A member on another board posted this first quote, and my reply to him is shown below.

Eltnot, I'm new at 40K, so help me understand why a player cannot purchase an Empty Fish, then embark a Sniper Team in it. The Fish has it's own Entry in the Codex and a Seperate Cost. It lists a restriction against carrying XV Battlesuits, which implies to me that it can carry any Unit with the Type Infantry that is not an XV, otherwise the restriction is extraneous fluff, since the two units that list Fish contain no XV's. According to page 62 of the BGB, spare transports can carry any infantry unit that doesn't have a Specific Restriction.

Oh crap.  I was going to come here and tell you that because it's described as "Transport: Devilfish" it counts as a dedicated transport, but apparently according to the rules, that's only if it is purchased for a unit.  By examining a bunch of Codices, it appears that the Tau Codex specifically of all the ones I own (all of them..) does not state ANYTHING remotely like the following:

Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle.  These vehicles do not use up any additional Force Organisation chart selections, but otherwise function as separate units.  The vehicles described here may only transport the units they are selected with, and may not be used to transport other units during the course of a battle.  See the Warhammer 40,000 rules for details of dedicated transports.  Land Raider Crusaders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports.  See the entry in the Heavy Support section for details.  Because Land Raider Crusaders are such formidable vehicles they do not count as dedicated tranports for the purposes of holding objectives and scoring Victory Points.  Treat them as normal vehicles instead.

Page 38 Black Templars Codex

Certain Space Marine units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle.  These vehicles do not use up any additional Force Organisation chart selections, but otherwise function as separate units.  The vehicles described here may only transport the units they are selected with, and may not be used to transport other units during the course of a battle.  See the Warhammer 40,000 rules for details of dedicated transports.  Land Raiders may be selected by some units as dedicated transports.  See the entry in the Heavy Support section for details.  Because Land Raiders are such formidable vehicles they do not count as dedicated tranports for the purposes of holding objectives and scoring Victory Points.  Treat them as normal vehicles instead.

Page 35 Space Marine Codex

Transports are always taken as an upgrade for another unit and may only transport the unit it was bought for.  Independant characters that join a unit with a transport may also travel in it.

Page 30 Daemonhunters Codex

A Chimera can transport up to 12 models.  Remember that Ogryns take up two spaces each.  A Chimera is always selected as a transport upgrade for another unit and may only transport the unit it was bought for.

Page 45 Imperial Guard Codex

Transports are always taken as an upgrade ofr another unit and may only transport the unit it was bought for.  Independant characters that join a unit with a transport may also travel in it.

Page 33 Witch Hunters Codex

Note that the Tau Codex simply states:

The Devilfish may carry up to 12 models.  It may not carry any troops in XV Battlesuits.

Page 36 Tau Codex

which is TOTALLY different from the above cited examples, yet nearly exactly the same as:
 

The Falcon can carry 6 models.  It may not carry an Avatar, Wraithlord, Wraithguard or a squad containing an anti-grav platform.

Page 14 Eldar Codex

Now, no one argues that an Eldar player couldn't take empty Falcons as Heavy Support choices and use them to carry any troops you want, so by the rules, Tau players would also therefore be allowed to take empty Devilfish as Troops choices and use them to carry any troops they want.  The fact that their unit entry states "Transport: Devilfish" does not prevent this, as the rules for transports on page 63 of the main rulebook specifically give examples of transports that may be chosen as separate Force Organisation choices which, we must accept, Devilfish are.

You appear to be right, it doesn't say that it can't be taken as it's own troops slot. That's just an assumption people have made from the previous book.

So go for it!

Posted By mauleed on 07/03/2006 6:19 AM

You appear to be right, it doesn't say that it can't be taken as it's own troops slot. That's just an assumption people have made from the previous book.

So go for it!

1. Just because it does not say you can't sdo something does not mean you can. As I recall Mauleed you have skewered many a poster because they were trying to make a point based on "It doesn't say I can't!" Your response usually being something along the lines of...." It also doesn't say I can't still take a 2ed exarch either."

2. That aside, it realy depends on what the codex says YOU CAN DO. I don't have the dex here but if the fish has its own entry in the troops section (similar, I guess to a land raider or falcon) and no limiting language then.... You are correct. The fish is only a dedicated transport when taken as a such for a FW squad.

ender502

The fish has a Troops FOC symbol to the left, above the picture of the fish itself. It was so subtle I didn't notice it either. And the Firewarriors do NOT buy a fish as a squad.

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

Note that no where does it actually BUY the carrier. It isn't even an option to "select" it as a transport. They just can be mounted in the thing. I can mount troops in a Heavy Support Falcon or Land Raider and that doesn't change them. So the Tau have a troops choice that is just an 80pt vehicle that can also mount firewarriors.

The disadvantage of this is that now Tau Troops choices have to worry about Devilfish taking up slots.

The advantages are for deployment you can deploy the fish. The deploy the guys inside the fish. You can also count 2 scoring units running around in it at the end of the game, and it can pick up snipers as the poster that started Godhead looking asked.

Once again, great spot Godhead.

Ender:

This certainly isn't an "it doesn't say I can't" argument. He's saying that a devilfish is listed as a troops choice, and anything listed as a troops choice can be taken to fill a troops slot (and then when taken can transport whatever it likes, as it is not a dedicated transport).

The old listing for a devilfish said it was only a dedicated transport. This listing does not.

So I think he's technically correct.

Out of curiosity sake... what does it say for pathfinders?

Wait, so does this mean that you can have at most three Firewarrior squads mounted in Devilfish in a standard force organization chart?  (I don't have the codex with me right now).

Interesting.

5 Devilfish without upgrades = 400 points

Best Combat Patrol Force Ever?

- Oaka

Posted By Iorek on 07/03/2006 9:00 AM
Wait, so does this mean that you can have at most three Firewarrior squads mounted in Devilfish in a standard force organization chart?  (I don't have the codex with me right now).

Interesting.

Well one could argue that the language of the fire warrior entry allows devilfish to also be taken as dedicated transports. So you could have some dedicated devilfish and some general ones.

HEH.

Try 3 at 120pts each that can move up to 12" and shoot smart missiled from behind buildings at you.

And yes, they have a neat little symbol next to their entry that indicates it is a troops choice just as the Tyranids and Space Marines have for everything that is a troops choice do.

Now we have the interesting situation of, the wording for firewarriors. May be mounted in. It never states they may buy a transport. Just that they can be mounted in one. Marines may select a transport and then in the next page it gives all the rules for selecting transports including to check the rules since these are dedicated transports (and the exception to that for the Land Raider).

Looking at it again, I see a something that blatently contradicts it as well. Along the side in light grey everything has their FOC slot named next to them. Firewarriors have troops, kroot do too. Devilfish says transport,and it says Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier. Both of these indicate it is a transport. But never indicate it is a dedicated one. I can see the line about no XV suits for stopping suits joining units and getting in, but it clouded the issue.

So, they show it to be one thing and contradict that in the same entry and they don't bother being nice like the Space Marine Codex and writing how it works.

So why not make it obvious it is not an FOC slot if it isn't?

This tactic would never survive real world play, so its discussion is pointless. Do you ever expect to meet someone who will allow you to take empty devilfish?

If that's what the rulebook says, then yes, it's as valid as running a force with multiple empty land raiders. We are discussing that possibility. What is your take on the rules?

I'd allow my opponent to field them like that. They aren't 'that' deadly.

Since they are 'transports' they wouldn't be able to hold or contest table quarters or objectives... they can't do THAT much damage to make the kind of impact that a full unit of FW would... should be a fairly easy game.

If other codexes (Eldar, SM) have non-dedicated transports and opponents "allow" their owning players to use them, why should Tau non-dedicated transports not be "allowed?"

Players who remember the old codex might have a problem but it would be a specious complaint because lots of other stuff got changed in the codex upgrade. The point of upgrading codexes is to change things. Are people going to complain that everything in the new codex which is different should not be "allowed?"

I don't see much of an advantage in non-dedicated transports except if they are scoring units.

Well, you could use them as a taxi service, but I don't see the Tau having much need for that.

Well, you could use them as a taxi service, but I don't see the Tau having much need for that.

Amen to that. I would rather have a unit of FW and a dedicated Dfish than a Dfish taxi as a Troop choice. Heck I think I'd rather have Kroot than a Dfish taxi.

A non-dedicated transport would be scoring, and would add some serious options for a Tau player trying to preserve VPs.

I'd use them extensively if it was a generally accepted interpretation. As is, I'd prefer to go with the flow rather than argue about it every game and be DQ'd randomly from tournaments (see 6 Dread Atlanta GD debacle).

Looking at it again, I see a something that blatently contradicts it as well. Along the side in light grey everything has their FOC slot named next to them. Firewarriors have troops, kroot do too. Devilfish says transport,and it says Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier. Both of these indicate it is a transport. But never indicate it is a dedicated one. I can see the line about no XV suits for stopping suits joining units and getting in, but it clouded the issue.

It says it is a transport, but it's clearly in the Troops section. It is a transport, we know it's a transport, what it does't say anywhere is that it is a dedicated transport. The rules on page 62 of the rulebook clearly allow for circumstances where a vehicle is a non-dedicated transport and occupies its own Force Organisation point.

I don't see much of an advantage in non-dedicated transports except if they are scoring units.

Well they would be scoring units. If it's not a Dedicated Transport Vehicle then it's just a Vehicle.

I also believe that Fire Warriors may still take Devilfish as Dedicated Transport Vehicles.

Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organisation chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it.

The line labeled "Transport:..." in Fire Warriors is clearly a "transport option", in the same way that EMP grenades are an equipment option, therefore Devilfish may still be attached to Fire Warrior squads as Dedicated Transports, in addition to being taken by themselves as separate Force Organisation choices.

For the record, I personally would never consider taking this in a tournament army. It's not worth the likely sports/comp hit.

But it certainly appears to be legal.

So can you use it to carry kroot? (why, who knows, but I'm curious). I'd guess so.

Antonim, my take on the rules is that they just forgot to put that line in. They are only human. Devilfish were sure meant to be only taken as dedicated transports.

But then again, I also play that terminators wear terminator armour, and tyranid warriors are immune to instant death, even if the strength is MORE that double their toughness, and I also play that tigurius doubles the range of fear of the darkness to 24 inches...

Remember: Play the game, not the rules.

DaIronGob, its not that they are particually deadly fielded like that, I personally feel its a rather weak choice. But the fact remains that its obviously not what was intended, and is very, very close to cheating. You will never play in a GW with that. You will never play in a tournament with that. It would be ruled against you.

Unless all the people you play are members of dakkadakka, and are rules lawyers, who dont mind such edited, then this army will never see the light of day.

Mauleed, you wouldn't take a sports or comp hit. You would never even get to play in the tournament. As son as the opponant saw what you were doing, he would call over a ref, and you would be kicked out, regardless of what the rules actually say or not.

Mauleed, you wouldn't take a sports or comp hit. You would never even get to play in the tournament. As son as the opponant saw what you were doing, he would call over a ref, and you would be kicked out, regardless of what the rules actually say or not.

Very rare is the occasion where I go to a tournament and the judges don't know that I'm very likely to have a much deeper grasp of the rules than they do. So I personally probably wouldn't have a hard time actually pulling this off in a tournament.

But again, I wouldn't actually do it.

And who knows. Perhaps they actually intended it to be a non-dedicated transport. Unless you've got ESP or are in contact with all the authors, you have no way to know.

For burnthexenos:
Who are you to say what their intention is? Do you know the Games Designers who wrote it, or are you just psychic? What are you going by to come to these magical conclusions if not the rules, and why would that make you some kind of authority? Do you even know the purpose of this forum? Hint: It's not a "this is my opinion of how you should play the game", but rather a rules discussion forum. You call it bullsh*t (shouldn't that be a warning? I know I got warned for less), but WHY wouldn't a tournament allow this? It's not unbalanced, and it's not prevented by the rules as they are written, just by your arrogant blustering with nothing to back it up.

No one asked you if you'd play someone with this, you're free to not play whoever you want, but go post that somewhere else.

Mauleed, I dont know about that. If say, you were playing in a GT, the GW judges are very likely to just come over, and make an instantaneous decision that non dedicated devilfish are not allowed. I know I would say the same to other random things that shouldn't be allowed, such as tyranid warriors been instant killed.

Godhead, I know the intention of many things. Its just common sense. As we all know, GW sometimes makes a mess of writing clear rules. They are only human after all. There are many, many different possibilities within the army books, and the rulebooks are codexes would have to be huge to cover every single one. GW mistakingly had the idea that we would all be able to use a bit of common sense to resolve these things.

These kind of things remind me of a warhammer fantasy game I had where I tried to convince my opponant that the comet of casandora does not last forever...

I know the intent was that terminators wear terminator armour. I think you would have to be fairly damn stupid not to realise that the intent was that Devilfish must be taken with fire warriors.

No, I cant prove it. I just know that was the intention. Look at all the other transports in the game, they have the line abotu dedicated transports in them. The only tanks that do not have dedicated transport rule, and are still able to transport tanks, are heavy support choices.

Do you really think GW would decide that Tau should be allowed to take Devilfish as troops choices? No other army in the game has this ability, except armoured company...and they are, well, and armored company!

All I can say is if you have opponants that accept this, then fine. Dont ever expect to play anywhere else with it.

Im actually wondering whether anyone actually tries any of this half baked stuff on internet forums.

Well, the name for it is...

"Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier"

Though that isn't a strong arguement and probably shows intent, but Mauleed is right.

Just add this to your "You can do it, but don't be surprised at your sports score" list.

Mahu, I know its legal, but I wouldn't play anyone using that list.

And ill say it again: You dont need to worry about your sports score...you will not get to use it in any GT or other other tournament!

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/03/2006 1:37 PM
Im actually wondering whether anyone actually tries any of this half baked stuff on internet forums.

Actually, I don't think so.  We just talk about it for funsies, and in case we run into someone else who might try to pull this off.  There are those that like to splash mud in our discussions even though they're just theoretical.

Um... nobody has answered my question yet. What does it say about devilfish in the pathfinder entry?

K,

I don't have my codex available, but here's the wording that came up during the "does the devilfish have scout" thread:

Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish

Transport: Pathfinders must select a Devilfish troop carrier...


There, NOW I've answered your question

Mauleed, I dont know about that. If say, you were playing in a GT, the GW judges are very likely to just come over, and make an instantaneous decision that non dedicated devilfish are not allowed. I know I would say the same to other random things that shouldn't be allowed, such as tyranid warriors been instant killed.

Again, if I'm playing at a GT, the GW Judges are very likely to know exactly who I am and that:

a. I know the rules very well

b. I'll be blasting them all over the Internet if they screw up a rules call

....so generally they'll pause a moment and think before making some sort of sloppy ruling.

But that's not likely to happen with everyone. And in a round about way that's also why I try not to use things like this in actual tournaments. I would not want my Internet infamy to affect how a judge treats me or my opponent (particularly if it's to my advantage).

But would I complain if someone did this to me? Not at all.

Note that the Spanish FAQ stated (my spanish is bad, so I cannot quote) that the Pathfinder Devilfish does not get the scout ability.
From the entry, it does not sound like the Pathfinder's Devilfish is separate, at all. It would be a dedicated troop transport.

Non-dedicated D'fish would be useful for the following reasons:

1. Mech Tau typically have few FCW squads and would not be worried about filling Troops slots with D'fish, especially when it's a not bad Tank in its own right.
2. The upgrades available make scoring D'fish much more attractive. (Upgrades like SMS, sensor spines and so on can make a non-scoring transport a serious points sink.)
3. Airlifting sniper drone teams and possibly Gue'la or Kroot could be handy.

@Burnthexenos... What is it about non-dedicated Tau transports that particularly excites your ire? Other armies have them, why should Tau in particular be denied? Is it beyond possibility that GW might have changed their mind about Tau transports since the previous codex?

Well the reason I ask about the pathfinder entry, is what is the exact wording for thier taking of a transport, and how does that compare with the firewarrior entry.

Might shed some more light on the subject.

Antonin, how the hell does that work..the devilfish cant scout..but the pathfinders can...but the pathfinders are REQUIRED to take a devilfish! Did they just put the scout rule in for extertainment value? To fill up a bit of space?

Mauleed, I know technically you are correct, you can take devilfish without fire warriors. But legal or not, chances are they will rule against you. They may well know its legal, but stuff like this wasn't supposed to happen (IMO, of course) so odds are that they will prohibit you from taking a couple of devilfish as non dedicated transports. I know I would.

That said, you dont intend to use them in tournaments anyway, which is just aswell...you wouldn't want to risk a ruling against you.

Iorek, discussion about this is fine, as long as you never use it in a game. But from the way some people were talking, it sounded like they may well try and use devilfish as non dedicated transports.

Discussion is fine. Abusing the rules on the table is not.

Kilkrazy, IMO, the devilfish is kind of like the rhino for the space marines. It serves a purpose, whichis to transport your troops across the field. It can be borght for troops units etc..#

I dont think it would be a particually powerful option. But some sense should be applied here. The Devilfish says Transport: Devilfish next to it...I think its safe to assume its supposed to transport a unit, not fly around by itself!

I think GW would have bothered to mention that they could be taken seperatly. Yes, I know they could also have bothered to mention that they must be taken as dedicated transports. But they did neither, so we must decide which seems more likely: Tau devilfish transports flying about by themselves, or Tau devilfish TRANSPORTS transporting something.

Someone mentioned empty land raiders. I would point out this is completely different, the land raiders cost 250pts each and take up a heavy support slot!

burnthexenos,

You might want to do a search on the pathfinder/devilfish bit, there was a 11 page thread in YMDC about that very subject.

The only reference I have found regarding Dfish being unable to carry Gue?vesa or Kroot is in the ?Vehicle Design Rules?, Chapter approved ? 3 ?.

Therein it is stated that Tau transports can only carry Tau, no Humans or Kroot.

All my CA books are currently in storage, so that is from memory.


I never saw anything in the old Tau Codex indicating that the Devilfish can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

The Dfish is a transport option for FCW, and a mandatory addition for pathfinders. It is also a troop choice in both the old and new Codices.

In the old Codex the only thing that separates the Dfish listing from Kroot or Fire Warriors is light shading around the text. Additionally, the new Codex uses a ?troop choice marker? to indicate that the Fish is a separate unit, and may be taken as an independent troop choice.

On the other side of this coin is game balance and victory points; I limit myself to 18% non-scoring units. In the case of Tau this means that I take Stealth teams instead of FCW.

Field of Battle is difficult for my Tau, especially if I do not have lots of mobile, scoring units (ie. Stealth teams over Fish mounted FCW). Annihilation was also tough for Mech Tau, precisely because they start with so many non-scoring transports.

So maybe with the new Tau Codex GW is trying to get more Fish mounted FCW on the table and fewer Stealth teams.

Regardless of interpretation my Tau list will remain the same (for a week or 2 anyway) two, 4 man stealth teams and two, 10 man, fish mounted, FCW teams.

Although I do think that counting the fish as scoring units will win me a few more games.

 

And yes, I'm going to write my list up indicating that the 2 FCW fish are scoring, non dedicated transports. I'll let you know how it goes over with the Wednesday night crew.

 

@burnthexenos

As a Tau player I have issues with the fact that the 'fish does not scout and REALLY think it sucks, especially for a unit that is borderline to begin with, but the Spanish FAQ says quite clearly that the 'fish does not scout.

Out of curiosity, what are the other non dedicated troop transports available in the game?

I know the land raider but no others.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/03/2006 3:52 PMMauleed, I know technically you are correct, you can take devilfish without fire warriors. But legal or not, chances are they will rule against you. They may well know its legal, but stuff like this wasn't supposed to happen (IMO, of course) so odds are that they will prohibit you from taking a couple of devilfish as non dedicated transports. I know I would.

It:s a good thing you don't judge then. I'd fear you disqualifying my space marine list for running empty land raiders.

So, out of curiosity, is this Anderton's new identity, because he shares the aforementioned Cap'n's propensity for being absolutley self-assured while being absolutely wrong on just about every point he's trying to make.

Posted" by="" happypants="" on="" 07/03/2006="" 9:48="" pm=""><br">Out of curiosity, what are the other non dedicated troop transports available in the game?

I know the land raider but no others.

Ork Battlewagons
Ork Looted Vehicles that were originally transports
Eldar falcons
Some Forgeworld Sisters of Battle thing whose name escapes me

I think thats it...

The sisters have the Immolator (dedicated transport OR heavy support w/ transport capability). I believe the FW one you're thinking of is the Repressor. But (if memory serves) it's a dedicated transport.

The SoB Immolator can be taken as either a Heavy Choice or a transport. I don't know if that:s what you're talking about, as it's not FW. The Repressor, maybe (which, IIRC, is dedicated transport only).

 

*edit* Beaten to the punch. Next time Gadget, next time!

Yes, there is certainly precedent for it, and I believe that by the rules as written, there is no other conclusion to draw.  If GW doesn't want us taking empty Devilfish, it is now up to them to clarify this.

I have been asked to post the following by a member from another board.  I in no way endorse or agree with it, but respect the poster and believe in full discussion so have posted it below:

"Did anyone stop to think that maybe this all comes about, and the only reason GodHead could find this in the new SM codexes, is because of all the 4th ed codecies, SM's are the only ones capable of taking either dedicated (Rhino, razorback, Drop Pos, Landraiders) and non dedicated (landraiders) transports so that their's would be the only ones requiring clarification.

Just another thing, what do Falcons and Landraiders (the only non-dedicated transports I know of) have in common? They're heavy support choices. I really don't see GW giving us a tank as good as a fish, particularly a warfish, as a troops slot unit.

As cool as it would have been I don't think Fish are going to be a non-dedicated transport. If they were could you really see yourself trading in a hammerhead or broadside squad for one? "

Posted By GodHead on 07/03/2006 10:44 PM
Yes, there is certainly precedent for it, and I believe that by the rules as written, there is no other conclusion to draw.  If GW doesn't want us taking empty Devilfish, it is now up to them to clarify this.

I have been asked to post the following by a member from another board.  I in no way endorse or agree with it, but respect the poster and believe in full discussion so have posted it below:



Just another thing, what do Falcons and Landraiders (the only non-dedicated transports I know of) have in common? They're heavy support choices. I really don't see GW giving us a tank as good as a fish, particularly a warfish, as a troops slot unit.

As cool as it would have been I don't think Fish are going to be a non-dedicated transport. If they were could you really see yourself trading in a hammerhead or broadside squad for one? "

 

My current working theory is that GW keeps its rules vague by design. That way they can monitor tournament play for a couple of seasons to get an idea of how a given interpretation affects play and game balance.<?

 

 If game play is seriously unbalanced by a vague rule they write up a hard FAQ to resolve the issue. If game play is not broken by a vague rule then GW takes no positive action.

 

There are many rules issues out there that could easily be resolved one way or the other; ?magic cylinder?, rapid fire range, librarian psychic powers, and wound allotment for mixed armor to name a few.   

 

Why would GW leave these issues up in the air? The only thing that comes to mind is that these vagaries allow them to manipulate the core rules after some real world play testing. This in turn allows them to leverage armies that may prove to be out of balance.

Regarding Heavy Support choices;

 

Empirical proof based on 2 out of 3 cases really doesn?t hold much water. The BBB P.62 under the heading ?WHO CAN USE A TRANSPORT VEHICLE?? states ??dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot (for example, Elder Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it.  

 

There is no requirement that the FOC slot for a non dedicated transport be a Heavy Support choice.

 

Posted By mauleed on 07/03/2006 2:47 PM

b. I'll be blasting them all over the Internet if they screw up a rules call

....so generally they'll pause a moment and think before making some sort of sloppy ruling.

Oh Noes!!!

What makes you think you're so much different to the other random rules-lawyers who think they know more than the games designers?

You really think they'd be bothered about what some punk kid says about them on the interweb?

Just to ring in here...

IMO, I don't think this could have been a typo, if it were it would mean that 1. They changed the text from the original which is something they are not really apt to do because of the GW affinity for copy and pasting things from previous codices. 2. There was a mistake in the design of the entire book by putting a troop insignia beside the 'fish.

I just want to let you all know I feel dumber for reading this thread.  It never stops amazing me how stupid people can be about things.  "Oh it doesn?t say it is a dedicated transport so I can take them as a troop." 

Next to the devilfish listing in the Tau Empire codex right were Godhead's little friend found what he figured was conclusive proof that you can take empty devilfish as a troop option, is the word in grey down by the bottom of the page TRANSPORT and at the top of the page in the Space Marine codex it Says in big words TRANSPORT Vehicles and in the marine quote right under that heading it says "units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle.  These vehicles do not use up any additional Force Organization chart selections, but otherwise function as separate units.  The vehicles described here may only transport the units they are selected with, and may not be used to transport other units during the course of a battle"  But never says the words dedicated transport to describe the rhino or razorback, so can I field empty razorbacks? NO! Because it is listed under Transport Vehicles,  OMFG just like the devilfish is listed as a...wait for it, wait for it, let that feeling of stupidity sink in, Transport.  So you can't take an empty devilfish just like it has always been.

Next time kiddies I want all of you to actually crack open those rule books you own and read the words inside rather then just going on what someone prints here online.

What you are missing cowboy is that there is a FOC symbol next to the 'fish. And it says: Unit Type: Vehicle Skimmer not "Unit Type: Transport" so you may also want to re-read the rules there.

Crack open a marine codex and tell me where next to the rino it says "unit type: transport".  It says "unit type: Tank"  Also down just below the FOC symbol it does say TRANSPORT, not troop like next to the firewarriors above.  I did read the rules, why don't you do the same happy

I looked all over and can't find the entry for rino anywhere...

*runs away*

That's nice.  Now why would I apply rules from some other codex to a Tau army?

Yeah, I was just about to mention that when I take my Tau army out to game, I didn't realize I had to bring the Space Marine codex with me.

I don't see the big deal about empty devilfish.  Being able to pick empty razorbacks in a marine army, yes, I can see everyone making a big deal about that.  But the marine dex specifically says you cannot do it, while the Tau codex is written differently and allows you to do it.  How can this be argued?

- Oaka

By the same 'logic', the Dark Eldar Raider is listed under troops and does not say dedicated. I guess that means for 60 points each, I can have a Raider with a Disintergrator flying around hunting termies with S7 AP2 blast action.

@Dragonpup, there is no FOC symbol next to 'transport: Raider'

Happypants, the FOC symbol doesn't appear next to anything in the DE Codex. Guess I can't fill out that 2+ troops and 1+ Hq requirement. :-(

It should be possible to test the legality of a Tau unit by reference to Tau Empires, the BBB, and the Tau Empires or BBB FAQs. It should not be necessary to refer to any other codexes.

@dragonpup, I don't know if you have the older codex or something but at the far left you will see an arrow that points downwards in the DE codex beside both the warrior squad and raider squad. There is none beside the raider.

I know that most people here put no trust in the Rulez Boyz but I just called the GW Canada guys on this one and they said that yes, it can be taken as its own unit. GW Canada doesn't have as many people in it as GW US so isn't as good to call 3 or 4 times to get an answer on the same thing but the guy was quite sure about it. I didn't even note any of the arguments to try to lead him or anything, just asked "Can a Tau Devilfish be taken as its own troop unit" He also said he has had calls on this before.

No.

Just no. So compelled to say no I signed up to say so.

By this logic it's fair to take wave serpents as troops (check your current codices, it's under "troops" with the same "transport" designation as the 'fish).

The devilfish is listed specifically and only as a transport. It is not listed as a "normal" force org unit like the land raider, and I don't see how people can justify a spurious piece of graphic design (the troop icon) as a reason to say it's a troop choice.

It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's probably a duck.

I agree rork. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to exploit every little loophole in the game they can.

Ill say it again...play the game, not the rules.

Oh, the empty land raiders is a completely non related arguement. The land raider is a scoring uit, takes up 250pts and a heavy support slot, and does not have the word "transport" next to it.

Anyone using empty Devilfish is cheating.

After looking at this again, I am going to change my position.

The name for the unit is "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier"

Now, examine your codex. Next to Kroot and Firewarriors, you have the symbol for troop, as well as a light colored word to the left of the descritption that says Troops. Now the devilfish has next to it the Troops symbol, but is called a "Transport"

There are two listing in the codex that describes it as a transport rather than troops. I think it is pretty good footing to say that the devilfish is a dedicated transport.

Posted By Oaka on 07/04/2006 9:45 AM

Yeah, I was just about to mention that when I take my Tau army out to game, I didn't realize I had to bring the Space Marine codex with me.

I don't see the big deal about empty devilfish.  Being able to pick empty razorbacks in a marine army, yes, I can see everyone making a big deal about that.  But the marine dex specifically says you cannot do it, while the Tau codex is written differently and allows you to do it.  How can this be argued?

- Oaka

Oh yah the TL lascannon on the razorback is so powerful compared to  a FA 12  burstcannon, smart missile devilfish. 

And for happypants what are you 5? "I called my mommy and she said I can take empty devilfish."  I used the Space marine codex as an example and to show how the devilfish and rhino are so similar, in that in their respective codex?s nether one is referred to as a dedicated transport but yet for some crazy reason everyone excepts that rolling coffins are dedicated transports, but for some unknown reason to me all the idiots have come out in defense of the idea that a devilfish even though it is listed as a transport in the Tau Empire codex can be taken empty.  Now why don't you and all the other people here who also probably don't think terminators are in terminator armor, beat your heads against your desk so maybe a little common sense can get in and you can read that the tau codex does call the devilfish a transport and thus unable to take them as a troop selection. 

And i don't want to here oh it has a FOC symbol argument that as just grasping at straws.

It has been clearly stated that precedence has been set with the Landraider being "both a transport" i.e. as a command-taxi, purchased out of HQ points alotment and not using a HS slot as well as the Immolator.  This is not a debate as to what designer intent is.  It is a debate as to what the rules as written state.

The "looks and quacks like a duck" arguement is a terrible one.  By your logic, because a fish has fins and swims in the oceans, whales are also fishes, since they share similar traits.

@cowboy, why should your word on things be taken as gospel and not that of the rulez boyz?

Try calling yourself and ask them with a non leading question whether it can be taken alone?

Posted By happypants on 07/04/2006 3:00 PM
@cowboy, why should your word on things be taken as gospel and not that of the rulez boyz?

Um...because I am not an idiot, but I am not saying people should take my word as gospel. Rather that you are wrong, so very wrong about this that it offends me that others might actually think you have a valid point and try such a stupid stunt as taking an empty devilfish in a game.  So I am stepping in to save those little kids who you over your 500+ post you have tried to convince that you are cool and know what you are taking about with respect to the rules of 40K.  I feel it is a community service really, I think I deserve an award for my work.

It has been clearly stated that precedence has been set with the Landraider being "both a transport" i.e. as a command-taxi, purchased out of HQ points alotment and not using a HS slot as well as the Immolator. This is not a debate as to what designer intent is. It is a debate as to what the rules as written state.

The land raider is completely different. You'll notice two things about the land raider (and the units that can use it as a transport)

1: If a unit can take it as a transport option, there is an explicit wording to allow it.
2: At no point in the land raider entry does it use the term "transport" in its unit header

We accept that a land raider can be a transport since command/terminator squads say that is the case. Their Heavy Support designation (with the absence of the "transport" wording) also allows us to take them as such a choice. This is a clear either/or situation.

The devilfish, on the other hand, is listed as a transport. In the unit entries for fire warriors and pathfinders (possibly ethereals) it say that the 'fish can be used as a transport. No problems there, those units can take a fish as a transport. Now we need to extend that to be able to say that devilfish can be taken as a unit in their own right (I suppose this is induction, sportsfans).

So ask yourself a few questions:

Is the devilfish listed anywhere as a non-transport? No.
Is the devilfish given an exception, like the land raider (the one concession to being a transport for some units), to be a scoring unit? No.
Does the entry for the devilfish allow it to be a "free" slot or even occupy a slot on the force org chart? No.

The "looks and quacks like a duck" arguement is a terrible one. By your logic, because a fish has fins and swims in the oceans, whales are also fishes, since they share similar traits.

I'd call that a pretty superficial and distorted analysis of my point, since we actually know a devilfish is a tank .

As I mentioned on another server, I would just to point out, all of you who think an empty DF may be taken as a troops choice obviously also think that Chaos may take undedicated Rhinos as elites. The wording is even less clear (there is no little grey "transport" not beside it) and it is presented in all other fashions as the DF is, including the moniker "Transport:Chaos Rhino". Just thought I'd throw that in there.

As much as I would like to make my DF scoring units, I just don't think it's going to happen.

Keezus, the "looks like a duck a quacks like a duck" arguement is perfectly valid, but your analogy of whales isnt.

Whales do not look like normal fish. They have fins like fish, and swim in the sea like fish, but they do not look liek fish, which was one of the conditions for his arguement.

Now, repeat after me..

A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated transport.
A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated trasnport.
A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated transport...

Get the message yet?

"Nyah nyah nee nyah nyah" isn't a convincing argument in this forum.

Rork, much of your argument seems to be based on the idea that if a unit is labeled ?transport? then it is automatically a dedicated transport, and therefore unable to occupy a FOC slot.

Could you please take a minute and read through the BBB P.62 ?Who can use a transport vehicle?? The section is only 3 paragraphs long , but I can?t see how your argument holds water in light of the first one. If you could maybe explain a little bit of your thinking and how it meshes with the definition of transport as presented in the BBB.

I been a long time lurker on YMC but this topic really bothered me, especially as it seem that some people plan on using the incorrect conclusions generated by this topic in actual games.

Lets play a game call "Which one of these things is different from the other?"

Looking at the grey text next to each entry in the Tau Empire codex

 

Commander - Type : HQ

XV8 Bodygaurd- Type : HQ

Ethereal - Type : HQ

XV8 - Type : Elites

Stealth Team - Type : Elites

Fire Warrior Team - Type : Troops

"Transport: Devilfish" - Type : Transport

Kroot Carnivore Squad - Type : Troops

Gun Drone Squad - Type : Fast Attack

Pathfinder Team - Type : Fast Attack

Piranha LST - Type : Fast Attack

Vespid Stringwings - Type : Fast Attack

XV88 Team - Type : Heavy Support

Sniper Drone Team - Type : Heavy Support

Hammerhead (This one is a vehicle boys and girls) - Type : Heavy Support

Sky Ray Missile Defense Gunship ( Another one of those pesky vehicles) - Type : Heavy Support

 

Anyone notice anything unusual about the large grey text beside each entry in the codex? <?

Some people are ignoring this text, and claim that because there is a graphic (picture of triangle) besides the devilfish it is a troop choice.  It is the responsibility of every player to use the least advantageous interpretation of the rules in cases where there maybe be doubt or contradiction.  Clearly the large gray text besides devilfish defines it as a transport option rather a troop choice.  At the very least this should cloud the issue of whether a devilfish is a valid troop choice.  It is the responsibility of the ethical Tau player to play with the less advantageous interpretation of the rules.  Even though I personally believe it is pretty clear that the Devilfish is not a troop choice but instead a transport option and that the triangle graphic is an example of sloppy or lazy graphics work.

@happypants if you do not present a GWTroll all the facts and ask him to make a rules call, I wouldn't be surprised if he sided with you.  Frankly, if you have that many issues winning with Tau (one of the better codexes at the moment), maybe you need to find a new hobby.   Might I suggest something more satisfying that cheating to beat little kids in a game of "army men"?

 

 

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it - "transport". It doesn't say "troop" so why would you even think it could be taken as a troop choice.

There will of-course be someone - some-one who will actual prove common sense has no part in this game whatsoever when it comes to trying to take an advantage in order to win.

I have a feeling that part of the reason sales are down, particular in the States, is because people are sick of coming across people who are prepared to argue the toss until the death over something like this. Of-course it would help if GW could write a set of rules that aren't so open to interpretation so people could not twist and squeeze them to death in such a way as to make a python proud.

WARNING!

I've had to delete one post already and almost another (but left it after consideration). If the dakka forums rules cannot be followed from here on in the thread will be locked.

Pleases keep profanity and personal attacks out of the discussion

Waaagh_Gonads

Since this is turning into a mess I'm ending my involvement in further discussion on this issue until it is resolved by Games Workshop.

To signal this I am repeating the following post, repeated below:

I'm glad you and most others have seen the intention of my posts. Especially at a site like this, where the members are actually often in or IN CHARGE of tournaments, I thought bringing this to attention would serve to help clear this up.

I'm not an [bip], I'm not looking for ways to cheat at toy soldiers.

What I am is a rigorous individual who is heavily logically oriented and trained. I am finishing a university degree (my second) specializing in symbolic logic and have applied (and been accepted) to law having scored in the top 96th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, which is essentially a test composed of logical problem solving, reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. I can see the consequences of statements very easily.

I see little bits in the rules, and go "Hmmm, that isn't what I thought it said, and it's not how people play, why didn't they write it like 'x' to prevent that?"

I figure others would want to examine the issues I find and discuss them with their peers, particularly those who frequent tournaments, but I'm always greeted with the standard "that's not how you should play, I don't care what the rules say!" response.

Once again, I thank those who have responed appropriately, and I agree that it's certainly an unusual interpretation, and I agree there is some circumstantial evidence that they are meant to be Dedicated Tranports, but it's nowhere made clear, and I certainly think that it at least bears discussion between your opponents, address from tournament organizers and likely an erratta. If this is truly a case of "the rules say X, but do Y anyways", then so be it, but if not - and there is a small chance - then so be it as well. I don't understand getting so worked up about it, I just don't.

As an aside, why doesn't Games Workshop have someone like me in their employ? Someone like me editing their stuff for logical consistency would be able to make their rules ironclad.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/04/2006 10:17 PM

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it -" transport="" .="" doesn't="" say="" so="" why="" would="" you="" even="" think="" it="" could="" be="" taken="" as="" a="" troop="" choice="">

.

The rules about the Force organisation chart use boxes to indicate which choice we can make. The symbols is an integral part of the rule to choose a selection.

The troops for the tau are in the troop section and have a troop symbol. None of these units have the word troop in their description. The symbol is what qualify them as troop for the FOC.

If they cannot be field as a selection for the box in the chart it is describe in their description like the Shas'vre with a commander. If they can be used and they do not have the symbol it is also written like for the tau special character.

 for the devilfish the description is in the troop section with a troop symbol and there is no restriction.

I looked up this issue last night in the BBB and the Tau Empire codex.

Salient points:

The Dex lists the Devilfish as a transport within the Troops section and labels it with a Troops icon.
The Transports section of the BBB says there are two different types -- dedicated and non-dedicated. Dedicated transports are identified by the owning unit's description saying they can purchase a transport. Non-dedicated transports are identified by being available as FOC selections (e.g. Falcon.)
Returning to the Tau Dex, we find that the FCW squad can buy a Devilfish as a ride, according to their unit description.

Without quoting exactly -- I am at work and anyone interested can look it up for themselves -- the following logic emerges.

P1. If a vehicle is identified as a transport this simply means it can carry infantry models. It does not confirm it as a dedicated or non-dedicated transport.
P2. If available as a FOC selection, a vehicle can be bought as a non-dedicated transport.
P3. A vehicle becomes a dedicated transport if bought for a squad whose unit description says they can buy a transport.
P4. The Devilfish is available as a selection in the Troops category of the FOC.
P5. The FCW unit entry says that an FCW squad can buy a Devilfish.

C1. The Devilfish is available as a non-dedicated transport, counting as a Troops FOC selection.
C2. The Tau player can select a Devilfish as a dedicated transport for an FCW squad, not counting as a Troops FOC selection.

I don't know if this is "fair", acceptable to general opinion, or what GW intended. It's just what the rules seem to say.

Killkrazy, I read it the same way that you do. That is a well presented post.

Agreed, the devilfish can be either a non-dedicated or a dedicated, depending on how it is purchased.  And I don't imagine people will be taking non-dedicated devilfish so that they can win games, but rather so they can build a Tau armored company, you know, what they might think is fun?

- Oaka

Oaka and Kilkrazy

How do you address the fact that each and every other selection is clearly labeled with text as to what FOC selection it falls into. The only exception is the Devilfish. Again, this at the very least should cloud the issue when examined by a reasonable person.

P1: On page 24 of the Tau Empire codex it clearly shows in text that 2 troops are compulsary and 4 more troops are optional.
P2: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does it indicate that a "Transport" occupies any portion of the FOC.
P3: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does does it indicate that a "triangle symbol" without a text qualifier occupies any portion of the FOC. (pg 24)
P3: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does does it indicate that a non-troop "triangle symbol" occupy any portion of the FOC. (pg 24)
C1: If a choice is not clearly labeled as a troop choice in text, or with a "triangle symbol" AND text it may not be selected as a troop choice.

Stop hunting for easter eggs, there are none.

 

Could you please take a minute and read through the BBB P.62 ?Who can use a transport vehicle?? The section is only 3 paragraphs long , but I can?t see how your argument holds water in light of the first one. If you could maybe explain a little bit of your thinking and how it meshes with the definition of transport as presented in the BBB.

OK, I've just read that and it seems to back up my side of the argument.

Points to notice:

"a codex book will include a transport option to be selected along with the unit"

The devilfish falls into this category. Evidently it is a transport and is selected along with a unit of fire warriors/pathfinders.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a force organisation chart slot (For example, Eldar Falcons)"

Lets start from the falcon and try to work back to the devilfish.

a) It does not have the word "Transport" in its unit heading - that is the case for the wave serpent. The Falcon is not available to any Eldar unit as a transport.
b) It does have a transport capacity
c) It is listed as a unit fulfilling a heavy support slot

It is thus not a dedicated transport (basic logic, regardless of the presented example).

So is the devilfish analagous to the falcon? On point b, it is. On points a and c, it isn't.

a) The devilfish is a transport choice. It is listed as such and chosen as such. If it were a unit that was also capable of carrying troops (i.e. non-dedicated) there would be no requirement for the "transport" wording (ref. Falcon, Land Raider, Immolator)

c) To prove that it occupies a force org chart, it must be clearly represent as an individual unit, or as this would be, occupies the dual role of either dedicated transport or tank (with transport capacity).

How do other armies enact tanks with a dual role? Notably, witch hunters (immolators) and space marines (land raiders) are able to do this. In both these cases, the entry for the tank does not list either as a transport option, they occupy a specific force org chart slot.

However, some units can take these tanks as transports - their unit entries (terminators, dominions) list these tanks as a transport option (or upgrade if you prefer). The unit takes on the role of a transport because specific unit entries allow it to do so.

So, back to the first premise, is the devilfish (or wave serpent, chaos rhino et al) ever not listed as a transport? No.

If this logic is to be applied, it has to be applicable in at least a fairly consistent fashion (a la codex: space marines, witch hunters) to be enforced. Thus the premise that the devilfish is an individually selectable unit is wrong.

Agreed, it's called a Transport, not Troops which as you say may cloud it for a reasonable person. I'm reasonable, I felt clouded, so I referred to the BBB for the definition of Transports.

The BBB says that a Transport is a vehicle that can carry troops and can occur as a regular FOC selection option, etc. (see my previous post.)

The Tau Empire codex has a section for Troops. Devilfish is within that section. It isn't boxed out or separated in any way. It's labelled with a Troops icon. So it's reasonable to suppose it's available as a force selection from Troops.

I'm not going to address your logical argument directly as I'm about 7 hours away from my rulebooks. But I'll check it when I get home.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/04/2006 10:17 PM

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it - "transport". It doesn't say "troop" so why would you even think it could be taken as a troop choice.

There will of-course be someone - some-one who will actual prove common sense has no part in this game whatsoever when it comes to trying to take an advantage in order to win.

I have a feeling that part of the reason sales are down, particular in the States, is because people are sick of coming across people who are prepared to argue the toss until the death over something like this. Of-course it would help if GW could write a set of rules that aren't so open to interpretation so people could not twist and squeeze them to death in such a way as to make a python proud.

Guys that are in favour of Devilfish as a "Dedicated Transport". Assume, just for a second that you are a brand new player, and that you only have the rules in the Tau Codex and the BGB. Based on only this information, and NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR PRECEDENCE, what do you think your conclusion would be? I do not see anything in the main rules or the Tau codex that would suggest that the a Devilfish can't be taken by itself. In fact, the BGB only muddies the waters by differentiating between dedicated and non dedicated. This discussion is not meant to bend rules and gain advantage, but is to determine what is legal according to the printed ruleset.

If GW had written that Unit Type: Transport is always non-scoring, dedicated transport, and that some "Other" unit types may ALSO transport troops, this would be a moot point. However, GW has chosen to lump them together. I agree with your points based on precedece, but the rules seem clearly against that.

In my codex, the sidebar next to the Devilfish does not say troops - it says Transport. Yes, it appears in the troops section, but unlike all of the other troops selections, it is not a Troop. It's only a dedicated transport; there's no way to take it separately. (No "Transport" on the FOC) In my view, the explicit wording overrides the symbol.

Rork, so the base of your position seems to be that because the entry for devilfish is titled "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" the devilfish is only a transport option for pathfinders or FCW.

Your other premises are all counter-points to the above position. I.E. Falcons are definitely scoring units that fill a slot within the FOC. Falcons do not include the term transport in their entry. Therefor a Devilfish cannot be compared to a Falcon.

This is a boiled down version of your argument, I?m just trying to make sure we are all pointed in the same direction.

Do you feel that we are seeing your argument from a mutually agreeable perspective?

Do you feel that we are seeing your argument from a mutually agreeable perspective?

Yes, that would be an accurate summary of my rather long-winded post .

OK now lets look at the BBB P. 85 the VP table. Do the unit types presented here cover all of the potential unit types we are discussing?

NOTE: I don?t have a destination in mind here, I am just walking through the rules.

This is ultra beardy!

Blatantly the Devil fish is a troop transport and is intended only for that role. "it doesnt say i cant" is the weakest form of arguement and common sense dictates that its a transport. Lets all be sensible eh? No you cant mount a sniper team in one, it defeats the point. Why have a sniper controller who "relies" on stealth to keep his position secure ride around in a bloody great loud grav tank.... by the way did i mention it has huge JET engines!!!!

Tanks as troops choices? I wouldn't even bother to give my opponent the time of day nevermind a game! lol

So where does a Hammerhead fit within the VP chart on P.85 BBB?

What indication do we have that it goes there?

Note: now I have a destination in mind

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

So where does a Hammerhead fit within the VP chart on P.85 BBB?

Under vehicles, because it follows the rules for vehicles. Are you trying to suggest that because a 'fish is a vehicle it thus falls under that VP category (and is a scoring unit by extension)?

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

Tank, squid, whatever . Just because it is listed in the troops section doesn't make it a troops choice, though. After all, mechanised infantry and armoured formations are quite specialised. So if we're applying common sense (hazardous with GW games) they certainly won't be accessible as a separate troops choice.

Killrazy

The only thing left to say is if you want to cheat, go ahead and cheat.  I thankfully will never be playing against you.  If my opponent tried this on me, I would simply not play against them.

<?  

 

Every Troop entry is clearly labeled with both a symbol and text indicating that it is troop choice.

 

The Devilfish is not.

 

Every other unit entry contains both a symbol and text indicating where it goes on the FOC.

 

Even the FOC chart is labeled with both a symbol and text.

 

If this does not convince you that selecting a Devilfish as troop choice is pretty fishy business, well, then go ahead and cheat.

 

I guess you have decided to play by RAD (Rules as Drawn) instead of RAW.  Good luck with that.

 

 

The point made by classifying the Hammerhead as a vehicle is that the title ?Hammerhead Gunship? has nothing to do with its classification. Likewise the title "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" has nothing to do with classifying the fish as a vehicle or a dedicated transport vehicle or a vehicle squadron.

Rather, as you say, a unit is classified one way or the other because it follows the rules for units in its classification.

In the case of a HH, it has a type IE. Tank,Skimmer, it has characteristics common to vehicles IE. Armor. So it is a vehicle and follows the rules for all vehicles.

So when would a vehicle fall into the classification of vehicle squadron?

The point made by classifying the Hammerhead as a vehicle is that the title ?Hammerhead Gunship? has nothing to do with its classification. Likewise the title "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" has nothing to do with classifying the fish as a vehicle or a dedicated transport vehicle or a vehicle squadron.

Err, no. The transport part of the name is not the actual name of the tank, it's a description of its place in the army outside the force organisation chart. You're trying to extend the absence of unnecessary information (i.e. Non-transport: Hammerhead) to say that the presence of any extra information (transport) is irrelevant, which is faulty logic.

So when would a vehicle fall into the classification of vehicle squadron?

A vehicle can't. Only when two+ vehicles from the same unit (e.g. two vypers, piranhas) and the same slot are purchased are they a squadron. Even then a squadron of vehicles is a collection of units, rather than a specific unit catergorisation.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

Are you seriously suggesting that for a legal army you need only field 2 D/fish and then fill the Org chart with elites/fast and heavy etc. So a Tau army with no kroot or FW's would be a legal army in your opinion - I cannot serious believe you are arguing this positions.

If so, this argument is even more pointless than before. Like I have said, this is why many people I know no longer play 40k becomes of dumb arguments like this - because we all know some-one is going to do it.

Actually you must have at least 1 squad of firewarriors so what kilkrazy is saying is that you must have 1 squad of FW and one Dfish.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

If memory serves correctly it was listed in the fast attack section in the last codex. It had a small grey box arround it that clearly differientated it from other entries and a text field saying...something. Dont have previous codex with me.

No, my intention is to point out that a HammerHead is not a heavy support choice or a tank or anything else because of its title ?HammerHead Gunship? Rather it is a Tank because that is what its profile states, and it is a heavy support choice because it is in the heavy support section of the codex.

They could have labeled the DevilFish as a ?Frog star Mk IV Transmogrifier? But it would still be a skimmer, tank available as a troops choice. Because that is what its profile states, and because it is in the troops section of the codex.

It seems like quite a stretch to pull the entry out of its place in the FOC based on its title starting with the word Transport: Especially given that so many other aspects of the entry match the other troop entries.

If they had at least boxed it off and written a little blurb about dedicated transports, as in the SM dex, your position would be spot on, but I don't see it in the Tau codex.

If memory serves correctly it was listed in the fast attack section in the last codex. It had a small grey box arround it that clearly differientated it from other entries and a text field saying...something. Dont have previous codex with me.

Nope, it was below fire warriors like it is now - In a slightly greyed area (Doesn't get much more appropriate than that...).

As I mentioned on another server, I would just to point out, all of you who think an empty DF may be taken as a troops choice obviously also think that Chaos may take undedicated Rhinos as elites. The wording is even less clear (there is no little grey "transport" not beside it) and it is presented in all other fashions as the DF is, including the moniker "Transport:Chaos Rhino". Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Yes, exactly -- the Chaos Rhino is an entry in the Elites section of the Chaos codex, hence an empty Rhino can be taken as an Elites choice in a Chaos army.

In looking for rules on how to determine whether or not something occupies a FOC slot (and what slot it occupies), I was unable to find anything in the BTB (it's teal, damnit). Both the Chaos and Tau Empire codices have an Army List page which contains the rules for picking FOC slots, and both specify that the player can take anything in the appropriate section as a unit occupying a FOC slot. Transport: Chaos Rhino is an army list entry in the Elites section of the Chaos codex, Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier is an army list entry in the Troops section.

The interesting thing is that nowhere is there any designation for what can or cannot occupy a FOC slot in either codex beyond which section of the army list the army list entry resides in. The "Transport:" text and the vertical text on the Tau entries don't have any rules to back them up, regardless of any perceived pattern designating them as something else.

Now, I'm not arguing the reasonableness of this, just that both vehicles can be taken individually as non-dedicated transports. Curiously, the Chaos Rhino entry gives specifics as to what it can and cannot carry, mentioning models that have no option for transports -- it does have rules in place which allow it to function as a non-dedicated transport.

The challenge, then, to those who would claim Devilfish (and Chaos Rhinos, for that matter) cannot be taken as non-dedicated transports appears to be: How can one objectively determine when an army list entry cannot be taken as a FOC slot using only instructions from the printed rules?

The relevant text for the Devilfish is in the Tau Empire codex, page 24: "Each box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list" (emphasis mine)

Posted By bluespruce on 07/05/2006 2:06 PM

They could have labeled the DevilFish as a ?Frog star Mk IV Transmogrifier? But it would still be a skimmer, tank available as a troops choice. Because that is what its profile states, and because it is in the troops section of the codex.

Have you actually looked in the Codex?

<?  

Right under the much ballyhooed symbol, in a LARGE FONT, it says TRANSPORT, not troops.  Under the symbol for every other unit in the codex it states what FOC choice it represents.   They have explicitly written what FOC choice it represents.

 

Seriously, how much more clear does it need to be?

 

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/05/2006 1:27 PM

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

Are you seriously suggesting that for a legal army you need only field 2 D/fish and then fill the Org chart with elites/fast and heavy etc. So a Tau army with no kroot or FW's would be a legal army in your opinion - I cannot serious believe you are arguing this positions.

I'm not arguing that position. The Tau Codex lists FCW squads as 1+. You have to have at least 6 FCW to make a legal army. Aside from that, yes, if the D'fish is a legal Troop choice (which is what we are supposedly debating here) then you could make a legal army consisting of an FCW squad, a D'fish and a Crisis suit commander. You could get that army for about 230 points. It wouldn't be any use for real games. It would be good if people could manage to address the actual arguments presented based on the rules, instead of concerning themselves with ad hominem arguments and attribution errors.

Tua-Cent, The direction of most recent arguments here has been that the title ?Transport: DF troop carrier? is inadequate reference to pull the listing out of its place in the troops section of the FOC.

One line of thought has been that the title "Transport: DF TC" separates the DF entry from the other entries in troops section. To this point there has been no real president for this idea. A similar situation exists in the SM dex, where the transports are separated from the other troops choices by heading and by the blurb directly following the heading. The unit title by itself does not give us enough leverage to separate the fish from its place on the FOC, namely as a troops selection.

Also there is Lowinor?s excellent presentation of the CSM Rhino, which also backs up the idea that some transports can be chosen as dedicated or as FOC selections.

If it is difficult for you to follow the lines of thought up to this point perhaps you should print the thread out and use the hard copy as an outline. Sometimes I do this when they get really long and convoluted.

This why it is pretty clear to me that a lot of people who are arguing for devilfish being a troop choice haven't actually look at the codex.<?

On the side bar (not the title) of each entry of the Tau Empire codex it states in, where on the FOC that particular unit fits.  This is explicit text and every unit in the codex has its FOC designation stated explicitly next to it?s entry in this same format.

The Devilfish does not.

Unless you can prove why this is irrelevant or why at the very least it doesn?t cast doubt on the issue of the Devilfish being a valid troop choice than you don?t really have a valid argument.

If you agree that at the very least it casts doubt on the Devilfish being a valid troop choice, then as a Tau player you are ethically obligated to play using the less advantageous and more restrictive interpretation.

Personally, I believe it is crystal clear that the Devilfish is not a valid troop choice.

 

Unless you can prove why this is irrelevant or why at the very least it doesn?t cast doubt on the issue of the Devilfish being a valid troop choice than you don?t really have a valid argument.

As the proof of a negative is... difficult, it is standard practice for the one making a positive claim (in this case, that the text on the side bar means something) to provide proof for their assertion.

So, please do. Show us where in the rules that side bar text in unit entries means something. The only thing I can find in the actual text is that the section an army list entry is in is relevant, and the Devilfish is in the Troops section.

One line of thought has been that the title "Transport: DF TC" separates the DF entry from the other entries in troops section. To this point there has been no real president for this idea. The only similar situation is in the SM dex, where the transports are separated from the other troops choices by heading and by the blurb directly following the heading. The unit title by itself does not give us enough leverage to separate the fish from its place on the FOC, namely as a troops selection.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that some armies (and may I just say "Oh god, including Imperial Guard") would "technically" get transports occupying a slot while other armies don't get that? Codex: Witch Hunters also has transports listed separately (as does DH, IIRC). So now we have a situation where a transport isn't actually a transport for some, or a transport that can only ever be a transport - seems that some armies get exactly the same vehicle operating in different ways.

So are all transports created equal? Or does one vehicle need a page all to itself to keep people from saying "It's a troops/elites/whatever choice!"

"Transport: x" is a method of expediency so neither us or GW is paying for another page. There is nothing to support the statement that a transport unit is selectable in any other way than as a unit transport. I don't see how arguing page layout has ever been a good enough reason.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that some armies (and may I just say "Oh god, including Imperial Guard") would "technically" get transports occupying a slot while other armies don't get that?

The argument isn't what the designers intended.
The argument isn't what version is reasonable to play with.
The argument is what the rules say. Odd has nothing to do with it.

"Transport: x" is a method of expediency so neither us or GW is paying for another page.

That's an unprovable assertion that falls back on designer intent. "Transport:" as part of an army list entry's title is not defined in the rules.

here is nothing to support the statement that a transport unit is selectable in any other way than as a unit transport.

"USING A FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART" on page 24 of the Tau Empire codex. An entry in the Troops section can be chosen to be a Troops option. The Devilfish is in the Troops section. QED.

@lowinor

You want me to prove where in the rulebook it states that clearly written text next each unit entry that matches it?s FOC designation in all cases is actually that units FOC designation? 

 

So you are asking me to use the rulebook to prove the formating and layout of a codex. :S

<?  

Yet you seem to have little issue with a potentially erroneous graphic, and use it as proof positive that a Devilfish is a valid troop choice.

 

I give up on DakkaDakka.

 

 

page 36. see the grey sidebar that is vertical. in it is the info you need. read everything else is sais HQ/elite/troop etc..

 

what does the fish say? oh yeah Transport

 

so it isnt a valid Troop choice by itself. simple as that

Lowinor and killkrazy, take your heads out of your arses and look at the rules with a little common sense. The thing is a transport. It is meant to transport fire warriors. It has transport writen next to its name. You dont even know the rules yourselves, instead, you rant on about how a devilfish is a troops choice, when it clearly is not! You try to exploit every little loophole, when there is no loophole to be found!

At the end of the day, you are the types of people no one wants to play against- rule lawyering scum.

You want me to prove where in the rulebook it states that clearly written text next each unit entry that matches it?s FOC designation in all cases is actually that units FOC designation?

You're the one making the claim that it matters, so yes.

Yet you seem to have little issue with a potentially erroneous graphic, and use it as proof positive that a Devilfish is a valid troop choice.

I've never said anything of the like. I find that argument no less specious than the side bar text argument.

I've said the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the army list. I've said that the only rules I've been able to find that discuss what exactly constitutes the FOC designation of an army list entry (at least, that is relevant to Tau) is the text on page 24 that discusses location within the section of the army list as deciding factor.

I give up on DakkaDakka.

I don't know what you're looking for; YMTC is where people argue pedantically over the minutae of rules no one really expects anyone else to follow. No one (or, at least, not many -- and not I, definitely) is claiming that it is reasonable to expect to field an empty Devilfish without being grumbled at. What I'm claiming is that by the letter of the rules, it's allowed, nothing else.

Lowinor and killkrazy, take your heads out of your arses and look at the rules with a little common sense. The thing is a transport. It is meant to transport fire warriors. It has transport writen next to its name.

<common argument&gt=""><common" sense="" argument=""><common">*start common sense argument*
But, it has rules that it can't carry battlesuits, and no units that can take it have the option of being equipped with battlesuits, so it's obvious that it's intended to be able to be used as a non-dedicated transport. I mean, it's just common sense -- the text wouldn't be there if it wasn't meant to be used as a non-dedicated transport. I mean, if you looked at the entry with common sense, it doesn't make any sense that the no battlesuit rule is there if it could only be taken as a dedicated transport.
</common>*end common sense argument*

Note that common sense/designer intent arguments like the above aren't valid. But, even still, there's not just one approach to this as an intent argument.

You try to exploit every little loophole, when there is no loophole to be found!

I don't play Tau.

At the end of the day, you are the types of people no one wants to play against- rule lawyering scum.

If you've actually read what I've posted, I don't play by RAW, and I remain unconvinced that it's possible to play a game entirely by RAW. It is, however, certainly possible to look at a specific question and determine what the rules as written have to say about it. Of course, when one has nothing useful to say, it's quite easy to devolve to ad hominem attacks.

I don't see a problem with fielding an empty Devilfish any more than fielding an empty Landraider.

The second most pathetic thing about this whole argument (next to the unnecessary personal insults) is the conception that it makes any serious difference to the "fairness" of the game to be able to field a transport as dedicated or non-dedicated.

Look at the balance:

Dedicated transport = non-scoring, can only carry one squad, but does not occupy a slot.
Non-dedicated transport = scoring, can carry any squad, but occupies a slot.

Other armies have the opportunity to take dedicated and non-dedicated transports. Why shouldn't the Tau army?

@Tau-Cent, now you mention this "transport" graphic, I understand what you mean. I've had the codex since the day it came out and have never noticed that bit of text. As it's a sideways bar in light grey on a mottled grey background perhaps that's not surprising. Having considered it, though, I find it is of less significance than the bold black header at the top of the page.

Anyway, referring "transport" back to the BBB, we find that transports are vehicles that can carry other models and come in two flavours, and so on as I've pointed out before.

The onus is on the nay-sayers to prove that designating a vehicle as a transport means it may only be selected as a dedicated transport.

I have not read the tau codex and based on what i know of 40k my first inclination was to call BS on the people who insisted that the devilfish could be taken as a troops choice on its own.

However those same people have made very compelling arguments to support their points. Their opponents (and not all mind you but a few) in this discussion seem to resort to name calling and insults. that makes me and others disinclined to listen to what they have to say. You hurt your side of the discussion even when you have good points to make also.

I applaud those of you who have refrained from name calling, and used logical arguments to support your claims. Other than the unneeded name calling and insinuations i have enjoyed this thread immensely. Keep up the good work.

Trying to argue intent when something is clear is just foolish. The entry is said to have the force org chart symbol, which you don't disagree with, next to it and the game system uses those marks OR a force org chart name to designate what can be taken in a force org chart. As lowinar pointed out it has a rule to disallow transporting a certain type of unit which would imply that it can transport whoever it wants when taken as a troop choice. This isn't the forum for your approach unless you are just trying to start an argument, which is my guess.

Man, talk about missing the point. He was saying that common sence would say that if the vehicle was a dedicated transport and only an option for firewarriors then the line about crisis suits not being able to board the transport is extra and wouldnt have been written.
Seeing as how the line is there common sence would take this to mane the transport is a non-dedicated transport option

It's good, but it's not right. The line is included to prevent people attaching commanders to fire warrior units inside devilfish transports.

Thank you, Rork. exactly.

Rork hit it on the head with that one. Its right along the lines about not being able to put termies or jump packs into a rhino... it has nothing to do with how its purchased.
Tau cent also hit it on the head. When you read the entry for the fire warriors, the last line starts "TRANSPORT", then the next thing on the page below that is the DF. The listing on the side next to it says TRANSPORT,,, so what if there is the little icon there, it is so plain and obvious that it is right where it is so that you have the data for the transport available right there.
People have said that other dex's state that the transports are bought for a unit.. where this one does not. There are a lot of areas in the Tau dex that could have had further information put there. That was the big error from GW. Thinking that people would just read what was there and not try to dig into it (sort of along the lines with the sniper teams-I still cannot fathom how someone would have thought that more drones had to be bought). That and the arguments about the DF+PF and scouting. It is constatnly argued that GW's intent cannot be determined since none of us were the designers. I belive that is wrong. I think their intent was (at least 20 or so years ago) quite clear INTENT=PLAY GAME + HAVE FUN. So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game? I have seen plenty of people look for every loop hole to help them or hurt their opponent but that only destroys the fun of the game. I never play to win (hell Im so used to losing its not funny) but I do play to have fun, and in this day and age of rules laywers and "if it aint tourny legal" or "if its not a toureny or prep for one I dont wanna play" people, its becoming harder and harder to just have a fun game anymore.

It's good, but it's not right. The line is included to prevent people attaching commanders to fire warrior units inside devilfish transports.

And, that's the point. It's an intent argument, which is inherently invalid -- you can't say for sure whether that is solely there just to stop attached commanders from getting on, or for Stealth, Crisis, and Broadside teams.

Just like the "but it says transport" argument is invalid.
Just like the "but it has a troop icon" argument is invalid.

The authors didn't bother to attach rules to "Transport:" or Transport being written on the sidebar. The only applicable rules are on page 24, where it says you can take something in the Troops section as a Troops choice. Since we don't have official feedback from the designers, we are left with what the rules actually say.

t is constatnly argued that GW's intent cannot be determined since none of us were the designers. I belive that is wrong. I think their intent was (at least 20 or so years ago) quite clear INTENT=PLAY GAME + HAVE FUN. So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game?

Please pay attention to what people are saying in the thread before ranting about things that aren't even there.

No one is advocating actually doing this.

Hell, I don't even play Tau. And if I did, I wouldn't field an empty Devilfish because -- while it's perfectly fine via the rules -- it's counter to the conventions most people play with.

So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game?

That's what most of us do. It doesn't, however, change that by the rules as written, you can take an empty Devilfish as a Troops choice.

How is a "troop section" defined? I am sure you believe that the title on the top of the page defines the "troop section", I can argue that the text on side of the page defines the "troop section".

 

As far as I know, this thread wins in terms of having the most Dakka accounts created specifically due to this thread.  I mean, look at how many people are mad at the idea of non-dedicated devilfish with post numbers less than ten!

I can understand the anger... does any other army exist where vehicles can be taken as mandatory troops choices other than an armored company, which is banned at GTs?  But... according to the rules, it is legal.  Now, house rules that each gaming group takes are completely different, and I fully expect most groups to not allow this.

But that is the exact point of this forum, to be prepared for a stranger that we all may face at a regional tournament that may think this way.  And, as it stands, that person is right.

- Oaka

How is a "troop section" defined? I am sure you believe that the title on the top of the page defines the "troop section", I can argue that the text on side of the page defines the "troop section".

That's an extremely strained exegesis -- not really supported by the rules.

Tau Empire, p.24, "The army list is divided into five sections. All of the teams, squads, vehicles and characters in an army list are placed in one of the five sections"

And yet I see no mention of what peice of text defines these sections. I'll let you look through the BTB and get back to me.

I know you believed it was the text at the top of the page, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the rule book.  My assumption of the text on side of page is just as valid.

"extremely strained exegesis -- not really supported by the rules" is your opinion right? It's not in the BTB anywhere is it? If it is, I'd love a pg reference.

Lowinor, anyone can be anal.

Once again we are at a stalemate, so what interpetation of the rules should the ethical Tau player use?

 

 

I can't see the individual arguments anymore, or indeed the individual posts. The hypotheses, analysis, refutations: all lost and indeed immaterial in the greater context, the trees to the proverbial forest. All I perceive is a chorus of gurgling, flapping, sphincters harmonising in perfect dissonance to create the longest, wettest dirge penned by man; a tremulous moist fart posing as a discussion in the worst sailor's drag. A requiem for debate and yesterday?s egg salad.

You Make The Call is a precious, sparkling treasure. I love each and every one of you for making it so special.

Posted By Oaka on 07/05/2006 8:16 PM
As far as I know, this thread wins in terms of having the most Dakka accounts created specifically due to this thread.  I mean, look at how many people are mad at the idea of non-dedicated devilfish with post numbers less than ten!

I can understand the anger... does any other army exist where vehicles can be taken as mandatory troops choices other than an armored company, which is banned at GTs?  But... according to the rules, it is legal.  Now, house rules that each gaming group takes are completely different, and I fully expect most groups to not allow this.

But that is the exact point of this forum, to be prepared for a stranger that we all may face at a regional tournament that may think this way.  And, as it stands, that person is right.

- Oaka

Stop saying that it is legal. It is of questionable legality, several irrefuted arguments have been made that contradict the legality of selecting Devilfish as troops. I will repeat, at the very least these points cloud the legality of selecting a Devilfish as a troop choice. In such cases an ethical player is obligated to play by the more restrictive interpretation. Either refute the arguments or accept that it is of questionable legality.

OMG! 

Beware the smokey mermaid and turd-mullet!

Good Lord, what happened to the ends of his fingers!?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

..... Dude its a Tank, come on. This really is nonsense have you actually read the Tau Codex? Ok try to justify this in your local GW store. The Staff there and any sensible player will tell you your having a laugh! It has the Tank Attribute.... you've just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 07/05/2006 8:50 PM
I can't see the individual arguments anymore, or indeed the individual posts. The hypotheses, analysis, refutations: all lost and indeed immaterial in the greater context, the trees to the proverbial forest. All I perceive is a chorus of gurgling, flapping, sphincters harmonising in perfect dissonance to create the longest, wettest dirge penned by man; a tremulous moist fart posing as a discussion in the worst sailor's drag. A requiem for debate and yesterday?s egg salad.

You Make The Call is a precious, sparkling treasure. I love each and every one of you for making it so special.

LOL

You get prize for the most amusing reply on this Thread! Top man!

Triggerbaby ALWAYS wins that award.  It's his way.

Also, the Devilfish isn't a tank, it's IN a tank:



Get it right.

Stop saying that it is legal. It is of questionable legality, several irrefuted arguments have been made that contradict the legality of selecting Devilfish as troops. I will repeat, at the very least these points cloud the legality of selecting a Devilfish as a troop choice. In such cases an ethical player is obligated to play by the more restrictive interpretation. Either refute the arguments or accept that it is of questionable legality.

Then tell us what relevant arguments have yet to be refuted.

Lowinor, anyone can be anal.

With the quality of your argumentation, it's hard to tell You're one of the ones arguing that the sidebar text means something with relation to the rules.

Once again we are at a stalemate, so what interpetation of the rules should the ethical Tau player use?

I personally wouldn't use it, just as it goes against convention. Doesn't mean that it's not allowable by the rules, just that I wouldn't do it.

Actually you are claiming the text at the top of page means something with relation to the rules.

I am arguing that the text on side of page means something with relation to the rules.

Not much of difference.

I am only asking of you what you asked of me. Prove that the text at the top of the page and not the text on side of the page defines FOC sections.

I understand your point, Tau-Cent, but it is inane.

The book says the army list is divided into five sections.

There are five sections of the army list, each has a header -- HQ, ELITES, TROOPS, FAST ATTACK, HEAVY SUPPORT.

If you don't accept that, then there is no legal way to construct a Tau army.

This whole thing is insane -- too many people just refuse to admit that due to lack of rules clarity (or quality!) an empty Devilfish can be taken as a troops choice. It's very obvious by the most direct reading of the rules, but it is counter to convention, so there is quite the irrational opposition to it, and the strange belief that the rules must conform to convention. (Note that no one is arguing that convention must conform to the rules.)

Here we have the pinnacle (thus far) of that inanity: an argument against the empty Devilfish as troops choice that, by continuation, makes the selection of a Tau army impossible.

At the core of it, the rules are not as well written as they should be. This is emphatically not the fault of the people who are pointing out what the rules actually say.

Convention (at least, that I'm familiar with) dictates that entries with the "Transport:" heading may only be taken as dedicated transports. This is, in reality, how I play 40k. It is not, however, supported by the rules. Some people just cannot seem to make this distinction.

Its the 5 stages of greif. First comes denial then anger (brought opon by a denial of a denial).

When do we get to the bargening? I can make some killer deals.

I agree with Lowinor's points on convention and so on, but why is it impossible that GW would introduce a non-dedicated Devilfish transport for the Tau?

It fits very well with the Air Cav concept they promote in the new codex.

A Devilfish wouldn't suit Heavy Support because it doesn't actually have heavy guns like a Land Raider (despite being a "Tank.")

Where did this convention that vehicles can't be troops come from? Would anyone have a problem if sentinels were used as a troops choice for IG? (AV 10 open topped) Are people confused because it says Transport instead of Tank implying that it can transport things, and then goes on to clarify that it is a skimmer and a tank under it's properties?

I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

Before the codex came out the Piranas counted as troops. 0-1 troop choice for 5 piranas...

There are no real arguements against taking the fish as a troop choice in the rules. None of the usual GW methods of differientating the transport from other troops, marking it as a dedicated transport only, exist in the tau codex. They got removed in this version. Just like the terminators previous ability to shoot one target and assult another got removed when the 4th edition came out.

There is nothing in the rules that say you cant take a transport as a choice if you want and since it appears in the troop section, clearly marked as a troop choice...

I agree with Lowinor's points on convention and so on, but why is it impossible that GW would introduce a non-dedicated Devilfish transport for the Tau?

That's drifting from the issue. You don't make a tank a selectable option then label it "transport" or make it a troops choice. The principle of air cavalry relied on transporting troops into a warzone, not turning up with a helicopter because you could (Anything else would likely have been a gunship), but once again, this ain't apocalypse now .

A Devilfish wouldn't suit Heavy Support because it doesn't actually have heavy guns like a Land Raider (despite being a "Tank.")

It doesn't suit troops since it isn't err...troops, it's a vehicle. Armoured vehicles are specialist elements and dedicated towards specific roles in the army - they aren't just wheeled out to make out the numbers.

too many people just refuse to admit that due to lack of rules clarity (or quality!) an empty Devilfish can be taken as a troops choice.

Too many use such "lack of rules clarity" to justify absurd rulings or rules. You are trying to say by implication rather than explaination that a devilfish is a troops choice, despite the fact there is no imperative for that to happen outside of speciality lists where even units like chimeras still need troops on board to be utilised.

Some people just cannot seem to make this distinction.

Some are trying to blur the boundaries set out in almost (since tyranids don't get vehicles) each and every codex. You're trying to say that convention is broken purely on the basis of page design and the absence (instead of presence) of information. You are trying to revise the definition of what a transport is without adequately demonstrating a water-tight argument.

Where did this convention that vehicles can't be troops come from?

I was referring to the "Transport:" notation in the unit entry. There are no actual rules behind it, but the common interpretation is that it implies a dedicated transport.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 10:40 AM

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

You might consider reading the actual thread. Yes, on the side of the page besides every unit its FOC designation is listed. In the case of the Skyray and Hammerhead, besides the entry for these two vehicles it says Heavy-Support. Similarly, on the side of page besides the Piranha, it clearly states Fast Attack in a large vertical font.  The only unit that does not list it's FOC next to it is the Devilfish. On the side of page next to the Devilfish, in a large vertical font, it says Transport instead of Troops.

You might consider actually looking at a Tau Codex before contributing to this topic as most of the disagreement concerns formating and layout of the codex.

The vertical text running along the side of each page can be interpeted to represent sections.  There would still only be 5 sections.

 

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 10:40 AM

Posted By happypants on 07/06/2006 10:31 AM
I think the nail in the coffin for the argument that you can take them alone is that it says 'transport' beside it and all the other troops selections in the Tau 'dex say 'troops' and there is nowhere in the FOC for transport.

Yes, I have changed my mind on this from previous posts.

Do the heavy support Tanks say Heavy Support in the same place it says Transport?

Yes.

You don't make a tank a selectable option then label it "transport" or make it a troops choice.

Intent argument.

It doesn't suit troops since it isn't err...troops, it's a vehicle. Armoured vehicles are specialist elements and dedicated towards specific roles in the army - they aren't just wheeled out to make out the numbers.

Fluff argument.

You are trying to say by implication rather than explaination that a devilfish is a troops choice,

What part of the explanation do you not understand? There is one passage in the rules relevant to Tau that specifies how to determine what is a valid option for a Troops slot. The Devilfish meets the given criteria.

despite the fact there is no imperative for that to happen outside of speciality lists where even units like chimeras still need troops on board to be utilised.

Irrelevant to a rules argument. This only leads to intent.

Some are trying to blur the boundaries set out in almost (since tyranids don't get vehicles) each and every codex.

The boundaries aren't there. Show me where it says a Troops choice can't be a vehicle by itself.

You're trying to say that convention is broken purely on the basis of page design and the absence (instead of presence) of information.

That's exactly how the rules work. You don't get to make them up on the fly and it be part of the rules. That's what house rules -- convention -- are for.

You are trying to revise the definition of what a transport is without adequately demonstrating a water-tight argument.

No one is trying to redefine Transport. Transport is defined in the BTB. Dedicated Transport is too. You are attempting to conflate the two with no basis in the rules themselves.

No one is trying to redefine Transport. Transport is defined in the BTB. Dedicated Transport is too. You are attempting to conflate the two with no basis in the rules themselves.

No, you are trying to differentiate the two without adequate backup. No unit needs to be listed as a "dedicated transport" because a "transport" becomes one by default. A devilfish (wave serpent, whatever) is a transport option and only exists to fulfil the "transport: ..." line of the fire warrior/pathfinder entries.

And reading it, you'll notice that unlike the fire warrior or kroot entry, it does not say "troops" on the left hand side of the page, it says transport - and if these are to be an accurate indicator of the section it is located it, it is not troops. That suggests that it is a different section. Since if it were troops, would it also not say so there?

There is no "transport" section on the force org chart.

No, you are trying to differentiate the two without adequate backup.

No, that's pretty much exactly what you're doing -- trying to say a Transport is a Dedicated Transport without any indication that it is so.

No unit needs to be listed as a "dedicated transport" because a "transport" becomes one by default.

Have you actually read the text you are discussing?

BTB p.62 "Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

Your assertion is, on its face, false. The BTB clearly designates the requirement for something to be a dedicated transport, and it's a property of the vehicle as selected in the army list, not of the vehicle itself.

And reading it, you'll notice that unlike the fire warrior or kroot entry, it does not say "troops" on the left hand side of the page, it says transport - and if these are to be an accurate indicator of the section it is located it

And that's a nice intent argument, which I don't fundamentally disagree with, but it is still an intent argument and irrelevant to the rules themselves.

There is no "transport" section on the force org chart.

And there's no "transport" section in the Tau army list, as the codex itself says it is divided into five sections which match the five divisions of the FOC.

GO Lowinor!

I really like your sound reasoning!  I went and investigated this thread in my Tau codex, and I concur with you, I was wondering how an army of 6 fish and a couple of hammerheads and a host of pirahnas might play out, souds like fun to me, sort of a Tau Armored company.

Good find!

I wonder if the big GW machine ever does the kinds of analysis we see here.  I wonder who their editors are?  (I still want to know what happens when a unit of 5 pirahnas detaches their drones... What if they dont even set up together? ???)

And that's a nice intent argument, which I don't fundamentally disagree with, but it is still an intent argument and irrelevant to the rules themselves.

Nonsense. The devilfish is not labelled as a troops choice. Every other unit in each section has the appropriate label - while the one unit that does not is the devilfish. If the devilfish could be considered both a transport and a troops it would be labelled as such.

Arguing that a unit designated as a transport is a troops choice is just as much about "intent" as much as some of my previous points (which were dealing with side issues in some cases).

And there's no "transport" section in the Tau army list, as the codex itself says it is divided into five sections which match the five divisions of the FOC.

Correct, and thus the devilfish is not selectable by itself because it does not fit into the force org chart.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page. The devilfish is not listed as "troops" - so how can it be troops?

If it is a troops choice on a par with fire warriors, why does it appear not to have the same designation of troops as the fire warriors? If it were a troops choice, the "transport:" part of its unit title would suffice to convey that it has a role as a transport for some units as well (Consider that a side "intent" argument if you like). The two units do not have the same properties, so one could be considered to not be a troops choice.

Rork (et. al.)

Arguing page format as rules is certainly an intent argument. Devilfish is clearly an entry in the troops section of the codex.

Arguing that the Fish entries vertical text on the side of its entry that says "transport" limits it to an exclusive roll a a transport is no better than arguing that the symbol above it makes it a troop choice, look at the page again, all the troop choices also have a little triangle symbol.  Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Nonsense. The devilfish is not labelled as a troops choice.

There is no requirement for an army list entry to be explicitly labelled as a troops choice for it to be a troops choice.

If the devilfish could be considered both a transport and a troops it would be labelled as such.

Unprovable assertion, intent argument.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page.

This is an irrelevant and unprovable assertion. It's perfectly fine as a basis for convention -- and as I say, that's how I'd play it -- but it is not supported by the rules. By the rules, being in the troops section is the only requirement for something to be a valid troops choice.

You have to take a lot of liberty with the word "section" to say that the Devilfish is not in the Troops section. But, apparently, twisting the English language is easier than admitting that the rules don't line up with convention. To me, any use of "section" that generates a non-continuous piece of text (without explanation in the rules) is weasel wording. Using the sidebar as definitive of section is ad hoc at best and dishonest at worst.

Arguing that a unit designated as a transport is a troops choice is just as much about "intent" as much as some of my previous points

Nope, because there is no requirement that the two are mutually exclusive. For all you know, the sidebar could just be to make it more obvious that the army list entry has the transport ability. Hence the problem with intent arguments, it's all speculative.

If it is a troops choice on a par with fire warriors, why does it appear not to have the same designation of troops as the fire warriors?

You seem to be totally missing the point. This is irrelevant because the sidebar designation is not actionable in the rules, only section placement.

The two units do not have the same properties, so one could be considered to not be a troops choice.

And that's a perfectly fine convention, but it's not in the RAW.

Arguing that the Fish entries vertical text on the side of its entry that says "transport" limits it to an exclusive roll a a transport is no better than arguing that the symbol above it makes it a troop choice

Except it's not solely page design (or a funky little image) I'm looking at - this is actually a word label for that specific unit. (It would be possible to fatuously argue if that wording does not apply, neither does the "big" heading for each section. And wouldn't that be fun? )

Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

You'll notice I looked over that earlier. With only one transport option, it would waste space to give its own page. That is only an assumption, but only armies with multiple transport options have a dedicated page for them.

If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Because it transports...troops?

You seem to be totally missing the point. This is irrelevant because the sidebar designation is not actionable in the rules, only section placement.

Yes, so the devilfish is not in the troops section - it is placed in its own section as a transport.

All troops in the troops section that are troops are listed as troops by way of the word "troops" on the side of the page. The devilfish is not listed as "troops" - so how can it be troops?

Maybe because calling a devilfish a "troop" makes no sense whatsoever, while putting into the troops section instead of seperately implies it's a possible seperate choice. That's also an intent arguement though and one that is just as plausible as your intent arguement. Which is why you want to avoid them in a discussion about what the rules actually say.

I'm curious though, what is the wording for the LRBT troops in the current Armored company? It wouldn't be defintive but would give us a reference as to other instances of vehicles that can be taken as a troop choice.

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

I just trooped my pants.

- Oaka

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

I thought so too.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

Or it it could mean that the Devilfish is not located in the Troops section, as the "light grey" text "written on the side" defines the FOC sections. And thus your problem with the RAW of "How to fill a Force Org Chart" is solved.

Furthermore, if it were exclusively a transport why does it have its own entry in the troops section?

You'll notice I looked over that earlier. With only one transport option, it would waste space to give its own page. That is only an assumption, but only armies with multiple transport options have a dedicated page for them.


If the basis for a Devilfish being exclusviely a dedicated transport comes solely from the little vertical "transport" text then how come the uniform triangle symbol above that for troops entries doesnt indicate it is intended as a troops choice? It's a consistent format? Answer me that!

Because it transports...troops?

So if this is true (considering it also caries fast attack units) why wouldnt it be between the two sections in the list and clearly marked as a non-selectable unit that takes up no space in the FOC like every other instance of such a transport in the game. Look over the codicie that have a single transport option. See how their transports are clearly marked out as not being able to be bought on their own?
See how a land raider has no such marking in it's codec while still being mentioned in a unit's description as being selectable as a transport option (and therefore not taking a heavy support choice)?
If you simply look at convention that GW uses the devilfish entry is more similar to a land raider's entry in the codex than the rhino's entry.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/06/2006 2:04 PM

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 1:00 PM

That's right folks, just because it has the troop symbol and is in the same section as the troops as explained in the beginning of the Codex's How to Fill a Force Org Chart that surely doesn't mean it can be a troop because it has a light grey "Transport" written on the side!

 

Brilliant!

Or it it could mean that the Devilfish is not located in the Troops section, as the "light grey" text "written on the side" defines the FOC sections. And thus your problem with the RAW of "How to fill a Force Org Chart" is solved.

Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

I'll give $20 to anyone that brings 5 empty devilfish to a GT and can argue thier point well enough to get to play it (including you Mauleed)

There is one catch though, I want a detailed story either way, I figure it would be worth the $20 just for the story.

So if this is true (considering it also caries fast attack units) why wouldnt it be between the two sections in the list and clearly marked as a non-selectable unit that takes up no space in the FOC like every other instance of such a transport in the game. Look over the codicie that have a single transport option. See how their transports are clearly marked out as not being able to be bought on their own?

Seems to me if we use the interpretation here the Eldar will be turning up with wave serpents as troops choices. Unless, of course, page design is important.

It is not between the two sections because it is listed next to the first unit in order that it is available to (supposition).

See how a land raider has no such marking in it's codec while still being mentioned in a unit's description as being selectable as a transport option (and therefore not taking a heavy support choice)?
If you simply look at convention that GW uses the devilfish entry is more similar to a land raider's entry in the codex than the rhino's entry.

No. If you actually look at the land raider entry is is nothing like the devilfish entry. It is not labelled as a "transport:" and is specifically available as a heavy support choice (which was mentioned earlier in this thread). Its role as a transport option is displayed by which units can take it (terminators) as a transport. The devilfish is labelled as a transport (twice!) and does not follow the format of the land raider entry in the way you suggest.

I find it surprising that a "non-intent" argument involves stripping out as much information as possible to prove its point.

Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

There are two instances of the word "transport" if we're including what some consider graphical gubbinz (how a word is a graphical design is beyond me, of course). That makes it a "draw" - based on reasonable doubt I don't see how you can claim it is a valid troops choice.

Posted By snooggums on 07/06/2006 2:52 PM
Too bad it has the Troops symbol next to it designating it as a troops choice, and is located in the section, the two requirements to fill out the chart. Two out of three usually wins in paper rock scissors.

Sadly this isn't rock paper scissors, and 2 of 3 leaves room for doubt. When in doubt, play the more conservative interpetation.

Wouldnt the more conservative interpretation be for the guy with less to back him up to give in?
Never understood that arguement. Its right up there with "take the side that benefits you the least"
Well, there are two sides and someone benefits more from one choice or the other. The side to give should be the one with less backing behind it.

No... you're just wrong on that. That's not a conservative approach. Conservative approach: Only do something if it is sure. You're talking about a preponderance of the evidence argument. As has been shown time and again here, take the approach that is less beneficial to you, if there is doubt about the situation. I read the rule as clear: the vehicle is a transport. However, even if you read the symbol as being equal to the explicit writing, you cannot deny that there is doubt, and when there is doubt you must opt not to do a thing, rather than the other way around. It's a permissive, not prohibitive, rules set for a really good reason, folks.

It's quite clear the Devilfish is a transport. Obviously it's a transport or it would not be able to transport other models. No-one's arguing about that.

Being a transport does not make it a dedicated or a non-dedicated transport -- they are both transports. The question is what does make it dedicated or non-dedicated.

The BBB says that a transport is dedicated if it's bought for a squad that can buy transports, for example, an FCW squad. Non-dedicated transports are bought as FOC selections.

The Devilfish is in the Troops section of the codex and carries the Troops symbol, indicating (arguably) that it counts as a Troops selection according to the Selection rules in the BBB. It also has none of the verbiage associated in other codexes with dedicated transports. The only thing that may indicate it is a dedicated transport is the fact that it's labelled a transport, but the rules say a transport can be dedicated or non-dedicated, depending.

By the spirit of taking no advantage from unclear rules, if this is unclear then obviously an "ethical" Tau player should not take any transports, dedicated or not, since any kind of transport is an advantage over none.

Do they have the 40K equivilent of 18 wheelers that transport things like Solyent Green and Emporers Holy Cookies to the masses?   Is there a rouge trader equivelent of Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason chaseing one another so they can deliver Sapporo and beer to rich spyrers on the freeways of Necromunda?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/06/2006 4:34 PM
By the spirit of taking no advantage from unclear rules, if this is unclear then obviously an "ethical" Tau player should not take any transports, dedicated or not, since any kind of transport is an advantage over none.

You have clearly lost it. Both on page 24 and 36 it mentions that a unit is able to select a transport option. There is no other possibility for this transport option other than being a dedicated transport, otherwise the unit would not be selecting it.

 No one in their right mind would question firewarriors having a Devilfish as dedicated transport and that is not the question being discussed in this thread.

Feel free to start a thread on firewarriors actually being able to select a Devilfish as dedicated transport if you feel it is in question.

 

 

Considering how universally pessimistic everyone is about GW's authoring abilities, it strikes me as odd that everyone is assuming there's going to be one "right answer" on this question. Isn't ambiguity a feature of poorly written rules? Or contradiction?

So why do you guys get on either sides of a contradiction and yell?

I think there is a general concensis that if you say something enough times people will believe it (this has been proven true many times in history).

I don't know about constant repetition, but this thread shows that it is practically impossible to change people's minds through reasoned argument.

Must wholly agree with Cypher, and completely agree with your second point, Killkrazy!

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/06/2006 11:58 PM
I don't know about constant repetition, but this thread shows that it is practically impossible to change people's minds through reasoned argument.

Happypants changed his mind. At the beginning of this thread he was planning on field empty Devilfish. And now he isn?t.  

In all fairness, it wasn't the constant repetition on this thread that changed my mind but sitting there with a friend looking at the codex.

We both agreed that although it is POSSIBLE to argue that you can take them on their own, it is a pretty weak argument and the argument for not taking them is better.

So a reasoned arguement changed your mind. Good to hear.

The key phrase in Killkrazy's quote was the "practically" - one person listening the reasoned argument and changing his/her mind means that it is not totally impossible - just not possible virtually all of the time.

Posted By Tau-Cent on 07/07/2006 9:29 AM
So a reasoned arguement changed your mind. Good to hear.

No, he said he looked at the book and made a decision based on his own opinion of how it looked in the book instead of listening to other people's arguments.

If someone is willing to spend the time to independantly corroborate and verify that reasoned argument, I take my hat off to them - it means they have listened to both sides, but are not willing to simply do as other people say. Quite commendable. It does not change the fact that it is practically impossible to change someone's mind with a reasoned argument, nor does it eliminate the validity of the reasoned argument.

Posted By Antonin on 07/07/2006 10:54 AM
It does not change the fact that it is practically impossible to change someone's mind with a reasoned argument...

Hardly a fact. Reasoned arguments change people's minds all of the time. I even see it here on Dakka... occasionally.

Perhaps you should aimed your statement to, "it's practically impossible to change anonymous stubborn internet forum posters' minds with a reasoned argument." Those with closed minds are a strange breed.

Nothing personal, but in my experience the ones who claim that it is impossible to change peoples' minds that are the same ones who refuse to admit that they might be wrong once they take a stance on an issue.

If you are adamant about trying to change someone's mind, try putting your argument into a clear and airtight premise/conclusion format and open yourself up to peer-scrutiny and the possibility that you might be mistaken. Once an argument in this form has been dissected, it is easy to see if it is correct or not.

The moment that you admit to yourself that you might not always be correct and open your mind to new ideas and perspectives is the moment that the world becomes a much better place.

Hey, tell Killkrazy - I was quoting him, to draw out the irony!

Perhaps you should aimed your statement to, "it's practically impossible to change anonymous stubborn internet forum posters' minds with a reasoned argument." Those with closed minds are a strange breed.

That's pretty much everyone, at one time or another.

You guys need to give up on these "reasoned arguments." When the rules are ambiguous or contradictory, no "reasoned argument" can be conclusive. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it. You can't blame the other guy for being stubborn if there's nothing there to prove him wrong.

I think the How to Have a Debate rules need to be updated to reflect the fact that some (if not most) rules discussions are going to be inconclusive. After all, when the rules are conclusive it doesn't often demand much debate.

This entire argument hinges on the interpretation of the word "transport" printed sideways (running from bottom to top) alongside the Devilfish entry. Only people with the Codex can see it and try to interpret its meaning.

There are two possible interpretations and they are not mutually contradictory.

1) The Devilfish is a transport and obeys the Transport Vehicles rules. This is clear and I do not argue with it.

2) The Devilfish is not a Troops choice.

If I have understood correctly, people claim that the Transport label creates a different section, containing only the Devilfish -- this excludes it from Troops, preventing it from being chosen as non-dedicated.


Phryxis posted: "I think the How to Have a Debate rules need to be updated to reflect the fact that some (if not most) rules discussions are going to be inconclusive. After all, when the rules are conclusive it doesn't often demand much debate."

I agree. The state of rules writing is bad enough that there are many points which cannot be proved by the formal processes recommended in the Debating guide. There are many occasions when disputes need to be solved by creating a house rule. Problems can arise when groups take their house rules to be the proven standard rule, but there's no way around that.

The Devilfish situation is clearly one of these points.

Seems to be much ado about nothing......

Can I make a suggestion?

All Tau players get your old codex. Tear out the devilfish entry.
Glue it over the entry in the new codex......

See !! All Better


Sorry, I am just being a smart arse. The only difference I could really see was that the old one had a grey screened background which I thought differentiated it from the troops part of the codex. Could it be that GW simply forgot to screen the background? (shock, horror).

Honestly everyone, did anyone make this argument about the old codex?

"...did anyone make this argument about the old codex?"

No, because the old codex was different. We are using the new codex now, which replaces the old one.

If you think that GW forgot to screen the background, maybe they forgot a few other things as well. Maybe they forgot that they meant to deduct 8 points from the cost of the Crisis suit plasma rifle, rather than add 8 points. That's the typical kind of mistake they might make. So let's have twin-link plasma rifles costing 6 points.

Fact is it's irrelevant what changed between the old codex and the new one. GW can change whatever they want. For example, they totally upgraded stealth suits and gave them lots more options. Why shouldn't they make the 'Fish a non-dedicated transport if they wanted to?

You have to look at the new codex by itself.

Anyway, the forthcoming FAQ will probably solve this query.

You read all 10 pages?













Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Only 50 pts?

On topic, the transport entry is vague BUT we all know that it wasnt meant to be taken as a troop slot. Look at the SM Codex and Termies not having termy armour. Its just sloppy rules writing.

A bit "touchy" about this one apparently?

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/22/2006 10:37 AM

"No, because the old codex was different. We are using the new codex now, which replaces the old one."
The point you completely missed is that the entry in the new codex is all but word for word from the old codex. And no player would have dreamed of doing this in the old one.

"Why shouldn't they make the 'Fish a non-dedicated transport if they wanted to?"
And everyone from GW made a big thing about taking empty devilfish in the lead up to the release of the new codex? Was it in White Dwarf? Was it on the website? I must have missed it?
Your argument about the cost of plasma rifles is totally irrelevent, as this WAS documented in the lead up to the new codex. There WAS talk about the points cost being upped to make some of the other weapons choices more attractive. This WAS obviously the intention. (sorry, I used that word and everyone reading this cringes).....

BUT what  all the empty devilfish  advocates are  saying is that for a simple "logo" problem and for the fact that the devilfish is in the "troop" section (which is exactly where it was in the last codex), all bets are off, take it as you see it?

Sorry everyone, I aint buying it.....

Posted by GavDorro on 07/22/2006 8:23 PM
The point you completely missed is that the entry in the new codex is all but word for word from the old codex. And no player would have dreamed of doing this in the old one.

Talk about missing the point. The old codex is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's "word for word" or anything else. The old codex is a complete non-issue.

Posted By lil peener on 07/22/2006 1:35 PM
Goshr I feel liek my Iq jus droppd 50 pts after redding al this.

That's impossible; you can't have a negative IQ.

Then drop the netspeak.

lil peener: so bright we can't even read what he posts as it is way beyond us.

For the record I don't know how this got to 10 pages when we all know that there are more important things to argue about like magic cylinder. Let's do that one again! Where's your crappy drawing Yakface?

No drawing this time.

I think this discussion is about all tapped out.