destroys the purpose and intent of those units.Completely wrong. Strain Leaders are Stingwings because they are part of a unit named Stingwings. A Devilfish is not a Pathfinder because it is clearly a transport bought from its own entry in the Codex. Two completely different scenarios and totally unrelated. And again, as nobody has said, you can't have the Devilfish be part of the unit some of the time and not the rest of the time. Either it is (which is illegal) or it isn't (in which case it doesn't get Scout). Besides all of which, even if what you - and mughi3 - said was true and the Devilfish was secretly part of the unit whenever it closed its eyes and wished really really hard (which makes as much sense as the rest of your argument) then it still wouldn't get the Scout rule. Why not? Because it is not a Pathfinder! So it seems that now your argument has become so weak you don't even know what you're inferring.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By GeneralIrecar on 05/04/2006 8:31 AM
Using the rules as writting, this would mean it is part of the unit (It is specifically pointed out in the team entry), yet subject to the Dedicated Transport coherency rules (Because it is purchased from the Transports entry). Either you people are ignoring this statement, or don't have anything to refute it.
Even if this is true (and I will assume it is, just for kicks), there is nothing which exempts the DFish from ALSO being subject to the normal unit coherency rules, etc... If indeed the DFish is both a part of the unit and a dedicated transport, then it must follow all of the rules for both. Meaning that, yes it can break coherency with the unit, per the transport rules, as long as it does not break coherency with the unit, per the unit rules. Yes it can shoot a different target than the unit does, per the transport rules, as long as the target that it shoots at is the same target that the rest of the unit is shooting at, per the unit rules. Yes it can move up to its maximum movement, as long as it only moves at the speed of the slowest model in the unit. See the problem? You have two sets of rules. You must follow both, as neither explicitly allows you to ignore the other. This is an unprecedented situation which is not spelled out in the rules. Without further clarification, you must strive to break no rule. This means following both sets to the letter. / end assuming it is true just for kicks And as for the 'all special rules apply to the whole unit' argument, does this not mean that any model in the unit can benefit from the 'upgraded sgt' rules for that unit. (I know they are not actuall called 'vet sgts' or whatever, but you know what I mean.) I.E. If 'pathfinders get scout' applies to all models in the unit even if they are not called 'pathfinders', shouldn't 'vet sgts get armoury access' apply to all models in the unit even if they are not called 'vet sgts'? Just something to chew on. PS: Nobody, nice catch on the selective remembering of the OR in the Unit/FOC definition
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/03/2006 3:03 PM Posted By mauleed on 05/03/2006 8:19 AM First, that's a slippery slope falacy. You can't say "well X can't be true because it would mean Y is a bad thing" and have that prove your argument. Y may indeed be true and bad. That's funny, Ed - over in this thread (Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=62499&view=topic) you did exactly that. Slippery slope, indeed.
Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.
157
Post by: mauleed
Nobody seems to have very firmly b!tchslapped the opposition on this one. Great work. Again, if you're argument includes ANYTHING about making the pathfinders and the devilfish one unit, you're immediately wrong, and you make yourself out to be less than brilliant by offering the argument up in the first place. Hopefully now that Nobody has explained it for the 12th time you'll get it.
1066
Post by: happypants
@Looper (neil) to be honest I think we should come up with a house rule on the fleeting broodlord b/c it is dumb that he doesn't fleet. (everyone else, I ONLY ever play AGAINST nids so this is COMPLETELY to my disadvantage but poorly written rules are poorly written rules)
@Mauleed, it is a shame that your parents didn't spend more time building up your self esteem as a kid and that you now have to go around putting everyone else down to make yourself feel better about yourself, hopefully if you have kids you don't make the same mistake and they don't end up being arrogant jerks like you who think that anyone who does not agree with you is immediately an idiot.
@everyone else, I play tau and will continue to scout with my pathfinders and thier devilfish, that is obviously the intention because an FAQ came out after the first codex was printed noting that the fish also gets to scout. That said, if you want to play by poorly written RAW they do not get to scout.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
mauleed said:Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.Maybe I am confused. It happens a lot. But as far as I can tell, you do nothing of the sort. You do not point out the error in my argument, you simply ignore my argument and waffle. You do not give any examples. Instead, you first squabble about semantics (arguing that a sentence is not a rule, despite it appearing in the rules section (i.e. non-fluff) of the rulebook) then claim the rule is being taken out of context, which it isn't (it's a rule that deals with Armour Saves and saving throws, and it's in the Saving Throw section in the Armour Save subsection), then claim that because it is before the rules on Invulnerable Saves it is invalid, which is not only irrelevant because we're dealing with all saving throws (and which is something that happens countless times in the rulebook, so the game would be even more of a mess than it is now should we apply your philosophy), and then try to use the Invulnerable Save rules to get around it, which does not (you claim your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them, while I claim that your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them...). But hey, maybe I'm just confused.
2530
Post by: GeneralIrecar
It is ironic that by trying to argue for the actual intent of the unit comparative to just reading the RAW, I am somehow a moron and subject to personal insult.
The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.
By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.
By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'
If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12", blah blah...
I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
GeneralIrecar said:It is ironic that by trying to argue for the actual intent of the unit comparative to just reading the RAW, I am somehow a moron and subject to personal insult.No, that's not ironic. I suggest you look up a decent definition of irony. And for the record, everyone on Dakka is subject to personal insult. It's one of the basic rules you have to learn. GeneralIrecar said:The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.Not true. If you want to argue a point, please do. But back that point up with facts, please. The PFDF did not Scout in the 3rd edition Codex either. The 3rd edition FAQ gave the PFDF the Scout ability. But this is irrelevant, as earlier Codexes do not provide precedent. It's an earlier edition of the game which has been replaced/updated. Just because the big red button on the far left of your VCR you threw out a year ago is the record button, doesn't mean that your brand spanking new DVD-R will have a big red button on its far left and even if it did, it might not be the record button. And besides, as has been pointed out many, many, many times, the intent argument actually implies the game designers did not want the PFDF to Scout. Not that it matters, as intent is irrelevant. GeneralIrecar said:By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.In Escalation, yes. But not in other games, which is two-thirds of the average games (or a half depending on where, who, and when you play). And just because a unit is minisculy reduced in effectiveness in Escalation games, do you really believe that means the existing rules are wrong? Hell, Stealth Suits are screwed in Escalation (debatably, but that's another topic) so obviously the jet pack rules are incorrect. GeneralIrecar said:By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'
If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12", blah blah...Yep. But that's neither here nor there. It's irrelevant to what we're talking about here. Besides, I don't think anyone (not even Mauleed) is encouraging you to follow a total, complete 'rules as written' approach. Just follow those rules that are clearly written and don't ignore rules because you don't like them or you don't think they make sense. The 'PFDF-Scout/no Scout' issue is clearly written. Whether you think it makes sense or not is irrelevant. I don't think the AP rules make one lick of sense, but I don't ignore them. GeneralIrecar said:I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.But you're not applying common sense. You're applying what you think of as common sense. Big difference, try to get your head around it. And you're perfectly entitled to use your PFDF with scout, it that's what you and your opponent agree on. Just as in the same way you're entitled to play Space Marines with a 1+ Invulnerable re-rollable save if both you and your oppnent agree. Doesn't make it right, though.
2517
Post by: Tacit
"Number/TEAM/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the UNIT...." - General Irecar "Number/Team/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart." - Nobody It's funny how you include only half of the quote and your argument seems valid, but then someone quotes the entire rule, and your argument that the Devilfish is part of the unit fails completely. "Insert Random Intent Argument Here" - General Irecar In the rules written in the earlier Tau Codex the Devilfish could not Scout. They needed an FAQ to change that. The current codex presents a similar situation as the original codex, where the Pathfinders are given Scout, but the Devilfish is not. So not only is an intent argument a poor choice, you are claiming that the original codex allowed the Devilfish to Scout, which is not true. "Insert Random Slippery Slope Argument Here" - General Irecar So wait, the rules are vague and nearly unplayable in other areas of the game too? Holy Cow! Who would have thought that considering the few number of posts within the YMDC forums? When you say that every other RAW loophole will also come into effect, you are making the mistake of assuming that they aren't already in effect. What you consider to be a RAW loophole is simply the RAW. "Loophole" is a word used by bad lawyers who can't convict people for tax evasion for following the law as written. If the rules were 'supposed' to mean something else, they should have been written that way, or the law makers would re-write them and close the "Loophole". So just wait until an FAQ comes out, so all of the bad lawyers can get their way.
1066
Post by: happypants
Actually Stu Rat, that is the opposite of what one would expect to happen so that was indeed a proper use of the word Irony, which I might add is one of the most misused words in the english language along with esoteric.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
FAQs have got mistakes in them too.
1066
Post by: happypants
Oh, and to those that think that 'intent is irrelivant' do you think that GW intended blast templates to wound models? I think they probably did and that is how it should be played. Do you think that GW intended Terminators to have Terminator armor? Obviously. The RAW is unplayable so the only way that you can play is to sit there and wade through with your game mates and figure out intent and play that way.
31
Post by: nobody
The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.
Previous incarnations of the rules, especially in previous editions, do not establish precedent. Even in this case you don't have a leg to stand on because the Devilfish didn't have the scout rule in the previous codex. It was given the ability to move and disembark pre-game by way of a FAQ without actually giving it the rule in question.
Intent is a sticky issue to begin with in any rules argument. None of us can pretend to know what was going through the games developers minds when the wrote the rules. Ask any of us who were around for the original 3rd edition Marines codex. Apparently the rest of the world was playing "And They Shall Know No Fear" differently from the games devs because they wrote the rules one way and intended it another way. They had to release a full page explanation of how the rules were supposed to work at least twice in White Dwarf and the Chapter Approved compilations to get everybody on the same page.
Personally, I would have interpreted the intention of the pathfinder/devilfish fiasco to mean that they can split up deployment. That is, the pathfinders start on the board and the devilfish has to come in from reserves in Omega.
By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.
Yup, and Genestealers lose the ability to fleet of claw if they are taken as a retinue for a Broodlord. Does this mean that the Broodlord should get fleet so the rule for genestealers isn't pointless?
The possibility exists that if they ever complete the FAQs that were promised back at the beginning of the year, they will errata the Devilfish to have scout, but that doesn't mean it has it now.
By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'
If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12", blah blah...
Can you try this again without the slippery slope argument?
I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.
Sure, if your opponent agrees to make a house rule that your Devilfish has scout then that's fine. Stating that if he doesn't let you then you get to try to gum up the game by arguing every rule is a bit immature.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/04/2006 10:35 AMmauleed said:Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.Maybe I am confused. It happens a lot. But as far as I can tell, you do nothing of the sort. You do not point out the error in my argument, you simply ignore my argument and waffle. You do not give any examples. Instead, you first squabble about semantics (arguing that a sentence is not a rule, despite it appearing in the rules section (i.e. non-fluff) of the rulebook) then claim the rule is being taken out of context, which it isn't (it's a rule that deals with Armour Saves and saving throws, and it's in the Saving Throw section in the Armour Save subsection), then claim that because it is before the rules on Invulnerable Saves it is invalid, which is not only irrelevant because we're dealing with all saving throws (and which is something that happens countless times in the rulebook, so the game would be even more of a mess than it is now should we apply your philosophy), and then try to use the Invulnerable Save rules to get around it, which does not (you claim your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them, while I claim that your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them...). But hey, maybe I'm just confused.
Well, obviously you are confused.
I pointed out that you'd taken a rule out of context to support your argument, and hence one of your premises was false. I then commented on the impact of taking rules out of context. But my point stands regardless of that comment. Some comments are meant as rebuttal, some are just converstation. And regardless, even if I had commited some logical mis-step in some other thread, and I'm sure I have in many, that has no bearing here. It doesn't suddenly make this argument make more sense because I was wrong on some other issue. But to be clear, I wasn't wrong on that issue either.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/04/2006 6:06 AM
I can understand the intent argument, really I can. It?s stupid, irrelevant, and what little circumstantial evidence there is for it actually favors the opposite result of what most of its supporters believe, but I can understand at least where they?re coming from.
I can even understand the assumption argument, although this suggests its believers are stupid as well as their argument.
What I cannot understand is when people are either ignorant, poor readers, or out-and-out liars. Mughi3 is one (or more) of these, unfortunately.
mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
mughi3 said:
are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.
First, EMP Grenades are not Wargear Upgrades. Read the Codex.
Secondly, you?re contradicting yourself. If USRs apply to the ?team? ala page 24 as you suggest (which they don?t, but let?s go crazy and assume your misreading of the Codex is correct for a moment) then, following the rules, any model in the unit may benefit from the upgrades. And (if we are likewise stupid enough to believe that EMP Grenades are wargear) the Infantry Wargear text implies that ?A model not equipped with a battlesuit,? (which the Devilfish obviously isn?t) is counted as infantry. So the Devilfish can buy EMP grenades.
Of course, another argument put forward by some foolish people on this thread is that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. I know, I know, it?s ludicrous. But the same problem applies ? if the Devilfish is indeed a Pathfinder, should it not have access to EMP grenades? (And my personal favorite: does that mean you have to buy a Devilfish Transport for the Pathfinder Devilfish? which becomes a Pathfinder Devilfish so you have to buy another Devilfish for that? which becomes? and so on and so on.)
mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.
No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.
mughi3 said:
in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team.
True, but irrelevant.
mughi3 said:
the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.
Nope. Read the Codex.
Can you sense a running theme here, mughi3? I?m strongly suggesting that you read the Codex thoroughly before posting any more idiotic statements. Hell, before posting anything. Can you please do that, as a favour for me? Thank you.
since peple are quibling about things being taken out of context i will go over the entire rules in question as well as debunk the inflamitory and incorrect rhetoric inteded at me the unit issue p24 full quote of the rules in question unit name: in addition to the name this may also show a limitation on the maximum number of choices you can make of that unit type (0-1, for example) number/team/squad ETC...: this shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the force organization chart. often this is a variable amount in which case it shows the minimum and maximum unit size. special rules: this is where you'll find any special rules tha apply to the unit
end quote the unit name in the FOC is pathfinder team(no real question there) rather you call a pathfinder team a team/unit or a squad is irrelevant. it is a semantic descriptor that means the same thing as per the entry on page 24 now breaking it down-the first part says this is the number of models in the team/unit/ etc... the second half says or the number of models you MAY take. this does not in any way conflict with the first part since we know that we have a minimum of 4 (required as the number of models in unit at minimum size as per part one) but may take up to 8 pathfinder (shas'la) infantry models and a single pathfinder assigned devilfish per 1 pathfinder team entry in the FOC . which is incidently explaned in the 3rd part of the rules entry. because of these the special rules that apply to the unit- as per the rules unit is a semantic term interrchangable with team/squad etc... and we know the unit/team/squad etc.. consists of a single FA choice in the FOC for tau at minimum/maximum 4-8 infantry pathfinders(shas'la) and it's required pathfinder devilfish troop transport. since the devilfish is listed as part of the team/unit/squad etc.. it does benefit from the scout special rules. it is a transport that is a vehicle and acts in accordance with the normal vehicle and trransport rules found in the core rulebook with 2 extra abilities listed in the tau dex. 1.the ability to scout as per the special rules that apply to the team/squad/unit and 2. the marker beacon which is a special piece of vehicle equipment for pathfinder assignd fish. now for the grenade issue tau dex page 28 section infantry armory, including sub-section infantry wargear. this section lists descriptions for both emp grenades and photon grenades and as such they are wargear/armory upgrades for infantry. both crisis suit and vehicles have thier own seperate wargear/upgrades section. as such a devilfish troop trransport vehicles that is part of a pathfinder team is not allowed to take them because it is NOT an infantry model with access to infantry armory/wargear. this is really just a matter of taking all the rules that apply to both the infantry and the vehicle that make up the same team/squad/unit etc... and applying them to the models they go with. Not to be snide, but apparently you can't read.
no apparently they cannot.
31
Post by: nobody
Again, mughi, you are conveniently ignoring the wording on the Team section of pg 24:
Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.
There are two possible answers: That this is one unit, or that this is one Force Organization chart entry. It does not mean that Number/Team/Squad is always the same thing as one unit.
Here are the two scenarios we are looking at:
Scenario 1: Devilfish is part of the unit.
Rules have not been generated to explain how to deal with shooting at and by such mixed units, or for leadership tests. To explain this you would have to use a part of the Dedicated transport rules which only allows you to move away from the squad, but doesn?t absolve you from any of the above situations.
Scenario 2: Devilfish is part of the Force Organization chart, but a separate unit
Pathfinders are saddled with a rule that they cannot benefit from (which this isn?t the first time such a situation has occurred). Even though they have the Scout rule, they can?t use it because of their transport.
Do we know why? It could be that the game devs intended that the Devilfish should have it too (but didn?t write it in), or that they could have intended that the Pathfinders split up deployment (pathfinders start on the board, devilfish starts off), or that the scout rule was intended for some funky missions that are coming up in the future (that allow them to skip the Devilfish or deploy without it).
The problem is, we don?t know, and we can?t pretend to know, since none of us can claim to be telepaths and the game devs themselves don?t post on this board.
So lets apply Occam?s razor to this dilemma. Do we try to invent new rules and reinterpret existing ones to facilitate the scenario that we want to be real, or do we suck it up and play the rules as they are written out?
1885
Post by: barontuman
I'll admit I skipped the last 5 pages, as the first 6 pages were all repeating over and over again.
However, I might have something to add, if not I'm sure you'll all feel free to either ignore or flame me for it.
Let's say there was a different rule (say mandatory troops and HQ) deployment. Would Pathfinders & Devilfish be able to deploy anyway? Is this any different, or the same argument?
Personally, I'll change my opinion (Escallation limits them) when I can start Drop-Podding my Emperors Champion. Sure, it's a stupid rule, but those really are the rules, and it's pretty clear. OTOH, I play that my Termis get all the benefits of Terminator Armor, so maybe there's a bit of latitude to having fun playing a game? Sigh, and you can guarantee that GW won't address this in an FAQ. It'll say things like "the same as everybody else" or "you can use any color dice you want"...
2633
Post by: Yad
Posted By nobody on 05/05/2006 1:59 PM
Again, mughi, you are conveniently ignoring the wording on the Team section of pg 24:
Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.
mughi is dead-on right. He's laid it out without any appeals to what the 'intent' was or what is/isn't implied. And nobody, you are reading that sentence completely wrong. The 'or' in "This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization Chart" is not to distinguish between what is and is not in a 'Unit'. mughi has already made it quite plain how that is defined. Rather, the 'or' distinguishes between a Number/Team/Squad entry with a set number of models versus one with a variable number. 'From' is a preposition. Prepositions are used to indicate direction, location, position and so forth. I think it's very clear how this works in relation to this sentence. Nobody said: "There are two possible answers: That this is one unit, or that this is one Force Organization chart entry. It does not mean that Number/Team/Squad is always the same thing as one unit."
NO, there are not two possible answers. It really is one unit, subject to all the rules that mughi laid out. Again, you're misinterpreting what the 'or' is.
-Yad
31
Post by: nobody
Yad,
What he's doing is interpreting the rules how he believes the intent should be
The wording is like this: (1)The number of models in the unit or (2)The number of models you may take for one choice.
In most cases, the first entry is used. You have a unit with a number of models. Nowhere on that page are you told that this is a fixed number.
The second entry normally only is applied with such cases as Death Cult Assassins, Biovores, Zoanthropes, and Ork Looted Vehicles.
I'm curious though, do you think that a Broodlord's retinue gets to use the Unholy Strength rule? Why or why not?
1066
Post by: happypants
Hey Yad, didn't you used to advise Bill Clinton
1507
Post by: Ryo
Okay, I personally have a distinct lack of other codecies. Couple Questions: 1. With any of the other units with required transports ( FA sister squads, armoured fist companies, etc.), are there any that have the same wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" area, i.e. "x-y squad members and a transport type"? (if no, then we have either the implication that GW meant to do something different with the PF team + DF than any other squad... or we have the implication that GW may not edit their rulebooks very well ) 2. Second question: are there any other squads with this wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" section that also have special rules? Because, technically, if we argue that the DF has scout abilities, then we'd also have to argue that these other transports (assuming they are worded the same) also get the special rules of the squad... I'd like to see if there are some amazingly hilarioous results (And assuming some suitably illogical examples, we can hopefully kill the "its part of the unit/team/squad" entry arguement that is causing so much.. fun in the thread) Just some food for thought (I'm on the fence on this ATM. I'll play without the rule for now because ... is better to play less permissive on some things until it is completely sorted out)
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Posted By Ryo on 05/08/2006 11:12 PM... ... 2. Second question: are there any other squads with this wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" section that also have special rules? Because, technically, if we argue that the DF has scout abilities, then we'd also have to argue that these other transports (assuming they are worded the same) also get the special rules of the squad... I'd like to see if there are some amazingly hilarioous results (And assuming some suitably illogical examples, we can hopefully kill the "its part of the unit/team/squad" entry arguement that is causing so much.. fun in the thread) ...
This in itself would not invalidate the argument. It would only demonstrate that GW are bad at explaining rules, which we know.
|
|
