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 devifish entry also has a little label to the left that says Transport (it's a little hard to see) whereas the Firewarriors above them and the Kroot to the right have little labels that say Troops.

yakface wrote:
You've got it wrong.

You kill a vehicle without Cronus disembarking = 1 KP
You kill a vehicle and Cronus disembarks and you then kill him too = 2 KPs

Which is EXACTLY the same as the ruling on the Drones.

Yes, I shorthanded it by saying Cronus + vehicle...but I was saying exactly what you wrote out. My dilemma is with the Thunderfire Cannon ruling, which is contrary to the above two examples

yakface wrote:And as for the Thunderfire cannon, how has a new unit been created when the Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed? The Techmarine is still the same model on the table that he was before, the only change is that he has now become an Independent Character.

Are you arguing that Independent Characters are not separate units? When his vehicle is destroyed, Cronus becomes exactly that.

yakface wrote:You may disagree with these rulings, but they are NOT arbitrary. A whole lot of thought and discussion went into making them. Trust me when I say however you think that they should be ruled, there would be a whole giant host of people who would disagree with you and scream that your rulings were completely arbitrary.

Since the ruling is inconsistent for both the Devilfish, and the Drone, Cronus, TF Cannon rule...it seems it has simple been a "pick and choose" kind of ordeal.

yakface wrote:Again, I strongly disagree with you.

In most codexes there is a little grey box-out around transports (and other similar units), but beyond that there are no rules stating that those units cannot be taken as a normal 'choice' in the army list.

But as illustrated on page 87 of the rulebook, dedicated transports exist outside of the normal force organization chart, and the title of the Devilfish lists it as "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier". So unless you think the 'Transport:' is part of the title of the unit, then you have to assume that its inclusion has some sort of meaning in the game, and in this case it is fairly clear to most players that this is an indication that the Devilfish is a dedicated Transport.

You present a severely flawed logic.

Yes, it says "Transport", but it does NOT say "Dedicated Transport". It is listed under the Troops catagory, and has zero restrictions placed on taking it as a non-dedicated transport. Looking at the Codex in front of me, there is nothing against this argument that is based in RAW, and since it has neither been FAQed or Errata'd, clearly RAI supports it at the moment.

Thus why I again label this as an arbitrary decision on the part of the INAT FAQ. The rulebook as it was presented no problem with taking non-dedicated Devilfish, and ruling that the Tau cannot take it as such because other armies may not be able to take certain non-dedicated transports is scant excuse.

Start a poll on your Devilfish fantasy, guy. You're out to lunch.

Arschbombe wrote:Start a poll on your Devilfish fantasy, guy. You're out to lunch.

It won't fly. Reason: People would rather gripe about Tau having something that their army might not (which coincidently enough, isn't a big deal...) then follow RAW at about it's clearest.

Since the Codex, and FAQ's/Errata since then mentions nothing of this...I fail to see any problem with RAW.
I am actually interested to see WHAT exactly people's argument against this is...nothing has been presented besides the "popularity contest" logic (or things I have already refuted.)

Che-Vito wrote:

Yes, I shorthanded it by saying Cronus + vehicle...but I was saying exactly what you wrote out. My dilemma is with the Thunderfire Cannon ruling, which is contrary to the above two examples

Are you arguing that Independent Characters are not separate units? When his vehicle is destroyed, Cronus becomes exactly that.

Its not about whether the model is an Independent Character or not. The fact is, Chronus does not exist in the game as a model until the vehicle is destroyed. At that point, a NEW model is created in the game and that model is a unit unto himself.

With the Thunderfire cannon, again, no new models are being created. The ONLY thing that changes is that when the Thunderfire Cannon models is destroyed the Techmarine gains the IC rule. That is the only change in status. There is no new model created and there is nothing to indicate that a new unit has been created by the destruction of the TF Cannon.

Since the ruling is inconsistent for both the Devilfish, and the Drone, Cronus, TF Cannon rule...it seems it has simple been a "pick and choose" kind of ordeal.

You present a severely flawed logic.

Yes, it says "Transport", but it does NOT say "Dedicated Transport". It is listed under the Troops catagory, and has zero restrictions placed on taking it as a non-dedicated transport. Looking at the Codex in front of me, there is nothing against this argument that is based in RAW, and since it has neither been FAQed or Errata'd, clearly RAI supports it at the moment.

Thus why I again label this as an arbitrary decision on the part of the INAT FAQ. The rulebook as it was presented no problem with taking non-dedicated Devilfish, and ruling that the Tau cannot take it as such because other armies may not be able to take certain non-dedicated transports is scant excuse.

As was pointed out by Arschbombe, both the Firewarriors and Kroot are labeled as being 'Troops' (there is a little greyed out text next to their entries) while the Devilfish is labeled as 'Transport'.

While I know that this doesn't identify it as strictly a dedicated transport, it also doesn't allow it to be taken as a 'Troops' choice either.

And I say it again a thousand times until I'm blue in the face: The INAT FAQ does not simply rule by the RAW, as that is not the goal of the document. Trying to play by the strict, strict RAW creates all sorts of crazy arguments and headaches in a tournament setting. The goal of the INAT FAQ is to create a smoothly run tournament, which it does by frequently ruling with how the majority plays a situation, rather than what you happen to believe the RAW indicate.

If you truly feel that we've got this particular situation incorrect from THAT standpoint, feel free to create a poll to help back up your assertion, and perhaps we can get it changed!

You haven't refuted anything in this thread. The KP rulings have been explained to you in detail several times, but you seem not to be able to grasp it. You're approaching the issue from the perspective of one army, the Tau, and that bias is the root of your problem.

The devilfish is the only entry in the codex that doesn't have a FOC slot to the side of it. It's not a troops choice. It is clearly identified as a transport and there are two entries that identify when it can be purchased.

Che-Vito

How about you cry some more.
The thunderfire cannon is an artillery piece. If I shoot all the guns out of a grot artillery battery the grots can move around. Hell I could charge the techmarine and thunderfire across the table if I am correct on this, and i might be, I could charge you with the two of them. But they are one unit.

As for the devilfish, you have an outdated codex. And it has been brought in line with most of todays codexs by saying the devilfish is transport only, not a separate unit. This should be pretty straight forward, as I have never heard this in the 8 years Ive played.

I do semi agree with you on the drones issue. Personally I feel if the vehicle is blown up, they are not a kill point but cannot contest an objective. Which is another problem. I have had tau players contest objectives with the two gun drones of their devilfish. If it works in objectives, it should be a kill point. As far as im concerned if i blow your fish up and the drones can take objectives, they give me a kill point in kill point games.

yakface wrote:

Its not about whether the model is an Independent Character or not. The fact is, Chronus does not exist in the game as a model until the vehicle is destroyed. At that point, a NEW model is created in the game and that model is a unit unto himself.

With the Thunderfire cannon, again, no new models are being created. The ONLY thing that changes is that when the Thunderfire Cannon models is destroyed the Techmarine gains the IC rule. That is the only change in status. There is no new model created and there is nothing to indicate that a new unit has been created by the destruction of the TF Cannon.

The difference you are citing is that a new unit (in this case an IC) is placed on the board...

Would you then argue that a TF Cannon and Techmarine are the same unit with/without IC status? No.
The two rulings (Cronus and TF) seem similar in context enough to me, that it makes sense for both to be 2 KP

yakface wrote:While I know that this doesn't identify it as strictly a dedicated transport, it also doesn't allow it to be taken as a 'Troops' choice either.

It's in the Troops section, and has ZERO restrictions placed on taking it. What's the problem here?
It is not listed as a Dedicated Transport, but a Transport.

yakface wrote:And I say it again a thousand times until I'm blue in the face: The INAT FAQ does not simply rule by the RAW, as that is not the goal of the document. Trying to play by the strict, strict RAW creates all sorts of crazy arguments and headaches in a tournament setting. The goal of the INAT FAQ is to create a smoothly run tournament, which it does by frequently ruling with how the majority plays a situation, rather than what you happen to believe the RAW indicate.

I like and agree with the intention of the INAT FAQ as stated, but I also think that when RAW is fine and dandy, then leave it alone.

yakface wrote:If you truly feel that we've got this particular situation incorrect from THAT standpoint, feel free to create a poll to help back up your assertion, and perhaps we can get it changed!

As stated before, the "popularity contest" approach won't work, because people like to gripe about what their army can't have.

Yet, people will also have a problem stating what "headaches, complications, etc." is created by playing the RAW in the case of Devilfish as a non-dedicated Troops choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:
As for the devilfish, you have an outdated codex. And it has been brought in line with most of todays codexs by saying the devilfish is transport only, not a separate unit. This should be pretty straight forward, as I have never heard this in the 8 years Ive played.

I have all copies of the Tau codex, from the first to the latest. I am quoting from the latest.

Arschbombe wrote:You haven't refuted anything in this thread. The KP rulings have been explained to you in detail several times, but you seem not to be able to grasp it. You're approaching the issue from the perspective of one army, the Tau, and that bias is the root of your problem.

Since I play 3 armies, this is not the problem, the problem is that the ruling is very "picky-and-choosey", but ultimately is up to personal opinion.
I'm willing to let the TF Cannon argument go, as you think I'm not grasping what you say, and I think you're not grasping what I say.

I think that's a fair point to call it quits on that one.

Arschbombe wrote:The devilfish is the only entry in the codex that doesn't have a FOC slot to the side of it. It's not a troops choice. It is clearly identified as a transport and there are two entries that identify when it can be purchased.

It's identified as a Transport, not a Dedicated Transport. AT BEST, you could claim that it could be either and that this is a "grey area", but you cannot claim that it is specific as to which.

Since the Codex doesn't specify, or give any indication that it can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport, claiming otherwise is imposing your own rulings on what is written...and what is written seems pretty straightforward to me.

Che-Vito wrote:
The difference you are citing is that a new unit (in this case an IC) is placed on the board...

Would you then argue that a TF Cannon and Techmarine are the same unit with/without IC status? No.
The two rulings (Cronus and TF) seem similar in context enough to me, that it makes sense for both to be 2 KP

I fully understand that viewpoint, and when we made the ruling there was major support for both ideas. However, there isn't any clear cut way to rule this that doesn't break consistency somewhere, and that's the difficulty of it.

So all I can say on this particular issue is that we are well aware of your interpretation and that was discussed when we ruled on it but ultimately we decided to rule against your opinion. I know that ultimately doesn't help at all, but unless you've got something else to present I don't think there's any basis for us to re-argue this point in the INAT.

It's in the Troops section, and has ZERO restrictions placed on taking it. What's the problem here?
It is not listed as a Dedicated Transport, but a Transport.

Yes, its in the Troops section of the codex but it IS NOT listed as being a Troops choice, unlike the actual Troops choices on those two pages. It is listed as being a 'Transport' choice.

So if it isn't a Troops choice, what the heck is a 'Transport' choice? Either its nothing = can't take the Devilfish in your army as you have no 'Transport' FOC slots or 'Transport' = 'Dedicated Transport', in which case it falls into the rulebook rules for a dedicated transport (and has to be taken for a unit).

And finally, you keep saying that the whole 'popularity' contest idea 'doesn't work' because people always want to gripe about what their army doesn't have. But historical precedent does not back up this statement. There have been plenty of these types of polls run that do allow armies to do or take stuff that may not be completely apparent by the RAW.

Just one example being: I'm primarily a Tau player at this point in my life, but I strongly, strongly feel that it would be completely incorrect to take a Devilfish as a Troops choice on its own.

yakface wrote:[Yes, its in the Troops section of the codex but it IS NOT listed as being a Troops choice, unlike the actual Troops choices on those two pages. It is listed as being a 'Transport' choice.

It is listed under the bold page heading that says "Troops", making it a Troops choice in that Codex as it is not specified otherwise.
It does not say "Troops" directly in-front of Fire Warriors either (although that +1 is annoying...), but they are still Troops.

yakface wrote:So if it isn't a Troops choice, what the heck is a 'Transport' choice? Either its nothing = can't take the Devilfish in your army as you have no 'Transport' FOC slots or 'Transport' = 'Dedicated Transport', in which case it falls into the rulebook rules for a dedicated transport (and has to be taken for a unit).

As already posted, it isn't listed as a Dedicated Transport, but is listed under the Troops section, without anything that prevents it from being taken as a Troops choice, and it being placed in the Troops catagory as such makes it a Troops choice, non-dedicated.

Note: other Codexes may list vehicles in the Troops section, but usually it is made clear that this is only because it is being presented as a Dedicated Transport for specific units.

yakface wrote:And finally, you keep saying that the whole 'popularity' contest idea 'doesn't work' because people always want to gripe about what their army doesn't have. But historical precedent does not back up this statement. There have been plenty of these types of polls run that do allow armies to do or take stuff that may not be completely apparent by the RAW.

By all means, open a poll. I promise you this, it will be filled mostly with players who argue neither RAW, or present any reason with substance as to why it cannot be taken as a Troops choice.

yakface wrote:Just one example being: I'm primarily a Tau player at this point in my life, but I strongly, strongly feel that it would be completely incorrect to take a Devilfish as a Troops choice on its own.

Present a reason for this...are you talking RAW (which doesn't support you), fluff (the more viable of the options), or "popular vote" (which might as well be a pissing contest).

Having a ruling that makes gameplay smoother makes sense, but in no way does the INAT FAQ on this subject do that. If the rules are clear on their own, and create no imbalance or problem, I'll repeat it again, let them be.

Che-Vito, there are three units listed in the Tau Empire codex on pages 36-37. In the margin of two of those units is the word "Troops", in the margin of the other is the word "Transport". For every other unit listed from page 32 on through page 41 of the codex, there's a designation of either HQ, Elites, Troops, Heavy Support or Fast Attack.

Are you looking in the Tau codex instead of the Tau Empire codex or something?

solkan wrote:Che-Vito, there are three units listed in the Tau Empire codex on pages 36-37. In the margin of two of those units is the word "Troops", in the margin of the other is the word "Transport". For every other unit listed from page 32 on through page 41 of the codex, there's a designation of either HQ, Elites, Troops, Heavy Support or Fast Attack.

Are you looking in the Tau codex instead of the Tau Empire codex or something?

I have both the Tau and Tau Empire Codex...and while it is wonderful that the word Transport is listed in front of the Devilfish, that in NO WAY typifies it as a Dedicated Transport. Please read prior posts in a thread before posting things that have already been answered.

Che-Vito wrote:I have both the Tau and Tau Empire Codex...and while it is wonderful that the word Transport is listed in front of the Devilfish, that in NO WAY typifies it as a Dedicated Transport.

It does, however, strongly suggest that the Devilfish is not a Troops choice, despite being in the Troops section. Because if it were a standard Troops choice, it would say 'Troops' in the margin instead of 'Transport'

The only difference between the Devilfish entry and the entris for dedicated Transports in other codexes is that it's not divided off from the rest of the Troops section quite as well.

insaniak wrote:
It does, however, strongly suggest that the Devilfish is not a Troops choice, despite being in the Troops section.

That is an imposed suggestion on the reader's part. If it's in the Troops section, and not required to be a Dedicated Transport (as written per the Codex), then it can be taken as a Troops option. Quite frankly, it could say anything in front of the Devilfish entry and it would ultimately be irrelevant...unless it specified that the something contrary to the Devilfish being listed as a Troop option (such as the words: Dedicated Transport).

That's why I said that it 'strongly suggests' rather than that it 'clearly means'...

Obviously you disagree, but to me, the fact that it says 'Transport' instead of 'Troops' in the margin, and has 'Transport' listed in front of the unit name, combined with the precedent set by pretty much every other codex, is more than enough evidence for me that it's not intended to be a standard Troops selection in its own right.

On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

insaniak wrote:That's why I said that it 'strongly suggests' rather than that it 'clearly means'...

Obviously you disagree, but to me, the fact that it says 'Transport' instead of 'Troops' in the margin, and has 'Transport' listed in front of the unit name, combined with the precedent set by pretty much every other codex, is more than enough evidence for me that it's not intended to be a standard Troops selection in its own right.

In Troops section (RAW) > interpretations.

Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"? No. The overall section covers the fact that Fire Warriors are Troops. The Devilfish is listed as a Vehicle that counts as a Troops selection (non-dedicated Transport) or off the FOC (Dedicated Transport).

The distinction is made because some vehicles cannot be chosen as Transports at all, so all of them are given a "type", whether it be Fast Attack Piranhas or Troops Devilfish. Although you my not like it, RAW it can be taken...and again, nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc....I thought that the whole intention of the INAT FAQ was to help clear up such issues.

If this ruling is contrary to the intention of the INAT FAQ, then we come back to my original thought, that the ruling is arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

I've let that one go, and agreed to disagree. Read back to earlier posts in this thread for both sides of that argument.

I also disagree with the ruling on offices not being able to use Vox-Casters on their own squad.

+IG.71I.01 -- Q: If an Officer fails to issue an order to
his OWN Command Squad can they re-roll the result if
the squad has a Vox-caster?
A: No [clarification].

Lets Evaluate the RAW:

If an officer is attempting to issue an order to a friendly unit And both the officers squad and the chosen unit contain a model with a vox-caster, the leadership test to see if the order can be used may be re-rolled if failed.

Now lets examine this

Is a unit friendly with itself? I believe we can all agree it is.

Does the command squad contain a vox-caster? I believe this is a resounding yes.

Does the unit receiving the order also contain a vox? Again yes.

I am just perplexed at this ruling it seems as tho the INAT FAQ. It seems as though there is not justification for this ruling.

Because i've always imagined a Vox-caster repeating everything the officer says verbatim, so the order is heard twice (once by the officer once by the Vox-operator) so i am perplexed as to why this doesn't apply on his own squad. Almost as if the guy trained to repeat the officers words suddenly stops for seemingly no reason.

There are some times when people argue things. Most of the things people argue are confusing. For example, when was the last time you debated the color of the sky during the day. Or if your hands were really yours.

Then there are times when someone reads way too far into something, and insists on stupid interpretations.

So is that an agree or disagree with the INATFAQ with regards for vox-casters.

Because i do think they looked too far in their imaginations for a ruling based on "psudo-realism" over RAW

Che-Vito wrote:Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"?

No... because they're in the Troops section, and labelled as Troops in the margin.

The Devilfish is in the section, but is labelled as a Transport in two different places, rather than as Troops.

That suggests that it is a Transport, rather than a Troops unit.

and again, [b][u]nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc

Taking non-dedicated rhinos doesn't present these sorts of issues either. That's not the issue. The issue is that GW, throughout all of the codexes, have certain Transport vehicles that are only available to specific units rather than being selectable by themselves.

While I'm perfectly happy to agree that the Tau Empire codex isn't as clear on that as it perhaps should be, I don't think what you're suggesting is what was intended... because the Devilfish entry doesn't match any other entry in the Troops section, because it's specifically listed as a Transport in a section that lists other entries as Troops, and because of the way similar Transports work for everyone else.

But I doubt you'll be any more convinced that there is a valid opposing viewpoint by my repeating myself, so I'll agree to disagree and move on at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:There are some times when people argue things. Most of the things people argue are confusing. For example, when was the last time you debated the color of the sky during the day. Or if your hands were really yours.

Then there are times when someone reads way too far into something, and insists on stupid interpretations.

Sometimes things that one person sees as stupid or 'reading to much into something' someone else sees as a perfectly logical interpretation of a given text.

The whole point of this forum is to discuss the rules. If that's not something you're interested in doing, please refrain from derailing the thread for everyone else.

I'd just stop the Devilfish argument. Che-Vito does not believe what is written down in his codex, and no matter how many times anyone tells him he's wrong he will not listen. Just leave him be.

Red_Lives wrote:On the Thunderfire issue.

Is a techmarine gunner the same thing as a techmarine?

I.E. Does he revert to an IC when the cannon is destroyed?

If he does then i believe it should be treated the same as an IC with a retinue (the retinue being the cannon)

If however he doesn't receive the IC status then it shouldn't be 2 KP.

( and in case you couldn't tell i do believe that a techmarine is not a techmarine gunner)

The cannon is not a retinue, as the cannon is not a unit itself. If the Techmarine is killed before the gun, the gun cannot exist on its own. The Thunderfire cannon is a two-model unit that has a special rule giving one of the models the IC rule if the other dies. It's similar to the retinue rules, but it's distinctly not a retinue.

Pg. 80 wrote:TAU.30E.01 – Q: In Annihilation missions, do vehicle
TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

Che-Vito wrote:

In Troops section (RAW) > interpretations.

Would you argue that Fire Warriors aren't troops because it doesn't say "Troops: +1 Fire Warriors"? No. The overall section covers the fact that Fire Warriors are Troops. The Devilfish is listed as a Vehicle that counts as a Troops selection (non-dedicated Transport) or off the FOC (Dedicated Transport).

The distinction is made because some vehicles cannot be chosen as Transports at all, so all of them are given a "type", whether it be Fast Attack Piranhas or Troops Devilfish. Although you my not like it, RAW it can be taken...and again, nobody has yet presented any problem that taking a non-dedicated Devilfish would present to smoothness of the game, unbalancing, etc....I thought that the whole intention of the INAT FAQ was to help clear up such issues.

If this ruling is contrary to the intention of the INAT FAQ, then we come back to my original thought, that the ruling is arbitrary.

But it DOES say Troops next to the Firewarriors, right in the margin of the codex. The same thing for Kroot. But in the same exact place for the Devilfish, it says 'Transport'. So unlike the other two, which are clearly noted as being 'Troops' the Devilfish is noted as being 'Transport'.

I don't think you quite understand what a big can of worms it would be opening to rule the way you suggest. Almost every codex has units in a certain section of the army list that are in grey boxes.

For the most part, these units all have a little statement that says "You may include one 'Unit X' for every 'Unit Y' you take in your army". However, nowhere in those little box-outs does it say those units are not standard choices for that part of the army list. For example, take a Space Marine command squad. Sure the rules say I can take one for every Captain I take in my army, but nowhere do they say they are not an HQ choice on their own.

Yeah, they're in a little grey box-out, but what exactly does that mean? Sure the rulebook has rules for 'other exceptions' on page 87 of the rulebook, but nothing in the SM codex clearly says that these units are one of those 'exceptions'.

And the same is true of nearly EVERY codex. Once you make this ruling you have to allow every army to be able to take these kinds of units that are supposed to be 'supernumerary' as a basic choice from whatever section of the codex their entry happens to be in.


Beyond that, you don't seem to understand why this would be an issue in tournaments. When I talk about creating a smooth running tournament, I'm talking about creating the most games possible that have the fewest rules arguments because the FAQ follows the way most people play.

If we ruled that Tau could take Devilfish as a Troops choice on their own, and most other people don't agree that this is how it should be played (which I'm pretty positive is the case), do you know what happens?

Most of the games you start your opponent will look at your list and ask you where your Troops choices are. When you explain that your Devilfish are your Troops choices they will say, 'no, those are dedicated transports'. You'll say, but the INAT rules that way. And they'll want to look at the codex, and then they'll see the part where Kroot and Firewarriors are labeled as Troops and the Devilfish is labeled as a 'Transport' and they'll say: "see! It does say they're a dedicated transport!" And you'll say: "Ah, but it doesn't say DEDICATED transport and we have no idea what a 'transport' on its own means."

And they'll say: "That's crap man, let's call a judge over". The judge will come over and agree with you (since the INAT is following your suggestion) and now your opponent will start arguing with the judge about how stupid the ruling is because the codex clearly labels a Devilfish as a 'transport'.

And because MOST people play that a Devilfish can't be taken as its own choice, you are likely to run into versions of this scenario more often than not.


Contrast that with how it is ruled now:

Believe me when I say that anyone who would be smart enough to come up with the idea that a Devilfish could possibly be taken as its own Troops choice is the kind of person who is also on top of every FAQ. So you, as this kind of Tau player has read the INAT FAQ ahead of time and although you hate the ruling if you do decide to attend a tournament using the INAT, you know ahead of time that you can't bring an army with a Devilfish as a standalone Troops choice, so you don't.

And no arguments on this issue occur in any of your games.


And even if you do happen to be a Tau player who hasn't read the FAQ, the bad situation is only going to occur ONCE in the tournament, where someone points out your army is illegal. You call over a judge and they inform you that the INAT disagrees with you and you're going to have to change your army list.

Once that situation is out of the way, you are now guaranteed not to have this same argument again in the rest of your games. While you personally might be a bit angry about the ruling, the tournament overall now has less arguments in it, and therefore runs smoother.


While I'm sure you don't agree with this reasoning, this is the idea behind the INAT.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'o Nom Nom wrote:

Pg. 80 wrote:TAU.30E.01 – Q: In Annihilation missions, do vehicle
TAU.30I.01 – Q: When a vehicle with Landing Gear
‘lands’ can (or must) a player remove the model’s
flight base?
A: If the vehicle’s flight base isn’t glued in place a player
must remove the model’s base when it lands. If the flight
base is glued in place then the Skimmer may not use its
Landing Gear [rules change].
Ref: RB.03B.03

M'kay that's just dumb. Since when do the models actually have to act out what they're doing in the game. I think if terminators can't materialize on the field they can't deep strike. And if your plasma pistol is glued to your sergeant's belt he can't use it until you pry it off and move it to his hand. WTF.

Since 5th edition? Have you noticed that skimmers that are glued to their base 'float' in mid-air when they become wrecks by the rules?

Do you know that if a model is on its base or not affects how it draws line of sight to the enemy and how the enemy draws line of sight to it?

These are very different circumstances then the two examples you included. In 5th edition, the size, shape and position of your models on the table matters because of the rules and that means if someone has been silly enough to glue their skimmer bases to their model, then it is going to make it impossible to get the true line of sight you need.

Just wanted to point out that in the eldar codex, wave serpents are listed in a greyed out box in the elite section .... so then che is saying that they can be taken as an elite choice?

Its an absurd idea, because yes these ARE dedicated transports. We are told in the unit heading, TRANSPORTS. These arent vehicles that have a transport capacity and can be chosen as a separate entry, they are dedicated transports. We know they are dedicated transports from that little word in the heading................

Just because the word "dedicated" doesnt appear doesnt make them anything else, the word transport alone gives us the RAW in these cases.


Sliggoth

Y'know, this is not a new debate, and I haven't seen anything new presented by the pro-Devilfish as troops argument.

In fact, this argument first came up during 4th edition when some Tau players wanted to contend that Devilfish were not dedicated transports and could be used to transport any infantry unit.

Now that 5th is around, and any transport can carry any infantry unit, the only change to the argument is that they're now a Troops selection for the FOC.

(Seven page debate from 2006)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/82596.page

(More discussion from 2006)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/84845.page#84946

(Even more debate from January 2008)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/206844.page#229890

Aside from the obious rolla arguments, the only ork ruling that stood out to me was

ORK.62C.01 – Q: Can an Independent Character (such
as a Warboss on a bike) join Snikrot’s unit before the
game and arrive with them via ‘Ambush’?
A: No, as Snikrot’s ability is a special rule that does not
specify it affects other ICs joined to his unit, it does not.

I just walked through the raw on that last week or so and it seemed as though it worked to me.
When held in reserves together the IC is part of his unit, unless I'm missing something, and Ambush reads 'When Snikrot and his unit become available from reserve, they may move on from any table edge.'

Not that the ruling is unfounded, it's just the only one I could poke at.

yakface wrote:

Beyond that, you don't seem to understand why this would be an issue in tournaments. When I talk about creating a smooth running tournament, I'm talking about creating the most games possible that have the fewest rules arguments because the FAQ follows the way most people play.

If we ruled that Tau could take Devilfish as a Troops choice on their own, and most other people don't agree that this is how it should be played (which I'm pretty positive is the case), do you know what happens?

Most of the games you start your opponent will look at your list and ask you where your Troops choices are. When you explain that your Devilfish are your Troops choices they will say, 'no, those are dedicated transports'. You'll say, but the INAT rules that way. And they'll want to look at the codex, and then they'll see the part where Kroot and Firewarriors are labeled as Troops and the Devilfish is labeled as a 'Transport' and they'll say: "see! It does say they're a dedicated transport!" And you'll say: "Ah, but it doesn't say DEDICATED transport and we have no idea what a 'transport' on its own means."

And they'll say: "That's crap man, let's call a judge over". The judge will come over and agree with you (since the INAT is following your suggestion) and now your opponent will start arguing with the judge about how stupid the ruling is because the codex clearly labels a Devilfish as a 'transport'.

And because MOST people play that a Devilfish can't be taken as its own choice, you are likely to run into versions of this scenario more often than not.


Contrast that with how it is ruled now:

Believe me when I say that anyone who would be smart enough to come up with the idea that a Devilfish could possibly be taken as its own Troops choice is the kind of person who is also on top of every FAQ. So you, as this kind of Tau player has read the INAT FAQ ahead of time and although you hate the ruling if you do decide to attend a tournament using the INAT, you know ahead of time that you can't bring an army with a Devilfish as a standalone Troops choice, so you don't.

And no arguments on this issue occur in any of your games.


And even if you do happen to be a Tau player who hasn't read the FAQ, the bad situation is only going to occur ONCE in the tournament, where someone points out your army is illegal. You call over a judge and they inform you that the INAT disagrees with you and you're going to have to change your army list.

Once that situation is out of the way, you are now guaranteed not to have this same argument again in the rest of your games. While you personally might be a bit angry about the ruling, the tournament overall now has less arguments in it, and therefore runs smoother.


While I'm sure you don't agree with this reasoning, this is the idea behind the INAT.

You keep using logic that fails! If the INAT had ruled using the way I have suggested from the start (RAW), then the EXACT same scenario you have presented would occur. Universal acceptance, with a few who disagree and move on with life.

Arguing "this is the way we've had it for awhile" doesn't put it above being changed by any means.

I'd like to bring up an intriguing non-Devilfish, non-Cronius ruling I found in the INAT FAQ.

It goes like this

RB.41C.01 - Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing closed combat that is charged by another unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?
A: No. The "beggining of combat" is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

That seems to be incorrect (or at least, not RAW, more like a rule change).

Page 41 says this under Multiple Combats, under Attacking:

In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply.
- Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
- Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any models attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. (Declare blah).

It seems that the FAQ people missed the past tense of the first bullet point. Models that -were- engaged with just one unit must attack that unit.
So the answer to that question should be Yes.

Sliggoth wrote:
Just because the word "dedicated" doesnt appear doesnt make them anything else, the word transport alone gives us the RAW in these cases.

Clearly it doesn't, as it doesnt define Dedicated or Non-Dedicated.