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.

TAU.27F.03 – Q: Do enemies charging a unit with Stealth Field Generators count as ‘assaulting through cover’ even if they didn’t have to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test when assaulting?
A: Yes. Any charging enemies who direct any of their attacks towards a Stealth Field Generator equipped model counts as having assaulted through cover. Ignore this rule if the Stealth models were already locked in combat from a previous turn when charged [clarification].

Just making sure I understand, does this mean that if someone assaults a Tau Stealthsuit team, the assaulters have an I of 1?

Yes, it means they count as if they had rolled a difficult terrain test, therefore will be I1 unless they have grenades.

This is a rules change of course, disguised as a clarification...

Yes the stealth field generators have a passage that state they count as being in cover. Rulebook states that you are lowered to I1 if you had to take a difficult terrain test to assault. As the above poster said it's a complete rules change rather then a clarification.

Another example of the INAT folks smoking crack before making a ruling :/

I think it's less of a "rules change" as it is a nod to the previous edition's rules under which the Tau codex was written.

Personally, I would say that "counting as being in cover" should require a unit that is assaulting the stealth team to have to make a difficult terrain test, but that's just me.

Saldiven wrote:I think it's less of a "rules change" as it is a nod to the previous edition's rules under which the Tau codex was written.

So changing current rules is not a change so long as it relates to out of date rules? Or maybe less of a change is not a change?

Seems off somehow.

It can be argued that Assaulting through cover is similar to assaulting into cover. Since the Stealth field generator causes the models to be counted as in cover then the rules for assaulting through cover should be used. This is more of a RaI vs a RaW conflict. The RaI is definitely that the assaulter should be at I1 for assaulting into cover but by RaW they do not suffer that because the unit doesn't have to make a difficult terrain test.

It could be argued, but it would be wrong.
Models in cover get no bonus in assaults -- models actually moving through cover get penalties.

This is important as it is entirely possible to assault models in cover and not touch that cover if defending models have (parts of) the units bases out of cover.

Sometimes, when the main rules for an edition change the way things are worded, then the rulings on existing codices' rules need to be modified to fit the new, main rules.

Personally, I prefer to change the rulings so that the original effect of the codex rules stays as close as possible to what they did in the original edition. That's a philosophical position, not a RaW/RaI position.

I've always thought it was pure silliness on the part of GW to come up with new editions that make existing wargear and codex rules obsolete merely due to changes in wording.

Lastly, why does anyone care whether the INAT says "rules change" or "rules clarification." It's an optional FAQ designed for use in a single tournament but offered freely up to anyone who cares to use it themselves.

Don't like it? Don't use it.

Saldiven wrote:Sometimes, when the main rules for an edition change the way things are worded, then the rulings on existing codices' rules need to be modified to fit the new, main rules.

Personally, I prefer to change the rulings so that the original effect of the codex rules stays as close as possible to what they did in the original edition. That's a philosophical position, not a RaW/RaI position.

I've always thought it was pure silliness on the part of GW to come up with new editions that make existing wargear and codex rules obsolete merely due to changes in wording.

Lastly, why does anyone care whether the INAT says "rules change" or "rules clarification." It's an optional FAQ designed for use in a single tournament but offered freely up to anyone who cares to use it themselves.

Don't like it? Don't use it.

Exactly.

Its because of rules changes like this disguised as clarifications that I advocated the removal of the INATFAQ as our FAQ from my FLGS. (Which was rather awkward since in the previous year i advocated the adaptation of it.)

Due to the change in obvious rules changes being labeled as "clarifications", it has caused more arguments than it has solved in this new version

Red_Lives wrote:Its because of rules changes like this disguised as clarifications that I advocated the removal of the INATFAQ as our FAQ from my FLGS. (Which was rather awkward since in the previous year i advocated the adaptation of it.)

Due to the change in obvious rules changes being labeled as "clarifications", it has caused more arguments than it has solved in this new version

Are you saying you only use clarifications from INAT? Otherwise, why would it matter?

No, we agreed not to use most rules changes in my local store, but since now "clarifications" are rules changes and actual clarifications we decided to no longer use the document. (because of silly rules like the Tau stealth generator as well a officers and Vox-casters and similar such rulings)

This current INATFAQ is not as well written as previous versions.