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.

Ah yes I see, if he takes "The 8" he loses the bodyguard unlock.

Loopholes are loopholes, go nuts

It's only a loophole though if it isn't intentional. I'm not convinced it isn't.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It's only a loophole though if it isn't intentional. I'm not convinced it isn't.

Really? Really? Why exactly would they limit TE support systems to just bodygaurds? Why would commanders not be allowed to take them? It was most definitely not the intention. On the other hand, it is RAW so you can use it if you wish.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It's only a loophole though if it isn't intentional. I'm not convinced it isn't.

Really? Really? Why exactly would they limit TE support systems to just bodygaurds? Why would commanders not be allowed to take them? It was most definitely not the intention. On the other hand, it is RAW so you can use it if you wish.

Maybe the Commanders do not have access to them because they have access to the newer and "better" equipment while their Bodyguards and soldiers have to make due with equipment before the left the Tau Empire?

 thejughead wrote:


YMDC is about RAW...

This is certainly not true. Please read the Tenants before posting, specifically #4 in the sticky at the top of the forum.

 thejughead wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 LUTNIT wrote:


I also don't see how the deadknight in a stormraven is an exaggeration and gives me no legit argument. Until it was FAQ'ed it was indeed a loop hole that many tried to argue was intentional. The only difference is that it has been FAQ'ed while this has not (and I doubt it will be with GW's current rate of releasing FAQ's). If you can say you would bet your life that GW left this loop hole in on purpose you are far braver than I.

Never said that at all, only saying that because of how it is written it clearly shows that it can be interpreted that way. And please show me where one person has EVER tried to put a Dreadknight into a Storm Raven, sorry bro but that is a lot different then this.

It's no different. Both are cases of loopholes being exploited. It's pretty clear even OP (Aka, you) know that this wasn't intended - otherwise, the thread wouldn't be titled "Farsight Enclaves Loophole."

It was fairly clear from the word go that neither was intended.

And you have a direct line to Jervis? How do you know that the design team did not intend for an Enclave player to use a traditional bomb tactic in a supplement that bears his name. Label me WACC or that Guy. Using this is not OP. None of the Commander team can be taken. So you can only add in Farsight and another HQ. Far from busted. If you want busted try Ovesa Star, completely violates the rules in my opinion yet accepted.

YMDC is about RAW...Tournaments are about RAW...Casual and Campaigns are about RAI.

Again, even the OP is, in a way, admitting this is a loophole, and therefore not intended. I say "Farily", because, oddly enough, I don't know. However, I can hazard a pretty good guess about which way it was meant to go.

I never said it was an OP tactic, by the way. Bit of projection going on there; I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth, cheers

And as Elric Greywolf said, YMDC is not simply about strict RAW. I'm fairly sure most of us let models without eyes shoot. RAW we shouldn't, but we realise that, sometimes, RAW is stupid, and GW doesn't have the best (read: any) proofreaders it would seem.

If it's really going to rustle your jimmies to argue, go ahead and use it. I ain't stopping you. But from one Farsight player to another, you probably will get labelled TFG. I couldn't care less as to whether you use it or not. But the people you play will probably have beef with that. Just sayin'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It's only a loophole though if it isn't intentional. I'm not convinced it isn't.

Really? Really? Why exactly would they limit TE support systems to just bodygaurds? Why would commanders not be allowed to take them? It was most definitely not the intention. On the other hand, it is RAW so you can use it if you wish.

You need to settle down a bit there mate.
If the only reason you have for this rule being wrong is "I don't agree with it" then that really doesn't give much weight to the RAI argument.

Maybe this is why : "The Signature Systems used in the Farsight Enclaves are, if anything, even rarer than their equivalents in the Tau Empire at large."
The Farsight ones go to the commanders because they are more treasured.

There is nothing to support that "It was most definitely not the intention"

Co'tor Shas,
I think proof of intent can be shown in this simple question:
Why would the writers, intending the bodyguards to be exempt, use such a round-about and easily overlooked method to inform us instead of just outright stating it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seeing we are now trying to make arguments based around fluff, the 'maybe the farsight's are more valuable and the Tau Empire ones can be handed down' explanation, maybe it is important that we use fluff which support it.

The Tau Empire Signature Systems are just as rare as any other unique piece of war-gear found in any other faction, the only reason the bodyguards get access to them at all is because the commanders are pulling some strings and justifying the expense as protecting a more valuable unit that can't be lost on the battlefield: Themselves. The commander is going to have no chance to convince his superiors to release such Systems to anything below a Shas'vre, they are just way to valuable and rare to be handed to anyone whom hasn't proven themselves a hero of the greater good. This is most evident by the three man bodyguard that consists of nothing but Iridium Suits, an achievement of political maneuvering on their commanders behalf, being honorably mentioned in the codex itself. It is highlighted as so unusual because four of these suits where given to a single unit, when it is rare to see even one on the battlefield!

The only people whom would be carrying these pieces of equipment are high ranking defectors from the Tau Empire, which makes them just as rare as any trinket Farsight found on that planet.

JinxDragon wrote:
Co'tor Shas,
I think proof of intent can be shown in this simple question:
Why would the writers, intending the bodyguards to be exempt, use such a round-about and easily overlooked method to inform us instead of just outright stating it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seeing we are now trying to make arguments based around fluff, the 'maybe the farsight's are more valuable and the Tau Empire ones can be handed down' explanation, maybe it is important that we use fluff which support it.

The Tau Empire Signature Systems are just as rare as any other unique piece of war-gear found in any other faction, the only reason the bodyguards get access to them at all is because the commanders are pulling some strings and justifying the expense as protecting a more valuable unit that can't be lost on the battlefield: Themselves. The commander is going to have no chance to convince his superiors to release such Systems to anything below a Shas'vre, they are just way to valuable and rare to be handed to anyone whom hasn't proven themselves a hero of the greater good. This is most evident by the three man bodyguard that consists of nothing but Iridium Suits, an achievement of political maneuvering on their commanders behalf, being honorably mentioned in the codex itself. It is highlighted as so unusual because four of these suits where given to a single unit, when it is rare to see even one on the battlefield!

The only people whom would be carrying these pieces of equipment are high ranking defectors from the Tau Empire, which makes them just as rare as any trinket Farsight found on that planet.

So why not commanders who are more likely to have then? And they could just take them of the body gaurds for the greater good after all. I just don't think the was the intention, I could be wrong though, GW writers have done thing that make less sense. Raw, it's fine (although a little cruel to your opponents). And the post was late at night .

Co'tor Shas,
I was in agreement with you: It is ridiculous to think that Signature Systems in the Farsight Enclave are common enough to be 'hand me downs' that commanders pass up, given how rare they are in the Tau Empire to begin with!

Honestly though, I'm more interested in seeing what people answer to that question then arguments based around 'which fluff is more appropriate to the situation.' Personally, I for one can not fathom the writers creating an exception to such a wide spread restriction, and then actively hiding it so that it could only be discovered by fluke. That sort of information is something the writers should be putting front and foremost, if not bold to highlight how important it would be to the rule being discussed. It is far more fathomable that the word 'character' was used in error, caused by a misconception that all Shas'vre or above where characters, given how hidden this exception was until Gmaleron discovered it.

Oh wait you were . Sorry, I'm a bit of an idiot at times .

 liquidjoshi wrote:

Again, even the OP is, in a way, admitting this is a loophole, and therefore not intended. I say "Farily", because, oddly enough, I don't know. However, I can hazard a pretty good guess about which way it was meant to go.

Actually I am looking at it as not a Loophole but was asking if it was intended or not based on RAW, hence that why the thread title was formatted into that of a questions because I didn't know (I don't play Tau just yet). When I first read the questions it clearly looked like to me that the rule was intended for Tau Farsight Enclave characters ONLY, and because I want to use this I don't see how that makes me "that guy". I do play in a competitive store yes and constantly play competitive games, but I don't whip out lists like this on people who clearly have a friendlier list and I am not a WAAC player, I play primarily from a fluff standpoint. And I am confused by everyones comments of this being "just discovered" when in fact on other forums (in particular "advancedtautactica.com" ) that this has been common knowledge for quite sometime and apparently this is allowed in ETC's and other large tournaments, which may not be justification for using it but if the allow it then they clearly are going off RAW.

For those arguing fluff there is SO MUCH that can be argued based on fluff and story that the game does not do, I clearly just read a book where a Space Marine Rhino calmly shrugs off a few missiles without breaking a sweat, they are stronger in the books then in the game. If you really want to argue fluff then it can easily be said that since the Farsight Enclave is newer then the Tau, the equipment unique to the Farsight Enclave is newer meaning the Commander gets the first pick of it, while their seconds (bodyguards) have access to the best the old equipment has to offer. But as I said already, arguing from fluff will not and does not work.

The RAW is obvious, the RAI is not.

No one can say with any certainty if this is an omission or not but I for one don't know of any other case where an error quite as big as this one has been made by the GW writers, if it is indeed an error.

Models without eyes can't shoot?
Tanks can climb ladders was a nice one of mine, but stronghold fixed that.
Smart missile systems can't allocate wounds to models out of line of sight....

The list goes on, they make big errors all the time but we ignore them because they are obviously stupid errors.

All of those have very simple logical solutions and are really down to the writers over estimating of the level of common sense that's out there or the silly degrees people will take things to for the sake of argument.

In this case though I can't see how you can have any certainty of the intention.

Have any certainty?
Nothing in my mind is ever certain, I don't even trust it for simple thoughts with how often it fails me on simple details. That also goes for rules badly written, so if someone claims this could be intended I am not going to throw their opinion out the window. It is going to get the deeper thoughts it needs, research if even required, and if they are lucky I might even do so sober. That is why I say this one deserves closer consideration, it is an interesting use of game terminology that is not clear on intent and makes little sense from Rule and Cinematographic point of views.

I simply ask:
Is it really feasible that an exception, the only exception to an army wide rule, would be hidden away if that was the writers intention?

Until we have an answer that is satisfactory I shall not be exploiting this loophole and will consider less in opponents that do.

Yep I agree, so it is difficult to assess something as badly written when you can't be certain of it in the first place.

The Farsight supplement makes changes to the base Codex units. Any units not changed by the supplement are run in their standard form. It follows the the standard bodyguards would have access to the standard sig systems.

OR

The special systems available to a normal Tau force aren't available to anyone in a Farsight force

Who can say which is the thinking?

The problem with that first one:
The supplement doesn't make any changes to the base Codex units, commanders and crisis team leaders are selected from the main codex just like the bodyguard team.

Doesn't it change the Signature systems the base Codex characters can take ?

I am sorry for misreading what you posted as I thought you where talking about changes to the units rules that do not involve the loophole being debate at that point in time. That is actually a problem I have with your first interpretation on rereading: It doesn't use any external factors, making it feel like a 'self filling prophesy.' In order to figure out what the writers of this universe might of been intending for these rules we will need some sort of external factors until the writers put forth the Frequently Asked Questions.

I would state it is more fair to put that question forth like so, and wonder if JimSolo will do us the honors of posting a poll to figure that out:
The writer used the word Character knowing the bodyguards where not (characters)
or
The writer used the word Characters overlooking that the bodyguards where not (characters)

Also:
Given that this is a rule book, if the writers intentions are not clear then the rule is badly written by default.

JinxDragon wrote:

I would state it is more fair to put that question forth like so, and wonder if JimSolo will do us the honors of posting a poll to figure that out:
The writer used the word Character knowing the bodyguards where not (characters)
or
The writer used the word Characters overlooking that the bodyguards where not (characters)

Also:
Given that this is a rule book, if the writers intentions are not clear then the rule is badly written by default.

There is no basis for a concrete answer to either question that is anything other than speculation.

This rule is unclear only if you believe that it was intended to say something else. You may as well look at "An Infantry unit moves 6" " and say that it is unclear because you think an infantry unit should be able to move 7".

The only way you can ever call this rule badly written is if it is later corrected by errata.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

The only way you can ever call this rule badly written is if it is later corrected by errata.

Why do people make blanket statements like this?

We're two pages into this, and there's people on both sides. A consensus hasn't exactly been drawn, which is the definition of a poorly written rule.

 SRSFACE wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

The only way you can ever call this rule badly written is if it is later corrected by errata.

Why do people make blanket statements like this?

We're two pages into this, and there's people on both sides. A consensus hasn't exactly been drawn, which is the definition of a poorly written rule.

The point of contention is not what the rule means, everyone is in agreement on that so ergo the rule is totally clear.

"I think it should say something different" does not mean the rule is badly written.

"When I wrote X I was wrong and I really meant to write Y" DOES mean the original rule was badly written.

At the moment all we have is the first one.

A rule that leaves ambiguity by creating a situation not present in any other context in an entire game is a poorly written rule. Forgeworld actually addresses issues like this whenever they write rules. Addressing the first question that arises when people read the rule is important.

In this case that question, "Wait, CHARACTERS or any unit at all?" And because it lacks clarification and opens itself up for debate, it is poorly written.

If you want to keep going on about something that doesn't matter, then fine, you win this debate and I'm going to go on believing it's a poorly written rule regardless. Cheers.

There are abundant rules that create situations that aren't present in any other context, that's what rules do.

"Only Characters can be Challenged" "What ? Characters or any unit at all?" This isn't any different and until such time as some one says it is wrong we don't know whether its badly written or not.

Heads up y'all I wrote GW about this the other day and they have yet to get back to me. However according to a few Tau guys over at Advanced Tau Tactica, this is common knowledge and they have been doing this for a little bit as it is how the Rule is Written.

 gmaleron wrote:
Heads up y'all I wrote GW about this the other day and they have yet to get back to me. However according to a few Tau guys over at Advanced Tau Tactica, this is common knowledge and they have been doing this for a little bit as it is how the Rule is Written.

It's been a while since I visited ATT, I came to dakka because my school started blocking it. I'll have to check this out when I get home.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 thejughead wrote:


YMDC is about RAW...

This is certainly not true. Please read the Tenants before posting, specifically #4 in the sticky at the top of the forum.

Whoopsie...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really want to understand why this would make someone a TFC? If I bring Ovesa star am I TFC? You cannot compare it to BRB ambiguities that affect how the game is played (SMS wound allocation, tanks running up the second level, etc.)

Someone can take an allied Buff Commander, but in my eyes the "Army" rules states you cant do it. I would not label them TFC, I shrug and go with it.

Even in tournaments where rules are clear but heavy opinion is not intended then it will be disallowed, at some point RAI feeling is so strong in so many what the rules say doesn't matter at all, Does a pyovore blow every unit on the table? No.

There are plenty of examples in many codex's where when weighing up the evidence you can tip the scales to not intended. No we can't read minds but we do accept the writers are human, and being so ourselves we can draw intelligent conclusions. While RAW should be given the benefit of the doubt the way this is written and other examples, based on what we know this seems too unlikely.

You can accept this is one of those rules and be ready to accept some players and tourneys will disallow it, hell, poll it to see how many people feel either way, or you can try and convince people here, though that doesn't seem to be working.