73519
Post by: Teschio
Hi everyone, I just got the Kill Team rulebook a few days ago, and I have been working on some ideas... but while doing so, I came across some difficult rule interpretations.
Most unit can have their models buy upgrades, and that is not a problem in Kill Team. The problems arise when there is an upgrade that is available to the whole unit, not to individual models. A prominent example of that would be SM Scout Bikes' cluster mines. How would that work? Technically, it's an upgrade that affects the whole unit, but in KT every single model counts as a separate unit: so, do I get to booby-trap one piece of terrain, or one for each bike? The rules just say "each unit with cluster mines in your army can...", which in KT would support the second hypothesis (one booby-trapped piece of terrain per bike), since a unit upgrade is available to all the models in the unit.
There's worse, however. Specifically, Tau's Tactical Support Turrets. Here we have an option that can be bought by a unit, and deployed by any one model of said unit. But what will happen in KT? Since that is not a model upgrade but a UNIT upgrade, each model in the original unit gets it, and since they are all different units, and the only limitation is that the turret can be deployed by one and only one model of a unit, it seems to me that RAW allow for EACH fire warrior to deploy a turret. Which is crazy, because 20 SMS turrets mean auto-win in every scenario against every conceivable army. There is also no alternative interpretation that makes sense, for this specific case: if only one model can deploy the turret, WHICH ONE can do so? Any one of my choosing? This makes no sense, given that all information about the unit a model comes from is lost in KT... models ARE individual units, not just parts of the same unit that can operate as individuals.
The fact that universal upgrades or rules affect a squad differently when all its members are individual units has been recognized by the developers, and this is exactly why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: an effect that is supposed to work once per unit is very, very different when all models are distinct units. While BoP was the most obvious case, however, it's not the only one, as the previous examples showed. What is your interpretation?
IMPORTANT: I am not interested in RAI, or in how your gaming group house-rules this. I am interested in pure RAW. My local meta is extremely competitive, and I need to be able to defend my case, not just appeal to interpretations or common sense. Here, ANYTHING that is allowed by the rules is fair game. You may not like it, but it's how it is, and therefore I will ask you to stick to RAW.
Bonus question: not something that has to do with unit upgrades, but an intersting question nonetheless: what will happen to a Specialist with Infiltrate/Scout that is embarked in a Dedicated Transport with the rest of his unit? Technically, the rules say "if a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the special rule to the Transport", and my model IS a unit embarked in his DT, although he is embarked together with other units without that rule (something that in a normal game can never happen). It seems to me that the entire transport gets Scout/Infiltrate, and therefore this is a very effective way to add mobility to a whole bunch of models... thoughts?
75050
Post by: kezwick
With regard the bonus, the way I've seen it played (and I believe is accepted on here) is that yes the dedicated transport will abide by the normal rules as until the units disembark (or get out 1 by 1) there is no change to the unit interaction.
83948
Post by: xTHExCLINCHERx
You have to think of the Kill Team rules as sort of "applying once the game starts". They say in the rules that you choose units to fit in the force org (or your formation) as you would normally. That means you include units, upgrades, picking a dedicated transport, starting IN said dedicated transport, etc. However, once the game begins, you play as though each model was it's own unit. For example, if you have 10 Boyz in a Trukk, they can all start in that trukk, and the unit can have a nob, who is upgraded. Once the game begins the trukk can move around and one-by-one, models can get out. Upon doing so, each model acts as a unit of size 1, just themselves. In your scout bike example, you buy the mines for the unit, at the time if army building. Nothing changes here. Upon deploying, you move each of your models individually and then each of them (if they had mines) can use them. In the Tau example, yes... they all "have it" because this upgrade was purchased for the unit, as you normally would in a big game... think about it, it says "one model" can deploy it... so in a normal game of 40k, you pick a model, they deploy it, and you're done. You can't do it again if that model dies. You just can put one turret on the table if that upgrade is in your army list. done... They each just go about doing their thing and if 1 of them (whomever you pick to do it, whenever, as long as one hasn't been put on the table yet by the models in that unit, as constructed during army list construction time) deploys it, that's it. You still have to adhere to the rules of the unit's construction. Another example... space marine command squad. You can't upgrade 2 with bikes, then take 3 on foot. It doesn't work that way. Now for the RAW: On page 12 of the killteam rules (Titled "Kill team Missions") there are several important "bolded words" defined here which apply when playing "kill team missions". Kill team missions are outlined in the rules on the next pages (6 examples) but there are also references in the back for how to "make your own". Ok, under "Every Man for Himself:"... I can't post the rules verbatem, but go look here. I'll summarize in quotes: "Models...selected as part of a squad" <-- this is part of the army construction part which is in the BRB, but also referred to on page 6 of the killteam rules ("Choosing your killteam"  "However... each model is treated as a separate unit." There is nothing in there saying that you would then re-configure the load-out, or adjust rules of, or change the make-up of a model's functional abilities... their rules are defined by the unit during construction time... how they carry out their phases of the game, mean you treat them as a unit of 1 model (themselves) Just try to remember that you build a list like "normal", using the killteam force-org /a valid formation from a book somewhere + restrictions.. then once the game starts, each model acts as a unit of size 1.
73519
Post by: Teschio
@ xTHExCLINCHERx, half of your post is you teaching me about how to build a KT list. I don't know where in my original post I gave the impression that I have doubts about that part. I know you build a list just like you normally would (with the KT FOC). My question is, what happens once the game starts, and you have upgrades that were legally bought for a unit (not for the individual models that are part of that unit), which affect the entire unit, but which work differently once it's every man for himself (like cluster mines or Tau turrets).
I agree with you regarding cluster mines, but unfortunately the case you make for Tau turrets is quite weak and based on false premises. You are mistaken about the rules for turrets: you said that in a normal game you can't re-deploy a turret once the model "manning it" dies. First, there is no model using the turret: the entire unit creates it by not moving, it just has to be within 2" of any model from the unit (you don't pick one model specifically), and it disappears once there is an enemy within 2" of it or there are no more models from the unit that deployed it within 2". Second, it is specified that if the turret is removed for any reason, it CAN be re-deployed using the exact same rules (anyhere within 2" of a model, and they do not need to be the same models of the first time). This shows pretty unequivocally that the turret is not tied to a single model, it's an upgrade to the whole unit, you have only the limitation of one turret per unit. But in KT, EVERY fire warrior is a unit, and every one has that upgrade (since you bought it for the unit they were a part of), so every one should be able to deploy a turret. Yes, it's very, very RAW, but I can't see a flaw in this (and I WANT to find one, since I don't play Tau, and I am sure someone else will think about that combo and use it against me... as I said, in my meta this could happen).
Thanks for quoting the rules, but unfortunately they do not support your case. I am not re-configuring the load-out in any way*, I am applying an upgrade I bought for THE UNIT (not the models) to every model that was selected as part of that unit. Is this unreasonable? It definitely is not, otherwise a SM Command Squad with bikes would NOT have 5 bikes (the equip entry says "the whole unit", not "every model in the unit", and the cost is fixed, not on a per-model basis, so this IS a unit upgrade, not a model one). If the command squad gets bikes (and they most certainly do), then scouts all get cluster mines, and unfortunately fire warriors all get a turret. This is exactly why they banned Brotherhood of Psykers, because once you split up a unit, rules or equip that work once per unit become a lot more powerful. PLEASE find a flaw in my reasoning... and it's a request, not a challenge 
* to avoid confusion: I am NOT saying that when you select the list you can buy one turret per model. I am saying that you can buy it ONCE, but since it is an upgrade to the whole unit, once the models are individual units, ALL OF THEM get one. It's much worse, because with 118 points you get 12 fire warriors AND 12 turrets.
83948
Post by: xTHExCLINCHERx
@Teschio
The only reason I talked about how to build the army was to give readers a complete view of where I was coming from.
Ok, I don't know any of the Tau rules, i was just guessing at the way I interpreted what you had worded, so I guess discount that example.
Seems RAW then it's a pretty simple answer.. yeah, you "get your turret" for every model (since every model is a unit). I'm not really sure why that's even in question then, seeing as you answered it many times yourself and also pointed out many examples that seem to imply the same thing (mines, bikes, etc.)
Once the game starts, if you are playing one of the missions (which you probably are, or loosely are) then do what page 12 says "...each model is treated as a separate unit." So when you do whatever you have to do to deploy a turret, you ask "does this model -- this unit -- have the turret? If yest, then put it down." Not really sure what the confusion is. I suppose the same would apply to a unit that has bought krak grenades or something... I guess they each get them, whereas in a Space Marine squad, if a sgt. bought a melta bomb or something, only he does.
RAW - yeah, every model can put a turret.
I'm sure if anyone ever asks them for clarification, and they construct an FAQ (akin to the way they've been doing it on facebook I guess) maybe it will get reconciled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your Bonus question is interesting... I suppose yes, what you have listed is correct. I don't think that this is a huge deal, if you play the missions in the book, as they are designed. Some missions allow a bunch of units to outflank/infiltrate, some require spreading out lots of troops, etc.
I think it's correct and also not broken, written as-is, FWIW.
73519
Post by: Teschio
 xTHExCLINCHERx wrote:
I'm not really sure why that's even in question then, seeing as you answered it many times yourself and also pointed out many examples that seem to imply the same thing (mines, bikes, etc.)
Because I NEED to be wrong
Knowing my meta, this could come up, and this list is absolutely invincible: 20 SMS turrets, which can target units out of sight, with 4 S5 AP5 Ignore Cover hits at BS 3 each. That's total carnage, there isn't a single list that can withstand more than 2 rounds of shooting. Who cares about the mission, this list will win by wipe-out every single game! I know it will be FAQed, but until then, I really, REALLY do not want to face that list without a solid argument to counteract it. In casual games that's not a problem, I can just avoid playing against it, but tournaments are a different matter...
This case is admittedly much more border-line than bikes or mines: the Fire Wariors entry says "the unit may take a DS8 tactical support turret", suggesting that is, in fact, ONE turret. I am writing here hoping that someone can make a case for this that is strictly RAW.
83948
Post by: xTHExCLINCHERx
Hmm well, the only thing I could say then is that if the unit (in non-killteam games) can only have 1 turret "active" at a time, then just because the unit is split up and interacted-with as individual units (think Combat Squads rule for space marines.. maybe as a precedent?) then it doesn't grant you additional rules which would allow the "unit" to put multiple down at once... may be a decent argument, I dunno.
So dude A and B were "included in the army as part of Unit 1".. dude A, puts it down, then it goes away at some point... dude A can put it down again, or a dude B could instead, but at no point can dude A and dude B both have a turret out at the same time (nor can C, D, E,...n).
That sort of thing. I could see that as a reasonable argument.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
I'll check my Tau codex later, but your examples of bikes and cluster mines are specifically called out as plural forms. The command squad "may take bikes," the scout bikers "may take cluster mines."
The significance is this: IIRC the Tau codex says (the equivalent of) "The fire warriors squad may take A DS8 turret."
A. One. Uno. Kill Teams are purchased in the same way traditional units are, with upgrades available to the squad being purchased. The fire warriors don't get to buy turrets, they get to buy *one* turret. The scout bikers get to buy cluster mines. The command squad gets to buy bikes.
I realize the crux of the argument then becomes "Did this unit buy a turret" at deployment when every model becomes becomes its own unit, with each fire warrior answering "yes," but I still believe you could make an argument out of what I said. Hopefully. Best of luck, maybe someone can think of something better.
73519
Post by: Teschio
I thought about this, but it will open a whole lot of problems, namely it would require that models be not independent units, just parts of the same unit that can ACT as independent units... but this doesn't fit well with the rules for KT. Since in normal games the entire unit must be stationary to deploy the turret, does this mean that I can't move ANY model from the original unit, even models on the other side of the table? This sounds absurd... also, once the list is selected, any information on which unit a model comes from is lost: I could have 2 fire warriors teams, all painted exactly the same, but only one with a turret: how can I decide where I can deploy the turret?
The "one turret per unit" thing makes little sense, unfortunately, because in KT every model is a unit! The SM Combat Squad is not a good precedent, exactly because once they split up they explicitly count as separate units in every possible way, losing all "memory" of the unit they come from... this will SUPPORT the "20 turrets" interpretation, not counter it!
I guess my only hope remains a FAQ... any idea how can I make the GW guys aware of this problem, in order to speed the process up?
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
xTHExCLINCHERx wrote:Hmm well, the only thing I could say then is that if the unit (in non-killteam games) can only have 1 turret "active" at a time, then just because the unit is split up and interacted-with as individual units (think Combat Squads rule for space marines.. maybe as a precedent?) then it doesn't grant you additional rules which would allow the "unit" to put multiple down at once... may be a decent argument, I dunno.
So dude A and B were "included in the army as part of Unit 1".. dude A, puts it down, then it goes away at some point... dude A can put it down again, or a dude B could instead, but at no point can dude A and dude B both have a turret out at the same time (nor can C, D, E,...n).
That sort of thing. I could see that as a reasonable argument.
Generally this is what I'm seeing people seem to believe when they want to game the system. That the one turret they purchased can be set up near any model and gets to jump around the battlefield. I haven't yet seen the argument for 12 turrets, but I figured it would come up at some point, just because. Automatically Appended Next Post: Teschio wrote:
I guess my only hope remains a FAQ... any idea how can I make the GW guys aware of this problem, in order to speed the process up?
Email them, message the facebook, write a letter to white dwarf or gw.
73519
Post by: Teschio
BossJakadakk wrote:I'll check my Tau codex later, but your examples of bikes and cluster mines are specifically called out as plural forms. The command squad "may take bikes," the scout bikers "may take cluster mines."
The significance is this: IIRC the Tau codex says (the equivalent of) "The fire warriors squad may take A DS8 turret."
A. One. Uno. Kill Teams are purchased in the same way traditional units are, with upgrades available to the squad being purchased. The fire warriors don't get to buy turrets, they get to buy *one* turret. The scout bikers get to buy cluster mines. The command squad gets to buy bikes.
I realize the crux of the argument then becomes "Did this unit buy a turret" at deployment when every model becomes becomes its own unit, with each fire warrior answering "yes," but I still believe you could make an argument out of what I said. Hopefully. Best of luck, maybe someone can think of something better.
No need to check the codex, I just did and what you quoted is correct. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem, because the turret is a unit upgrade, therefore formally every model of the unit has it. And even if you can only deploy one per unit, things change when it's every man for himself... Also, as I said earlier, allowing only one turret per unit opens other massive problems: since in normal games the whole unit needs to be stationary to deploy it, does this mean that I can't move ANY Fire Warrior? This will conflict with the Every Man for Himself rule... or, suppose I have 2 units of Fire Warriors with 2 turrets: can a turret only be deployed within 2" of a member of the ORIGINAL unit it comes from? That's a problem as well, since there is no "memory" of the unit you purchased once the KT list is selected...
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Well, if they were to argue that every model could deploy its own turret, then you could argue that every model would have to remain stationary.
In the case of one turret total (per purchased squad), I would say it's fair that it can be deployed by any model that remains stationary (they're all "whole" units). Of course, this means doing the "it gets to jump around the board" thing. If this is your group's ruling, though, I'm not sure there's grounds to argue that every independent unit has to remain stationary for it to get deployed, but maybe it could be fleshed out!
For your last example, I would ask "If you somehow had 2 squads of scout bikers (ignoring the force org chart but there may be other examples), but only 1 purchased cluster mines, does every model get to count as having mines after deployment?" After all, there's no memory of the unit you purchased once KT starts. This is a situation I would absolutely 100% say the turret has to go with a model from the unit that purchased it every time. That would be a brand new low of rules-bending to the point where I think it's way past bending.
73519
Post by: Teschio
If only ONE turret per unit is allowed, then it natually follows that no model from that unit can move. But this conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, simply because those models are not part of the same unit, they are completely independent, just like SM Combat Squads. I am afraid the only RAW interpretation is the "20 turrets" one, and that only a FAQ could save me (that, and the hope that nobody in my local meta realizes that this can be done).
Your example for cluster mines is meaningless, though: yes, there are 2 units, but only models from ONE unit have that upgrade. Since it's not something that requires you to distinguish models in-game, that's not an issue: if there are 3 bikes in the unit you purchased (regardless of how you field them), then there are 3 models with the "cluster mines" upgrade, and you get to booby-trap 3 pieces of terrain. Pretty straightforward. This, however, does not apply to the turret case, since in this instance you need to choose a model for the turret to deploy close to it... and this would require the ability to distinguish models from different units, something that is meaningless in KT because there ARE no different units, every model is a unit by itself.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Actually, you may be right on the no unit can move thing. Good fuel to have for the argument. I still don't believe that the "20 turret" argument has much water. You're only purchasing a singular turret, no matter what amount of units the squad splits into. At the very least, it (again) is an argument to be made if someone tries it.
Good call on the mines being a bad example, but you may be able to find a better one. Still, it partially works in that while you're booby trapping 3 pieces of terrain, all 3 pieces of terrain are being trapped because of one purchased unit. If there was a restriction that said the piece of terrain had to be within 6" of the unit, you couldn't choose a piece of terrain that was only within 6" of one of the models that didn't purchase mines.
Either way, the fact that two units would have purchased turrets is not meaningless in KT (if your group goes the 1 turret per squad route) because if you were to have 2 models from the same original squad with turrets set up, then you'd be breaking the rules by having more than one turret per squad, regardless of KT making them separate units. This follows the kind of 1 heavy weapon per squad restrictions of other units. It's different in that it comes into play after the purchase and deployment, but it stands imo. For example, would you allow literally any fire warrior to set up a turret if you have two squads fielded but only one which purchased the turret? I would say no, only the warriors from the original squad could set it up. This doesn't apply if your group's RAW interpretation is "20 turrets," but there's still just no way that could be RAW. You buy one turret, only, ever. You're still purchasing the squad like in the codex, the only question is how that one turret is interacted with in the Kill Team format.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Query - what happens if there are no Fire Warriors in the same unit as a deployed Turret? Does it get removed? If so, as soon as it is deployed, would it not be a unit by itself (per the Every Man for Himself rule)? Meaning, that there are no Tau in the same unit as the Turret.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Yes, you are purchasing a single turret. But it's not a MODEL upgrade, it's a unit upgrade, therefore every single model of the unit has it. Therefore, once they are separated into independent units, every single model gets to put down one turret. It's still only ONE turret per unit, but in KT this means up to 12 different turrets, because every model IS a unit. It is obviously absurd, but RAW this seems to be the correct interpretation. And as I said, I am ONLY interested in RAW.
The problem with your past paraghraph is that you are still considering the models as part of the unit they were purchased from, that just act independently from each other. Unfortunately, RAW this is not the case: a KT list follows the rules for unit selection, but once the list is selected, there is no more memory of which unit a model comes from, because individual models are all independent units.
>"would you allow literally any fire warrior to set up a turret if you have two squads fielded but only one which purchased the turret? I would say no, only the warriors from the original squad could set it up." Of course. But this is because one unit HAS the upgrade, while the other does not. In this case, since the equipment is different, I need to distinguish different models. It would be like "passing" a special weapons between models purchased as part of the same unit: this does not make sense, because a weapon is an upgrade for that specific model. The turret is an upgrade for the unit, so for EVERY member of the unit, but that doesn't mean that members of other units have it too. The problem is exactly this, if a unit buys a turret, then EVERY model in that unit can set up a turret. Because it's an equip they ALL have, and the only limitation is that one unit can set up one turret (and models ARE separate units!).
YES, it's one turret per unit. How many units do you have? One for each Fire Warrior. Unfortunately, until a better case is made (and it seems to me that, RAW, this is quite hard to do) or a FAQ comes out, you COULD find yoursel facing 20 Fire Warriors with 20 SMS turrets. This is the unbeatable list, and as far as I can tell, it's totally legal. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Happyjew wrote:Query - what happens if there are no Fire Warriors in the same unit as a deployed Turret? Does it get removed? If so, as soon as it is deployed, would it not be a unit by itself (per the Every Man for Himself rule)? Meaning, that there are no Tau in the same unit as the Turret.
Wow, THIS is promising! The turret itself is a weird thing, I am not sure if it's a model, since it has no profile and can't be attacked or interacted with in any way. But if it IS, then as soon as it is deployed, there is no FW IN ITS UNIT within 2" because it IS a independent unit, and therefore immediately disappears... now, you could be on the right track here! The question then becomes, is the turret a model? Or is more like a cherub, which has no profile and does not interact with anything? The very first sentence of the "rules" part of the rulebook suggests that every miniature is a model, but it ALSO says that every model has its own characteristics profile, and this is not the case for the turret... it doesn't even have a BS value, its rules say which value is to be used... this is a conundrum. What do you guys think? Can we find some objective ruling that says the turret is itself a model?
79956
Post by: xlDuke
The rules don't work well in general, they certainly dont work in this case. As much as you want to stick strictly to RAW (very respectable), for individual cases that aren't even covered by the rules you'll be far better off actually discussing it with your group. Relationships like this probably weren't considered when the Kill Teams rules were written and we can confirm from the recent FAQs that GW themselves don't really realise certain actions happen on a model-by-model basis and other actions happen to units. The contradictions that arise from these relationships seem to be beyond the writers' understanding. See the YMDC topic about ICs joining a unit with Bounding Lope for a bit more on that.
73519
Post by: Teschio
The Tau codex says that a turret is removed "if there are no OTHER models from its unit", and this suggests that it is, in fact, a model. But the lack of a profile of any kind makes this dubious. In addition to not having a profile, the BRB also says that every model has a unit type, and the turret does not (it is not specified as Infantry, and it cannot even move). Also the Tau codex never uses the form "unit coherency", specifying the 2" distance instead, ever single time. Could this be because unit coherency is just for models, and the turret is not? I can see valid arguments for both interpretations... my personal one, after having read all relevant entries, is that the turret is not, in fact, a model itself, since it has none of the characteristics of models. But this is highly debatable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xlDuke wrote:The rules don't work well in general, they certainly dont work in this case. As much as you want to stick strictly to RAW (very respectable), for individual cases that aren't even covered by the rules you'll be far better off actually discussing it with your group. Relationships like this probably weren't considered when the Kill Teams rules were written and we can confirm from the recent FAQs that GW themselves don't really realise certain actions happen on a model-by-model basis and other actions happen to units. The contradictions that arise from these relationships seem to be beyond the writers' understanding. See the YMDC topic about ICs joining a unit with Bounding Lope for a bit more on that.
As I said, this is not a problem in casual games, but it becomes one in tournaments. You don't even know your opponent beforehand, you certainly can't agree on the rule interpretations: the only possible way to play in such an environment is RAW, since everything else is subjective. Of course in casual games me and my group will never allow that, but in tournaments things are different. Once you go out of your local gaming group, especially in a competitive setting, then RAW becomes the only possible interpretation. Even when the results are absurd, they are objective, and objectivity is needed as soon as this stops being a game and becomes a competition (like in tournaments).
I actually think that Happyjew is on the right track here, we just need to figure out whether a turret is a model or not...
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Kinda sorta. You never *deploy* the turret. I had to check the wording before, because I'm houseruling it for events I'm going to run. It's only ever "set up" near a stationary unit (speaking in normal 40k terms). So it never goes through the deployment phase whereupon it would count as its own separate unit and immediately die. It gets set up after the fact. I mean, you could make an argument that when it's set up it becomes its own unit and summarily dies. There's a lot of arguments in here you could use. Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets. Where is "memory" mentioned in the KT book? Automatically Appended Next Post: Teschio wrote: As I said, this is not a problem in casual games, but it becomes one in tournaments. You don't even know your opponent beforehand, you certainly can't agree on the rule interpretations: the only possible way to play in such an environment is RAW, since everything else is subjective.
We don't have RAW, the only RAW we have deals with normal 40k. Anything regarding this issue before an official FAQ is a houserule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm emailing GW, might be we could get some kind of coherent response. If nothing else it can contribute to letting them know that an FAQ is needed for Kill Team.
73519
Post by: Teschio
BossJakadakk wrote:Kinda sorta. You never *deploy* the turret. I had to check the wording before, because I'm houseruling it for events I'm going to run. It's only ever "set up" near a stationary unit (speaking in normal 40k terms). So it never goes through the deployment phase whereupon it would count as its own separate unit and immediately die. It gets set up after the fact.
The Every Man for Himself rule says that "each model is treated as a separate unit when deploying your Kill Team, AND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE GAME". So you can "set it up" instead of deploying it, but it will immediately become a separate unit and die. This, of course, IF it is considered a model, and there are valid reasons to support both interpretations on this very important point. The easiest way if you are running an event is to state that it IS a model, and therefore will die. Much easier this way, then bending the rules allowing models that were bought as part of a unit but are now completely independent to "share" the turret as if they still were in the same unit. Ban it altogether, and this decision can also be supported by a literal interpretations of the rules (some rules, at east... on what is a model exactly, those rules are quite contradictory).
Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.
This would work if the turret was an upgrade for a model. But it's an upgrade for the whole unit, and therefore you can't "assign" it to a model, they all have it, like all scout bikes have cluster mines. And once they become separate, they can all deploy the turret, since the only limitation is "one turret PER unit". There are 12 units, completely independent from each other, with that upgrade.
I'm emailing GW, might be we could get some kind of coherent response. If nothing else it can contribute to letting them know that an FAQ is needed for Kill Team.
Please do. I already emailed them, but the more the better, hopefully they realize this is a huge bug and proceed to FAQ it. I just hope this happens before I have to face such a montruosity!
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.
This would work if the turret was an upgrade for a model. But it's an upgrade for the whole unit, and therefore you can't "assign" it to a model, they all have it, like all scout bikes have cluster mines. And once they become separate, they can all deploy the turret, since the only limitation is "one turret PER unit". There are 12 units, completely independent from each other, with that upgrade.
Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.
HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.
73519
Post by: Teschio
 Charistoph wrote:
Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.
HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.
The unit no longer exists, but the models composing it do. And since the turret was an upgrade for the unit, every single model originally from that unit has it. Otherwise, a command squad for which you purchase the bikes upgrade do not actually get those bikes. Unit upgrades are available to every single member of that unit.
And yes, in casual games I would play like that as well. But I specifically asked for RAW, because I might find this list in tournaments, and in a competitive setting only RAW count.
Happyjew was the one who actually came closer to a solution, all we need to determine now is whether the turret is a model or not.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:The unit no longer exists, but the models composing it do. And since the turret was an upgrade for the unit, every single model originally from that unit has it. Otherwise, a command squad for which you purchase the bikes upgrade do not actually get those bikes. Unit upgrades are available to every single member of that unit.
Not quite. The Command Squad reference is a little off, it mentions the entire squad getting the multiple upgrades. It is closer to the Eldar Guardian Weapons Platform, but not quite. The Weapon Platform actually has a profile, and if I remember the turret right, it does not, but it has been a long while since I've seen it. Unless the new Kill Team rules specifically address it, there is nothing in the Tau codex that does.
Teschio wrote:And yes, in casual games I would play like that as well. But I specifically asked for RAW, because I might find this list in tournaments, and in a competitive setting only RAW count.
Still in a case where it is not properly defined, House Rules and mentioning it as HIWPI (which I did) are worth mentioning.
73519
Post by: Teschio
The Eldar platform is completely different, it's a separate model you add to the unit, much like adding an attack bike to a bike squad. It is deployed with the unit, and is in every aspect part of the unit. The Tau turret, however, is very different: you don't deploy it, you create it by remaining stationary; it does not have a profile, nor a unit type; it is not part of the unit, it just disappears if there are no models from the unit that created it within 2"; and can be recreated if it is removed (I didn't say "if it is destroyed" because it can't be destroyed...). The closest things to the Tau turret are actually upgrades that affect the whole unit, like cluster mines or command squad bikes.
And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:The Eldar platform is completely different, it's a separate model you add to the unit, much like adding an attack bike to a bike squad. It is deployed with the unit, and is in every aspect part of the unit. The Tau turret, however, is very different: you don't deploy it, you create it by remaining stationary; it does not have a profile, nor a unit type; it is not part of the unit, it just disappears if there are no models from the unit that created it within 2"; and can be recreated if it is removed (I didn't say "if it is destroyed" because it can't be destroyed...). The closest things to the Tau turret are actually upgrades that affect the whole unit, like cluster mines or command squad bikes.
Not true. I referenced the Platform because it is a single gunnery system added to the unit, and I still noted the probably differences there. Bikes for a Command Squad and Mines for the Scout Bikes are still a different concept in which they are instances of upgrades happening in multiple instances for multiple models instead of a single upgrade which is not used for all models in the unit like the turret.
Teschio wrote:And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.
Then you need to review the tenets of YMDC. Yes, it is important to stick to RAW where possible. However this is not a situation that is explicitly covered in RAW, unless the new Kill Team rules miraculously address it.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Charistoph wrote:
Teschio wrote:And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.
Then you need to review the tenets of YMDC. Yes, it is important to stick to RAW where possible. However this is not a situation that is explicitly covered in RAW, unless the new Kill Team rules miraculously address it.
Which they don't. So anything in this thread is and has always been RAI.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Charistoph wrote:
Not true. I referenced the Platform because it is a single gunnery system added to the unit, and I still noted the probably differences there. Bikes for a Command Squad and Mines for the Scout Bikes are still a different concept in which they are instances of upgrades happening in multiple instances for multiple models instead of a single upgrade which is not used for all models in the unit like the turret.
Eldar platforms are COMPLETELY different. They are just like an attack bike for a bike squad, an additonal model with its own profile that is integral part of the unit from the very beginning. They are an additional model, NOT a unit upgrade. The Tau turret IS a unit upgrade, not an additional model. Despite looking similar at a first glance, they are VASTLY different. The eldar platform is no different than adding a normal model to a unit, while I mantain that the Tau turret is EXACTLY like cluster mines. Despite the plural, in fact, cluster mines are a UNIT upgrade, not an upgrade for models in the unit. Take for example Scout Camo Cloaks: the codex says "the entire squad may take...", and the cost is on a per-model basis. This is clearly a MODEL upgrade, although you are required to get it for every model in the unit. But cluster mines are quite different: "the UNIT can take cluster mines", and the cost is fixed. Do you think that they are a model upgrade ONLY because they are described with a plural? Nowhere in the entry there is anyreference to the members of a squad, only to the entire unit, you are being misled by the fluff here. What if the upgrade was called "booby trap kit", or "automatic mines delivery system", with the exact same effect, will THIS be an upgrade to all models? There is absolutely no question that mines are a unit upgrade, and the turret is one too.
Then you need to review the tenets of YMDC. Yes, it is important to stick to RAW where possible. However this is not a situation that is explicitly covered in RAW, unless the new Kill Team rules miraculously address it.
A good rule would be to stick to RAW if the conversation is specifically about RAW. And this one is, since I explicitly requested it (and I am the original poster...). If you are asking for an interpretation according to the existing rules, it doens't help to be flooded by home rules. In this case, if you read the entire conversation you will find that there IS a possible RAW interpretation, Happyjew came up with it, we just need to clarify exactly what is considered a model. Derailing the conversation speaking about HYWPI does not help. One should stick to the topic, and since the topic was EXPLICITLY about RAW interpretations, anything else is off-topic here.
Absolutely not. I NEVER talked about how rules are intended to be, and I have always asked to stay away from RAI (also because, personally, I think RAI are an abomination, a game needs OBJECTIVE rules, and the only possible objective interpretation is RAW). In this thread I tried very hard to provide RAW interpretations, even when the result was blatantly absurd (like 20 SMS turrets, which, if turrets are not models, IS the correct interpretation). Happyjew gave the only possible reason, according to RAW, why turrets may not work, and all we have to do now is determine whether a turret is a model or not. Further proof, if ever was needed, that this topic is NOT about RAI, and has never been. I find the entire concept of RAI so meaningless that it's almost infuriating to think that there are people playing like that... why have rules at all, if someone does not follow them, and instead prefers to use his personal interpretation of how the games designers wanted the rule to be? Objectivity is key, and RAI should not even exist as a concept.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote: Charistoph wrote:
Not true. I referenced the Platform because it is a single gunnery system added to the unit, and I still noted the probably differences there. Bikes for a Command Squad and Mines for the Scout Bikes are still a different concept in which they are instances of upgrades happening in multiple instances for multiple models instead of a single upgrade which is not used for all models in the unit like the turret.
Eldar platforms are COMPLETELY different. They are just like an attack bike for a bike squad, an additonal model with its own profile that is integral part of the unit from the very beginning.
An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.
73519
Post by: Teschio
 doctortom wrote:An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.
They are. Even though an eldar platform has special rules (the need for another model to operate it IS a special rule of the model), they are still additional models with their own profile and unit type. The fact that it has different rules than an attack bike is like saying that they are not the same because one is Infantry and the other is Bike.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote: doctortom wrote:An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.
They are. Even though an eldar platform has special rules (the need for another model to operate it IS a special rule of the model), they are still additional models with their own profile and unit type. The fact that it has different rules than an attack bike is like saying that they are not the same because one is Infantry and the other is Bike.
Can an attack bike operate without another model in the unit being present? Yes. Can an Eldar Platform operate without another model in the unit being present? No. Therefore, they're not just the same. That "special rule of the model" ARE an important factor. Otherwise, you could try claiming that an attack bike is the same as a Fortress of Redemption because they're both models.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Teschio wrote:
Absolutely not. I NEVER talked about how rules are intended to be, and I have always asked to stay away from RAI (also because, personally, I think RAI are an abomination, a game needs OBJECTIVE rules, and the only possible objective interpretation is RAW). In this thread I tried very hard to provide RAW interpretations, even when the result was blatantly absurd (like 20 SMS turrets, which, if turrets are not models, IS the correct interpretation). Happyjew gave the only possible reason, according to RAW, why turrets may not work, and all we have to do now is determine whether a turret is a model or not. Further proof, if ever was needed, that this topic is NOT about RAI, and has never been. I find the entire concept of RAI so meaningless that it's almost infuriating to think that there are people playing like that... why have rules at all, if someone does not follow them, and instead prefers to use his personal interpretation of how the games designers wanted the rule to be? Objectivity is key, and RAI should not even exist as a concept.
Except even your 20 turret answer is an interpretation. I did realize I made a mistake when I refuted Happyjew's idea by stating that the turret is never deployed, because Every Man for Himself does continue on to say "throughout the game." So yes, the question is, is the turret a model? If so, it immediately dies every time it is set up. Even if there's 20 of them.
However, each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret. You did not anywhere purchase a turret for each model. At list selection, you paid 10 points for one turret for the unit. Ergo, RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around.
Do you see though, how both of these (20 turrets solution, and jumping around) are interpretations? They're both objective, also.
Also, nowhere is "memory" mentioned in the Kill Team rules, so having to keep track of which model belonged to which unit originally is valid in instances where two identical units purchased a same wargear option.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.
73519
Post by: Teschio
doctortom wrote:
Can an attack bike operate without another model in the unit being present? Yes. Can an Eldar Platform operate without another model in the unit being present? No. Therefore, they're not just the same. That "special rule of the model" ARE an important factor. Otherwise, you could try claiming that an attack bike is the same as a Fortress of Redemption because they're both models.
You example makes NO SENSE, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. Just because 2 models have different rules, that doesn't mean that they are different in EVERY way. Are a Space Marine Scout and a Space Marine Bike different models with different rules? Sure, but are they purchased in the exact same way, are deployed according to the same rules, have both a profile and a unit type? Yes, they do. The Tau turret has NONE of those characteristics. Your objection that an Eldar Platform is radically different than an Attack Bike because it has a rule requiring another model to fire it, is like saying that a Scout is radically different than a bike because it can't move 12". They are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. The Tau turret is NOTHING like them, or an Eldar Platform. It is not deployed during the deployment phase of the game (EVERY other unit must be deployed or declared in reserve), it is not a model with a profile or a unit type, it cannot be targeted or damaged in any way, it can be reconstructed once removed. It's something absolutely UNIQUE in the game. The only way you can compare it to an Eldar Platform is for fluff reasons, but rule-wise, the attack bike and the fortress of redemption have MORE IN COMMON than the Tau turret and ANY OTHER unit in the game. For f**k's sake, we haven't even established with certainty that IT IS A MODEL, since it has none of the characteristics that according to the BRB all models have!
BossJakadakk wrote:
Except even your 20 turret answer is an interpretation. I did realize I made a mistake when I refuted Happyjew's idea by stating that the turret is never deployed, because Every Man for Himself does continue on to say "throughout the game." So yes, the question is, is the turret a model? If so, it immediately dies every time it is set up. Even if there's 20 of them.
However, each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret. You did not anywhere purchase a turret for each model. At list selection, you paid 10 points for one turret for the unit. Ergo, RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around.
Do you see though, how both of these (20 turrets solution, and jumping around) are interpretations? They're both objective, also.
Also, nowhere is "memory" mentioned in the Kill Team rules, so having to keep track of which model belonged to which unit originally is valid in instances where two identical units purchased a same wargear option.
It's NOT an interpretation. It's what naturally follows IF you take the rules literally. If you can't understand the difference between appling the rules, even with absurd results, and MAKING UP the rules, then this conversation is pointless (unfortunately, your multiple posts suggest you are incapable of seeing this difference...). Not everything is subjective, the RULES are not, and this is why RAI makes no sense and RAW is the only sensible way to play. My interpretation is pure RAW.
Now, we still haven't established whether the turret can be considered "model". Here we have valid arguments to support both ideas, and we should discuss this. One thing is sure, though: if it's NOT a model, then the 20 turret interpretation is THE correct one, because it's the only one that follows the rules to the letter.
You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.
This is the ONLY possible interpretation. Is it absurd? Yes, it is. But it's a direct consequence of the rules for the turret and the rules for KT. An unexpected interaction for sure, but RAW interpretations do not CARE about that, and neither do I. If you don't agree, PLEASE tell me which rules I have misinterpreted (saying "but it's only one turret per unit" is not a valid objection, because I already explained how the Every Man for Himself rule makes this objection pointless: there are NOT 2 units on the field, there are 20 units, EACH with that upgrade). I clearly stated all my premises, while you are just IGNORING the rules: when you say " RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around", you ignore the Every Man for Himself rule, that CLEARLY states that all models are independent units. So, a Fire Warrior is NOT a model from a UNIT of FW that you purchased during list selection, he is an INDEPENDENT unit. When I talked about "memory loss" I didn't mean a literal rule using the word "memory", it was just an easy way to explain this concept: in KT, EVERY model is by itself, it does NOT operate like it is part of the unit you purchased. Your (wrong) interpretation sees all models as part of the unit they come from, they just ACT like individual models. But the rules DO NOT say that. You said it yourself, "each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret". And THIS, my friend, is where you are mistaken. Read the KT rules again, you will see that a model is not PART of anything, any single model is a completely independent unit. You clearly have trouble with that rule, you are seeing KT as a normal 40k game with models that don't need cohesion and can shoot at different things, but this is NOt what the rules say. You sould consider KT as a totally different game, with totally different rules. The ONLY time when multiple models units are considered is during the creation of the list, once you PLAY the game every single model is its own separate one-model unit with NO relations with the unit you purchased.
Happyjew wrote:The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.
It's what I have been trying to say the past 10 posts or so, but some people still have trouble understanding it, and they view the models as PART of the unit they come from, which is against the KT rules.
Seeing that you were the only one so far that found a reason why you can't have 20 turrets using strictly RAW (well, you CAN have 20 turrets, they just die the instant they are created...), would you care to discuss whether the turret is a model or not? Because I feel this is the question we need to answer, if we want to determine whether this absurd list is possible or not... I'll start:
FOR (its status as a model):
- the BRB says that every miniature is a model
- the turret description says it is removed if there is no OTHER model from its unit within 2"
AGAINST:
- the BRB say that EVERY model has a profile, and a unit type, while the turret has none. The only other "things" in the game with no profile are things like the Armorium Cherub, that can hardly be considered models, they are more reminders of a one-use-only equip...
- in the description, the phrase "unit coherency" is never used, and it's instead written "within 2"" every time. Formally they mean the exact same thing, but seeing that in every other rule the phrase "unit coherency" is used, one may wonder why here they didn't use that. Could it be because unit coherency is only among models, and the turret is not one?
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote: doctortom wrote:
Can an attack bike operate without another model in the unit being present? Yes. Can an Eldar Platform operate without another model in the unit being present? No. Therefore, they're not just the same. That "special rule of the model" ARE an important factor. Otherwise, you could try claiming that an attack bike is the same as a Fortress of Redemption because they're both models.
You example makes NO SENSE, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. Just because 2 models have different rules, that doesn't mean that they are different in EVERY way. Are a Space Marine Scout and a Space Marine Bike different models with different rules? Sure, but are they purchased in the exact same way, are deployed according to the same rules, have both a profile and a unit type? Yes, they do. The Tau turret has NONE of those characteristics. Your objection that an Eldar Platform is radically different than an Attack Bike because it has a rule requiring another model to fire it, is like saying that a Scout is radically different than a bike because it can't move 12". They are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules.
An attack bike and a Fortress of Redemption are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. Quite frankly, I find your argument that the Eldar Platform and the Attack Bike are the same to be just as absurd as trying to say an Attack Bike and a Fortress of Redemption are the same.
73519
Post by: Teschio
doctortom wrote:
An attack bike and a Fortress of Redemption are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. Quite frankly, I find your argument that the Eldar Platform and the Attack Bike are the same to be just as absurd as trying to say an Attack Bike and a Fortress of Redemption are the same.
That's exactly the point! The attack bike and the fortress ARE both normal models. WITH DIFFERENT RULES, but they are (the capitalization here is important. I won't use a bike as a fortress, because they don't have THE SAME RULES, but they both are normal models). The Tau turret is NOT. It's a completely unique "thing" (we haven't even established if it's a model!). It is a unit upgrade, it is not deployed but "created", it does not have a profile or a unit type, it can be reconstructed after being removed from play. It has NOTHING to do with any other model in the game, certainly it's not even close to an Eldar Platform except in fluff (which is meaningless). The Platform itself is MUCH closer to a Fortress of Redemption than it is to a Tau turret. Every time you think you are undermining my point, you are actually supporting it, so thanks...
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote: Charistoph wrote:
Not true. I referenced the Platform because it is a single gunnery system added to the unit, and I still noted the probably differences there. Bikes for a Command Squad and Mines for the Scout Bikes are still a different concept in which they are instances of upgrades happening in multiple instances for multiple models instead of a single upgrade which is not used for all models in the unit like the turret.
Eldar platforms are COMPLETELY different. They are just like an attack bike for a bike squad, an additonal model with its own profile that is integral part of the unit from the very beginning. They are an additional model, NOT a unit upgrade. The Tau turret IS a unit upgrade, not an additional model. Despite looking similar at a first glance, they are VASTLY different. The eldar platform is no different than adding a normal model to a unit, while I mantain that the Tau turret is EXACTLY like cluster mines. Despite the plural, in fact, cluster mines are a UNIT upgrade, not an upgrade for models in the unit. Take for example Scout Camo Cloaks: the codex says "the entire squad may take...", and the cost is on a per-model basis. This is clearly a MODEL upgrade, although you are required to get it for every model in the unit. But cluster mines are quite different: "the UNIT can take cluster mines", and the cost is fixed. Do you think that they are a model upgrade ONLY because they are described with a plural? Nowhere in the entry there is anyreference to the members of a squad, only to the entire unit, you are being misled by the fluff here. What if the upgrade was called "booby trap kit", or "automatic mines delivery system", with the exact same effect, will THIS be an upgrade to all models? There is absolutely no question that mines are a unit upgrade, and the turret is one too.
Actually, I am not being mislead by the fluff. I am following what it does and how it works, and have noted those exceptions while doing so. DoctorTom already addressed this, but you chose to just dismiss it. The Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform is halfway between the Attack Bike and the new Fire Warrior turret. It is a model like the Attack Bike, but just like the Fire Warrior turret, it cannot operate as an independent model. If there are no more Guardians left in its unit, the Platform is lost as a casualty, just like the Fire Warrior Turret is lost (but not as a casualty). An Attack bike does not care if it is the last model in its unit (and can be even purchased as a unit of one, too). So, aside from the model profile, the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform shares more in common with the Fire Warrior turret than the Attack Bike.
Teschio wrote:Then you need to review the tenets of YMDC. Yes, it is important to stick to RAW where possible. However this is not a situation that is explicitly covered in RAW, unless the new Kill Team rules miraculously address it.
A good rule would be to stick to RAW if the conversation is specifically about RAW. And this one is, since I explicitly requested it (and I am the original poster...). If you are asking for an interpretation according to the existing rules, it doens't help to be flooded by home rules. In this case, if you read the entire conversation you will find that there IS a possible RAW interpretation, Happyjew came up with it, we just need to clarify exactly what is considered a model. Derailing the conversation speaking about HYWPI does not help. One should stick to the topic, and since the topic was EXPLICITLY about RAW interpretations, anything else is off-topic here.
That's your opinion, but not the tenets of this forum. And again, there is nothing RAW on this issue, one way or the other. And with nothing RAW, all that is left is RAI/ HYWPI/etc. If you think there is something literally RAW there, please provide it. I know you asked the question, but you seem to believe there is something RAW. When told there isn't, you double down and insist on it being there. Sadly, that is not of then the case with GW rules interactions involving multiple expansions of the game.
There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.
Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.
Teschio wrote: Happyjew wrote:The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.
It's what I have been trying to say the past 10 posts or so, but some people still have trouble understanding it, and they view the models as PART of the unit they come from, which is against the KT rules.
Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out.
Charistoph wrote:Teschio wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.
This would work if the turret was an upgrade for a model. But it's an upgrade for the whole unit, and therefore you can't "assign" it to a model, they all have it, like all scout bikes have cluster mines. And once they become separate, they can all deploy the turret, since the only limitation is "one turret PER unit". There are 12 units, completely independent from each other, with that upgrade.
Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.
HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.
You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Charistoph wrote: Actually, I am not being mislead by the fluff. I am following what it does and how it works, and have noted those exceptions while doing so. DoctorTom already addressed this, but you chose to just dismiss it. The Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform is halfway between the Attack Bike and the new Fire Warrior turret. It is a model like the Attack Bike, but just like the Fire Warrior turret, it cannot operate as an independent model. If there are no more Guardians left in its unit, the Platform is lost as a casualty, just like the Fire Warrior Turret is lost (but not as a casualty). An Attack bike does not care if it is the last model in its unit (and can be even purchased as a unit of one, too). So, aside from the model profile, the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform shares more in common with the Fire Warrior turret than the Attack Bike.
The Tau turret is not "half-way". It is COMPLETELY different. Name ONE thing they have in common. And don't say that they need another model to fire, because even in THIS they are different: the Tau turret needs only to have a model within 2", while the Eldar Platform needs to be operated by a model that can't shoot its own weapon while doing so. And while the Eldar Platform is removed as a casualty when its ENTIRE unit is destroyed, the Tau turret is removed as soon as there are no more members of its unit within 2" (which could mean that they moved, for example, they don't even need to be killed). The Eldar Platform is a model LIKE ANY OTHER, with special rules regarding how it fires. If it's close to something, it's artillery, definitely NOT the Tau turret which shares NONE of his characteristic. Seriously, you need to stop considering common sense or fluff and look at the RULES. We are not even sure if it's a MODEL, and you are compairing it to the Eldar Platform? That's your opinion, but not the tenets of this forum. And again, there is nothing RAW on this issue, one way or the other. And with nothing RAW, all that is left is RAI/HYWPI/etc. If you think there is something literally RAW there, please provide it. I know you asked the question, but you seem to believe there is something RAW. When told there isn't, you double down and insist on it being there. Sadly, that is not of then the case with GW rules interactions involving multiple expansions of the game.
YOU say there is "nothing RAW", but EVERYTHING I WROTE was RAW. And so was Happyjew's idea. The fact that you seem to be incapable of applying the rules as they are written (exemplified by your absurd and completely fluff-driven comparison to the Eldar Platform) does not mean that others share your limitations. The fact that you say I have not provided anything RAW means you really have not read what I wrote earlier. Let me quote myself: Teschio wrote:You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.
See? Everything I just wrote is a literal interpretation of the rules. If you don't agree, please tell me exactly which of my premises is wrong (maybe check the rest of the topic before doing that, because there's a very high chance that I already responded to your objections). It just dawned upon me that maybe you really don't know what " RAW" is... you seem to confuse it with "there is a rule or FAQ detailing this exact situation". But this is not RAW. RAW means that you take the existing rules, consider their interaction, and come up with an objective interpretation of said rules regarding the matter at hand. I stated all my premises and my conclusions, all are a literal interpretation of the rules and I am able to defend them individually if needed, now YOU have to tell me which of the 5 points above is incorrect and, more importantly, WHY. Quoting only existing rules, not YOUR interpretation of them. There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.
Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.
No, there are not several RAW interpretations. What you suggested was NOT RAW since I already highlighted the fact that it explicitly conflicts with existing rules. My interpretation, which until a better one comes out IS the correct one, may seem absurd, it may conflict with common sense, but it does NOT conflict with the rules, and this is the exact meaning of RAW. BTW, Happyjew's interpretation is no different from my own, he just pointed out an interaction which I didn't consider, that will make the turrets be removed as soon as they are placed, But you STILL can place 20 of them. Oh, and if his idea is correct (we STILL hve not addressed the issue, which is "is the turret a model or not?"), you can't use Tau turrets PERIOD. Not even one of them. Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out. Charistoph wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.
And once again you feel the need to point out that you don't really understand the rules... those 12 FWs become 12 separate units, ALL OF WHICH purchased a turret since a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a MODEL upgrade, and is therefore shared among all models of the original unit. Yes, they purchased ONE turret. PER UNIT. How many unit are there? 12. Not 1 composed of 12 models ACTING AS units. 12 units, totally independent from each other, which ALL have an upgrade you purchased for their parent unit. If FWs don't each get a turret, then Scout Bikes don't each get mines. This is the EXACT same situation. Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.
HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.
Yes, the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. It is split up in 12 different unit, ALL OF WHICH share EVERY upgrade the unit had. Which means they each get a turret, because the only limitation for a turret is "one PER unit", and you have 12 units. And as I said multiple times, HYWPI is worthless. If you want to ignore or make up the rules, be my guest. Just don't intervene in a discussion about the RULES, since you are not trying to support your position with actual rules. Since this topic is EXCLUSIVELY about RAW, and has been from the very beginning, everything else is necessarily off-topic. You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.
Because the situation is the same. Here we have an upgrade to the whole unit, with a cost that is fixed and not unit-based, and that gets applied to every member of the unit. Once this unit is split up according to the Every Man for Himself rule, each of the members of the original unit get that upgrade. The same works with IG veterans upgrades, with cluster mines, and with every UNIT upgrade that is applied automatically to ALL its members once they split up. Including Tau turrets for FWs.
105211
Post by: Snake Tortoise
Just inform the TO before the event of any unusual rule issues like this and have them ban it before the event begins. It's in their power and interest to prevent this kind of thing going on at their event
73519
Post by: Teschio
 Snake Tortoise wrote:Just inform the TO before the event of any unusual rule issues like this and have them ban it before the event begins. It's in their power and interest to prevent this kind of thing going on at their event
This is a very reasonable suggestion, and I was planning on doing that, but then I realized this doesn't solve the problem: generally, once a tournament infopack is released it is not modified later, because you have no guarantee that all participants will see the amended version. And even if it's in the TO's power to ban or change a rule, this has to be done with the previous knowledge of all players. You can't bring this list to a tournament (a list that was legal when the infopack was released), and learn the same morning that it's not legal anymore. I can inform of this problem TOs I personally know around where I live, but not every other TO. Therefore, I need a foolproof argument that is based on the existing rules, so it can't be disputed. Happyjew was on the right track, imho, we just need to figure out whether the turret is a model... which is itself not an easy task, but should be possible even though the rules in this matter are contradictory.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.
The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.
From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.
94850
Post by: nekooni
 Kriswall wrote:Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.
The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.
From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.
I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret.
Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness.
Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine).
Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Kriswall wrote:Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.
The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.
From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.
My gaming group isn't awful at all. Yes, we play competitively, but none of us will ever do such a thing. Wen you go to tournaments, though, things change. Casual games are much different than competitive games.
You argument makes perfect sense... but it's wrong. Rules are not required to make sense. They are to be followed, period. This is the essence of RAW, following the rules even when the result is absurd and completely unintended. I detailed in the previous posts my premises and my conclusions, all based on a literal interpretation of existing rules, if you disagree please tell me exactly WHICH of my premise is wrong, and why. Yes, I do purchase ONE turret, but since this is a UNIT upgrade, it is shared by all members of that unit. And once those members split up due to a unique rule of Kill Team, THEN each one of them carries this upgrade, and you can have one turret EACH. I know, it's awful, it does not make any sense, but the rules are pretty clear on that. A UNIT upgrade benefits every model of that unit.
Yours is not a RAW interpretation, it's HYWPI. You make the exact same mistake many other people do, which is to consider that FWs are part of the unit that purchased the turret. They are not. That unit does not exist anymore. FWs are completely independent units, EACH with its own upgrade (because a unit upgrade benefits all models, once again). Yes, it does not make any sense. Yes, it's an obvious mistake. Yes, the game designers clearly didn't even think of this problem (as far as I can tell, I am the first one to come out with this idea). Yes, it's dirty as hell, and if you try something like this in a casual game I will never play with you again. Yes, it is so blatantly disgusting and absurd that it can't be right. But it is. Following the rules to the letter sometimes has unforeseeable consequences, and this is one of those cases. Until this gets FAQed, you CAN set up 20 turrets in a KT game. Now the question becomes if they SURVIVE. If they are models, you can set them up, but they will immediately be removed, and the only thing you achieve is losing a movement phase. Note that this will mean that NO turret can ever be used, not even a single one. Again, doens't make sense, but the rules are clear (IF it's a model).
Since I think this interpretation is established, given that nobody was able to tell me which of my premises is wrong and why (nobody even tried, to be honest...), the discussion should shift to "is the turret a model"? Because if the answer to that is "yes", then this list is not viable, and we have solved the problem.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
nekooni wrote: Kriswall wrote:Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something. The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one. From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.
I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret. Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness. Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine). Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.
You have in no way, shape or form purchased the ability to deploy a turret. What you've actually taken for the unit is "A", as in singular, Turret. The Turret's rules then go on to explain how you go about using and setting up the single Turret that you've purchased. If an opponent attempts to set up a second Turret, I would stop them and ask them to point out on their army list where this second Turret came from. I really think you're all overthinking this. The fact that the rules are worded so that you could potentially deploy a Turret next to each Fire Warrior means nothing when you consider that you only purchased one Turret in the list building step of the game. Arguing about how many hot dogs you can eat is meaningless if you only bought one. The most hot dogs you can eat in one sitting when you only bought one is ONE hot dog. The number of Turrets you can deploy when you bought ONE Turret is ONE. No rocket science. Well... missile science? Automatically Appended Next Post: Teschio wrote: Kriswall wrote:Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something. The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one. From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.
My gaming group isn't awful at all. Yes, we play competitively, but none of us will ever do such a thing. Wen you go to tournaments, though, things change. Casual games are much different than competitive games. You argument makes perfect sense... but it's wrong. Rules are not required to make sense. They are to be followed, period. This is the essence of RAW, following the rules even when the result is absurd and completely unintended. I detailed in the previous posts my premises and my conclusions, all based on a literal interpretation of existing rules, if you disagree please tell me exactly WHICH of my premise is wrong, and why. Yes, I do purchase ONE turret, but since this is a UNIT upgrade, it is shared by all members of that unit. And once those members split up due to a unique rule of Kill Team, THEN each one of them carries this upgrade, and you can have one turret EACH. I know, it's awful, it does not make any sense, but the rules are pretty clear on that. A UNIT upgrade benefits every model of that unit. Yours is not a RAW interpretation, it's HYWPI. You make the exact same mistake many other people do, which is to consider that FWs are part of the unit that purchased the turret. They are not. That unit does not exist anymore. FWs are completely independent units, EACH with its own upgrade (because a unit upgrade benefits all models, once again). Yes, it does not make any sense. Yes, it's an obvious mistake. Yes, the game designers clearly didn't even think of this problem (as far as I can tell, I am the first one to come out with this idea). Yes, it's dirty as hell, and if you try something like this in a casual game I will never play with you again. Yes, it is so blatantly disgusting and absurd that it can't be right. But it is. Following the rules to the letter sometimes has unforeseeable consequences, and this is one of those cases. Until this gets FAQed, you CAN set up 20 turrets in a KT game. Now the question becomes if they SURVIVE. If they are models, you can set them up, but they will immediately be removed, and the only thing you achieve is losing a movement phase. Note that this will mean that NO turret can ever be used, not even a single one. Again, doens't make sense, but the rules are clear (IF it's a model). Since I think this interpretation is established, given that nobody was able to tell me which of my premises is wrong and why (nobody even tried, to be honest...), the discussion should shift to "is the turret a model"? Because if the answer to that is "yes", then this list is not viable, and we have solved the problem.
It's not an intangible unit upgrade. It's a thing. You can point at it. It is, by definition, a Citadel Model insomuch as it comes on a Citadel model sprue and you assemble it. I think your best argument is that it's a model and therefore would immediately disappear when deployed. That's your best argument. Your best course of action is to simply call over the TO and pack up your models and leave if he allows 20 Turrets on the field. That's disruptive enough that the TO will reconsider allowing obvious non-intentional rules interactions in a competitive environment in the future. I'm not sure why anyone would want to play in an event where RaW shenanigans are allowed when "everyone knows" they're not what the author intended. Automatically Appended Next Post: I just feel like you're arguing for the sake of argument. I can't see any reasonable person ever allowing this in a real world situation.
73519
Post by: Teschio
nekooni wrote:I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret.
Technically camo cloaks are different since they are an upgrade to the models, not the unit, but snare mines are a good example. Like cluster mines for scout bikes. I don't know why it's o hard to understand for many people, an upgrade to the unit still benefits all of its members when they split up according to KT rules.
Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness.
Exactly. There are rules that are "normal" in 40k games, but become MUCH stronger once you split a unit up. Basically anything that is "once per unit" becomes incredibly strong when each model IS a unit. If DS was allowed in KT, Eldar Swooping Hawks would be another example, with EACH one of them able to use the blast attack when they DS. The Tau turret is just the most extreme of these examples (only because they banned Blood for the Blood God for KDK: you could have filled the table with cultists, and every 5 dead cultists gain 8 bloodletters... or a bloodthirster, with 8 blood tithes!)
Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine).
Yes, that would be my home rule as well. But it IS a home rule (so, worthless in tournaments), since it conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule because it considers Fire Warriors as part of the unit they were purchased from, and the rules pretty clearly contradict this interpretation.
Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.
I wouldn't play against that BS interpretation either. But since it IS the correct one, if I find it in ournaments and I don't want to play against it I would have to forfeit the game (not that it would make much difference, since that list is completely unbeatable...)
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Why don't you do what everyone else in the world does and simply contact the tournament organizer for any given tournament before you decide to attend? The TO may simply be unaware of this interaction, but would almost certainly ban it ahead of time.
Discussing theoretical situations... what to do for A tournament... is one thing. In the real world, we're always dealing with THIS tournament and a 30 second conversation resolves these sort of things. "This nonsense isn't allowed, right?" Boom. Done.
I really, really think you're over thinking this. This Turret issue is simply NEVER going to be a problem in the real world if you perform even 30 seconds of due diligence when signing up for a tournament.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Kriswall wrote:You have in no way, shape or form purchased the ability to deploy a turret. What you've actually taken for the unit is "A", as in singular, Turret. The Turret's rules then go on to explain how you go about using and setting up the single Turret that you've purchased. If an opponent attempts to set up a second Turret, I would stop them and ask them to point out on their army list where this second Turret came from.
And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.
You interpretation is flawed, as each possible scenario contradicts the rules in some way. First, let's look at the case in which you only have one FW unit, and you buy that upgrade. There are only 2 possible options (if you discard my interpretation, that is the only literal one):
A) you specify a FW who "has" the turret. This contradicts the fact that it is not an upgrade for the model
B) you can set up only one turret, next to a FW of your choice. This contradicts the Every Man for Himself rule, since it requires that Fire Warriors are in effect a single unit who just ACTS like independent models, while they are in reality completely separate units, each with its own upgrades (and remember, the turret IS a unit upgrade!).
This gets even worse once there are TWO units, each with a turret. Here we have, once again, only 2 options (plus the correct one...):
A) you pick one FW per unit to have the turret. Same as the previous case, you can't.
B) you get to deploy 2 turrets. But since there is NO relation between a FW and the unit he comes from in this scenario (again, EMfH rule), given that you do not consider the turret to be an upgrade for the entire unit, you could legally have two turrets on a single model (there is no restriction of a single turret per model, if your interpretation is that you can set up only the number of turrets you purchased).
I really think you're all overthinking this. The fact that the rules are worded so that you could potentially deploy a Turret next to each Fire Warrior means nothing when you consider that you only purchased one Turret in the list building step of the game. Arguing about how many hot dogs you can eat is meaningless if you only bought one. The most hot dogs you can eat in one sitting when you only bought one is ONE hot dog. The number of Turrets you can deploy when you bought ONE Turret is ONE.
I think you are UNDERthinking it. You go with the most immediate and sensible interpretation, neglecting to consider the implications of the actual rules. As I said before, I don't really care how you would play it, I care about what the rules say. And the rules are clear about this, if you only agree to stop using common sense and just read the literally, drawing your conclusions from them. You did NOT purchase one turret. You purchased the ability to set up one turret. To go with your extremely irrelevant example, I, Teschio, have the ability to create a hot dog out of thin air (I paid for that ability). Only I, Teschio, have this ability, and I can only make one. But then I clone myself, and each of my copy has the same power that I have. How many hot dogs can we create? I already detailed how every possible scenario involving your interpretation conflicts with some rule, you have not done the same for mine.
It's not an intangible unit upgrade. It's a thing. You can point at it. It is, by definition, a Citadel Model insomuch as it comes on a Citadel model sprue and you assemble it. I think your best argument is that it's a model and therefore would immediately disappear when deployed. That's your best argument. Your best course of action is to simply call over the TO and pack up your models and leave if he allows 20 Turrets on the field. That's disruptive enough that the TO will reconsider allowing obvious non-intentional rules interactions in a competitive environment in the future. I'm not sure why anyone would want to play in an event where RaW shenanigans are allowed when "everyone knows" they're not what the author intended.
No it's not a "thing". You are being misled by the fluff. You can represent Cluster Mines on bikes if you want, are those "a thing", or just a unit upgrade? Stop thinking like it's an Eldar Platform, you REALLY need to think like Cluster Mines. And don't be misled by the fact that one is singular and the other plural, you can change the names as much as you want, only the RULES count.
And YES, of course I would pack my stuff if I find this in a tournament, but this is NOT the point! The point is, "is this LEGAL?". Obviously TOs will not allow this, but this would be a home rule, I want an answer to that very simple question. And TOs can ban this, sure, but NOT once the tournament starts. If someone uses that list before the TOs are aware of this situation, he would just win.
I just feel like you're arguing for the sake of argument. I can't see any reasonable person ever allowing this in a real world situation.
Of course not! Am I supporting such a list? I don't even play Tau, the entire point of this post is so that I can have VALID arguments, RULE-BASED arguments, to avoid facing it in tournaments.
Why don't you do what everyone else in the world does and simply contact the tournament organizer for any given tournament before you decide to attend? The TO may simply be unaware of this interaction, but would almost certainly ban it ahead of time.
Discussing theoretical situations... what to do for A tournament... is one thing. In the real world, we're always dealing with THIS tournament and a 30 second conversation resolves these sort of things. "This nonsense isn't allowed, right?" Boom. Done.
I really, really think you're over thinking this. This Turret issue is simply NEVER going to be a problem in the real world if you perform even 30 seconds of due diligence when signing up for a tournament.
It doens't work this way. Yes, I can contact a TO, and if he is not aware of such a problem and I have the risk of running into this list I can avoid the tournament. But even if he decides to ban it, he CAN'T, at least not for the next tournament: people may already have signed up for the tournament, and unless you personally contact each one of them ahead of time (something that is not always possible) to inform them that this rule has changed, you can't ban something that is allowed by the rules (and therefore was legal when you signed up) unless you are absolutely sure that each of the participants is aware of it. What would you think if you signed up for a tournament, travelled to the location, only to find out the moment you arrive that the TOs decided that "WK and SS are too strong, no Gargantuan Creatures this tournament". Maybe you had a list with a WK, and you weren't informed ahead of time of this changes... you can't change the rules unless everyone is aware of it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, that's not the point. I asked for a rule interpretation, saying "it will never come up" is a cop out. If you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, just don't reply. Saying "you are overthinking this" does not help.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Your best argument continues to be that each unit did not in fact purchase a turret because a unit of 12 purchased 1 turret. You say it's going to come up in tournaments like TO's are just gonna be like "Oh yeah sure 10 points for 20 SMS turrets is totally legit." Stop asserting this will be the case or else show that it already has been. You say you need RAW reasoning but refuse to see that everything being discussed here is an interpretation. That unit of 1 fire warrior did not purchase a turret. The original unit of 12 fire warriors purchased 1 turret. Your interpretation that you cite as absolute RAW is still simply your interpretation of RAW. Every other example of a unit upgrade presented thus far is mentioned in multiples because each model in those units gets the upgrade. That is not the case with the DS8 turret or the Eldar guardian turret, and thus house rules are required in order to deal with these situations. Plus, even if you have rules-based arguments against facing it in tournaments, your whole point hinges on the fact that the TO is already allowing it. You say they can't update the rules because people already signed up, so what's the point of having an argument ready for why your opponent can't use 20 turrets when you're already playing in the tournament? Surely it can't be that you want rules to cite to the TO beforehand, because they can't change it, right? I guess what I'm saying is, you give us reasons you want your interpretation refuted, while telling us it doesn't matter if you try to refute it to a TO anyway. Edited to say I like Kriswall's "The Turret Store is out of stock" statement
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote:
And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.
No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:The Tau turret is not "half-way". It is COMPLETELY different. Name ONE thing they have in common. And don't say that they need another model to fire, because even in THIS they are different: the Tau turret needs only to have a model within 2", while the Eldar Platform needs to be operated by a model that can't shoot its own weapon while doing so. And while the Eldar Platform is removed as a casualty when its ENTIRE unit is destroyed, the Tau turret is removed as soon as there are no more members of its unit within 2" (which could mean that they moved, for example, they don't even need to be killed). The Eldar Platform is a model LIKE ANY OTHER, with special rules regarding how it fires. If it's close to something, it's artillery, definitely NOT the Tau turret which shares NONE of his characteristic. Seriously, you need to stop considering common sense or fluff and look at the RULES. We are not even sure if it's a MODEL, and you are compairing it to the Eldar Platform?
You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?
Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.
Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.
This when compared to an Attack Bike which is always an independent model, requires no other models of its unit to be near to work (aside from Out of Coherency), and can even be taken as its own unit outside of Kill Team, makes the Heavy Weapon Platform closer in use and processing IN THE RULES to the FW turret than an Attack Bike. The only relationships that a Heavy Weapons Platform shares with an Attack Bike is having a Model Profile and a Heavy Type Weapon.
Teschio wrote:YOU say there is "nothing RAW", but EVERYTHING I WROTE was RAW. And so was Happyjew's idea. The fact that you seem to be incapable of applying the rules as they are written (exemplified by your absurd and completely fluff-driven comparison to the Eldar Platform) does not mean that others share your limitations. The fact that you say I have not provided anything RAW means you really have not read what I wrote earlier. Let me quote myself:
Teschio wrote:You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.
See? Everything I just wrote is a literal interpretation of the rules. If you don't agree, please tell me exactly which of my premises is wrong (maybe check the rest of the topic before doing that, because there's a very high chance that I already responded to your objections). It just dawned upon me that maybe you really don't know what " RAW" is... you seem to confuse it with "there is a rule or FAQ detailing this exact situation". But this is not RAW. RAW means that you take the existing rules, consider their interaction, and come up with an objective interpretation of said rules regarding the matter at hand. I stated all my premises and my conclusions, all are a literal interpretation of the rules and I am able to defend them individually if needed, now YOU have to tell me which of the 5 points above is incorrect and, more importantly, WHY. Quoting only existing rules, not YOUR interpretation of them.
And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.
You have the road of RAW to the river and from the river. You are lacking the proper bridge to make the connections between the two across the river.
Teschio wrote:There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.
Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.
No, there are not several RAW interpretations. What you suggested was NOT RAW since I already highlighted the fact that it explicitly conflicts with existing rules. My interpretation, which until a better one comes out IS the correct one, may seem absurd, it may conflict with common sense, but it does NOT conflict with the rules, and this is the exact meaning of RAW. BTW, Happyjew's interpretation is no different from my own, he just pointed out an interaction which I didn't consider, that will make the turrets be removed as soon as they are placed, But you STILL can place 20 of them. Oh, and if his idea is correct (we STILL hve not addressed the issue, which is "is the turret a model or not?"), you can't use Tau turrets PERIOD. Not even one of them.
The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.
Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.
My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.
Teschio wrote:Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out.
Charistoph wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.
And once again you feel the need to point out that you don't really understand the rules... those 12 FWs become 12 separate units, ALL OF WHICH purchased a turret since a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a MODEL upgrade, and is therefore shared among all models of the original unit. Yes, they purchased ONE turret. PER UNIT. How many unit are there? 12. Not 1 composed of 12 models ACTING AS units. 12 units, totally independent from each other, which ALL have an upgrade you purchased for their parent unit. If FWs don't each get a turret, then Scout Bikes don't each get mines. This is the EXACT same situation.
Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Teschio wrote:Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.
HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.
Yes, the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. It is split up in 12 different unit, ALL OF WHICH share EVERY upgrade the unit had. Which means they each get a turret, because the only limitation for a turret is "one PER unit", and you have 12 units.
And as I said multiple times, HYWPI is worthless. If you want to ignore or make up the rules, be my guest. Just don't intervene in a discussion about the RULES, since you are not trying to support your position with actual rules. Since this topic is EXCLUSIVELY about RAW, and has been from the very beginning, everything else is necessarily off-topic.
Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.
Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.
2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.
3) The singular purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.
Option 1, makes the turret pointless, but it is the strictest RAW interpretation. Admittedly, that happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept. Admittedly, that also happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 2 is the only one that can take in to consideration all factors from the rules that are written as well as all players finding an acceptable balance between useless and overpowered.
Sadly, when it comes to RAW, there is nothing that actually defines any of these three scenarios as being the literally correct one.
Teschio wrote:You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.
Because the situation is the same. Here we have an upgrade to the whole unit, with a cost that is fixed and not unit-based, and that gets applied to every member of the unit. Once this unit is split up according to the Every Man for Himself rule, each of the members of the original unit get that upgrade. The same works with IG veterans upgrades, with cluster mines, and with every UNIT upgrade that is applied automatically to ALL its members once they split up. Including Tau turrets for FWs.
It is not the same. The turret is a single item of Wargear. Bikes and Mines are not. Their purchase involves a plural of the term purchased, not the singular. When you purchase the Bikes, you are purchasing 5 Bikes. When you purchase the Cluster Mines, you are purchasing a group of Mines. Again, it is closer to the Banner than the Bikes in this respect, because it is a singular purchase buy the unit. The Banner just has the advantage of being assigned to a model in the options while the turret is not.
But the final point is, the turret operates in a fuzzy space that is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and unnecessary outside of them. Since it is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and the general rules do not NEED to consider them in this way, all we have left is to use our own methods of interpreting the rules, i.e. HYWPI. Whine and rage about it all you want, but unless you can actually reference a rule which defines what happens to a single piece of Wargear purchased by a unit but not assigned to a model with a profile, that is what we are left with. Do not get angry with me, I did not write these rules. If you must get angry, direct your anger towards those who are so shoddy and incomplete with their rules writing.
99116
Post by: Mrpinkpigy
Teschio wrote:Hi everyone, I just got the Kill Team rulebook a few days ago, and I have been working on some ideas... but while doing so, I came across some difficult rule interpretations.
Most unit can have their models buy upgrades, and that is not a problem in Kill Team. The problems arise when there is an upgrade that is available to the whole unit, not to individual models. A prominent example of that would be SM Scout Bikes' cluster mines. How would that work? Technically, it's an upgrade that affects the whole unit, but in KT every single model counts as a separate unit: so, do I get to booby-trap one piece of terrain, or one for each bike? The rules just say "each unit with cluster mines in your army can...", which in KT would support the second hypothesis (one booby-trapped piece of terrain per bike), since a unit upgrade is available to all the models in the unit.
There's worse, however. Specifically, Tau's Tactical Support Turrets. Here we have an option that can be bought by a unit, and deployed by any one model of said unit. But what will happen in KT? Since that is not a model upgrade but a UNIT upgrade, each model in the original unit gets it, and since they are all different units, and the only limitation is that the turret can be deployed by one and only one model of a unit, it seems to me that RAW allow for EACH fire warrior to deploy a turret. Which is crazy, because 20 SMS turrets mean auto-win in every scenario against every conceivable army. There is also no alternative interpretation that makes sense, for this specific case: if only one model can deploy the turret, WHICH ONE can do so? Any one of my choosing? This makes no sense, given that all information about the unit a model comes from is lost in KT... models ARE individual units, not just parts of the same unit that can operate as individuals.
The fact that universal upgrades or rules affect a squad differently when all its members are individual units has been recognized by the developers, and this is exactly why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: an effect that is supposed to work once per unit is very, very different when all models are distinct units. While BoP was the most obvious case, however, it's not the only one, as the previous examples showed. What is your interpretation?
IMPORTANT: I am not interested in RAI, or in how your gaming group house-rules this. I am interested in pure RAW. My local meta is extremely competitive, and I need to be able to defend my case, not just appeal to interpretations or common sense. Here, ANYTHING that is allowed by the rules is fair game. You may not like it, but it's how it is, and therefore I will ask you to stick to RAW.
Bonus question: not something that has to do with unit upgrades, but an intersting question nonetheless: what will happen to a Specialist with Infiltrate/Scout that is embarked in a Dedicated Transport with the rest of his unit? Technically, the rules say "if a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the special rule to the Transport", and my model IS a unit embarked in his DT, although he is embarked together with other units without that rule (something that in a normal game can never happen). It seems to me that the entire transport gets Scout/Infiltrate, and therefore this is a very effective way to add mobility to a whole bunch of models... thoughts?
Awesome changes
37809
Post by: Kriswall
doctortom wrote:Teschio wrote:
And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.
No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.
I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.
100083
Post by: pumaman1
As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?
This is important for the discussion at hand.
105211
Post by: Snake Tortoise
Well if you can't get the TO to make a house rule in time just go along, play games, enjoy the event, and if (in the unlikely scenario) some prick tries this just say "GG" and pack up your models. So what if he wins the event? Are you playing for life changing money? Even in a perfect rules system bad things can happen. Your opponent could drop some of your models on the floor and stamp on them. They could pull out a knife and stab you because they lost. You could be hit by an overturning lorry on the way to the event. Winning games of Warhammer 40k isn't the be all and end all, and somebody pulling a dick move like this to feel good about themselves probably has quite a miserable existence and should be pitied
100083
Post by: pumaman1
Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?
This is important for the discussion at hand.
Every Man for Himself, "... each model is treated as a separate unit." so 5-10.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 5-10 After we reach the deployment phase. during army building they will be built as if they are 1 unit (so no 5 heavy weapons on 5 separate men)
46128
Post by: Happyjew
 pumaman1 wrote: Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?
This is important for the discussion at hand.
Every Man for Himself, "... each model is treated as a separate unit." so 5-10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
5-10 After we reach the deployment phase. during army building they will be built as if they are 1 unit (so no 5 heavy weapons on 5 separate men)
Each model is a separate unit, but is each model a "Tactical Squad" unit? Or is each unit a "Space Marine" (with 1 Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant))? The real question is what is the name of the unit for each model?
100083
Post by: pumaman1
Each unit would become a Tactical Squad of space marines of 1. featuring ATSKNF, frag grenades, ccw, bolt pistol (?) etc, and 1 tactical squad could be equipped with a heavy weapon. Because each model of the Tactical Squad is treated as a seperates unit of Tactical Squads
I am now heavy into HIWPI/RAI over a unquestionable RAW, but that is the most literal in my mind.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Kriswall wrote: doctortom wrote:Teschio wrote:
And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.
No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.
I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.
Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
pumaman1 wrote:As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."
And how many can the unit purchase in the Options? One, I believe, and it is purchased as a piece of Wargear, not as an option to deploy the Wargear. That option comes from purchasing the Wargear.
Following that, are all the Fire Warriors in the separate units the same unit that purchased the Turret? No, they are all separate units, not the same original unit.
101798
Post by: Fabled_Hero
Teschio wrote:
Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.
I've been thinking the same thing. But at least now a Tac squad can bring 10 Rhinos with Hunter Killer missiles for 45 pts, to deal with all the turret bearers. So, now we have the same excess found in normal 40k for KT.
73519
Post by: Teschio
BossJakadakk wrote:Your best argument continues to be that each unit did not in fact purchase a turret because a unit of 12 purchased 1 turret. You say it's going to come up in tournaments like TO's are just gonna be like "Oh yeah sure 10 points for 20 SMS turrets is totally legit." Stop asserting this will be the case or else show that it already has been.
See, this is your problem. You find it absurd (and it IS!), therefore you ignore the rule. And I do too, in casual games. I DO NOT CARE what a TO would actually say (although, if I were the TO, I WILL allow it unless I have a way to contact everyone that signed up and inform them of the home rule), I care whether this is LEGAL. Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.
You say you need RAW reasoning but refuse to see that everything being discussed here is an interpretation. That unit of 1 fire warrior did not purchase a turret. The original unit of 12 fire warriors purchased 1 turret. Your interpretation that you cite as absolute RAW is still simply your interpretation of RAW. Every other example of a unit upgrade presented thus far is mentioned in multiples because each model in those units gets the upgrade. That is not the case with the DS8 turret or the Eldar guardian turret, and thus house rules are required in order to deal with these situations.
YOU see interpretation. I see rules. The original unit did not purchase a turret in the sense that the turret is an additional model, like an Eldar platform: they purchased a unit UPGRADE, which is therefore shared between all members. The fact that you say that every unit upgrade is mentioned in the plural form is EXACTLY the problem with you: you try to use common sense instead of the rules. What if Cluster Mines were instead called "mine delivery drone" or something like that, in the singular form, with the exact same effect? Would it change anything? OF COURSE not, because names are there for fluff reasons! You could have called it "upgrade #3" and it would be equally valid. You are being completely misled by the fluff and your personal interpretations based on common sense, I start to doubt that you have the strict and logical mentality to be able to discard useless details and focus on the RULES... if you want to use house rules, be my guest, but this is NOT a conversation about house rules. It is ONLY about RAW. I expressed my premises multiple times (I really don't want to quote myself again, read a few posts back), with numbers for easier reference, please tell me exactly which one of my premises is wrong and according to which rule, or I would ask you to top commenting, because derailing a conversation about RAW into house rules is meaningless. On a personal note, I never understood people that do not play with RAW, and I never will. Without a codified and objective structure, any game makes no sense. You may as well play with toy soldier where the rules are "pew pew you are dead". The only, and I mean ONLY way in which both players can play the same game is if they both use the exact same rules, and in many enviroments this means using the ONLY possible objective interpretation, which is RAW. Saying "but a RAW interpretation does not exist, therefore we can house rule this" is a cop out, and it's also false. The fact that you can't SEE or accept that a RAW interpretation exists doesn't mean that it's not there. There is almost NOTHING that can't be covered by RAW, you just need to stop looking for a specific rule detailing the exact situation, which may very well not exist, and start using the OTHER rules that are written, seeing how they interact with each other in a particular instance, and what you can infer from them. THIS is RAW, not finding the rule you are looking for clearly written in the BRB.
Plus, even if you have rules-based arguments against facing it in tournaments, your whole point hinges on the fact that the TO is already allowing it. You say they can't update the rules because people already signed up, so what's the point of having an argument ready for why your opponent can't use 20 turrets when you're already playing in the tournament? Surely it can't be that you want rules to cite to the TO beforehand, because they can't change it, right? I guess what I'm saying is, you give us reasons you want your interpretation refuted, while telling us it doesn't matter if you try to refute it to a TO anyway.
HUGE difference. A TO that doesn't want (for good reasons) to have 20 turrets can HOUSE RULE his tournament as much as he wants. But only if all participants are aware of those house rules in advance. Finding a RAW interpretation that stops this list is another thing entirely, because here you are NOT using house rules, you are using THE RULES! And therefore THIS is valid immediately, withouth need to notify it in advance, because rules have a universal validity. You come with 20 SMS turrets because you misinterpreted the rules? Fine, but if you discover that you can't use that list NOT because of a home rule, but because there is a RAW interpretation that stops you from doing it, then you don't have any grounds to complain. Enjoy your losses.
I doubt you can see the difference between the two situations, since you already showed that you have some problems with the validity of the rules when they conflict with what you THINK they should be...
doctortom wrote:No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.
Ok, how would YOU regulate which unit can set it up? Since the original FW unit DOES NOT EXIST anymore, and instead 12 separate and independent units exist, how can you fit this into the Every Man for Himself rule? I explained multiple times that a UNIT upgrade is shared among ALL models of the unit. Do FWs have the turret as a UNIT upgrade? Yes. Do they EACH get in once they split up? YES, because all models benefit from a unit upgrade, otherwise it would be a MODEL upgrade! Please stop trying to use common sense, the rules don't give a f*** about common sense. If scout bikes get cluster mines for each model, then FWs get a turret for each model. This is pure RAW, even though it makes no sense. Once you have rules interacting in weird ways, you can come up with results that make absolutely zero sense, but that are completely LEGAL. Please try to make an effort, and look at the rules, and ONLY the rules.
Charistoph wrote:You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?
Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.
Not a thing they have in common. Because even though the result is the same (they get removed), this happens in very different way, and potentially for very different reasons (you don't even need losses to lose a Tau turret, just moving voluntarily out of range does that). Try again.
Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.
Again, not a thing they have in common. One needs nearby models to shoot, the other requires a specific model to operate it (he can't shoot his own weapon). When I asked for similarities, I meant situation in which they behave EXACTLY the same for the EXACT SAME reason. For example, do you know what are the similarities between a Wraithknight and a grot? There are a lot more than you think: they both have a profile, they are both deployed on the field or declared in reserve, they are both removed when they suffer their last wound... I could go on. Now, can you find anything similar for the two turrets? Given that both your examples are demonstrably false, I doubt it.
And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.
I asked you to tell me EXACTLY which of my premises, numbered for convenience, is false, and what rules it violates. You have not even tried. I provided a RAW interpretation, you don't get to IGNORE this, avoid replying to my argumentation, and then claim that a RAW interpretation is lacking. I GAVE you one. If you don't like it, tell me WHY it's wrong: which premise in unfounded, and what rule it conflicts with. Either you can do this, WITH RULES (not common sense like "but other upgrades are plural", names are there for fluff reasons only, you could call it "upgrade #5" if you want and this would change NOTHING). RAW means rules and ONLY rules, If you can't stay within the confines of existing rules, you are contributing nothing to the conversation, and are actually poisoning it and going off topic with your constant support for HYWPI and home rules.
The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.
YES, it IS absurd! But when you have many rules, even written for different games ( KT is practically another game), it's quite possible that their interactions are unforeseen and absurd. This is one of those cases. You may not like it, but you NEED to stop thinking is terms of reason, and start thinking in term of rules. YES, the rules as they are written allow for a purchase for a unit to be spread out to all its members. If it works for cluster mines, it works for the turret, period. You just can't accept it, but you have NOT been able to tell me which rule conflicts with my interpretation. Because there isn't one.
Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.
Ok, THIS at least is an attempt at RAW. The first one you make, actually. If you continue along those line, we can discuss. However, it's not a valid argument, since the turret just says "its unit". Which is not the same as "the unit it was purchased with". In normal games the two are the same, in KT they aren't. In KT, this means "the unit possessing this upgrade. Since the turret is a unit upgrade, ALL models purchased with the original FW unit share that upgrade. Once again, read the description for cluster mines, and tell me how your idea would apply to it: "each unit with cluster mines in your army may booby-trap a single piece of battlefield terrain on the table". According to what you just wrote, the scouts do not have the mines, since they were an upgrade of their "parent" unit, which no longer exists. I REALLY think you need to consider Cluster Mines if you want to discuss the Tau turret, since they are actually the closest thing you can find to it (along with similar upgrades like snare mines, etc.)
My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.
Very condescending. Which is ironic, coming from someone who apparently doesn't even understand what RAW means. Hint: if it conflicts with even a single rule, then it's not RAW. And your suggestion, while completely reasonable and a good home rule, conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, as I explained multiple times. Therefore, it's definitely not RAW. Maybe I need a chill pill, but you clearly need a pill to understand what rules are and how they work.
Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Where does it state that all 3 scout bikes purchased cluster mines? I see a unit which purchased cluster mines no longer exists and was separated in to 3 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Spot the differences. As I said, if your interpretation behaves differently for cluster mines than it does for the turret, you need to explain WHY. And don't tell me that a turret is one but mines are plural, because that is a LABEL, a name for purely fluffy reasons: you could have called the bike upgrade "mines delivering drone", and it would have changed NOTHING in how the rules work.
Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.
The very fact that you compared it to a banner shows that you STILL are unable to understand the difference between a UNIT upgrade and a MODEL upgrade. If you give a meltagun to a Marine, OF COURSE other members of the squad don't get one as well! But if you give a UNIT an upgrade, then all of its models have that upgrade. In this case, the turret. Yes, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but this doesn't mean it's not RIGHT. PLEASE, read the rules and ONLY the rules, without considering anything else, and tell me why this is wrong. And once again, think about Cluster Mines, because THAT is really the key to understand why the multiplication of turrets WORKS, exactly like the multiplication of cluster mines.
Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.
2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.
3) The singular purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.
"The only logical possibilities" are ll wrong and conflict with the rules in different ways. Specifically:
1) If the turret is lost because its unit does not exist anymore, than EVERY piece of equipment you purchase for every unit is also lost. If you don't lose a meltagun, you don't lose the turret. And the fact that you said "we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear" means that you STILL have not been able to understand what a UNIT upgrade is, and in which way it's different from a model upgrade.
2) Nope, the turret is not an upgrade to a model and therefore can't be assigned to a specific one. With Scout Bikes, does a single bike of your choosing get to keep Cluster Mines, while the other models lose it? If your answer is no, then know that this is also valid for the turret.
3) This is a home rule, and it conflicts with the EMfH rule since, as you yourself said, the original FW unit does not exist anymore, now the only things that exist are 12 one-model FW units with no relations with their "parent" unit, therefore you don't get to "group" them into one single entity that can deploy the turret by any one model. Also, you don't set up the turret in the Deployment phase, but in any Movement phase by standing stationary. Your severe lack of knowledge of this simple rule says plenty.
So much for "the only logical possibilities", you were not able to give a single one that does not conflict with an existing rule! You know what does NOT conflict with any rule? MY interpretation, the RAW one. It conflicts with a lot of things, from logic to common sense to sportsmanship, but NOT with the rules.
Option 1, makes the turret pointless, but it is the strictest RAW interpretation. Admittedly, that happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept. Admittedly, that also happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 2 is the only one that can take in to consideration all factors from the rules that are written as well as all players finding an acceptable balance between useless and overpowered.
Oh, this is priceless! Let's for a second forget the fact that I already demonstrated than none of those options is viable, I would like to focus to this sentence: "Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept.". In other words, if you don't like a rule because it's too powerful, feel free to ignore it. This attitude is completely unacceptable. The fact that you think this way shows pretty clearly that you are completely unqualified to hold a discussion about the rules, because RAW sometimes DOES mean you get overpowered combos, this however doesn't make them non legal! This i a game made of rules. Either you accept it, and follow ALL the rules, no matter where they lead you, or you make up your own personal version of the game. But the instant you do that, and you ARE doing exactly that, that becomes a DIFFERENT game. Therefore, you don't get to comment of the rules of OUR game, since you already decided that you prefer your own rules and your own game.
Sadly, when it comes to RAW, there is nothing that actually defines any of these three scenarios as being the literally correct one.
True. Because I already demonstrated that they are all false. And not because I don't like them (which seems to be the way YOU approach rules), but because they each contradict an existing rule. An interpretation that contradicts a rule is not RAW by definition.
It is not the same. The turret is a single item of Wargear. Bikes and Mines are not. Their purchase involves a plural of the term purchased, not the singular. When you purchase the Bikes, you are purchasing 5 Bikes. When you purchase the Cluster Mines, you are purchasing a group of Mines. Again, it is closer to the Banner than the Bikes in this respect, because it is a singular purchase buy the unit. The Banner just has the advantage of being assigned to a model in the options while the turret is not.
Again, you go with the fluff instead than the rules. Mines are plural, but they may very well be singular (I used the example "mine delivery drone"), and the effect will not change one bit. If the only thing you can appeal to is fluff (and names ARE fluff, nothing else!), then you show once more (as if it was needed...) that you have no idea how rules work. And the Banner is an upgrade for a MODEL, you genius, not the unit, exactly like a special weapon is! If you STILL are unable to understand the difference, there's not much more I can do, the conversaion must be over if the other person can't even understand the most basic of concepts...
But the final point is, the turret operates in a fuzzy space that is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and unnecessary outside of them. Since it is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and the general rules do not NEED to consider them in this way, all we have left is to use our own methods of interpreting the rules, i.e. HYWPI. Whine and rage about it all you want, but unless you can actually reference a rule which defines what happens to a single piece of Wargear purchased by a unit but not assigned to a model with a profile, that is what we are left with. Do not get angry with me, I did not write these rules. If you must get angry, direct your anger towards those who are so shoddy and incomplete with their rules writing.
This is the way you think. There isn't a specific rule, so you can make up your own. The idea that almost ANY fuzzy situation can be resolved by LOOKING AT THE RULES and their complex interactions, and following them to the letter even if they lead to absurd conclusion, is apparently completely alien to you. Which means that you have no place in any discussion about the rules, because you don't even know what RAW means.
Kriswall wrote:I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.
And here we have another one that thinks that, if following the rules TO THE LETTER leads to a conclusion he does not like or that does not make sense, then he is authorized to ignore that conclusion. How can you people play a game without following its rules if you don't like them? I DID demonstrate why my interpretation works. I clearly stated all my premises, with numbers for easy reference, and asked to tell me WHICH ONE is wrong, and exactly what rule it conflicts with. None has even TRIED to do so. Certainly not you, it's much easier to resort to mockery and appealing to common sense (which sould have NO PLACE in rules discussions) that to actually PROVE me wrong. Do it, if you can, or have the dignity to admit that I am right.
pumaman1 wrote:As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."
Actually, no. You can deploy one and only one turret per unit, because you can purchase only one. The crucial part, however, is "per unit". In KT, all FWs have it, and they all can deploy one turret. And I agree, it's an extremely dickish move, and the entire reason for this topic is to find a LEGAL way to prevent such a thing. I don't even play Tau, I WANT to find a way to stop this nonsense. But it has to be a LITERAL interpretation of the rules, not a home rule. Up to now, ONLY Happyjew was on the right track, and I asked multiple times to switch the conversation to whether the turret is a model or not (hoping it is, so bye-bye combo), but NOBODY has ever addressed this issue. The conversation keeps getting derailed by people who think that if a conclusion derived from existing rules is absurd or overpowered, they have the right to ignore it and suggest their own home rules, by people who still are unable to understand why a unit upgrade and a model upgrade are radically different things, or even people who don't fully understand the Every Man for Himself rule. It's getting frustrating, having to deal with someone who just wants to poison the conversation instead of addressing the real issue.
Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?
This is important for the discussion at hand.
Mmmh, this is a really interesting question, much deeper than it may seem at a first glance. I'd have to go with 0. You have 4-9 units of Space Marines, and 1 unit of Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant. A literal interpretation of the Every Man for Himself rule leads to this conclusion, since specific models like Drones or Fenrisian Wolves are mentioned. However, I still can't see the implication this has in the present case, but I expect that the only person until now that actually READ the rules instead of making them up may have some ideas... I am very curious where this might lead.
Snake Tortoise wrote:Well if you can't get the TO to make a house rule in time just go along, play games, enjoy the event, and if (in the unlikely scenario) some prick tries this just say "GG" and pack up your models. So what if he wins the event? Are you playing for life changing money? Even in a perfect rules system bad things can happen. Your opponent could drop some of your models on the floor and stamp on them. They could pull out a knife and stab you because they lost. You could be hit by an overturning lorry on the way to the event. Winning games of Warhammer 40k isn't the be all and end all, and somebody pulling a dick move like this to feel good about themselves probably has quite a miserable existence and should be pitied
I like to play competitively. In casual games, I'm there to have fun (and bring terribly weak lists at times). In tournaments, I am there to have fun AND to win. They are both extremely important to me (so, I play the most competitive army I HAVE FUN PLAYING WITH, I'll never play Eldar BikeSpider spam + WK even though it's effective). But if I find such a list, I don't have fun, AND I don't win. This is the reason for this topic. Well, this, and the fact that I actually enjoy discussing rule interpretations (if the other participants talk about the rules, instead of ignoring them like so many people in this topic do...)
doctortom wrote:Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.
Reductio ad absurdum. It's a logical fallacy, in case you are wondering. A dedicated transport is not an upgrade for the unit, but a separate unit altogether. If you are unable to understand the difference, or to grasp the concept of what a unit upgrade is, then I don't have much faith that you can contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Charistoph wrote:And how many can the unit purchase in the Options? One, I believe, and it is purchased as a piece of Wargear, not as an option to deploy the Wargear. That option comes from purchasing the Wargear.
Following that, are all the Fire Warriors in the separate units the same unit that purchased the Turret? No, they are all separate units, not the same original unit.
Yes, they are all separate units, but since they all have the UNIT upgrade their parent unit had, then they all get a turret. Seriously, you STILL don't get what a unit upgrade is, and how it works?
Cluster Mines. Think about cluster mines, maybe it would help.
Fabled_Hero wrote:I've been thinking the same thing. But at least now a Tac squad can bring 10 Rhinos with Hunter Killer missiles for 45 pts, to deal with all the turret bearers. So, now we have the same excess found in normal 40k for KT.
If you've been thinking this, then we can add you to the large number of people who don't understand what a unit upgrade is. Before hitting "reply", you should at least try to understand what you are reading. But I guess it's much easier to dismiss it only because it seems unreasonable, regardless of whether the rules support it or not.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:Charistoph wrote:You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?
Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.
Not a thing they have in common. Because even though the result is the same (they get removed), this happens in very different way, and potentially for very different reasons (you don't even need losses to lose a Tau turret, just moving voluntarily out of range does that). Try again.
You asked for what, not how. But even then you miss some facts. The Fire Warrior turret is removed from the board when Fire Warriors move to far from it, but so long as there are any original models of the unit around, that turret is not lost and can be brought back. When all Fire Warriors are gone, that turret is lost and cannot be brought back. When the Guardian Defender unit runs out of Guardian models, guess what, that Platform also is removed from the board, AND IS LOST AND CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK.
Just because you don't like the answer does not mean that it doesn't apply.
Teschio wrote:Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.
Again, not a thing they have in common. One needs nearby models to shoot, the other requires a specific model to operate it (he can't shoot his own weapon). When I asked for similarities, I meant situation in which they behave EXACTLY the same for the EXACT SAME reason. For example, do you know what are the similarities between a Wraithknight and a grot? There are a lot more than you think: they both have a profile, they are both deployed on the field or declared in reserve, they are both removed when they suffer their last wound... I could go on. Now, can you find anything similar for the two turrets? Given that both your examples are demonstrably false, I doubt it.
Don't change the standards mid-stream in an attempt to discredit the statement. None of us are mind readers when we are face to face (as far as I know), much less when responses are read at a time after they are written or crafted.
I said that both the Turret and the Platform require nearby models to be used, and that is a fact. Yes, for the turret, it fires independently and the Platform requires another model to shoot it like artillery. In either case, they still require models of the unit nearby in order for either function to be used. In order to properly refute this, you need to provide the case that only one of them can be used without another model nearby, not changing what you meant after an answer is given.
Teschio wrote:And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.
I asked you to tell me EXACTLY which of my premises, numbered for convenience, is false, and what rules it violates. You have not even tried. I provided a RAW interpretation, you don't get to IGNORE this, avoid replying to my argumentation, and then claim that a RAW interpretation is lacking. I GAVE you one. If you don't like it, tell me WHY it's wrong: which premise in unfounded, and what rule it conflicts with. Either you can do this, WITH RULES (not common sense like "but other upgrades are plural", names are there for fluff reasons only, you could call it "upgrade #5" if you want and this would change NOTHING). RAW means rules and ONLY rules, If you can't stay within the confines of existing rules, you are contributing nothing to the conversation, and are actually poisoning it and going off topic with your constant support for HYWPI and home rules.
No, you did not provide a full RAW statement, you skipped a step, as I pointed out. You even quoted part of it following this.
You want me to get more specific, here is where part of your slippery slope lies:
Teschio wrote:2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
4) therefore, every Fire Warriors "has" the turret upgrade
#2. How does a Fire Warrior model benefit from the Turret Wargear? Note, you must provide an example of the a model actually USING the Wargear or receiving its benefit.
#4. The Turret is not once noted as being possessed by any model., much less all. I even pointed this out when I referenced the Banner, remember?
And that doesn't even bother considering the fact that you are allowing the purchase of a single piece of Wargear purchased for one unit to be spread across twelve units. That is the bridge of rules you are missing on your road.
Teschio wrote:The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.
YES, it IS absurd! But when you have many rules, even written for different games ( KT is practically another game), it's quite possible that their interactions are unforeseen and absurd. This is one of those cases. You may not like it, but you NEED to stop thinking is terms of reason, and start thinking in term of rules. YES, the rules as they are written allow for a purchase for a unit to be spread out to all its members. If it works for cluster mines, it works for the turret, period. You just can't accept it, but you have NOT been able to tell me which rule conflicts with my interpretation. Because there isn't one.
Operating a set of rules is an operation of logic and reason. If you can't understand that, then stop posting until you can either see why or you can prove otherwise.
And again, cluster mine S and bike S are purchases of multiples of a Wargear for a unit are a different factor than the purchase of a singular of a Wargear for a unit. If you cannot understand the difference between buying a bunch of things for a group and one thing for a group, then stop posting until you can either see why or you can prove how they are the same.
And again, there isn't actually a rule or set of rules that addresses this specific situation, one way or the other. Unless you want to talk about when it says "may purchase a (thing)" it is only talking about one, singular thing. But that is basic English AND what the Options states, right?
Teschio wrote:Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.
Ok, THIS at least is an attempt at RAW. The first one you make, actually. If you continue along those line, we can discuss. However, it's not a valid argument, since the turret just says "its unit". Which is not the same as "the unit it was purchased with". In normal games the two are the same, in KT they aren't. In KT, this means "the unit possessing this upgrade. Since the turret is a unit upgrade, ALL models purchased with the original FW unit share that upgrade. Once again, read the description for cluster mines, and tell me how your idea would apply to it: "each unit with cluster mines in your army may booby-trap a single piece of battlefield terrain on the table". According to what you just wrote, the scouts do not have the mines, since they were an upgrade of their "parent" unit, which no longer exists. I REALLY think you need to consider Cluster Mines if you want to discuss the Tau turret, since they are actually the closest thing you can find to it (along with similar upgrades like snare mines, etc.)
Took you long enough to recognize it. You attributed it to only yourself not so long ago, remember?
Now, can you demonstrate where when it states a unit purchases one of something ALL models actually get it? Actual written, quotable, and referencable rules, please. And to use your own standards, you cannot use "reason" to supply the answer.
Teschio wrote:My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.
Very condescending. Which is ironic, coming from someone who apparently doesn't even understand what RAW means. Hint: if it conflicts with even a single rule, then it's not RAW. And your suggestion, while completely reasonable and a good home rule, conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, as I explained multiple times. Therefore, it's definitely not RAW. Maybe I need a chill pill, but you clearly need a pill to understand what rules are and how they work.
Oh, I am quite familiar with what Rules As Written actually means, and there are people here who would tell that your opinion on that is rather off.
As for condescending, you have been increasingly condescending throughout this thread. Your posts are coming across more and more belligerent to those you do not believe are meeting your standards. You have accused me of following fluff when I never mentioned fluff.
Now, let's review your list of 5 and find out where their rules are, just to be certain:
Teschio wrote:1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
You did not reference where this comes from, but I can assume this is in the Options of the Fire Warrior Datasheet, easily found, correct?
Teschio wrote:2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
Where is this rule? You did not reference it.
Teschio wrote:3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
No rule reference provided, but I assume this is in the new version of Kill Team rules of "Every Man For Himself", correct? Does it actually state, "they retain all the rules and upgrades they had as a unit"? The previous version I have access to does not state this.
Teschio wrote:4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
An assumption based on 3, not an actual rule.
Teschio wrote:5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.
No rules quote that allows one piece of Wargear to be made 20 exists, and you do not quote it. This is not RAW, but an extrapolation and a poor case of reasoning.
You want to continue whining about others not using RAW? Quote the Rule to present your case, especially if you demand the same standard of others.
Teschio wrote:Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Where does it state that all 3 scout bikes purchased cluster mines? I see a unit which purchased cluster mines no longer exists and was separated in to 3 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.
Spot the differences. As I said, if your interpretation behaves differently for cluster mines than it does for the turret, you need to explain WHY. And don't tell me that a turret is one but mines are plural, because that is a LABEL, a name for purely fluffy reasons: you could have called the bike upgrade "mines delivering drone", and it would have changed NOTHING in how the rules work.
It may be a label, but it is how the Wargear is defined, correct? Can you demonstrate in the rules that the singularly purchased turret actually is multiple instances?
If you cannot understand the WHY behind this statement, go talk to your English teacher to explain the differences. This forum is not a class for basic English.
Teschio wrote:Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.
The very fact that you compared it to a banner shows that you STILL are unable to understand the difference between a UNIT upgrade and a MODEL upgrade. If you give a meltagun to a Marine, OF COURSE other members of the squad don't get one as well! But if you give a UNIT an upgrade, then all of its models have that upgrade. In this case, the turret. Yes, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but this doesn't mean it's not RIGHT. PLEASE, read the rules and ONLY the rules, without considering anything else, and tell me why this is wrong. And once again, think about Cluster Mines, because THAT is really the key to understand why the multiplication of turrets WORKS, exactly like the multiplication of cluster mines.
Basic English Rules tell me that purchasing one thing does not mean I get multiples. Basic Rules of Mathematics tell me that 1 does not equal twelve.
I referenced the Banner as it is a unique purchase for the unit. It is purchased by the unit, and assigned to a model. And I acknowledged the difference in that (did you miss that part?).
And to counter your statement, where in the rules does it state that a Wargear which is defined as a purchase of a single item can become twelve? Do not lay the burden only on me without backing up your own statements with your own standards.
Teschio wrote:Charistoph wrote:Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.
"The only logical possibilities" are ll wrong and conflict with the rules in different ways. Specifically:
1) If the turret is lost because its unit does not exist anymore, than EVERY piece of equipment you purchase for every unit is also lost. If you don't lose a meltagun, you don't lose the turret. And the fact that you said "we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear" means that you STILL have not been able to understand what a UNIT upgrade is, and in which way it's different from a model upgrade.
Didn't you just state that the Meltagun was a model upgrade and not a unit upgrade? Consistency please.
Where is the RAW quote to demonstrate the falseness of this possibility?
I am well aware of what a unit upgrade is, but I do not share the same definition in my mind about it. Care to actually quote the Rulebook or Kill Team expansion on what that is? Without that, the concept of "unit upgrade" is a player construct used to communicate when the Options states, "the unit/squad may purchase (thing)", not an actual specific rule.
Teschio wrote:Charistoph wrote:2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.
2) Nope, the turret is not an upgrade to a model and therefore can't be assigned to a specific one. With Scout Bikes, does a single bike of your choosing get to keep Cluster Mines, while the other models lose it? If your answer is no, then know that this is also valid for the turret.
Then you ignored what I said or cannot accept the logic train. It is a singular purchase of one thing, not a singular purchase of multiples of a thing. Also consider the fact that the rules do not provide for units to transfer upgrades to each other if they were purchased as one, at least so far as it has not been quoted, anyway.
Where is the RAW quote that states otherwise?
Teschio wrote:Charistoph wrote:
3) The singularly purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.
3) This is a home rule, and it conflicts with the EMfH rule since, as you yourself said, the original FW unit does not exist anymore, now the only things that exist are 12 one-model FW units with no relations with their "parent" unit, therefore you don't get to "group" them into one single entity that can deploy the turret by any one model. Also, you don't set up the turret in the Deployment phase, but in any Movement phase by standing stationary. Your severe lack of knowledge of this simple rule says plenty.
Actually, they are all Home Rules, including yours, since nothing is actually defined on it. Also, consider this concept: None of the 3 options were to be considered in use with each other. If we are using Option 3, Option 1 and 2 are not in consideration.
It does not actually conflict with EMfH since it does not state that they are still one unit. I was merely acknowledging that the models of these units were part of the unit which purchased it and so have access to it. You know, the case you keep talking about but never actually quoting the rule on? Keep in mind, I did not state that they "group" up, at all. The only actual difference between your assertion and this one is that this one recognizes that only one actual piece of Wargear was purchased in the first place, and not the right to deploy a Wargear.
Now, who said anything about setting up the turret in the Deployment Phase? You are arguing against something I have not stated or are under an improper assumption on something based on something I stated without properly referencing it.
Teschio wrote:So much for "the only logical possibilities", you were not able to give a single one that does not conflict with an existing rule! You know what does NOT conflict with any rule? MY interpretation, the RAW one. It conflicts with a lot of things, from logic to common sense to sportsmanship, but NOT with the rules.
Weren't you just complaining about others being condescending? Hi Pot!
I find it ironic that you keep saying that these conflict with the rules but did not actually quote an actual rule that states the conflict...
Teschio wrote:Option 1, makes the turret pointless, but it is the strictest RAW interpretation. Admittedly, that happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept. Admittedly, that also happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 2 is the only one that can take in to consideration all factors from the rules that are written as well as all players finding an acceptable balance between useless and overpowered.
Oh, this is priceless! Let's for a second forget the fact that I already demonstrated than none of those options is viable, I would like to focus to this sentence: "Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept.". In other words, if you don't like a rule because it's too powerful, feel free to ignore it. This attitude is completely unacceptable. The fact that you think this way shows pretty clearly that you are completely unqualified to hold a discussion about the rules, because RAW sometimes DOES mean you get overpowered combos, this however doesn't make them non legal! This i a game made of rules. Either you accept it, and follow ALL the rules, no matter where they lead you, or you make up your own personal version of the game. But the instant you do that, and you ARE doing exactly that, that becomes a DIFFERENT game. Therefore, you don't get to comment of the rules of OUR game, since you already decided that you prefer your own rules and your own game.
First off, unlike yourself, I acknowledge that these are House Rules because of a lack of rules, and have stated as such. So, getting people to accept any interpretation is vital.
Second, every single game of Warhammer 40K has to operate under at least some modicum of House Rules and personal interpretations under agreements by the players in order to operate. They are poorly written and often many of the rules interactions do not even recognize each other exists. If you tried to create a program with rules with this level of rules interactions, it would fail on compiling. That is one reason why this board is so busy.
Third, you don't get to decide who gets to comment or not, that is a Moderator's job. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore it.
Teschio wrote:Sadly, when it comes to RAW, there is nothing that actually defines any of these three scenarios as being the literally correct one.
True. Because I already demonstrated that they are all false. And not because I don't like them (which seems to be the way YOU approach rules), but because they each contradict an existing rule. An interpretation that contradicts a rule is not RAW by definition.
Actually quote the rule then, and not just give your own interpretation of it. And actually, they follow the rules a little bit closer then yours does because it recognizes the case of singular versus plural that is taught in basic English grammar school.
Teschio wrote:It is not the same. The turret is a single item of Wargear. Bikes and Mines are not. Their purchase involves a plural of the term purchased, not the singular. When you purchase the Bikes, you are purchasing 5 Bikes. When you purchase the Cluster Mines, you are purchasing a group of Mines. Again, it is closer to the Banner than the Bikes in this respect, because it is a singular purchase buy the unit. The Banner just has the advantage of being assigned to a model in the options while the turret is not.
Again, you go with the fluff instead than the rules. Mines are plural, but they may very well be singular (I used the example "mine delivery drone"), and the effect will not change one bit. If the only thing you can appeal to is fluff (and names ARE fluff, nothing else!), then you show once more (as if it was needed...) that you have no idea how rules work. And the Banner is an upgrade for a MODEL, you genius, not the unit, exactly like a special weapon is! If you STILL are unable to understand the difference, there's not much more I can do, the conversaion must be over if the other person can't even understand the most basic of concepts...
Again, what fluff did I state? You are making things up and falsely attributing them to me. If you keep it up, I'll tag you as a liar. And I should note that the tag of "genius" could be construed as attacking the poster.
I was referencing the Options section of the Command Squad. That is not fluff, but the rules of purchasing for a unit. If you cannot tell the difference between fluff and Options, review how they work on the Datasheets section of a 7th Edition codex which has the legend.
To the point of the statement you quoted, I was pointing out that one single thing was purchased, not multiples. If it is singular here, why is not singular elsewhere? Just because it is taken by a model? If so, where is the actual rules quote that states a purchase of a single piece of Wargear by a unit is any different than if it is taken by a model? That is already part of your homework from earlier in this post.
And I will add again, I pointed out the poignant difference between purchasing the turret and the banner. I highlighted and underlined in the quote above where I stated it so it should be obvious, even if it is coming from a "genius".
Teschio wrote:But the final point is, the turret operates in a fuzzy space that is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and unnecessary outside of them. Since it is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and the general rules do not NEED to consider them in this way, all we have left is to use our own methods of interpreting the rules, i.e. HYWPI. Whine and rage about it all you want, but unless you can actually reference a rule which defines what happens to a single piece of Wargear purchased by a unit but not assigned to a model with a profile, that is what we are left with. Do not get angry with me, I did not write these rules. If you must get angry, direct your anger towards those who are so shoddy and incomplete with their rules writing.
This is the way you think. There isn't a specific rule, so you can make up your own. The idea that almost ANY fuzzy situation can be resolved by LOOKING AT THE RULES and their complex interactions, and following them to the letter even if they lead to absurd conclusion, is apparently completely alien to you. Which means that you have no place in any discussion about the rules, because you don't even know what RAW means.
Then actually quote the rules governing it. You have not actually quoted any rule that actually defines this situation. You have made declarations and assumptions and some false accusations, but you haven't actually quoted the pertinent rules.
In many ways, this is like the "Order of Purchasing" argument that pops up every now and then. To give you an exercise for it, here is the defining question, "In what order is purchasing options to be performed: Top-Down, Ad Hoc, or Final Confirmation?" Now, provide the actual rules for purchasing options for a unit and how we are to properly go about it out of these three.
As for how I think, you will find that this situation is more common that you might believe. I have been doing 40K rules discussions for quite some time, longer on Warseer and Bolter and Chainsword than here, and in these "no rules covering this" scenarios, the ones who have been running RAW longer than I've had a codex all agree that it has to be House Ruled in order to work. And from there we look at precedents provided by other books and FAQs. I have never seen someone try so hard to justify that one piece of Wargear can become many before now.
I am actually very well aware of the rules and their complex interactions, more than most, actually (but most definitely not all). As such, I know how broken they really are and how you cannot actually follow them verbatim all the time, especially when you venture outside of the rulebook in to an expansion (which includes codices, sadly). And as such, I know that the general rules and the individual codices do not address what happens when a single piece of Wargear is purchased by a unit and that unit gets split up in to multiple units (as it is never intended to happen there). Someone has already stated that the Kill Team rules do not cover this, which includes EMfH, which is where it IS intended to happen.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Most sensible thing you ever wrote here, I'm definitely going to follow the advice. I'd just like to notice that you basically have one argument: "show me the rule that says that". Cluster mines. And before you start with the whole "but cluster mines are plural!" thing, please tell me how they would work if the equip entry was "the unit may take a booby-trap kit". Exact same effect, diferent label. Isn't it weird that you tried to respond to everything I wrote, but neglected to address this very simple point? It doesn't make much sense to discuss with someone who mixes rules and fluff, so I am not really interested in continuing the conversation with you.
Now,for the people who don't ignore the rules just because they seem absurd, and want to have an honest discussion about the possible ways this combo may not work, what do you think of the turret=model thing? Is there a way we can unambiguously say that the turret IS a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Teschio wrote:Happyjew wrote:Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?
This is important for the discussion at hand.
Mmmh, this is a really interesting question, much deeper than it may seem at a first glance. I'd have to go with 0. You have 4-9 units of Space Marines, and 1 unit of Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant. A literal interpretation of the Every Man for Himself rule leads to this conclusion, since specific models like Drones or Fenrisian Wolves are mentioned. However, I still can't see the implication this has in the present case, but I expect that the only person until now that actually READ the rules instead of making them up may have some ideas... I am very curious where this might lead.
If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed.
Problem solved.
73519
Post by: Teschio
Happyjew wrote: If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed. Problem solved.
I thought about that, and I am not sure this is a solution. In the description of the Turret, the form used is just "its unit". Which means the unit that set it up, in this case a Fire Warrior unit, not a Strike Team unit (which doesn't exist anymore). Since the turret is not itself an independent model like an Eldar Platform, I am not so convinced that it "has" a unit before being deployed on the field. Following this idea, if you have an Apothecary (stupid in KT, but still...), then he doesn't get FnP himself, since the narthecium says "all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and his unit would be a Command Squad which doesn't exist anymore... just to use the first example that came to my mind, there are countless others. I think the most promising line of thought is your previous idea, if we can say with certainty that the turret is a model, then it will be removed immediately, and this would solve the problem.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Teschio wrote: Happyjew wrote:
If you have 0 "Tactical Squad" units in this example, then you agree, you would have 0 "Fire Warriors" units (or whatever they are called now), instead of you would 6-12 "Fire Warrior" (with one possibly being a "Fire Warrior Shas'Ui"). That means, the moment the turret is set-up, there are no other models in the unit (since the Turret is part of the "Fire Warriors" unit which no longer exists as such) and would immediately be removed.
Problem solved.
I thought about that, and I am not sure this is a solution. In the description of the Turret, the form used is just "its unit". Which means the unit that set it up, in this case a Fire Warrior unit, not a Strike Team unit (which doesn't exist anymore). Since the turret is not itself an independent model like an Eldar Platform, I am not so convinced that it "has" a unit before being deployed on the field. Following this idea, if you have an Apothecary (stupid in KT, but still...), then he doesn't get FnP himself, since the narthecium says "all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and his unit would be a Command Squad which doesn't exist anymore... just to use the first example that came to my mind, there are countless others.
I think the most promising line of thought is your previous idea, if we can say with certainty that the turret is a model, then it will be removed immediately, and this would solve the problem.
The Apothecary example is flawed - if the Narthecium said models in the Command Squad had FNP, then you would be right, nobody would get FNP. However, the Apothecary is still a model in his unit (in this case the unit is "Apothecary").
73519
Post by: Teschio
Happyjew wrote:The Apothecary example is flawed - if the Narthecium said models in the Command Squad had FNP, then you would be right, nobody would get FNP. However, the Apothecary is still a model in his unit (in this case the unit is "Apothecary").
But the description of the turret doesn't say "strike squad" in any way. It just says "it is immediately removed as a casualty if there are no other models from its unit within 2" of it". The question then becomes, what IS "its unuit"? The unit it was purchased with, or the unit that sets it up? This is the reason why I talked about the Narthecium, because it just says "as long as the Apothecary is alive, all models in his unit have the Feel No Pain special rule", and it seems to me the descriptions are similar. BTW, if Fire Warriors are not the turret's unit, you don't even get to the point where it disappears, because it can't even be set up: "tactical support turrets are not set up when their unit deploys or arrives from Reserves. Instead, if the unit remains stationary in the movement phase, you can set up the tactical support turret [...]".
Sure, if "its unit" is the Strike Squad, then the problem is solved. But I am not sure we have enough ground to affirm that with certainty. Maybe you could elaborate more on that?
BTW, you manage to find TWO possible reasons why this may not work, both completely RAW, even though I feel the evidence for both is still not conclusive enough. Great job, man!
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:
Most sensible thing you ever wrote here, I'm definitely going to follow the advice. I'd just like to notice that you basically have one argument: "show me the rule that says that". Cluster mines. And before you start with the whole "but cluster mines are plural!" thing, please tell me how they would work if the equip entry was "the unit may take a booby-trap kit". Exact same effect, diferent label. Isn't it weird that you tried to respond to everything I wrote, but neglected to address this very simple point? It doesn't make much sense to discuss with someone who mixes rules and fluff, so I am not really interested in continuing the conversation with you.
I did address them. Your lack of desire to accept the explanations doesn't mean I didn't address them. I will also point out that you have been saying little else when someone brings up a point, then, "show me the rule that says that". If you also notice, I asked for those rules a lot because of how you were treating my responses. And again, I have not once mixed rules and fluff. That is a malicious lie.
If the unit purchases "a booby-trap kit" instead of "cluster mines" then we are back in the same scenario as the turret. And just like the turret, the rules do not cover when a unit purchases a single piece of Wargear not assigned to a model and the unit gets split in to multiples.
Now, if you can properly address this issue with rules from the rulebook, codex, or Kill Team ruleset, then you will have answered your own question, and you can post it here.
Teschio wrote:Now,for the people who don't ignore the rules just because they seem absurd, and want to have an honest discussion about the possible ways this combo may not work...
And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.
Teschio wrote:what do you think of the turret=model thing? Is there a way we can unambiguously say that the turret IS a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up?
If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? From Core Rule, Models & Units introduction:
To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?
73519
Post by: Teschio
Charistoph wrote:
I did address them. Your lack of desire to accept the explanations doesn't mean I didn't address them. I will also point out that you have been saying little else when someone brings up a point, then, "show me the rule that says that". If you also notice, I asked for those rules a lot because of how you were treating my responses. And again, I have not once mixed rules and fluff. That is a malicious lie.
If the unit purchases "a booby-trap kit" instead of "cluster mines" then we are back in the same scenario as the turret. And just like the turret, the rules do not cover when a unit purchases a single piece of Wargear not assigned to a model and the unit gets split in to multiples.
Now, if you can properly address this issue with rules from the rulebook, codex, or Kill Team ruleset, then you will have answered your own question, and you can post it here.
You do use fluff instead of rules. The problem is, you don't even realize this. Names are labels, completely meaningless. Only the rules pertaining those upgrades have meaning. They could be called "upgrade #1", "upgrade #2" and so forth, and the game would work exactly the same. Therefore, saying that mines are plural, and if the exact same equip was called "booby-trap kit" then it would work in a different way, IS being misled by the fluff.
And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.
Not a passive-aggressive attack. A specific attack. After I spent a lot of time countering your arguments, it's quite frustrating to see you still don't get that names are labels, and that unit upgrades and model upgrades are quite different, especially in KT (I mean, you spent multiple posts ranting about banners, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Turret, since they are upgrades to a speciic model, and are removed if that model dies!). Ask yourself why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: because a rule that is supposed to work once per unit, suddently becomes a lot stronger if the unit is split up. Anyway, yes, I didn't bother to address your questions. After discussing with you for a while, I feel you have nothing worthwhile to say, so I should stop wasting time with you and focus on the issue with more reasonable people.
If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? [...] Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?
No, it does not have a profile. This is one of the arguments against considering it a model. An argument that I explicitly mentioned multiple times, by the way. Funny that you forgot to mention the arguments FOR considering it a model, specifically the description of the turret (removed if there are no OTHER models from its unit), and the very first line of the BRB section about core rules: "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow", and the Turret DOES have a miniature. Quoting only the rules that seem to support your claim and ignoring the others is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in a rule discussion. It's for people who want to "win" the discussion at all costs, instead of getting to the bottom of things. And I know you did NOT forget that those other rules exist, because you read everything I wrote, and I mentioned them twice. And you wonder why I feel I wasted enough time replying to you? You don't care about the truth, you just want to be right. If this is how you conduct a discussion, then I am not interested, and will therefore ignore your comments in the future. Bye.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:You do use fluff instead of rules. The problem is, you don't even realize this. Names are labels, completely meaningless. Only the rules pertaining those upgrades have meaning. They could be called "upgrade #1", "upgrade #2" and so forth, and the game would work exactly the same. Therefore, saying that mines are plural, and if the exact same equip was called "booby-trap kit" then it would work in a different way, IS being misled by the fluff.
Use your own standards, where does it define a name of something only as fluff?
Labels are hardly meaningless. They provide easy designations of differentiation.
The Option states, "the unit may take a turret", correct? Or does it state, "the unit takes turret"? If the former, where are the Options defined as fluff in the rules?
The Options for Cluster Mines and Bikes do not state they take "a bikes upgrade" or "a cluster mines upgrade", it still uses the grammar applied to when multiples of an item are taken.
To continue on with your example to actually prove what I am saying is about rules and not fluff, the Command Squad and Scout Bikes would have written in their options, "Unit may purchase Upgrades #1" and "Unit may purchase Upgrades #2", while the Fire Warrior Options state "Unit may purchase an Upgrade # 27".
Or are you going to contend that when a unit has "a model" purchase "a meltagun", it actually means that the unit is having "models" purchase "meltaguns"?
Teschio wrote:And that is a passive-aggressive attack at me, awesome. I also note that you didn't bother to address any of my questions regarding your position nor provide any quotes to counter them. That is quite hypocritical.
Not a passive-aggressive attack. A specific attack. After I spent a lot of time countering your arguments, it's quite frustrating to see you still don't get that names are labels, and that unit upgrades and model upgrades are quite different, especially in KT (I mean, you spent multiple posts ranting about banners, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Turret, since they are upgrades to a speciic model, and are removed if that model dies!). Ask yourself why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: because a rule that is supposed to work once per unit, suddently becomes a lot stronger if the unit is split up. Anyway, yes, I didn't bother to address your questions. After discussing with you for a while, I feel you have nothing worthwhile to say, so I should stop wasting time with you and focus on the issue with more reasonable people.
Ah, so you admit to breaking the tenets of almost every forum by attacking the poster and not the argument.
And no, I accept that names are labels, but that doesn't make them fluff. The concept of something purchasing one thing is not fluff, but a review of the terms used in the Options of the unit entry.
I did not spend multiple posts ranting about banners. I made a proper association by referencing the quantity of something being purchased in the Options of a unit. That is not a rant. More to the point, you didn't even recognize the point for what it was, and so dismissed it, ranted against it, and made accusations of which were unfounded in the text you quoted. You have carried on about wanting something RAW from others, but have quoted zero rules to support your case. You take assumptions to get to where you want to go and then demean others for doing the same thing.
Teschio wrote:If it does not have a profile, how can it be defined as a model? [...] Has anyone declared the turret to have a listed profile?
No, it does not have a profile. This is one of the arguments against considering it a model. An argument that I explicitly mentioned multiple times, by the way. Funny that you forgot to mention the arguments FOR considering it a model, specifically the description of the turret (removed if there are no OTHER models from its unit), and the very first line of the BRB section about core rules: "The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow", and the Turret DOES have a miniature. Quoting only the rules that seem to support your claim and ignoring the others is intellectually dishonest, and should have no place in a rule discussion. It's for people who want to "win" the discussion at all costs, instead of getting to the bottom of things. And I know you did NOT forget that those other rules exist, because you read everything I wrote, and I mentioned them twice. And you wonder why I feel I wasted enough time replying to you? You don't care about the truth, you just want to be right. If this is how you conduct a discussion, then I am not interested, and will therefore ignore your comments in the future. Bye.
Do not project. Everything you have accused me of, you have performed at least several times before the end of the second page.
Now, I was not ignoring that portion of the introduction, but I was merely pointing out where assigning the turret as a "model" fails the muster of ALL the definitions presented in that area. Can you demonstrate where in the Turret's rules it is allowed to be considered a "model" even without a Profile? Or are you just going to continue to attack the poster who disagrees with you?
94850
Post by: nekooni
Isnt terrain also a model without a profile?
73519
Post by: Teschio
Good question. My answer would be that terrain elements are not properly "miniatures", and therefore they are not "models" in the sense the core rules define models. The turret, however, is a miniature, albeit without a profile (or a unit type, another thing that all models possess).
BTW, let me be clear, I would very much like to confirm that turrets ARE models. Because this would be the ONLY way, despite what some may think, to make the "20 turrets" list not legal.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Depends on the Terrain. Some Terrain are Buildings, and those have Profiles. Either way, they are all miniatures, unless you are using an actual tree as a tree on your table.
Teschio wrote:BTW, let me be clear, I would very much like to confirm that turrets ARE models. Because this would be the ONLY way, despite what some may think, to make the "20 turrets" list not legal.
It is not the only way to disprove it. It just has become the only way you will accept. Note the difference.
If it is from the Damocles-Kauyon entry:
No profile listed in the unit entry.
Options list it as: "The unit may take a DS8 tactical support turret".
Rules involve conditions for set up, removal, and mobility. It is given a BS of 3, can fire in Shooting Phase or Overwatch with the rest of the unit the same turn it sets up. It must target the same unit as the rest of the unit (pointless if it was considered a model, as this would already apply). Enemy models cannot attack or affect the turret in any way, but is removed as a casualty if no other unit model are within 2" of it (that sounds familiar) or if enemy models are within 2" of it (unlike a normal model). It can be returned to play in a later Movement Phase after it has been removed.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Charistoph wrote:
Depends on the Terrain. Some Terrain are Buildings, and those have Profiles. Either way, they are all miniatures, unless you are using an actual tree as a tree on your table.
Sorry - my point was that a miniature doesnt have to have a profile to be considered a model. Iirc the description for regular terrain - not the buildings from SA - that does not have a profile calls them models anyways. Since you guys got stuck on the term models i thought that might help.
73519
Post by: Teschio
nekooni wrote:]
Sorry - my point was that a miniature doesnt have to have a profile to be considered a model. Iirc the description for regular terrain - not the buildings from SA - that does not have a profile calls them models anyways. Since you guys got stuck on the term models i thought that might help.
Yes, you are correct. Terrain is considered a model. This should settle it, the Turret is a model, and therefore is removed as soon as it is set up (which makes it completely unusable in KT, even a single one).
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Apologies for understanding English and math to the point where a purchase of one item can not equate the purchase of multiple items, and for attempting to help you find arguments (any and all) that you could use for disallowing your "competitive group" from steamrolling you at will (because apparently you're willing to just let that happen based on your RAI). If you don't care what a TO thinks the rule is, why did you put so much emphasis on making sure a TO rules it correctly (which you don't affect anyway until you see the house rules for an event and notify them)? Condescension and veiled (and plain) insults seems to be your true goal, rather than attempting to find an interpretation that disallows your RAI (which is very clearly RAI regardless if you admit it or not), and all I've done is attempt to give you ammunition with which to fight someone telling you "I have 20 DS8 turrets" because that's what you asked for. But I can't help you. No one can, obviously, because you don't even understand anything and everything here is RAI, objectively. "I purchased one turret for a unit of twelve, when they split I now have twelve turrets each in a unit of one." Interpretation, very plain and simple. I'm sorry you don't see that. I am glad however you have found a rules interpretation that works for you and will be your argument when someone tells you they get 20 turrets. You will tell them they get 0 due to it being a model. Then you two will either not play, stop playing, or roll off. I feel like here is where you'll mention tournaments and TO's again, because you want an argument you can use midgame to prove to the TO that they're wrong if they were to rule that your opponent gets 20 turrets. However, if their interpretation is that the guy does get 20 turrets, then it's already settled. Then again, you don't care what their interpretation is. Okay, lol.  I can't even tell if this is trolling at this point. However, I no longer have time for someone who can't get past their own interpretations and stretches rule 1 ad infinitum. Sorry again :/ Automatically Appended Next Post: Teschio wrote: Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.
Good catch. 
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote:
doctortom wrote:No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.
Ok, how would YOU regulate which unit can set it up? Since the original FW unit DOES NOT EXIST anymore, and instead 12 separate and independent units exist, how can you fit this into the Every Man for Himself rule? I explained multiple times that a UNIT upgrade is shared among ALL models of the unit. Do FWs have the turret as a UNIT upgrade? Yes. Do they EACH get in once they split up? YES, because all models benefit from a unit upgrade, otherwise it would be a MODEL upgrade! Please stop trying to use common sense, the rules don't give a f*** about common sense. If scout bikes get cluster mines for each model, then FWs get a turret for each model. This is pure RAW, even though it makes no sense. Once you have rules interacting in weird ways, you can come up with results that make absolutely zero sense, but that are completely LEGAL. Please try to make an effort, and look at the rules, and ONLY the rules.
I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.
But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.
This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.
73519
Post by: Teschio
BossJakadakk wrote:Apologies for understanding English and math to the point where a purchase of one item can not equate the purchase of multiple items, and for attempting to help you find arguments (any and all) that you could use for disallowing your "competitive group" from steamrolling you at will (because apparently you're willing to just let that happen based on your RAI).
If you don't care what a TO thinks the rule is, why did you put so much emphasis on making sure a TO rules it correctly (which you don't affect anyway until you see the house rules for an event and notify them)?
Condescension and veiled (and plain) insults seems to be your true goal, rather than attempting to find an interpretation that disallows your RAI (which is very clearly RAI regardless if you admit it or not), and all I've done is attempt to give you ammunition with which to fight someone telling you "I have 20 DS8 turrets" because that's what you asked for. But I can't help you. No one can, obviously, because you don't even understand anything and everything here is RAI, objectively.
"I purchased one turret for a unit of twelve, when they split I now have twelve turrets each in a unit of one." Interpretation, very plain and simple. I'm sorry you don't see that. I am glad however you have found a rules interpretation that works for you and will be your argument when someone tells you they get 20 turrets. You will tell them they get 0 due to it being a model. Then you two will either not play, stop playing, or roll off. I feel like here is where you'll mention tournaments and TO's again, because you want an argument you can use midgame to prove to the TO that they're wrong if they were to rule that your opponent gets 20 turrets. However, if their interpretation is that the guy does get 20 turrets, then it's already settled. Then again, you don't care what their interpretation is. Okay, lol.
I can't even tell if this is trolling at this point. However, I no longer have time for someone who can't get past their own interpretations and stretches rule 1 ad infinitum. Sorry again :/
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Teschio wrote: Last time I checked, this forum was for rule discussions and interpretations.
Good catch.
LOL, you don't even know what RAI means! Hover on the little yellow word, you will see that it means "rule as intended", which means "trying to guess what the game designers' intention was, instead of following the rule to the letter". RAI does not mean "my personal interpretation". My interpretation is definitely NOT RAI, I never said "but the GDs obviously meant that [...]", and I don't even imply this is the truth, since it's quite obvious to anyone that this weird rule interaction was NOT done on purpose, it's just an oversight. But if you DO follow the rules even when they don't make any sense, and I do, then there is no other possible interpretation. Yes, it conficts with math, but WHO CARES! You are trying to use common sense, which is NOT how you should approach rules. You can either follow them TO THE LETTER, regardless of how asburd the unintended consequences are, or you can ignore them and make up your own. I choose the first option. BTW, NOBODY was able to provide an alternative explanation of how this should work that does not openly conflict with one or more rules. My interpretation may be absurd, mathematically and linguistically, but it DOES follow the rules, every one of them, which is all that matters in a game that needs a rigid structure. Please tell me, how would YOU say the turret works? Give me an interpretation that is COMPLETELY consistent with all the rules in the BRB and the codex, and I will accept it.
PS: interpreting the rules does not mean "making sh*t up". It means using the existing rules, and ONLY the rules (ignoring common sense, fluff and all these other things) to get to a conclusion. Your idea of interpretation is "personal opinion"... as you can guess from the little flag near my name, English is not my first language, but even I know the difference...
73519
Post by: Teschio
doctortom wrote:
I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.
But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.
This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.
You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).
Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.
A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.
BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong. Your possible solutions are:
1) the turret is assigned to a model: no, since it's not an upgrade to a specific model like a special weapon would be. If the turret does not "belong" to a model in a normal 40k game (and it doens't), then it doens't belong to one in KT, because there is no rule allowing it.
2) the turret is set up by any one model in the original unit: this conflicts with the EMfH rule, since after unit selection any memory of the unit a model comes from is lost, all models are completely independent, they are not parts of a unit that just ACT as if they were independent. Big difference, and if the rule said the latter is true, then this interpretation would be correct. But they don't.
3) the turret is a model. and therefore disappears: we already established that this is true, but this has NOTHING to do with how many turrets you would get. It makes the question moot, certainly, but it's not in itself a possible deployment option, it's just a cop out. The only possible deployment options that do not involve the "20 turrets" list are the two above, and both openly confict with other rules. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:LOL, you don't even know what RAI means! Hover on the little yellow word, you will see that it means "rule as intended", which means "trying to guess what the game designers' intention was, instead of following the rule to the letter". RAI does not mean "my personal interpretation". My interpretation is definitely NOT RAI, I never said "but the GDs obviously meant that [...]", and I don't even imply this is the truth, since it's quite obvious to anyone that this weird rule interaction was NOT done on purpose, it's just an oversight. But if you DO follow the rules even when they don't make any sense, and I do, then there is no other possible interpretation. Yes, it conficts with math, but WHO CARES! You are trying to use common sense, which is NOT how you should approach rules. You can either follow them TO THE LETTER, regardless of how asburd the unintended consequences are, or you can ignore them and make up your own. I choose the first option. BTW, NOBODY was able to provide an alternative explanation of how this should work that does not openly conflict with one or more rules. My interpretation may be absurd, mathematically and linguistically, but it DOES follow the rules, every one of them, which is all that matters in a game that needs a rigid structure. Please tell me, how would YOU say the turret works? Give me an interpretation that is COMPLETELY consistent with all the rules in the BRB and the codex, and I will accept it.
1) RAI is trying to figure out what the rules as written were trying to get at. That comes across as the individual's personal interpretation.
2) Common sense and logic are methods of interpreting the written rules. Unfortunately, Common Sense really isn't that common or people tend to not use it.
3) There are absurd rules in the rulebook, and there are rules that stop at one place and pick up later on without explanations about what happens in them middle.
4) We have not been able to provide a rule to counter yours (aside from the basic rules of English and Mathematics which you have rejected) for the same reason you have not been able to provide a certain rule that connects all of your assumptions together. The simple fact that they do not exist. Make no claims about how they do actually exist. You have provided nothing to prove your assumption follows the letter of all the rules, only your assumptions on how the rules function.
Teschio wrote:PS: interpreting the rules does not mean "making sh*t up". It means using the existing rules, and ONLY the rules (ignoring common sense, fluff and all these other things) to get to a conclusion. Your idea of interpretation is "personal opinion"... as you can guess from the little flag near my name, English is not my first language, but even I know the difference...
Ironic since in order to do as you suggest, that is exactly what you have done. I asked questions on them and you refused to answer them at all, and then berated and demeaned me in order to cover it up. Heck, you probably won't even read this if you have set me to ignore.
Teschio wrote:You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).
Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.
A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.
And where is the rules that actually allow you to make this differentiation? All I have seen from you is assumptions. Where in the rulebook or its expansions does it state that "a single upgrade purchased by the unit is multiplied when the unit is separated"? Where in the rulebook or its expansions does it differentiate a single upgrade of Wargear with a single upgrade of a unit?
Teschio wrote:BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong.
You have provided no rule in which mine were in conflict. You only made declarations on how you think the ruleset is made up.
Teschio wrote:Your possible solutions are:
1) the turret is assigned to a model: no, since it's not an upgrade to a specific model like a special weapon would be. If the turret does not "belong" to a model in a normal 40k game (and it doens't), then it doens't belong to one in KT, because there is no rule allowing it.
A misrepresentation of something I said. I never said it was assigned to a model. It is set up by one model from the original unit, and then it stays with that model as a permanent part of that unit, due to lack of permission for the Wargear to change units. This is not a case of breaking rules, but a case of not having any rules to follow.
Teschio wrote:2) the turret is set up by any one model in the original unit: this conflicts with the EMfH rule, since after unit selection any memory of the unit a model comes from is lost, all models are completely independent, they are not parts of a unit that just ACT as if they were independent. Big difference, and if the rule said the latter is true, then this interpretation would be correct. But they don't.
Actually, the phrase is, "treated as separate units", I believe. Their separate unit status is technically temporary. In keeping with your assessment on this, it would also preclude the turret from being deployed by all 12 of the Fire Warriors for the exact same reason. Again, this is technically not a case of breaking rules, but not having anything to follow. Still, this is a more real representation of what would happen then the "1 becomes 20" concept you think has more merit than a snowball in hell.
Teschio wrote:3) the turret is a model. and therefore disappears: we already established that this is true, but this has NOTHING to do with how many turrets you would get. It makes the question moot, certainly, but it's not in itself a possible deployment option, it's just a cop out. The only possible deployment options that do not involve the "20 turrets" list are the two above, and both openly confict with other rules. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
It is a model, and is not a model. It is a model in the fact that there is a miniature of it, but it is not a model in the fact that it has no profile and is nothing actionable can be made against it and it has directions that are redundant if it was a model.
And "1 becomes 20" doesn't break any rules in the rulebook or its expansions, but it doesn't properly follow the rules, either, since there are none that actually say you should do this. It does break basic English and mathematical rules, however, which do say you cannot do this without permission. Where is your permission?
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote: doctortom wrote:
I wouldn't handle it the way you are trying to. And, by the way, that last line is very condescending - you were calling Charistoph to task about being condescenting, physician heal thyself.
But, if you want the rules, the rules say the unit gets one turret. This is bought before splitting the unit up for kill team. This means that for your unit of 10 fire warriors, you have 10 fire warriors and one turret. When that unit gets split up into independent units at the start of the kill team, you are splitting up the 10 fire warriors and one turret. There is no mystery multiplication of the turrets because when the upgrade is purchased is is purchased as only one turret for 10 people. Splitting them up later for deployment doesn't retroactively affect the purchase and existence of one (and only one turret). This is RAW, not some malarky about everybody getting presents for Christmas when they split up that has no statement justifying it. Does the RAW say the unit is equipped with turrets plural? No, not in the slightest. It says A turret. That means at the time of list building, pre-deployment, you get A turret. This means that it's not like cluster mines at all, which are specified as being plural, so mines (plural) are handed out to everybody in the unit at the time the army is created - pre-deployment. This isn't "common sense", this is going by the rules.
This is why I mentioned the Rhino - it is purchased for a unit. Using your same logic, though, when the unit gets split up into 10 units, each unit would get a Rhino. We know it doesn't work that way by RAW, just as everone except you knows it doesn't work that say for the turret. So, you don't get one turret for each fire warrior out there. The only question is whether there is one turret that gets passed around, if there's one turret that gets assigned to one fire warrior only or if the turret counts as a model, becomes a unit by itself and goes away when the unit is split up into separate kill team units. You are focusing on something completely bogus that has no standing in the rules themselves. Things might have to be house ruled for it, but what you propose has absolutely no standing in RAW whatsoever and wouldn't be considered. Unless you're also letting a kill team that buys a dedicated transport get a transport for each member of the kill team when you split them off. At least that would be consistently ludicrous.
You would be correct if the turret was an extra model, much like an Attack Bike or an Eldar Platform. But it's not, it's a unit upgrade. And this makes all the difference in the world, since upgrades are shared among all members of a unit. Each model gets a "copy" of the upgrade, and so something that starts of as "one per unit" becomes "one per model", since all models are completely independent units. It works for cluster caltrops, and so it works for the turret, since they are the exact same thing (names are useless labels, so please don't start with "but caltrops are plural"...).
Yes, the unit gets one turret. How many units do you have which share that upgrade? 12. Therefore, how many turrets do you have?
Does it make sense? No. Does it clash with common sense, fluff, basic math and logic? Absolutely. But does it conflict with the rules? No, and this is all that matters.
No, you get one. You are confusing unit/army creation with deployment. You bought the unit upgrade when you created the unit, and all the equipment issued, including one and only one turret) is what you split up when it becomes time to split the unit later. You purchased the upgrade at the time of creation. At the time of creaton, all the members are of one unit. So, when the unit is created you have 12 (or t0 or however many you purchased) fire warriors, and one turret that is shared in the unit. When it becomes time to deploy you split them up into separate units. There is only one turret in total. It does not become 12 as you only bought one for the unit. The unit splitting into 12 (or 10 or however many fire warriors you purchased) does not change things from there being only one turret. Splitting the unit up after creation does not retroactively make you get 12 turrets. When you split up the unit you are splitting up what they have AT THAT TIME. Cluster mines plural, attack bikes (plural) bought for a unit, since they are bought plural everybody gets one. Since you bought only one turret there is only one turret today that can be divvied out somewhere.
Teschio wrote:A Rhino is a separate unit of its own. It's like adding an extra member to the unit, it's NOT a unit upgrade. Until this whole "unit upgrade" thing is not clear (and it seems to me it's not, given your extremely unrelated example), there's not a chance in hell that my argument could be understood. But just because you can't grasp one concept, this does not make my argument invalid. Try harder.
It's a unit upgrade that happens to be a separate unit. It's listed as an option to buy, just like turets, attack bikes and any other options in the datasheet. It's something - like a Turret - that you buy one of that the unit gets (a dedicated transport instead of a turret, but oh well). Your arguement is that the one unit splits into multiple units - rules that say a unit may buy a dedicated transport have to be treated the same as rules that say a unit may buy a turret. If you're treating the turret as something all new units gets when the one unit gets split into multiple units, then all those units would get a dedicated transport if the original unit bought a dedicated transport. From what the rules state for the unit purchasing either one, you wouldn't get to differentiate between the two when it comes time to split everything up, since "the unit" bought a dedicated transport just as much as "the unit" bought a turret. Whether the transport is also a unit is irrelevant; you just wish to ignore that beccause it does point out the problem with your argument.
Teschio wrote:BTW, I am still waiting for an alternative method to use that turret that does NOT conflict with any rule. Because mine, despite seeming absurd, does not, any other suggestion that was made openly does. And if your interpretation conflicts with one rule, your interpretation is wrong. Your possible solutions are:/quote]
Yours conflicts with rules, you just don't want to admit it. The unit bought A turret, not multiple turrets. The unit dissolvess, becoming a number of new units where each is one model from the old uinit. It's not the old unit, though, so you do not retroactively apply "A" turret to each model of these new units with different names. Because they don't meet the requirements of the original unit that you bought, it can't be the same type of unit. Therefore, everybody getting a turret would conflict with the rules. There being only one turret after everything is split up meets all the rules. You might have to house rule which way to handle it, but it's certainly not your way.
73519
Post by: Teschio
If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.
Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.
Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Teschio wrote: Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently.
Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.
Much obliged.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote:If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.
If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.
Teschio wrote:Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.
The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1 'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.
Teschio wrote:Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.
I have, and said that it would need to be house ruled between different things that are covered by the rules. I have steadfastly maintained, however, that what you are saying absolutely goes against the rules. Buyinn one item does not turn it into multiple items. I've explained how that doesn't work when considering how the English language is used, and I've explained how it doesn't work because of timing issues - a unit getting one item in an upgrade had only the one item to hand out when the unit is split up into multiple units of a different type. There are no rules for the one man units saying each one of the new units (which aren't the same unit as the original) may retroactively purchase something or retroactively claim they have items that this new unit did not purchase. These are all MAJOR conflichs with the rules. Now, please do what Sgt_Smudge asked you to present, and while you're at it present the rules quotations that Charistoph has asked for justifying how one piece of equpement in the original unit, purchased as only one unit, turns into 12 pieces of equpment in 12 different units. So far you haven't presented a rule that allows this.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:If you don't see the difference between a completely separate unit (like a transport) and an equipment for a unit, then this discussion will never end, because we don't agree on the basic concepts.
This much is probably true. If nothing else, it is an interesting insight as to what people believe regarding how certain unwritten things are to be used.
Teschio wrote:Also, if you don't understand that names are labels, there's not much more we can talk about. In your view, if the cluster mines entry was "the unit can have a booby-trap kit", or even worse, "the unit can have option #3", things would work differently. Even if the booby-trap kit and option #3 had the EXACT same rules as cluster mines. This is being mislead by fluff, intead of following the rules.
Actually, it is not the "label" that we are focusing on, but the use of the identifying article. You are confusing the quantity allowed for the purchase with "labels". And the problem with your example is that cluster mines are not written as "may purchase a cluster mine", but "may purchase cluster mines". Between these two examples, the former is purchasing one of an item, the latter is purchasing multiple. You are combining the thought that "the unit has one" with "all the models can use it" which translates to, "all the models are able to use a turret when they separate in to multiple units". You have provided zero rules to support this in your assertions.
Teschio wrote:Finally, you still have not given me YOUR interpretation of how the turret works. Not one that doens't openly contradict a rule, however. You cay say mine does too, but you to have to quote the rule I break, like I did. Your argument is "but it's only ONE turret", never realizing that it's an EQUIPMENT, and not to a model but to the whole unit, and therefore once the unit becomes multiple units (I don't say"is split up", because you DO NOT split it up, it ceases to exist and is replaced my multiple independent units, and this is a point that you don't seem to understand but that makes all the difference in the world), all these units have it. Again, this does NOT conflict with any rule, althought it's very counterintuitive.
There are conflicts, and there are conflicts. Nothing says you can't do it, but then, nothing actually says you can, either way. Right now, you are closer to combining a violation of Tenet #1 (back it up) with "It doesn't say I can't do it".
73519
Post by: Teschio
BossJakadakk wrote:Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.
If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand.
You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.
Much obliged.
1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit
2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.
3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.
4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.
5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.
With this, I am NOT saying that I will use such a list. I don't even play Tau! All I am saying is that this is the interpretation of the rules. Oh, and this whole discussion is quite useless now, since we established that turrets (even a single one) are removed as soon as they are set up...
doctortom wrote:If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.
One is a unit upgrade, the other is a SEPARATE model. Buying a rhino is no different than adding another model to a squad (such as buying the 6th Space Marine in a tac squad). Buying a Rhino is like buying an Eldar Platform, that has NOTHING in common with the Tau turret except for fluff reasons.
The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.
I am not asking that you agree with my ideas, but you should al teast try to understand what I'm saying. I KNOW you get a single turret, ONE turret. And in normal games you do get only one. But things change once the KT rules kick in. A unit uprade is shared by all members of the unit, and once the unit DISAPPEARS to be replaced with 10 indivdual units, they ALL have that upgrade, because it was an upgrade to the whole unit. The 10 FWs units that you deploy are NOT related in any way to their parent unit, except for the fact that they have all the equipment and upgrades and special rules their "parent" unit had.
I have, and said that it would need to be house ruled between different things that are covered by the rules. I have steadfastly maintained, however, that what you are saying absolutely goes against the rules. Buyinn one item does not turn it into multiple items. I've explained how that doesn't work when considering how the English language is used, and I've explained how it doesn't work because of timing issues - a unit getting one item in an upgrade had only the one item to hand out when the unit is split up into multiple units of a different type. There are no rules for the one man units saying each one of the new units (which aren't the same unit as the original) may retroactively purchase something or retroactively claim they have items that this new unit did not purchase. These are all MAJOR conflichs with the rules. Now, please do what Sgt_Smudge asked you to present, and while you're at it present the rules quotations that Charistoph has asked for justifying how one piece of equpement in the original unit, purchased as only one unit, turns into 12 pieces of equpment in 12 different units. So far you haven't presented a rule that allows this.
Cluster mines are a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade. It's written nowhere that ALL models get them, and you can't infer that just by the fact the the equip label is in the plural form. But you don't deny that you get to booby-trap one piece of terrain PER model. Why, since they are not an upgrade to ALL models, but to a single unit? This case is EXACTLY the same. The only thing is, you are so wrapped up in the fluff that you can't see the extreme similarities. If nothing tells you that EVERY model gets mines (and nothing does), then you ARE multiplying pieces of equipment. You are fine with that, but for some reasons you are not fine with the turret. I really can't follow your logic here...
Now, you COULD say that even though cluster mines are in the plural form, since it's not specified that all models have them, then only one has them. Which is fine, but this is a different argument, and again this does not work well with the EMfH rule. My problem is that nodody contests the multiplication of cluster mines, but you DO contest the case of the turret, not realizing that the two are exactly the same. Yes, you ARE multiplying cluster mines, but since the result does not conflict with common sense, you accept it. I am loking at only the rules, though, and rule-wise there is no difference between the two.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Teschio wrote:BossJakadakk wrote:Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.
If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand. You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.
You still don't seem to understand what singular vs plural is. I don't understand how you don't *objectively* see that clear as DAY the RULES are specifying a singular noun. It's not the name I'm focused on, it's the singularity. But hey, the rules are always *subject* to your *interpretation* I suppose. Objectively, there is one turret purchased as wargear for 12 fire warriors. Objectively, there is a unit upgrade called "cluster bombs" purchased by a unit of 3 scout bikers. One is objectively an actual item, one is objectively simply a rule addon. Don't pretend the *name* "cluster bombs" and the *fluff* the rule represents assists in your assertion that a singular physical object has now become 12. I'm not using the name, I'm not using fluff. I'm using what it says in the books to draw a conclusion, which you don't like. So you attack my understanding of what RAW is by asserting your *interpretation* is the only one that makes sense. It's insulting and laughable at the same time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Teschio wrote: With this, I am NOT saying that I will use such a list. I don't even play Tau! All I am saying is that this is the interpretation of the rules. Oh, and this whole discussion is quite useless now, since we established that turrets (even a single one) are removed as soon as they are set up...
Okay, there's your RAW. Enjoy! You've accused me of simply arguing your points because of my own preference, but that's not the case. I believe this to be closest to RAW as well. I'm not a fan of it, though. I'd rather there be a way for it to be included as I prefer inclusive rulesets (even though obviously Kill is exclusive by its nature).
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Teschio wrote:You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
"Rules As Written" (aka RAW) actually is "here is a rule that details this exact situation", not "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation".
By definition, RAW is looking at the Written Rules. You know "Written" as in words placed on paper (or placed in an electronic document)? In order for it to be "Rules As Written", there must be something "Written". If there is nothing "Written", it becomes something else.
The definition of Rules As Intended ( RAI) is, "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation". By making this statement above, you have announced you have been violating Tenet #4, please review. You have also been insulting and condescending while doing it.
To restate, there is nothing Written on this subject, so there is nothing RAW.
Teschio wrote:1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit
Not in dispute, except this is in the part you keep insisting fluff is being used when we refer to it. Though, realistically, its not "the whole unit", it is just "the unit". It may be a slight semantical difference, but it only matters if you plan on giving the turret to every model.
Teschio wrote:2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.
I'm going to need a quote on this one. Rulebook, codex, or Kill Team will suffice if properly referenced.
Unlike a Banner or Meltagun, which both of us have pointed out, the turret is purchased by a unit and not assigned to any model. The rules for the DS 8 Tactical Support Turret do not indicate its use by any model. The only use of "model" in the first two paragraphs are just how close it has to be to one and that it shoots with them. The third paragraph only talks about its interactions with enemy models (and being able to return the turret to play). Indeed, it is not ever stated to be used by the unit, either. It just has to wait until a Movement Phase the unit doesn't move and "you" (the owning player) can set it up to shoot with the unit. (per the Kauyon document I have access to).
Cluster Mines are sort of the same way, in that models are never ever mentioned to be taking possession of them or use them. They are wholly owned and used by the unit itself.
Teschio wrote:3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.
My Kau'yon document does not have this stated in the Wargear's rules (admittedly, it is an old copy). The only time a limitation is made is in the purchasing options which you claim are just fluff. Is it different elsewhere? If so, quote and reference, please.
Teschio wrote:4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.
Does the new Every Man For Himself actually state the original unit is eliminated, or is it just "treat every model as their own unit"? The semantic difference is key.
Does new new Every Man For Himself actually state that the new units are named after the models that make them up?
Going by the logic (and what I'm taking for as assumptions) in this quoted statement, the unit which purchased the Turret no longer exists and so it cannot deploy the turret. You no longer have 1 Fire Warrior Squad, but 6-12 Fire Warrior units. And those Fire Warrior units did not purchase the turret.
Teschio wrote:5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.
This is an assumption based on #2 being accurate, and that has yet to be supported by any quoted rules. Proper rules support is also required by #4 to help bring it together.
Where is it Written so it can be Done?
105443
Post by: doctortom
Teschio wrote:BossJakadakk wrote:Not true, we'd be in the same predicament. They're not worded that way so it's hard to prove that if they were suddenly everything would give you multiples of a single thing you bought. Amusing way to convince yourself you're following RAW though. "Even though this thing's RAW is totally different from my interpretation of another thing's RAW, IF THE WORDING WERE CHANGED it would support my interpretation!" Doesn't follow. In everyone else's reality, if cluster mines was a "booby-trap kit" instead, we'd have the same issue with it. Namely that we don't have any RAW, only interpretations.
If the NAME of an equipment is the important thing in an argument, then you are following the fluff, not the rules. Pretty easy concept to understand.
You don't understand fluff. And, as has been pointed out, it is whether you are told you are buying one piece of equpment or multiple pieces for the entire unit.
Teschio wrote:You still don't seem to understand what RAW is... it's not "here is a rule that details this exact situation", it's more "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactios can give us an objective interpretation". Because there IS an objective interpretation, ALWAYS, on any question. The only problem is finding it. And the only way to find it is to consider ONLY the rules, nothing more.
That's not RAW in the slightest! Charistoph is correct: ""Rules As Written" (aka RAW) actually is "here is a rule that details this exact situation", not "here we have various rules, none of which addressed the matter specifically, but which if considered together with their sometimes weird interactions can give us an objective interpretation" " What you are using here is HIWPI, not RAW. There's a big difference.
Teschio wrote:Sgt_Smudge wrote:Teschio, as a new face on this debate, please explain your entire logic process to me, keeping completely in concordance with RAW. Because as it is, I'm not really seeing your point, and you seem rather antagonistic to other far more legible users here.
Much obliged.
1) the turret is not an upgrade to a specific model, but to the whole unit
2) upgrades to a unit get shared by all members of said unit. This is generally not an issue in normal 40k games. And yes, even in normal games, the turret is not a property of one model, as it can be set up within 2" of any model in the unit that bought it.
3) the only limitation is, you can set up only one turret per unit.
4) once the KT rules kick in, there is a very weird interaction with the Every Man for Himself rule: the models are completely independent units. They are not even their former unit that has been split up, the "parent" unit ceases to exist and is replaced with individual units. If you bought 10 tac marines, you will have 0 (not 10) units of tactical marines. What you will have are 9 one-model units of Space Marines, and a single unit composed of a Space Marine Sergeant, all with the exact same equipment and special rules that they would have had normally. The only thing is, every model keeps the upgrades he had when you built the list.
5) since the turret was a unit upgrade, not a model upgrade, and is therefore "shared" among all Fire Warriors, once they become separate units, every one can deploy one turret. This is absolutely counterintuitive, but it does follow the rules. The reason why this works is the exact same reason why the game designers banned rules such as Brotherhood of Psykers, or Blood for the Blood God: special rules or equip that work once per unit, suddently become much different in Kill Team, due to its special rule.
You fell apart with the last one, because you ignore the purchase of something singular vs something in the plural. If you buy equipment in plural, everybody in the unit has it. If the unit gets one piece of equipment, singular, then there is only one. It can potentially be used by anybody in the unit, but not at the same time. This is a far cry from everybody having the equipment itself. If anything, your argument about it being an upgrade that is shared would mean that anybody from the old unit would be able to use the turret, but since there's only one turret (that does not mystically split into numerous turrets - you only paid for one, and the rules don't allow you to purchase a separate turret for each fire warrior before they split up), this one turret is placed on the board. Your statement about it having been a unit upgrade would mean anybody in the unit could use the turret as long as someone else in the unit hasn't, but it certainly does not equate to one turret becoming one per fire warrior when it isn't purchased that way.
Teschio wrote:doctortom wrote:If you can't see the similarity between "the unit may purchase an x' " and "the unit may purchase a 'y' " then you might be right about the discussion not ending, because that's the basic concept in play here, not the different between a dedicated transport and equipment.
One is a unit upgrade, the other is a SEPARATE model. Buying a rhino is no different than adding another model to a squad (such as buying the 6th Space Marine in a tac squad). Buying a Rhino is like buying an Eldar Platform, that has NOTHING in common with the Tau turret except for fluff reasons.
You keep missing the point. Like Halley's Comet, it keeps going over your head. Both are upgrades that are bought for the unit, but one works as a separate unit and is a model. Other units have upgrades that are models (or at least used to - SW ICs being able to take wolves as an upgrade). The main point is, you buy one dedicated transport that the unit can access (or anybody in the unit when they split up). The turret is an upgrade that anybody from that unit can access, or - going by what you say about it being a unit upgrade 0 any of the models can access when they are split up. In both cases though you still have only the one dedicated transport or the one turret that the former unit (now multiple units) have access to, not one per model. You don't seem to grasp that your argument for multiple turrets would equally apply to having multiplying dedicated transports...which is an indication that your argument has a flaw.
Teschio wrote:The problem is on your end. You can replace the names with "item 1" "item 2" or whatever to make it generic. What you don't seem to grasp though, is the unit purchasing AN Item #1 vs the unit purchasing item #1'S. One is purchasing an item, singular, vs. purchasing multiples, enough for everyone in the unit. If you don't understand, which you apparently don't, then you never will. You are completely wrong about being misled by fluff - being told whether you purchase something singular or something plural is most definitely not fluff. You're showing as not from the US or UK, so I don't know if it's just a language problem with you, but the language usage here is very important. Being told you may buy one of something, which is designated by "a" or "an" just as much as saying "1", is most definitely part of the rules, and means you do not get multiples of the item, only one.
I am not asking that you agree with my ideas, but you should al teast try to understand what I'm saying. I KNOW you get a single turret, ONE turret. And in normal games you do get only one. But things change once the KT rules kick in. A unit uprade is shared by all members of the unit, and once the unit DISAPPEARS to be replaced with 10 indivdual units, they ALL have that upgrade, because it was an upgrade to the whole unit. The 10 FWs units that you deploy are NOT related in any way to their parent unit, except for the fact that they have all the equipment and upgrades and special rules their "parent" unit had.
I have tried to understand what you are saying. I have rejected it. If you KNOW you get a single turret, you KNOW that it can not become multiple turrets because you do not HAVE multiple turrets. And, as I point out above, they all have ACCESS to that upgrade - when it's an upgrade singular that means only one of those models can be using it in a turn, which makes sense when there is only the ONE turret to start with. You have mistaken for possessing the turret with possessing access to the turret. The unit has one turret that any one model in the unit in range of the turret can use during a turn. When they're split off, any one of the models in range of the turret can use the turret during a turn. THAT follows the rules without breaking the rules by having A turret not be A turret but multiple turretS.
Go back and read what I said about timing also. It is a singular item unit upgrade. When it comes time to split the unit, you only split up what you have. Since you have only one turret only one turret gets split up, you don't suddenly make one per model split off. You have no permission to split it up that way. Access to the equipment can be split up, there is certainly the permission for any of the old models to use it if they're in range just as any of the models could use it if it were a normal 40k game. You still have to have the models within range of the turret - the one turret - just as you would in a normal 40k game. If none are within range, then it goes away, whether it's a kill team or a 40k game. There's still only one turret that's accessed, whether it's a Kill Team or a 40k game.
Some people want to house rule only one member of the unit getting the turret - there may be an argument for that, but the old unit did have permission for everyone to use the turret. They just never had permission for every model to HAVE a turret.
EDIT: To beat the horse a little more, but to summarize what I think your interpretation problem is, you haven't actually properly defined WHAT the unit upgrade is. The unit upgrade is 1 turret that everybody in the unit has permission to access (but only one per turn). If you split up the unit for a kill team everybody gets the permission to access the 1 turret still, but it's still only one turret, and - like it would work in 40k - only one model would get to use the turret each turn. I think what you're missing is that when they're discussing unit upgrades, multiple pieces of equipment being bought means everybody gets the equipment. if the rules say you get "a" piece of equipment, you only get the one that the whole unit gets access to. You can split the access permission so every model can still access the one turret, but you don't turn the one piece of equipment into multiple pieces because you never had permission for multiple pieces of that equipment for the people in that original unit.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:I have tried to understand what you are saying. I have rejected it. If you KNOW you get a single turret, you KNOW that it can not become multiple turrets because you do not HAVE multiple turrets. And, as I point out above, they all have ACCESS to that upgrade - when it's an upgrade singular that means only one of those models can be using it in a turn, which makes sense when there is only the ONE turret to start with. You have mistaken for possessing the turret with possessing access to the turret. The unit has one turret that any one model in the unit in range of the turret can use during a turn. When they're split off, any one of the models in range of the turret can use the turret during a turn. THAT follows the rules without breaking the rules by having A turret not be A turret but multiple turretS.
...
Some people want to house rule only one member of the unit getting the turret - there may be an argument for that, but the old unit did have permission for everyone to use the turret. They just never had permission for every model to HAVE a turret.
Is there a newer version than the one in the Kau'yon book? The Kau'yon does not give the turret to any model nor is it used by any model, it is something the player deploys in coherency with the unit it was purchased with.
That's part of why his point #2 falls flat, even though he pointed out this exact thing that it is not used or assigned to a model when attempting to counter the banner and Heavy Weapon Platform similarities, he still uses it to justify his position.
doctortom wrote:EDIT: To beat the horse a little more, but to summarize what I think your interpretation problem is, you haven't actually properly defined WHAT the unit upgrade is. The unit upgrade is 1 turret that everybody in the unit has permission to access (but only one per turn). If you split up the unit for a kill team everybody gets the permission to access the 1 turret still, but it's still only one turret, and - like it would work in 40k - only one model would get to use the turret each turn. I think what you're missing is that when they're discussing unit upgrades, multiple pieces of equipment being bought means everybody gets the equipment. if the rules say you get "a" piece of equipment, you only get the one that the whole unit gets access to. You can split the access permission so every model can still access the one turret, but you don't turn the one piece of equipment into multiple pieces because you never had permission for multiple pieces of that equipment for the people in that original unit.
Be careful. This is where I was accused of not knowing RAW and purportedly ignored.
105443
Post by: doctortom
I believe the Kill Team version is the Kau'yon version. Someone else should verify that, though.
Certainly, there's no mention of this being an updated version of the unit.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:I believe the Kill Team version is the Kau'yon version. Someone else should verify that, though.
Certainly, there's no mention of this being an updated version of the unit.
Do the new Kill Team rules provide datasheets for all allowed units and/or their Wargear, or are we still using the datasheets and Wargear from other documents?
Remember, Kau'yon and the new Kill Team rules are almost a year apart, and I don't think there were extra Kill Team rules in the Damocles books (I could be wrong, I just realized I had access to it, and have not reviewed it in depth).
94850
Post by: nekooni
Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote:I believe the Kill Team version is the Kau'yon version. Someone else should verify that, though.
Certainly, there's no mention of this being an updated version of the unit.
Do the new Kill Team rules provide datasheets for all allowed units and/or their Wargear, or are we still using the datasheets and Wargear from other documents?
Remember, Kau'yon and the new Kill Team rules are almost a year apart, and I don't think there were extra Kill Team rules in the Damocles books (I could be wrong, I just realized I had access to it, and have not reviewed it in depth).
You use the regular Datasheets, the Kill Team box only includes datasheets for the models included in the box - and they're just a reprint of the latest datasheets for those units.
KT simply adds a few rules to the gameplay , like Every Man for Himself or what it's called, and bans others - like Brotherhood of Psykers.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
nekooni wrote:You use the regular Datasheets, the Kill Team box only includes datasheets for the models included in the box - and they're just a reprint of the latest datasheets for those units.
KT simply adds a few rules to the gameplay , like Every Man for Himself or what it's called, and bans others - like Brotherhood of Psykers.
I do not currently have access to the new Kill Team rules or box, which is why I was asking if any were updated beyond my old data. Just trying to be aware of the possibilities outside of my access.
106811
Post by: Chairman Tau
It seems as though the description of the turret fits to the blatantly broken interpretation that everyone gets their own. They are not carried, but dropped by ships. They self destruct when at risk of tampering (if left unattended or when the enemy is within 2") and new models can be set up whenever the unit doesn't move. It is not the same turret. If it self destructed then it can't be the same and must therefore show that the unit has multiple turrets available to them, but can only have 1 at a time per unit. If the Kill Team becomes units of 1 then the logical (but stupid) RAW interpretation is that every model can get a turret, as long as they don't move.
Personally I think that obsession over broken RAW rather than looking at RAI is the sign of the sort of power gamer that nobody will want to play with, but as the rules are written the DS8 is an overly powerful, broken game wrecker.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Chairman Tau wrote:It seems as though the description of the turret fits to the blatantly broken interpretation that everyone gets their own. They are not carried, but dropped by ships. They self destruct when at risk of tampering (if left unattended or when the enemy is within 2") and new models can be set up whenever the unit doesn't move. It is not the same turret. If it self destructed then it can't be the same and must therefore show that the unit has multiple turrets available to them, but can only have 1 at a time per unit. If the Kill Team becomes units of 1 then the logical (but stupid) RAW interpretation is that every model can get a turret, as long as they don't move. Personally I think that obsession over broken RAW rather than looking at RAI is the sign of the sort of power gamer that nobody will want to play with, but as the rules are written the DS8 is an overly powerful, broken game wrecker.
First I want to point out that your argument is using fluff by utilizing the description of the turret self destructing at the possibility of tampering or capture. That's in the description blurb, but not the rules. The actual rules have as the last sentence: Should a unit's tactical support turret ever be removed as a casualty, it can be returned to play in a future Movement phase as described above.
That specifically references the same turret that died as coming back. The rules have no mention of multiple turrets. RAW does not support anything about the turret becoming another turret, because the same turret returns to play. Second, every other argument within the thread that provides evidence that you are wrong. I just realized that I doubt there's an actual RAI for this too, on top of there being no RAW. I seriously don't believe when they were making Kill Team that they had any "Rules As Intended" for this situation in mind, and they definitely didn't when they made the turret.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Chairman Tau wrote:It seems as though the description of the turret fits to the blatantly broken interpretation that everyone gets their own. They are not carried, but dropped by ships. They self destruct when at risk of tampering (if left unattended or when the enemy is within 2") and new models can be set up whenever the unit doesn't move. It is not the same turret. If it self destructed then it can't be the same and must therefore show that the unit has multiple turrets available to them, but can only have 1 at a time per unit. If the Kill Team becomes units of 1 then the logical (but stupid) RAW interpretation is that every model can get a turret, as long as they don't move.
Personally I think that obsession over broken RAW rather than looking at RAI is the sign of the sort of power gamer that nobody will want to play with, but as the rules are written the DS8 is an overly powerful, broken game wrecker.
BossJakadakk dealt with the actual rules aspect showing why what you are saying won't work. But it's also worth commenting that it's highly interesting that you're complaining about the people using "broken" RAW are powergamers when they're they ones pointing out that one turret doesn't turn into 12 turrets. You would think saying that turning one turret into 12 turrets (which is HIPWA with a couple of people, not RAW) would be the overly powerful, broken game wrecker, not the RAW that there's only the one turret that is purchased at the start of the game.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
I think the "RAW" that makes 1 turret become 12 turrets is the "broken RAW" he's talking about, and that anyone who tries to play it that way would be the powergamer who nobody will want to play with
105443
Post by: doctortom
I think you're probably right, but it's not RAW - broken or not - just a misreading.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
doctortom wrote:I think you're probably right, but it's not RAW - broken or not - just a misreading.
True that 
85602
Post by: daemonish
So I didn't want to start a new topic just for this question, it's slightly off topic but fits in slightly. In the FO bit on page 6 of the kill team book it say "A kill team must consist of at least 4 non vehicle models." does this mean a full jetbike only list isn't possible. I know that it's adaptable and so on but if GW did an official KT event this full jet bike list wouldn't be allowed.
83978
Post by: Melevolence
Except how you believe this works isn't how list building works. After you build your list, just because you're playing Kill Team doesn't mean your list gets adjusted magically due to Kill Team Voodoo.
You buy 12 Fire Warriors when you build your list, then buy ONE turret for that unit.
For this example, we'll say that was your entire list, just to keep it simple.
You go to deploy. Kill Team requires you break the 12 models up into single man units. This does not mean you can break the rules of building your initial list. Meaning you do not get free turrets for every single Fire Warrior.
If Kill Team made you list build on a model to model basis, you'd be correct that every Fire Warrior could have a turret...IF each model payed for it. But they didn't.
In essence, RAW, the turret upgrade DOESN'T WORK. It simply breaks due to how Kill Team breaks the core rules of 40k to make it work.
You really have no choice but to make your own personal interpretations on how this upgrade SHOULD work.
By your definition, no one in the unit has turrets even if you paid for it to begin with, because KT Voodoo magic changes your list apparently, meaning that the unit you bought for upgrades no longer exists (And it isn't assigned to a particular model at the time of purchase) technically, because they are all their own unit now, blah blah. It makes no sense.
Saying that they all get a turret is merely your understanding, but it isn't, in fact, RAW. if you follow list building by the book, and you're saying you get free turrets...you're wrong. It's really that simple. When you built your list, you did not buy 12 turrets. You bought 1. A unit of Space Marine bikers buying mines is apples to oranges as the upgrade specifies you are buying multiple mines, and every model gets them. If the mine upgrade said 'the unit may by A cluster mine", your comparison would be more valid. The wording is very particular.
 daemonish wrote:So I didn't want to start a new topic just for this question, it's slightly off topic but fits in slightly. In the FO bit on page 6 of the kill team book it say "A kill team must consist of at least 4 non vehicle models." does this mean a full jetbike only list isn't possible. I know that it's adaptable and so on but if GW did an official KT event this full jet bike list wouldn't be allowed.
Jetbikes are not vehicles, they have a toughness value, not an AV. A jetbike army would be legal as far as I can tell.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
daemonish wrote:So I didn't want to start a new topic just for this question, it's slightly off topic but fits in slightly. In the FO bit on page 6 of the kill team book it say "A kill team must consist of at least 4 non vehicle models." does this mean a full jetbike only list isn't possible. I know that it's adaptable and so on but if GW did an official KT event this full jet bike list wouldn't be allowed.
Look at how Vehicles are defined as a unit type. Look at where Jet Bikes are listed in Unite Types. Do you see similarities here?
Just because a Jet Bike is a vehicle in our lives, doesn't mean they are Vehicles in the game.
106811
Post by: Chairman Tau
BossJakadakk wrote:I think the " RAW" that makes 1 turret become 12 turrets is the "broken RAW" he's talking about, and that anyone who tries to play it that way would be the powergamer who nobody will want to play with
Exactly what he said.
Clearly there is only meant to be 1 turret, and it does not instantly get taken out of play for being a unit of 1. The question should simply be whether any model in the squad can respawn the turret, or if it should be tied to 1 model.
1021
Post by: AesSedai
Chairman Tau wrote:BossJakadakk wrote:I think the " RAW" that makes 1 turret become 12 turrets is the "broken RAW" he's talking about, and that anyone who tries to play it that way would be the powergamer who nobody will want to play with
Exactly what he said.
Clearly there is only meant to be 1 turret, and it does not instantly get taken out of play for being a unit of 1. The question should simply be whether any model in the squad can respawn the turret, or if it should be tied to 1 model.
Four pages and this is literally the only thing I need to know. Can anyone answer just THIS question?
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
 AesSedai wrote:Chairman Tau wrote:BossJakadakk wrote:I think the " RAW" that makes 1 turret become 12 turrets is the "broken RAW" he's talking about, and that anyone who tries to play it that way would be the powergamer who nobody will want to play with
Exactly what he said.
Clearly there is only meant to be 1 turret, and it does not instantly get taken out of play for being a unit of 1. The question should simply be whether any model in the squad can respawn the turret, or if it should be tied to 1 model.
Four pages and this is literally the only thing I need to know. Can anyone answer just THIS question?
I saw a decent write up in the tactics section for why someone believes it is able to jump around, and that is how my LGS has decided to try it to see if it's too powerful (the models still came from the unit that bought the turret), but I know a lot of people have been just fine ruling that it sticks to one model. Essentially, it's house ruling at this point, with being able to jump around probably closer to RAW by virtue of the turret still belonging to each of the fire warriors. It just becomes something that begs the question "Do we need to nerf this?" to a lot of people, and the answer will change from group to group.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
BossJakadakk wrote: AesSedai wrote:Chairman Tau wrote:BossJakadakk wrote:I think the " RAW" that makes 1 turret become 12 turrets is the "broken RAW" he's talking about, and that anyone who tries to play it that way would be the powergamer who nobody will want to play with
Exactly what he said.
Clearly there is only meant to be 1 turret, and it does not instantly get taken out of play for being a unit of 1. The question should simply be whether any model in the squad can respawn the turret, or if it should be tied to 1 model.
Four pages and this is literally the only thing I need to know. Can anyone answer just THIS question?
I saw a decent write up in the tactics section for why someone believes it is able to jump around, and that is how my LGS has decided to try it to see if it's too powerful (the models still came from the unit that bought the turret), but I know a lot of people have been just fine ruling that it sticks to one model. Essentially, it's house ruling at this point, with being able to jump around probably closer to RAW by virtue of the turret still belonging to each of the fire warriors. It just becomes something that begs the question "Do we need to nerf this?" to a lot of people, and the answer will change from group to group.
Pretty much this. There are literally no rules to govern how we are supposed to handle this, so anything decided will be a House Rule. Just make sure everyone is on the same page before lists are written.
Strictest is "the unit no longer exists, so the turret cannot be deployed near any model". Not exactly fair to the Tau player, but a lot of Wargear is useless for Kill Team as it is written in the codex.
Least strict is "all the models can from the unit which purchased it, so the turret can be deployed near any of them". This is best for the Tau player, but it can be a little too powerful against other players, as it bounces around the map.
Middle ground is "turret can only be deployed near one model of the original unit, and it can only deploy/stay deployed near that model for the entire game". This allows the Tau player to use it, but prevents it from being "musical chairs" with its location. The Tau player will have to think which model he wants to use it near.
110652
Post by: FuzzayD
I think the individual unit rules for kill team are wrongly used.
I think the unit acts as its exact entry from the codex. but units do not need to adhere to unit coherency.
and any skills that require unit coherency cant be used unless they are within 2' of each other ie "look out sir"
buffs that effect a unit effect every model from the origial unit list entry. such as icons
skill gained from a certain model being in a unit only work within 2" of each other. ie hit and run or stealth/infiltrate
46128
Post by: Happyjew
FuzzayD I realize you are new, so I will tell you this, it is frowned upon to resurrect threads that have left the first page. Especially threads that are from almost 6 months ago. Mod has been alerted to lock.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Generally, it's preferable to start a new thread on the same subject rather than "resurrect" a "dead" one by posting in it. Sometimes this is not possible because what you want to add to a conversation is a very specific response to that particular conversation. But that is probably not the case here, so locking it up. Thanks!
|
|
