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.

If the tau codex stated that drones only count when figuring victory points, that would be one thing, but they left out the critical word only. As a permissive rule set, you are not permitted to extend the wording of the rule to imply that scenario as the only one in which they do count.

Edit: grammar error and clarity.

You see, it doesn't JUST say for victory points. It says drones are counted for determining victory points, determining 25% casualties for morale checks, and when checking if a unit has enough models to claim an objective.

The rules were meant for 4th edition, but even so, why list those 3 scenarios in the gun drone section if gun drones ALWAYS follow normal model rules?

It makes no sense. If drones always count, then why not say it, or list ALL of the times where you count them.

Listing specific scenarios for when you should count drones, but leaving others out is either sloppy writing, or it was never meant to count for the things not listed.

It's not like it says " here are some examples of when to count drones" or "always count drones when determining unit size" it specifically states to count them for victory points, 25% casualties, and claiming objectives.

I don't disagree with the probable intent or the fact that there is an issue that needs to be clarified. Still, you cannot extend the rule to cover more than it does.

No, I am not dense. PLease edit and retract

Permissive rule set: you count models for rallying

Please, find a rule that DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY contradicts that. If you CANNOT find it, and you CANNOT because it doesnt exist - then guess what? Drones count for rallying purposes.

You cant find a rule that says otherwise. Thats what "specific" means, and what it will always mean

Rules wise there is NO grey area. None. RAI? Could care less.

nosferatu1001 wrote:RAI? Could not care less.

Fixed!
Sorry, I could not resist.

BarBoBot wrote:why list those 3 scenarios in the gun drone section if gun drones ALWAYS follow normal model rules?

BarBoBot wrote:The rules were meant for 4th edition

(Un)Fortunately, sans FAQ, they are written for 5e as well, which introduced new ways for those rules to apply--and without new exceptions they do apply.

Again, your logic has failed. By what you say, if GW wants you to refer to the rules on when you count models, then why mention anything at all about situations where you should count drones?

With your logic, they are ALWAYS counted and therefore require no special explanation....but oh wait....they DID list a special explanation for when you should count drones...3 specific examples with no mention of counting them in any othe circumstances.

I could very well be wrong, but to sit there and say that the drone entry is cut and dry with no grey area is downright ridiculous.

The simple fact that they felt a need to describe circumstances for which drones should be counted by default impies there are times when they are not counted.

Which times should they be used? The 3 times the codex tells you to count them. When not to count them? Anything NOT listed under the explanation of when you should count them.

You can argue it till your blue in the face, but I'm not alone. Half of all the people in the dozen or so threads about this exact circumstance feel exactly like I do.

That alone is proof that it needs to be clarified.

In fact, looking through the threads again, the majority of people feel that there should have been a FAQ Years ago. Your in the minority of people who think that there is no rules confusion.

This:

BarBoBot wrote:the majority of people feel that there should have been a FAQ Years ago.

is unrelated to this:

BarBoBat wrote:Your in the minority of people who think that there is no rules confusion.

Most people think GW should do more FAQs more often.

The fact is that the rules can be used and interpreted without them, but with edition changes some assumed "intentions" are lost.

It is as obvious to assume they meant the change as it is to assume they meant to change it back and never did.

Editing in a lost word.

BarBoBot wrote:Again, your logic has failed. By what you say, if GW wants you to refer to the rules on when you count models, then why mention anything at all about situations where you should count drones?

No, my logic hasnt failed. You have yet to even address that GW repeatedly furnish us with redundant rules

As an example - Bikes refer you to the ID rules, even though the ID rules already cover modified toughness. As a second example Drop Pods - they remind you the unit disembarking cannot assault, despite the DS rules already covering units disembarking from a DS'ing vehicle.

And so on.

BarBoBot wrote:With your logic, they are ALWAYS counted and therefore require no special explanation....but oh wait....they DID list a special explanation for when you should count drones...3 specific examples with no mention of counting them in any othe circumstances.

And, again, you have a critical misunderstanding of how the rules for a game such as 40k are constructed.

The game is permissive, and relies on more specific rules overriding more general rules. You have not found a more specific rule, so the more general rule still applies.

It IS that simple, and no matter how often you cry "but they talked about X situation! Proof by omission!!!!" and other logical fallacies that basic fact will not alter.

BarBoBot wrote:I could very well be wrong, but to sit there and say that the drone entry is cut and dry with no grey area is downright ridiculous.

No, it really isnt. I have backed up my position with real rules, which are supported by the basic rules and structure of the game - all of which show a REALLY simple situation, with only one actual rules interpretation. This is all within the rules of the forum, which you consistently ignore.

BarBoBot wrote:The simple fact that they felt a need to describe circumstances for which drones should be counted by default impies there are times when they are not counted.

Proof by omission, fallacy. Stop clinging to it.

BarBoBot wrote:Which times should they be used? The 3 times the codex tells you to count them. When not to count them? Anything NOT listed under the explanation of when you should count them.

Fine -then find a rule stating that. Not a missing rule, not a rule you claim is "implied" or anything - just please, for once, find an actual rule.

You are still attempting to argue RAI, and that is frankly pointless.

BarBoBot wrote:You can argue it till your blue in the face, but I'm not alone. Half of all the people in the dozen or so threads about this exact circumstance feel exactly like I do.

That alone is proof that it needs to be clarified.

No, that is proof that people dont like the way the rules work. See many, many threads with some consistency - people will argue till theyre blue in the face that the sky is green because they prefer the colour, it doesnt prove anything except the lengths people will go to to claim an untruth.

And its another logical fallacy you committed.

BarBoBot wrote:In fact, looking through the threads again, the majority of people feel that there should have been a FAQ Years ago. Your in the minority of people who think that there is no rules confusion.

The facepalm is for you, right?

People want a FAQ to answer easy questions all the time. Doesnt prove the rule isnt clear, just that people dont like the way some rules work, and want GW to confirm that they meant it that way.

In fact if we took your logical fallacy and applied it to other situations, you would find that turn == player turn, one of the most SIMPLE rules in the entire book, is also "unclear" - it comes up that often.

This rules issue is far, far simpler than deff rolla or similar. You're stuck arguing from a "I think it should work this way" position, and nothing I can do will convince you otherwise, because you'd made your mind up before you started the thread.

It is entirely pointless continuing, as your mind is closed.

Go ahead and continue to argue.

I made this thread because I was confused and when I looked it up there was different explanations for the rule.

I have to hand it to you, of all the posts I read on the subject, NO ONE was as arrogant as you.

Nearly everyone realises that this is a contested issue that deserves clarification. It doesn't matter to me which way the rules go, only that I know the rule when I field my army.

I enjoy this game, and I look forward to a FAQ or a new dex that clears this up once and for all.

I'm content knowing that the vast majority would like to see a clarified ruling.

thank you for being so classy about this MINOR rule from a gentlemens game

Seriously... We are talking about something that can be remedied with 5 points...all I wanted is to know the RIGHT way to play it.

People like you who accuse others of bending/breaking the rules just because your opinion is different are bad for the game.

You turned a civil conversation about a minor rule into a argument.

I feel very fortunate to have a playgroup full of gentlemen, now more than ever.

What do you mean by right?

Right as in rules? You have it

Right as in "RAI"? You're going to be searching for a long, long time, as noone ever agrees on RAI

As for behaviour - only one person consistently used insults. It wasnt me.

Context is everything, and frankly you acted arrogant from the beginning. I called you on it.

I dont care if we don't agree, but if you want to sit there and act as though a highly disputed rule is clearly written and then accuse me of trying to force the answer I want, I'm going to call you on that too. Before you changed the tone of the discussion, it was quite civil.

BarBoBot wrote:I dont care if we don't agree, but if you want to sit there and act as though a highly disputed rule is clearly written and then accuse me of trying to force the answer I want, I'm going to call you on that too. Before you changed the tone of the discussion, it was quite civil.

To be honest, I saw the same thing from you that nos did. I just didn't feel like jumping in.

To place my understanding of the rules in the mix I would like to say this. As haendas said the rules are premissive, yet I disagree with how haendas views this issue. The rules for drones give 3 specific points in which they are to be counted. 25% causalities for morale, objective, and 50% of unit for victory points. Now the FAQ for Tau says that we ignore the mention of objectives but not the mention for morale or victory points. The issue I have with people saying that they count towards regroup is this, the rules being what they are do not say that they count as 50% for regrouping but do say they count as 25% for morale, while they say 50% for victory points to extend that to include regrouping would to be to extend the wording of the rule to imply that scenario as one in which they do count.

I allowed him to get on my nerves, and after that I threw civility out the window, but just scanning over his recent posts, it seems this is common place for him.

In fact it seems like he makes a point of being difficult and argumentative.

Just take a look at his posts from today. All of them are arguements with different people. He should try being civil. He might just like it.

Saiisil that's the exact point I was making.

Oopsie on the retinue citation, earlier. My bad. It's not like it, by logic if not validity, it supports my point.

Anyway ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:What is your starting unit size? 1 - 3
If you start at unit size 3, and lose two models, are you below 50%? Yes. Does that mean you can rally? No

You are correct. The surviving model can't rally ... Unless, you're an IC.

So, is a Shas'el *still* an IC after his drones are gone? Yes, I say, by looking at his unit entry, it says, "Independent Character".

And, Nos, the tau codex says, a Yakface correctly cited, that a Shas'el with drones still functions as an IC. Still able to join other units and all that good stuff.

It does not say anything about him losing his IC status at all when those drones are gone. You won't be able to find a citation for your "33%" position.

How does it makes sense, that according to the C:Tau that he's an IC with drones, that he loses his IC status without those drones?

-----------------------------
Oh, and your insisting on this not being a GREY AREA is very silly of you. When YMDC threads end in 3 posts, those are the black and white areas, questions with some clearly defined rules to answer them. Any Q that goes to an additional page clearly has some contention or lack of clarity. Just because you see it as B&W doesn't mean the rest who don't see it your way are idiots. Also, I'll cite former dakka poster Gwar! (this is not a fallacy in of itself, as he was right 99% of the time) and *he* said it was an unclear area, once I finally got him to stop being socratic about it.

Anytime something gets argued about a lot, it is something grey.

Also, you should stop bickering with BBB. It's beneath you.

So...
You know/think it's a grey area. You (obviously) are unwilling to change your mind, no matter what someone else says. You know/think that there will be no resolution with an FAQ.

Why did you start this thread? Just to troll YMDC? It's not like any new rules came out.

rigeld2 wrote:So...
You know/think it's a grey area. You (obviously) are unwilling to change your mind, no matter what someone else says. You know/think that there will be no resolution with an FAQ.

Why did you start this thread? Just to troll YMDC? It's not like any new rules came out.

I think BBB started it for the same reasons I did months ago. No one has a clear answer, at least, the counters Nos and others have offered aren't definitive/valid enough.

It isn't trolling.

Although I'd like to hear from Nos (it's night-night time in GMT) it might just be time for MOD-lockage.

Of course I had an opinion on how it should be played, but...

I wanted to confirm the RIGHT way to play it.

This isn't a game-breaking rule. As others have said, 5 points make it irrelevant.

I did some searches came up with mixed answers And figured I would ask here to see if there was a consensus. -one way or the other-

I didn't realize that it would be heated, and I didn't intend to lose my cool, but after checking out some of nos's previous posts I now see that it's common for him to get in arguments like this. I won't allow it to pull me in again.

BarBoBot wrote:Of course I had an opinion on how it should be played, but...

I wanted to confirm the RIGHT way to play it.

I understand and commend that.
But you've also said that you've ready many forum threads about it, and many people always come to the same conclusion - that they need an FAQ to clarify it. Did you expect someone here to magically know about a sentence of the rules that you've never seen before? It just doesn't seem like you came in with an open mind, and are convinced that the way you play it is the RIGHT way.

Note that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to understand your intent. I was reading this from you before nos even joined the thread, just FYI.
What it seems like it comes down to is that you're reading the drone rules as exclusive, and nos (and me fwiw) read them as redundant. Which is what you found in your searches before you even bothered posting here.

Not like I thought I would find a magic answer, but I figured there would be a tournament ruling or maybe just a consensus.

My first 3-4 posts I openly admitted what I thought it should be but also said I wasn't sure if that's how it was supposed to be.

I had hoped that when I discussed it with my playgroup we could look to this thread for an explanation on what the ruling is.

BR - I never said that they stop being an IC, at any point, however "being an IC" does not in itself make you able to rally under any circumstance - there are no such rules anywhere within the IC rules that let you ignore your "starting unit size" for rallying checks.

So, the starting unit size for an IC with 2 drones is 3. If you lose 2, you cannot rally as you are below 50% of your starting unit size.

The rules ARE clear on this - people just arent used to ICs not being automatically a unit of one.

BBB - reported, apparently arguing the rules isnt sufficient, you have to insult posters instead.

Unless the writer says to only count the drones when ... or never count the drones unless... or some similar all encompassing statement, you cannot extend the codex specific rule to cover things it does not mention which would override rulebook general rules and say that it is correct by RAW. Fact of the matter is that the wording of the codex is not all encompassing, so by pure RAW you can only apply that statement to the specific situations that are mentioned, and nothing else. That is the RAW.

Why did the writers mention situations for when to count the drones, failing to mention that you shouldn't count the drones in other situations that would override the rulebook? Partly since it is an old codex for sure. But that argument doesn't change the fact that, as I said before, the codex rule as written is not all encompassing, therefore you cannot extend the rule to cover other situations if they will override the general rulebook rules.

As far as intent, I really have no clue in this case. As far as how I wish it was written, I'd be on BarBoBot's side, but unfortunately it isn't written that way... yet.

thanks for the counter-points guys.

Obviously if it were b/w and not a grey area, there wouldnt be such differing opinions.

I guess its unlikely that it will be confirmed here or with a FAQ, so I'll just talk with my playgroup about it.

It really does make me wonder how the big tournaments would rule on this (assuming they have rules judges)

Maybe an email to GW could get me the answers to this.

BarBoBot wrote:I'll just talk with my playgroup about it.

BarBoBot wrote:Maybe an email to GW could get me the answers to this.

They don't take rules questions by email anymore, only over the phone. And also, for what it is worth, don't expect people around here to be swayed by input from a GW customer service representative, or store sales rep either for that matter. But it can be good to get a little resolution for yourself. Good luck!

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - I never said that they stop being an IC, at any point, however "being an IC" does not in itself make you able to rally under any circumstance - there are no such rules anywhere within the IC rules that let you ignore your "starting unit size" for rallying checks.

Nos, I'm not talking about 'ignoring unit size' (but we'll get back to it), I'm talking about being an IC. Thus the farseer example I brought up earlier with Yakface.

Are you saying we were wrong with that example?
... which ... goes back to why I maintain, and did Gwar!, that this is a hole in the rules.

Some things we all agree on:
Tau codex says he's an IC with drones (the drone entry)
He is an IC without drones (the HQ entry)
You've correctly cited that, and we all agree that a unit only 33% in size can't rally.

Now for where things go wrong:
But he's an IC ...

nosferatu1001 wrote: people just arent used to ICs not being automatically a unit of one.

Huh? Again, could you please tell me how Yakface and I were wrong about the farseer example?

Prove that, and you've won the argument.

1. Are you saying that ICs can't rally once they're alone?

Example:
An archon joins some Kabalite Warriors and they get shot up. A lone Kabalite W and the archon Fall Back. The KW dies in the next turn and after *that* in the DE player's next turn the archon is alone. Can he rally?

If, yes, then there is support for my position (not that I've won the argument. I can't win, because I maintain that there's a paradox here).
If the archon cannot rally, then you're right.

If yes, then we've established that ICs can rally once alone and thus the 'hole' or paradox in the rules for Shas suits starting with drones.
That paradox: The suit is at 33% of original unit strength and so can't rally, but he's also an IC, and can therefore rally.

As Gwar! stated, the game breaks.

I also acknowledge that a Bonding Knife makes the whole thing moot, but like BBB, I wanted to find a certainty.

He can rally because he's at 100% of his starting unit size. The Tau IC is at 33% of his starting unit size.

edit: Him being an IC has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It's just the current unit size versus the original unit size.

haendas, if I understand what you said in this post correctly you are saying that because they didn't use the term 'only' Drones count as unit models at all times?

haendas wrote:Unless the writer says to only count the drones when ... or never count the drones unless... or some similar all encompassing statement, you cannot extend the codex specific rule to cover things it does not mention which would override rulebook general rules and say that it is correct by RAW. Fact of the matter is that the wording of the codex is not all encompassing, so by pure RAW you can only apply that statement to the specific situations that are mentioned, and nothing else. That is the RAW.

Why did the writers mention situations for when to count the drones, failing to mention that you shouldn't count the drones in other situations that would override the rulebook? Partly since it is an old codex for sure. But that argument doesn't change the fact that, as I said before, the codex rule as written is not all encompassing, therefore you cannot extend the rule to cover other situations if they will override the general rulebook rules.

As far as intent, I really have no clue in this case. As far as how I wish it was written, I'd be on BarBoBot's side, but unfortunately it isn't written that way... yet.

Now I have a question for you and anyone else that would like to answer, if I said here is a wargear selection that counts as models in the unit for purposes of 25% moral tests and left it at that what do I mean?

Also something I would like to point out, what yourself and some others are saying is that their rules for this have completely changed because the editions changed. In 4th edition when this codex was written Drones counted to squad size for 3 issues, and mind you the 4th issue, the issue we are discussing existed in 4th edition wasn't an issue that Drones counted towards, but that's 4th and this is 5th and the FAQ for Tau has removed one of the 3 issues because objectives are handled differently. So we are now looking at a rule that says it counts for 2 issues (victory points can be found on page 300 of your 5th ed Rulebook hard cover) yet it seems people wish to add the 4th issue which is now the 3rd issue as 1 is removed.

I think you get the gist of what I'm saying, yes.

the statements in the codex do not state that the drones don't count towards determining if the unit is below 50% strength for regrouping purposes. In order to claim that, the codex needs to say that, or state that the drones only count in the situations listed in the codex. The codex doesn't say that though. Giving examples of when models count doesn't mean that they don't count in all other situations. If you claim that they don't count for regrouping counts, then you are applying your interpretation of RAI not RAW because nothing in the RAW says that drones don't count towards unit strength for regrouping purposes.

Regarding your hypothetical example, it sounds like that is just the same situation as drones we've been talking about; therefore, the general rule in the rulebook still applies. If the codex is going to trump the rulebook, it must say so explicitly, not via an argument of omission by interpreting RAI.

Obviously, it would be much more clear and helpful if the writers focused on examples that override the rulebook, but unfortunately they didn't.

The unit is still an IC with or without drones, it never changes to an IC, it always is. Somehow you have an IC at 33% strength. Perhaps something in the space wolf faq or codex states something similar? They have those wolves that act in a sense like drones that IC can purchase.

juraigamer wrote:The unit is still an IC with or without drones, it never changes to an IC, it always is. Somehow you have an IC at 33% strength. Perhaps something in the space wolf faq or codex states something similar? They have those wolves that act in a sense like drones that IC can purchase.

Per SW FAQ (and this is all I can find on the Wolf wargear):
Q. Pack of One states Lone Wolf may never be joined by other models, how can they purchase Fenrisian Wolves (hereafter referred to as 'Wolves') as wargear?
A. The Wolves count as wargear and are an exception to that rule.
Q. Can an IC who has taken Wolves as wargear join another unit as if he were on his own?
A. Yes, though each set of Wolves must still remain within 2" of their IC master.
Q. Do Wolves bought as wargear by an IC act as a retinue during an assault?
A. No. The IC may still be singled out even though his Wolves are still alive.