Never 2 Shield Drones

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.

**Harkainos**

There is no such thing as Plain English. We all know this.

The problem is that to decide what 'any' means we have to assume what it means (One, some, every, or all without specification)

The word itself is ambigous.

**RussWakelin**

Watch the language here people.

**Petrov101**

Sorry for such a late post to this issue. I'm starting a Tau army myself and noticed the wording was ambiguous.

On GW's website, they list a sample Tau force. Note the entry for Tau Fire Warriors. Two Gun Drones.

Conclusive evidence... nope. Good enough for me tho.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/tau/gettingstarted/core_army.htm

**Moz**

As is my way with these wacky claims that prey on selective reading, I will happily take your interpretation that 2 Shield drones is illegal since by your reading they follow all the restrictions of wargear and ignore the drone controller entry entirely.

As such I will also take them as wargear - one of each, I will not represent them on my model - since I am not required to represent wargear, and they will not follow the rules laid out by the drone controller since I won't be taking that free piece of junk upgrade.

RAW for ya:
Codex pg 25. "No model can pick the same item twice, and all equipment, other than wargear (which is assumed to be integrated), must be represented on the model."
-Gun Drone, Marker Drone, and Shield drone are all under the BATTLESUIT WARGEAR heading, with cost listed. Coincidentally, since they are wargear, I don't need to bother representing them.

Codex pg 26. "A model with a drone controller must take one or two Gun, Marker or Shield Drones, in any combination, from the wargear list."
-Did it say I must have a drone controller in order to take drones? Ooh, no it didn't. One of each for me then.

Codex pg 31. "Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit they are with should take a Morale check... and counted when determining if it is below 50% for Victory point purposes."
-Sweet so if I don't take a drone controller, I am exempt from these rules.

Codex pg 31. "If the character with the drone controller is killed then all his drones are removed at the end of the Shooting or Assault phase in which he died."
-So... bear with me... if my character dies, his invisible drones can live on without him (since he didn't take a drone controller). And since the only model with a leadership value has died, we can have a nice long chat mid-game about how my invisible drones with a Ld stat of n/a will take morale and pinning checks. I really like your interpretation of the Drones as Wargear!

**dark_victory**

Mauleed is wrong about "any combination" allowing duplicates. Look up "permutation" and "combination" in the dictionary. Elements of a combination are unique (1, 5, 7, 8), while permutations allow duplication (1, 5, 5, 8). A 5 card stud poker hand is a combination (each card in the deck is different), but a pinocle hand is a permutation (there are 2 copies of each card).

So, while "any combination" is a more specific rule than no duplicates, the word "combination" still limits the drones from not being duplicates.

**Hans**

This arguement is as much of a neverending circle of uslessness as it is to debate having twin linked weapons on a crisis suit. After all, you can't take two of something.... and if you can't have two of a weapon, you can't twin link them, so you have no way of using all the twin-linked points costs in the codex.

Of course, to throw more confusion into the mix, here is my interpretation of the rule.....

The rule states that 'no MODEL can pick the same item twice'. However, the drones to me are a subset of items granted by the controller in a more specific ruling. A model can only take one controller, but the controller allows two drones in ANY combination, and gives three types to choose from.

If we stuck with the most restrictive wording, and that the 'no model can pick the same item twice' over-rides any other more specific rules, than we also have to prohibit ANY model in the codex from having two of the same item unless the description specificaly states that it overrides the rule such as seeker missles do. This means no twin-linked weapons on crisis suits, No twin shield drones for Shadowsun or twin drones on vehicle mounts. No twin burst cannons on vehicles. After all, even though these are purchased in pairs for a single point cost, they are still the same ITEM being picked twice.

-Hans

**Moz**

I stand by my original thesis that the Tau Empire codex was secretly designed to destroy playing by "RAW only" as a viable option.

**Hans**

Intended or not, it sure has had that result, hasn't it?

-Hans

**midnight**

Posted By Moz on 07/14/2006 1:42 PM
As is my way with these wacky claims that prey on selective reading, I will happily take your interpretation that 2 Shield drones is illegal since by your reading they follow all the restrictions of wargear and ignore the drone controller entry entirely.

As such I will also take them as wargear - one of each, I will not represent them on my model - since I am not required to represent wargear, and they will not follow the rules laid out by the drone controller since I won't be taking that free piece of junk upgrade.

RAW for ya:
Codex pg 25. "No model can pick the same item twice, and all equipment, other than wargear (which is assumed to be integrated), must be represented on the model."
-Gun Drone, Marker Drone, and Shield drone are all under the BATTLESUIT WARGEAR heading, with cost listed. Coincidentally, since they are wargear, I don't need to bother representing them.

Codex pg 26. "A model with a drone controller must take one or two Gun, Marker or Shield Drones, in any combination, from the wargear list."
-Did it say I must have a drone controller in order to take drones? Ooh, no it didn't. One of each for me then.

Codex pg 31. "Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit they are with should take a Morale check... and counted when determining if it is below 50% for Victory point purposes."
-Sweet so if I don't take a drone controller, I am exempt from these rules.

Codex pg 31. "If the character with the drone controller is killed then all his drones are removed at the end of the Shooting or Assault phase in which he died."
-So... bear with me... if my character dies, his invisible drones can live on without him (since he didn't take a drone controller). And since the only model with a leadership value has died, we can have a nice long chat mid-game about how my invisible drones with a Ld stat of n/a will take morale and pinning checks. I really like your interpretation of the Drones as Wargear!

Good job showing how utterly stupid their interpretation is. Folks, the drones were stupidly put in wargear when only the drone controllers should have been put in there. The drones were put in there to give a price to add to the drone controller. Folks, they had the ability to buy 2 shield drones before, if we go with RAW Moz pointed out what Tau players can do. You want to be unreasonable and allow the combination of a shield drone and a shield drone, be prepared to watch people not have a shield accompanying them so their independent characters will be able to walk around as before and with a free wound.

**Kilkrazy**

>>Mauleed is wrong about "any combination" allowing duplicates. Look up "permutation" and "combination" in the dictionary. Elements of a combination are unique (1, 5, 7, 8), while permutations allow duplication (1, 5, 5, 8). A 5 card stud poker hand is a combination (each card in the deck is different), but a pinocle hand is a permutation (there are 2 copies of each card).

Only if we use the mathematical definition of combination. If we use the alternative definition "the act of combining or state of being combined" and/or the definition "group having a common purpose" then we are once again free to select "one or two gun, marker or shield drones."

**cfoley**

I look at it like this:

If the Drone Controller said "must take one or two gun drones", you would be allowed two Gun Drones.

If it said "must take one or two gun, marker or shield drones" it would mean that you can have two gun drones or two marker drones but not one of each.

If it said "must take one or two gun, marker or shield drones, in any combination" it would mean that you can choose to have two gun drones or a gun and a marker drone.

I know that this doesn't provide conclusive proof or refute anyone else's arguments. It's just how I read it.

**fullheadofhair**

What makes me laugh is the RAW advocates in these arguments maintain there is no ambiguity when 3 pages later people are still arguing or the definition of "any" "all" "combination".

The fact is language is so very open to interpretation.

The other fact is it is rare for RAW advocates to accept inconsistances when their one interpretation of a rule directly leads to an plain absurdity elsewhere.

Of-course, following Ed's article - after three pages of that I would have at least expected a RAW advocate to say take the least advantage.

**Moz**

Except the path with the least advantage is ambiguous in this situation. Is it less advantageous to have 2 shield drones, or 3 drones (1 of each) that aren't represented on the model and don't follow the rules for the Drone Controller.

Should we not take drones period because either ambiguos path provides some advantage?

**the cabbage**

Posted By Harkainos on 04/03/2006 1:42 PM

Posted By Hoj on 04/03/2006 1:40 PM
You can look at it both ways, my understanding is they cannot take the same wargear twice, now they are also allowed a combination of any 2 of the 3 drones....
Here is the kicker, are drones items, wargear, or (as in the orks case) like squigs (that is an ork can only take one thing, but can also take a squig) and immune from this rule?

They are wargear in the wargear section of the Codes -Just like squigs- except there is no exception for drones mentioned - Unlike the squigs.

The Ork codex is almost 700 years old, relevant?

**blue loki**

The Ork codex is almost 700 years old, relevant?

As is the post you're replying to!

Sorry, I just had to...

**the cabbage**

Posted By blue loki on 07/18/2006 7:26 AM

The Ork codex is almost 700 years old, relevant?

As is the post you're replying to!

Sorry, I just had to...

Don't apologize mate, you just hit 1000 posts