Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By mauleed on 05/03/2006 8:19 AM

First, that's a slippery slope falacy. You can't say "well X can't be true because it would mean Y is a bad thing" and have that prove your argument. Y may indeed be true and bad.

 

That's funny, Ed - over in this thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=62499&view=topic) you did exactly that. Slippery slope, indeed.

The Rhino/Marines and Devilfish/Pathfinders comparison is poor.  Page 35 of the Space Marine Codex shows that the transports function as separate units but take up only one FOC slot.  The argument that if the Pathfinders and Devilfish form a single unit so they both have the Scout USR, then they are a single unit for the purposes of movement, etc., does not lead to a slippery slope argument that Rhinos must also maintain coherency with the infantry because Rhinos function as a separate unit as shown in their codex.  Page 62 of the BGB shows how transport options are assigned to a unit as dedicated transports, but that does not support the conclusion that form are one unit.  A slippery slope argument does not support any conclusions, and in this case the slippery slope argument is also known to be false.  So you can't argue that the Pathfinders and Devilfish are a single unit so they both get the same upgrade, but they operate like separate units because otherwise Rhinos would have to remain in unit coherency.

I don't have the Tau Codex, so can someone tell me if it states that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport for the Pathfinders?  I know that you can take the Devilfish as a dedicated transport for other squads, but I want to know the specifics about the Devilfish and Pathfinders, and it is possible that it is not a dedicated transport, but has other specific rules described in the codex.

The wording from the codex:

Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish

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

Scouts: Pathfinders are scouts...

Marker Beacon: The Devilfish assigned to Pathfinders...

An interesting side note: The marker beacon rule makes mention that the devilfish must be on the board at the start of the turn for deep striking units to be able to use it. If it had scout, why would this line be necessary? Wouldn't it already be on the board from turn 1 onwards anyway?

Also, if the Devilfish can scout because of this rule, does this mean I can also have it buy grenades as well? I mean, a Devilfish armed with emp grenades could be quite useful.

Thats what I was trying to say before.

Basically, from the wording of the Tau Codex, the rules state the Pathfinder's Devilfish as part of the unit, but also as a dedicated transport entry...

This leads me to the conclusion it is part of the unit in terms of rules, but not subject to the Unit Coherency rules because it is a dedicated transport.

This leads me to the conclusion it is part of the unit in terms of rules, but not subject to the Unit Coherency rules because it is a dedicated transport.

You can't honestly be serious?

Well, look at it at least.

The Pathfinder Team entry states that the unit is made of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish.

This means the Devilfish is 'in' the unit. Ordinarily, this would mean they are subject to Unit Coherency.

However, you purchase the Devilfish from the "Transports" option of the Pathfinder entry, instead of the Unit stat-line entry like the Pathfinder members. This means it is a dedicated transport.

As such, logically, you would have to say that the Devilfish is in the unit, but functions as a dedicated transport in terms of Unit Coherency.

As part of the unit, it benefits from all the Special Rules that apply to the entire unit. However, as it is listed and purchased from the "Transports" Option, it functions as a Dedicated Transport.

You can't field a Pathfinder Team without a Devilfish as it is part of the unit, and further, as we've established a transport that is assigned to the unit through the "Transports" section of the unit's entry is a dedicated transport, it seems logical that the Devilfish would be 'part of, yet different' from the unit. It is part of the unit, yet follows the Dedicated Transport rules in respect towards Unit Coherency. Its the rules as written.

I wasn't agreeing with you.

The wording for the team states that yes, it does consist of 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish.

It then goes on to say that the pathfinders have the scout rule and that the devilfish has the marker beacon rule.

It says nothing about the Devilfish having scout.

You never did answer my question either. If the rules mean it gets to scout, do I buy grenades for it if I buy grenades for the rest of the squad? Photon grenades could come in handy in several cases, and I could always use it as a suicide missile against Defilers/Basilisks using EMP grenades.

An interesting side note: The marker beacon rule makes mention that the devilfish must be on the board at the start of the turn for deep striking units to be able to use it. If it had scout, why would this line be necessary? Wouldn't it already be on the board from turn 1 onwards anyway?

Also, if the Devilfish can scout because of this rule, does this mean I can also have it buy grenades as well? I mean, a Devilfish armed with emp grenades could be quite useful.

 

1.the marker beacon rule is no differant than the teleport homer rule as far as this is concerned. it must be on the table to use. this line is neccisary if your pathfinder/devilfish team  is not scouted(it's an option not a forced action), or all your pathfinder assigned fish are already destroyed when you want to deepstrike. in such cases even though you have markerbeacons in your army list you cannot use them since they are not on the table on the turn you wish to use them.

 

2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry.. are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.

if you take all the applicable rules for 40K into cosideration this isn't even a valid argument.

 

Posted By nobody on 05/03/2006 7:45 PM


It says nothing about the Devilfish having scout.

 

again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule. in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team. the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.

I'm right.

Wicked, I can't wait to use my fleeting Broodlord on ya

I can understand the intent argument, really I can. It?s stupid, irrelevant, and what little circumstantial evidence there is for it actually favors the opposite result of what most of its supporters believe, but I can understand at least where they?re coming from.

I can even understand the assumption argument, although this suggests its believers are stupid as well as their argument.

What I cannot understand is when people are either ignorant, poor readers, or out-and-out liars. Mughi3 is one (or more) of these, unfortunately.

mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

mughi3 said:
are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.

First, EMP Grenades are not Wargear Upgrades. Read the Codex.

Secondly, you?re contradicting yourself. If USRs apply to the ?team? ala page 24 as you suggest (which they don?t, but let?s go crazy and assume your misreading of the Codex is correct for a moment) then, following the rules, any model in the unit may benefit from the upgrades. And (if we are likewise stupid enough to believe that EMP Grenades are wargear) the Infantry Wargear text implies that ?A model not equipped with a battlesuit,? (which the Devilfish obviously isn?t) is counted as infantry. So the Devilfish can buy EMP grenades.

Of course, another argument put forward by some foolish people on this thread is that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. I know, I know, it?s ludicrous. But the same problem applies ? if the Devilfish is indeed a Pathfinder, should it not have access to EMP grenades? (And my personal favorite: does that mean you have to buy a Devilfish Transport for the Pathfinder Devilfish? which becomes a Pathfinder Devilfish so you have to buy another Devilfish for that? which becomes? and so on and so on.)

mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

mughi3 said:
in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team.

True, but irrelevant.

mughi3 said:
the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.

Nope. Read the Codex.


Can you sense a running theme here, mughi3? I?m strongly suggesting that you read the Codex thoroughly before posting any more idiotic statements. Hell, before posting anything. Can you please do that, as a favour for me? Thank you.

mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

(Pg 24.)
"Number/TEAM/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the UNIT...."

"Special Rules: This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the UNIT."

Not to be snide, but apparently you can't read.

In the Pathfinder Team entry, the Devilfish is listed as a requirement to the team. However, unlike the Pathfinders, whose points costs are listed in a stat-line entry, the Devilfish is listed in the "Transports" section of the Pathfinder Team unit list.

Using the rules as writting, this would mean it is part of the unit (It is specifically pointed out in the team entry), yet subject to the Dedicated Transport coherency rules (Because it is purchased from the Transports entry). Either you people are ignoring this statement, or don't have anything to refute it.

You can try to seperate this argument from those of Vespid Stingwings or Space Marine Scout squads, but in the end, the argument is the same.

The Special Rules entry of a Vespid Stingwing unit specifically references that STINGWINGS are Fleet, and not a Strain Leader. Using your perspective of the rules as written, they couldn't fleet.

The Special Rules entry of the Space Marine Scout Squad says "All Scouts possess the infiltrate and move through cover rule.." Because it doesn't say that the sergeant can have it, and you must purchase a Scout Squad with a Sergeant... Using your perspective of the rules as written, they couldn't use any of their special rules either.

You can't split these arguments up from the Pathfinders as they are linked. The only difference is that one involves a vehicle, and the other two involve 'character' models. In all three cases, however, intepreting the RAW to exclude the 'unique' models of the unit destroys the purpose and intent of those units.

I'll save him the trouble. This is the wording on pg 24:

Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.

Special Rules This is where you'll find any special rules that apply to the unit

It seems to me that the arguement for devilfish getting scout is relying on the first definition for Number/Team/Squad and daisy-chaining the rules together so it benefits that person the most. In this case, by stating that the Devilfish is part of the unit only when it suits them.

This is done by completely ignoring the second definition provided, which doesn't require any rules jury-rigging to work, and simply means that the special rule for pathfinders has to be ignored because their Force Organization choice includes a unit that cannot start on the board in Escalation.

Thank you, nobody. I couldn't have said it better myself.

But... just so people get it (repeating the obvious might work, I guess )...

Yes, mughi3 and GeneralIrecar, a 'team' is not a 'unit'. Two completely different things.

There are at least three errors in your post, GeneralIrecar, all of which point to poor reading of the rules. But right now, I'm so tired of this fruitless argument that I can't be bothered to point them out to you.

GeneralIrecar
You can't split these arguments up from the Pathfinders as they are linked. The only difference is that one involves a vehicle, and the other two involve 'character' models. In all three cases, however, intepreting the RAW to exclude the 'unique' models of the unit destroys the purpose and intent of those units.

Completely wrong. Strain Leaders are Stingwings because they are part of a unit named Stingwings. A Devilfish is not a Pathfinder because it is clearly a transport bought from its own entry in the Codex. Two completely different scenarios and totally unrelated.

And again, as nobody has said, you can't have the Devilfish be part of the unit some of the time and not the rest of the time. Either it is (which is illegal) or it isn't (in which case it doesn't get Scout).

Besides all of which, even if what you - and mughi3 - said was true and the Devilfish was secretly part of the unit whenever it closed its eyes and wished really really hard (which makes as much sense as the rest of your argument) then it still wouldn't get the Scout rule. Why not? Because it is not a Pathfinder! So it seems that now your argument has become so weak you don't even know what you're inferring.

Posted By GeneralIrecar on 05/04/2006 8:31 AM
Using the rules as writting, this would mean it is part of the unit (It is specifically pointed out in the team entry), yet subject to the Dedicated Transport coherency rules (Because it is purchased from the Transports entry). Either you people are ignoring this statement, or don't have anything to refute it.

 

Even if this is true (and I will assume it is, just for kicks), there is nothing which exempts the DFish from ALSO being subject to the normal unit coherency rules, etc...

If indeed the DFish is both a part of the unit and a dedicated transport, then it must follow all of the rules for both. Meaning that, yes it can break coherency with the unit, per the transport rules, as long as it does not break coherency with the unit, per the unit rules. Yes it can shoot a different target than the unit does, per the transport rules, as long as the target that it shoots at is the same target that the rest of the unit is shooting at, per the unit rules. Yes it can move up to its maximum movement, as long as it only moves at the speed of the slowest model in the unit.

See the problem? You have two sets of rules. You must follow both, as neither explicitly allows you to ignore the other. This is an unprecedented situation which is not spelled out in the rules. Without further clarification, you must strive to break no rule. This means following both sets to the letter.

/ end assuming it is true just for kicks

 

And as for the 'all special rules apply to the whole unit' argument, does this not mean that any model in the unit can benefit from the 'upgraded sgt' rules for that unit. (I know they are not actuall called 'vet sgts' or whatever, but you know what I mean.)

I.E. If 'pathfinders get scout' applies to all models in the unit even if they are not called 'pathfinders', shouldn't 'vet sgts get armoury access' apply to all models in the unit even if they are not called 'vet sgts'? Just something to chew on.

 

PS: 

Nobody, nice catch on the selective remembering of the OR in the Unit/FOC definition

Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/03/2006 3:03 PM

Posted By mauleed on 05/03/2006 8:19 AM

First, that's a slippery slope falacy. You can't say "well X can't be true because it would mean Y is a bad thing" and have that prove your argument. Y may indeed be true and bad.

 

That's funny, Ed - over in this thread (Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=62499&view=topic) you did exactly that. Slippery slope, indeed.

Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.

Nobody seems to have very firmly b!tchslapped the opposition on this one. Great work.

Again, if you're argument includes ANYTHING about making the pathfinders and the devilfish one unit, you're immediately wrong, and you make yourself out to be less than brilliant by offering the argument up in the first place. Hopefully now that Nobody has explained it for the 12th time you'll get it.

@Looper (neil) to be honest I think we should come up with a house rule on the fleeting broodlord b/c it is dumb that he doesn't fleet. (everyone else, I ONLY ever play AGAINST nids so this is COMPLETELY to my disadvantage but poorly written rules are poorly written rules)

@Mauleed, it is a shame that your parents didn't spend more time building up your self esteem as a kid and that you now have to go around putting everyone else down to make yourself feel better about yourself, hopefully if you have kids you don't make the same mistake and they don't end up being arrogant jerks like you who think that anyone who does not agree with you is immediately an idiot.
@everyone else, I play tau and will continue to scout with my pathfinders and thier devilfish, that is obviously the intention because an FAQ came out after the first codex was printed noting that the fish also gets to scout. That said, if you want to play by poorly written RAW they do not get to scout.

mauleed said:
Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.

Maybe I am confused. It happens a lot.

But as far as I can tell, you do nothing of the sort. You do not point out the error in my argument, you simply ignore my argument and waffle. You do not give any examples.

Instead, you first squabble about semantics (arguing that a sentence is not a rule, despite it appearing in the rules section (i.e. non-fluff) of the rulebook) then claim the rule is being taken out of context, which it isn't (it's a rule that deals with Armour Saves and saving throws, and it's in the Saving Throw section in the Armour Save subsection), then claim that because it is before the rules on Invulnerable Saves it is invalid, which is not only irrelevant because we're dealing with all saving throws (and which is something that happens countless times in the rulebook, so the game would be even more of a mess than it is now should we apply your philosophy), and then try to use the Invulnerable Save rules to get around it, which does not (you claim your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them, while I claim that your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them...).

But hey, maybe I'm just confused.

It is ironic that by trying to argue for the actual intent of the unit comparative to just reading the RAW, I am somehow a moron and subject to personal insult.

The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.

By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.

By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'

If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12",  blah blah...

I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.

GeneralIrecar said:
It is ironic that by trying to argue for the actual intent of the unit comparative to just reading the RAW, I am somehow a moron and subject to personal insult.

No, that's not ironic. I suggest you look up a decent definition of irony.

And for the record, everyone on Dakka is subject to personal insult. It's one of the basic rules you have to learn.

GeneralIrecar said:
The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.

Not true. If you want to argue a point, please do. But back that point up with facts, please.

The PFDF did not Scout in the 3rd edition Codex either. The 3rd edition FAQ gave the PFDF the Scout ability. But this is irrelevant, as earlier Codexes do not provide precedent. It's an earlier edition of the game which has been replaced/updated. Just because the big red button on the far left of your VCR you threw out a year ago is the record button, doesn't mean that your brand spanking new DVD-R will have a big red button on its far left and even if it did, it might not be the record button.

And besides, as has been pointed out many, many, many times, the intent argument actually implies the game designers did not want the PFDF to Scout.

Not that it matters, as intent is irrelevant.

GeneralIrecar said:
By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.

In Escalation, yes. But not in other games, which is two-thirds of the average games (or a half depending on where, who, and when you play).

And just because a unit is minisculy reduced in effectiveness in Escalation games, do you really believe that means the existing rules are wrong? Hell, Stealth Suits are screwed in Escalation (debatably, but that's another topic) so obviously the jet pack rules are incorrect.

GeneralIrecar said:
By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'

If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12", blah blah...

Yep. But that's neither here nor there. It's irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

Besides, I don't think anyone (not even Mauleed) is encouraging you to follow a total, complete 'rules as written' approach. Just follow those rules that are clearly written and don't ignore rules because you don't like them or you don't think they make sense.

The 'PFDF-Scout/no Scout' issue is clearly written. Whether you think it makes sense or not is irrelevant. I don't think the AP rules make one lick of sense, but I don't ignore them.

GeneralIrecar said:
I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.

But you're not applying common sense. You're applying what you think of as common sense. Big difference, try to get your head around it.

And you're perfectly entitled to use your PFDF with scout, it that's what you and your opponent agree on. Just as in the same way you're entitled to play Space Marines with a 1+ Invulnerable re-rollable save if both you and your oppnent agree. Doesn't make it right, though.

"Number/TEAM/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the UNIT...." - General Irecar

"Number/Team/Squad etc: This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart." - Nobody

It's funny how you include only half of the quote and your argument seems valid, but then someone quotes the entire rule, and your argument that the Devilfish is part of the unit fails completely.

"Insert Random Intent Argument Here" - General Irecar

In the rules written in the earlier Tau Codex the Devilfish could not Scout.  They needed an FAQ to change that.  The current codex presents a similar situation as the original codex, where the Pathfinders are given Scout, but the Devilfish is not.  So not only is an intent argument a poor choice, you are claiming that the original codex allowed the Devilfish to Scout, which is not true.

"Insert Random Slippery Slope Argument Here" - General Irecar

So wait, the rules are vague and nearly unplayable in other areas of the game too?  Holy Cow!  Who would have thought that considering the few number of posts within the YMDC forums? 

When you say that every other RAW loophole will also come into effect, you are making the mistake of assuming that they aren't already in effect.  What you consider to be a RAW loophole is simply the RAW.  "Loophole" is a word used by bad lawyers who can't convict people for tax evasion for following the law as written.  If the rules were 'supposed' to mean something else, they should have been written that way, or the law makers would re-write them and close the "Loophole".  So just wait until an FAQ comes out, so all of the bad lawyers can get their way.

Actually Stu Rat, that is the opposite of what one would expect to happen so that was indeed a proper use of the word Irony, which I might add is one of the most misused words in the english language along with esoteric.

FAQs have got mistakes in them too.

Oh, and to those that think that 'intent is irrelivant' do you think that GW intended blast templates to wound models? I think they probably did and that is how it should be played. Do you think that GW intended Terminators to have Terminator armor? Obviously. The RAW is unplayable so the only way that you can play is to sit there and wade through with your game mates and figure out intent and play that way.

The intent, and precedent established in the earlier Tau Codex, meant that the Pathfinder Devilfish could scout.

Previous incarnations of the rules, especially in previous editions, do not establish precedent. Even in this case you don't have a leg to stand on because the Devilfish didn't have the scout rule in the previous codex. It was given the ability to move and disembark pre-game by way of a FAQ without actually giving it the rule in question.

Intent is a sticky issue to begin with in any rules argument. None of us can pretend to know what was going through the games developers minds when the wrote the rules. Ask any of us who were around for the original 3rd edition Marines codex. Apparently the rest of the world was playing "And They Shall Know No Fear" differently from the games devs because they wrote the rules one way and intended it another way. They had to release a full page explanation of how the rules were supposed to work at least twice in White Dwarf and the Chapter Approved compilations to get everybody on the same page.

Personally, I would have interpreted the intention of the pathfinder/devilfish fiasco to mean that they can split up deployment. That is, the pathfinders start on the board and the devilfish has to come in from reserves in Omega.

By your interpretation of the rules, the Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, thus the entire unit must start off the board in escalation... thus nearly totally reducing the point of the Pathfinders even having scout.

Yup, and Genestealers lose the ability to fleet of claw if they are taken as a retinue for a Broodlord. Does this mean that the Broodlord should get fleet so the rule for genestealers isn't pointless?

The possibility exists that if they ever complete the FAQs that were promised back at the beginning of the year, they will errata the Devilfish to have scout, but that doesn't mean it has it now.

By following a total, complete 'rules as written' approach, you would also have to validate every other ridiculous, against-the-intent-of-the-unit/item/etc., argument because those to are the 'rules as written.'

If a Pathfinder Devilfish cannot scout, as its intent would clearly be, then Terminators don't have terminator armor, a Combi-melta can fire twice at 12", blah blah...

Can you try this again without the slippery slope argument?

I will play my Pathfinder DFish with scout. If you tell me I can't, then understand that every other RAW loophole/idiocy will also come into effect. Common sense has to come into play sometime.

Sure, if your opponent agrees to make a house rule that your Devilfish has scout then that's fine. Stating that if he doesn't let you then you get to try to gum up the game by arguing every rule is a bit immature.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/04/2006 10:35 AM
mauleed said:
Stu, you're confused. I first pointed out the error in your argument. THEN I pointed out an example of what happens if you were correct, but my response wasn't dependent on it. It was simply there because it was an interesting ramification.

Maybe I am confused. It happens a lot.

But as far as I can tell, you do nothing of the sort. You do not point out the error in my argument, you simply ignore my argument and waffle. You do not give any examples.

Instead, you first squabble about semantics (arguing that a sentence is not a rule, despite it appearing in the rules section (i.e. non-fluff) of the rulebook) then claim the rule is being taken out of context, which it isn't (it's a rule that deals with Armour Saves and saving throws, and it's in the Saving Throw section in the Armour Save subsection), then claim that because it is before the rules on Invulnerable Saves it is invalid, which is not only irrelevant because we're dealing with all saving throws (and which is something that happens countless times in the rulebook, so the game would be even more of a mess than it is now should we apply your philosophy), and then try to use the Invulnerable Save rules to get around it, which does not (you claim your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them, while I claim that your models with Invulnerable Saves always get them...).

But hey, maybe I'm just confused.

Well, obviously you are confused.

I pointed out that you'd taken a rule out of context to support your argument, and hence one of your premises was false. I then commented on the impact of taking rules out of context. But my point stands regardless of that comment. Some comments are meant as rebuttal, some are just converstation.

And regardless, even if I had commited some logical mis-step in some other thread, and I'm sure I have in many, that has no bearing here. It doesn't suddenly make this argument make more sense because I was wrong on some other issue.

But to be clear, I wasn't wrong on that issue either.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 05/04/2006 6:06 AM
I can understand the intent argument, really I can. It?s stupid, irrelevant, and what little circumstantial evidence there is for it actually favors the opposite result of what most of its supporters believe, but I can understand at least where they?re coming from.

I can even understand the assumption argument, although this suggests its believers are stupid as well as their argument.

What I cannot understand is when people are either ignorant, poor readers, or out-and-out liars. Mughi3 is one (or more) of these, unfortunately.

mughi3 said:
2.page 24 of the tau dex says the special rule aplies to the entire team. hence it applies to the dedicated transport that is part of the team in the entry..

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

mughi3 said:
are emp grenades a special rule for the team? no they are wargear upgrades for infantry and as such a vehicle cannot buy them.

First, EMP Grenades are not Wargear Upgrades. Read the Codex.

Secondly, you?re contradicting yourself. If USRs apply to the ?team? ala page 24 as you suggest (which they don?t, but let?s go crazy and assume your misreading of the Codex is correct for a moment) then, following the rules, any model in the unit may benefit from the upgrades. And (if we are likewise stupid enough to believe that EMP Grenades are wargear) the Infantry Wargear text implies that ?A model not equipped with a battlesuit,? (which the Devilfish obviously isn?t) is counted as infantry. So the Devilfish can buy EMP grenades.

Of course, another argument put forward by some foolish people on this thread is that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. I know, I know, it?s ludicrous. But the same problem applies ? if the Devilfish is indeed a Pathfinder, should it not have access to EMP grenades? (And my personal favorite: does that mean you have to buy a Devilfish Transport for the Pathfinder Devilfish? which becomes a Pathfinder Devilfish so you have to buy another Devilfish for that? which becomes? and so on and so on.)

mughi3 said:
again please note page 24 of the tau dex the TEAM benefits fromt the special rule.

No, it doesn?t. Read the Codex.

mughi3 said:
in the entry for pathfinders the fish is listed as part of the team.

True, but irrelevant.

mughi3 said:
the special rule for the team is the abilty to scout.

Nope. Read the Codex.


Can you sense a running theme here, mughi3? I?m strongly suggesting that you read the Codex thoroughly before posting any more idiotic statements. Hell, before posting anything. Can you please do that, as a favour for me? Thank you.

 

 

 

since peple are quibling about things being taken out of context i will go over the entire rules in question as well as debunk the inflamitory  and incorrect rhetoric inteded at me

 

the unit issue

p24 full quote of the rules in question

unit name:

in addition to the name this may also show a limitation on the maximum number of choices you can make of that unit type (0-1, for example)

 

number/team/squad ETC...:

this shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the force organization chart. often this is a variable amount in which case it shows the minimum and maximum unit size.

special rules:

this is where you'll find any special rules tha apply to the unit

end quote 

 

the unit name in the FOC is pathfinder team(no real question there)

rather you call a pathfinder team a team/unit or a squad is irrelevant. it is a semantic descriptor that means the same thing as per the entry on page 24

 

now breaking it down-the first part says this is the number of models  in the team/unit/ etc...

the second half says or the number of models you MAY take. this does not in any way conflict with the first part since we know that we have a minimum of 4 (required as the number of models in  unit at minimum size as per part one) but may take up to 8 pathfinder (shas'la) infantry models and a single pathfinder assigned devilfish per 1 pathfinder team entry in the FOC . which is incidently explaned in the 3rd part of the rules entry.

 

because of these

the special rules that apply to the unit-

as per the rules unit is a semantic term interrchangable with team/squad etc... and we know the unit/team/squad etc.. consists of a single FA choice in the FOC for tau at minimum/maximum  4-8 infantry pathfinders(shas'la) and it's required pathfinder devilfish troop transport.

 

since the devilfish is listed as part of the team/unit/squad etc.. it does benefit from the scout special rules. it is a transport that is a vehicle and acts in accordance with the normal vehicle and trransport rules found in the core rulebook with 2 extra abilities listed in the tau dex.

1.the ability to scout as per the special rules that apply to the team/squad/unit and

2. the marker beacon which is a special piece of vehicle equipment for pathfinder assignd fish.

 

now for the grenade issue

 

tau dex page 28 section infantry armory, including sub-section infantry wargear.

 

this section lists descriptions for both emp grenades and photon grenades and as such they are wargear/armory upgrades for infantry. both crisis suit and vehicles have thier own seperate wargear/upgrades section. as such a devilfish troop trransport vehicles that is part of a pathfinder team is not allowed to take them because it is NOT an infantry model with access to infantry armory/wargear.

this is really just a matter of taking all the rules that apply to both the infantry and the vehicle that make up the same team/squad/unit etc... and applying them to the models they go with.

 

 Not to be snide, but apparently you can't read.

no apparently they cannot.

 

 

 

Again, mughi, you are conveniently ignoring the wording on the Team section of pg 24:

Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.

There are two possible answers: That this is one unit, or that this is one Force Organization chart entry. It does not mean that Number/Team/Squad is always the same thing as one unit.

Here are the two scenarios we are looking at:

Scenario 1: Devilfish is part of the unit.

Rules have not been generated to explain how to deal with shooting at and by such mixed units, or for leadership tests. To explain this you would have to use a part of the Dedicated transport rules which only allows you to move away from the squad, but doesn?t absolve you from any of the above situations.

Scenario 2: Devilfish is part of the Force Organization chart, but a separate unit

Pathfinders are saddled with a rule that they cannot benefit from (which this isn?t the first time such a situation has occurred). Even though they have the Scout rule, they can?t use it because of their transport.

Do we know why? It could be that the game devs intended that the Devilfish should have it too (but didn?t write it in), or that they could have intended that the Pathfinders split up deployment (pathfinders start on the board, devilfish starts off), or that the scout rule was intended for some funky missions that are coming up in the future (that allow them to skip the Devilfish or deploy without it).

The problem is, we don?t know, and we can?t pretend to know, since none of us can claim to be telepaths and the game devs themselves don?t post on this board.

So lets apply Occam?s razor to this dilemma. Do we try to invent new rules and reinterpret existing ones to facilitate the scenario that we want to be real, or do we suck it up and play the rules as they are written out?

I'll admit I skipped the last 5 pages, as the first 6 pages were all repeating over and over again.

However, I might have something to add, if not I'm sure you'll all feel free to either ignore or flame me for it.

Let's say there was a different rule (say mandatory troops and HQ) deployment. Would Pathfinders & Devilfish be able to deploy anyway? Is this any different, or the same argument?

Personally, I'll change my opinion (Escallation limits them) when I can start Drop-Podding my Emperors Champion. Sure, it's a stupid rule, but those really are the rules, and it's pretty clear. OTOH, I play that my Termis get all the benefits of Terminator Armor, so maybe there's a bit of latitude to having fun playing a game? Sigh, and you can guarantee that GW won't address this in an FAQ. It'll say things like "the same as everybody else" or "you can use any color dice you want"...