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.

The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

kirsanth wrote:The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

ok...

Target priority tests being removed is obviously just an update to current rules. (and could be argued that they should be removed anyways since the rule no longer exists)

However this fundamentally changes how something works, even in previous editions.
If you have an actual answer please say what it is. I don't want to just have a response like the one above.

kirsanth wrote:The same reason they changed other Tau rules so much.

So people would have a chance of winning?

I don't know why people are so keen to shaft the Tau on the basis of things like Targetting Priority.

The poor old Tau have an outmoded codex half the time, because they get released halfway through editions.

They have very few unique features, rules or abilities compared to most codexes, and a smaller selection of units.

Why deny them the tiny advantage of Target Lock because the Target Priority rule has gone? That rule being gone helps everyone else.

(Sorry for OT.)

I think most of the animosity comes from the small but vocal player base of Dark Eldar, Necron, Inquisition and (until recently) Space Wolf Players, who resent that an unwanted, unneeded army created solely to take cash off the anime fan playerbase have gotten a codex AND THEN ANOTHER ONE, while they still are using 10 year old codexes.

Hell my puppies have a super codex now and I still hate the Tau.

Besides, it means I can't bring my 15 piranha list to adepticon. :p

The Tau codex is the one 4th edition codex which seems to require house rules in order to work in 5th. I'll have to read up on vehicle and assaults rules, but for now it seems like it depends on how many of the flying bases he's touching, as only those models could use their flachette dischargers.

Edit: At least the 3rd edition codexes didn't mention 'target priority' (well ok, the Space Wolf codex mentioned 'outnumbering'....but that was when it was old!)

starbomber109 wrote:The Tau codex is the one 4th edition codex which seems to require house rules in order to work in 5th. I'll have to read up on vehicle and assaults rules, but for now it seems like it depends on how many of the flying bases he's touching, as only those models could use their flachette dischargers.

Its stated in the rules that you engage an entire vehicle squadron no matter how many bases you are touching. Its not like you can only kill the one you are touching, why shouldn't all of my piranhas be able to kill you?

That was an actual answer.

If you want more detail, that is fine -- and in fact would be a nicer request than implying my answer was fake/wrong/snide/worthless.

They went with (as I read it) RAI from a codex that is outdated.

Squadron rules were added, TP removed, in fact many changes were made. So they went with what was the intent of the rule in question prior to these changes, as they saw it.

I am not inclined to shaft any one codex more than another. Nor am I inclined to let any one codex gain advantage more than any other.

/shrug

Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

Yes, from what I recall.

I played a fair amount, but have done what I can to purge the rules from my brain.

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

Timmah wrote:

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Just a question since I never played tau in 4th (didn't play all that much actual 4th)

If you assaulted the entire squadron in 4th, you would take fletchette hits from only those you were in base contact with?

in 4th you got to allocate the hits in a squadron. Each vehicle was effectively a single vehicle for CC.

Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

OR, the INAT FAQ is staying true to RAI as well as RAW. The Flechette rules make it pretty clear you get one attack for each model assaulting the vehicle. The rules were simply not made with squadrons in mind, just like Multi-Tracker rules were not made with weapons other than Battlesuit Weapon Systems or twin-linked weapons in mind. There are a host of these kind of problems in the Tau codex, all of which have been debated over and over again. Just agree with your opponent beforehand how they should work or use the INAT.

synchronicity wrote:

timmah wrote:
Ah, so basically the INAT FAQ is attempting to keep us playing 4th ed then? Alright, makes it clearer now.

OR, the INAT FAQ is staying true to RAI as well as RAW. The Flechette rules make it pretty clear you get one attack for each model assaulting the vehicle. The rules were simply not made with squadrons in mind, just like Multi-Tracker rules were not made with weapons other than Battlesuit Weapon Systems or twin-linked weapons in mind. There are a host of these kind of problems in the Tau codex, all of which have been debated over and over again. Just agree with your opponent beforehand how they should work or use the INAT.

So are my railguns updated too, since in 4th they were never intended to blow up vehicles easier after scoring a penetrating hit?

I understand what they are trying to do. But by doing it, it causes a ton of double standard situations.

So now do you better understand my post?

kirsanth wrote:So now do you better understand my post?

I better understand what their reasoning was to change it.

It just seems like it leaves a lot of double standards by changing the rules to update some wargear to 4th ed RAI and not others.

Timmah wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So now do you better understand my post?

I better understand what their reasoning was to change it.

It just seems like it leaves a lot of double standards by changing the rules to update some wargear to 4th ed RAI and not others.

This is the world we live in, because GW won't update the FAQ's but once or twice. So we have to get by with what we got; which are opinions, page numbers, quotations, and INAT.

Question #2

In 4th ed couldn't you only get a damage result against the model in the squadron you were assaulting?

Timmah wrote:Question #2

In 4th ed couldn't you only get a damage result against the model in the squadron you were assaulting?

That's the short of it. You could only kill what you could get into Base to base with. That was the rules for all of 4th, only engaged models could fight or be killed.

Yes.
And immobilized was not destroyed, and a slew of other changes, like only being able to kill models in range of the attack.

Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

They were in a number of cases.
There are no kill zones now, all models in a squad can be hit, for example.
You can allocate the hits to models without flechette to keep them around, instead of having to take hits on the one assaulted - and still use them.

etc.


That said, I think everyone can find issues with any FAQ.
The idea is to let the creators know and realize that they are widely used regardless of problems/errors/personal issues.

Timmah wrote:Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

The INAT picks a side. It doesn't need to be right or wrong, just make up their minds and choose a side. In this case i feel that they are wrong but far better that they have pick an option, then people have to dice off over every thing.

Very true to both replies. I'm just trying to make sense of why I don't agree with the FAQ in this situation.

Obviously its good it picks a side. But a quality argument might sway them to change there FAQ in the future. (possibly) And I'm not sure whether this was brought up for items like this.

INAT does change rulings, and I can only assume it has been for quality arguments.
I would recommend submitting ideas to them.
iirc, there is either a thread or folks to PM about it.

Timmah wrote:Ok, then I think I have a problem with INAT in this situation. (not that I ever use flechette)

But since vehicle squadrons in combat were upgraded (got worse) then it stands to reason the wargear should benefit from should function with these new changes (and get better because of new RAW). (does that make sense to you guys?)

Just my opinion (and RAW supposedly) though.

I have to agree with this stance a little bit. One of the things I absolutely hate about WFB is the fact that you can kill models in ranks that could never possible swing back that turn.

This smacks of the same thing. Here, we have a vehicle that has the capacity to "swing back." However, the INAT ruling seems to think that it's perfectly ok for those vehicles to potentially be destroyed without being able to use their "swing."

It seems like a highly imperfect compromise between 4th and 5th rules.

Saldiven wrote:This smacks of the same thing. Here, we have a vehicle that has the capacity to "swing back." However, the INAT ruling seems to think that it's perfectly ok for those vehicles to potentially be destroyed without being able to use their "swing."

It seems like a highly imperfect compromise between 4th and 5th rules.

In 5e the same is true of everyone in CC, not just squadrons.
That is why I mentioned kill zones.

Models not able to swing can indeed be removed as casualties in CC even if they cannot possibly swing back.

Timmah wrote:I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

Basically for the same reason Synchronicity is using, the gut feeling that a unit shouldn't take flechette hits at a 5 to 1 ratio to the attacking units models. They just chose an option that's slightly closer to the actual rule then what Synchronicity was saying here (no offense Synchro ).

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

Timmah wrote:I'm just wondering why the INAT faq would change it so much. It seems like a pretty clear cut issue given squadron rules.

Basically for the same reason Synchronicity is using, the gut feeling that a unit shouldn't take flechette hits at a 5 to 1 ratio to the attacking units models. They just chose an option that's slightly closer to the actual rule then what Synchronicity was saying here (no offense Synchro ).

Jack

Hey, as long as it doesn't result in 60 attacks against 12 Orkz, I'll take it!