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 strain leader has a separate stat line.

Actually when you start to examine the semantics in detail it often falls apart. For example, the Pathfinder entry says that the Tau for Pathfinder is Shas'la. Actually that just means trooper -- FCW are Shas'las as well. If you upgrade the team leader to a Shas'ui he is no longer a Pathfiner.

I dont see the real issue. You people seem to be looking for reasons why they can not. since the new tau codex is an update, and not a rewrite..I would say, sure they had it before, and they still have it. That is clearly what the game designers wanted. They did not expect such confusion.

From a rules stand point.

Entry: Pathfinder Team.
Team: 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish.
Special Rules: Pathfinder [teams] are scouts, see the universal special rules for details.

So, They all stick togeather.

-Legacy40k

Surely a new codex replaces the old codex and any FAQs relating to it? You can't assume any continuity.

GW have demonstrated they simply copy and paste material forward when they want to, so anything new or changed is genuinely a specific decision by the designers, I should have thought.

It's just as likely that GW decided the Pathfinders should come on by themselves, as come on with the 'Fish with Scout.

Overall it's obviously just another GW rules manglement, but we can't decide what they really wanted to do.

Want they wanted to do is irrelevant.

What they did is all that is relevant.

So breaking it down:
-There's no way to claim the Devilfish and pathfinders are a single unit, that's just not going to fly anywhere.

-It *may* be possible to interpret the term 'Pathfinders' under the special rules heading to refer to the Pathfinder team (which includes the Devilfish), this is however suspect and you should not attempt it without speaking with your opponent first.

-It *may* also be possible to interpret the term Stingwings under the special rules heading to refer to all members of the Vespid Stingwing Strain (which would then include the Strain Leader), again this should be discussed with your opponent.

-If you agree with your opponent that the Devilfish does not have scout, the devilfish will definitely start off the board. The remaining issue is wether the Pathfinder Shas'la may start on the board. You may either claim that Scout overrides the deployment rules regarding deploying with a dedicated transport, or you may claim that the dedicate transport rules override the scout USR.


Would anyone like to add anything?

Posted By mughi3 on 04/10/2006 10:24 PM

pathfinders and devifish are part of the same unit. they must go together as per the rules.

since pathfinders have the scout abilty and the fish must be  part of the unit,. the fish is part of the units allotment of equipment and thus has the scout abiltiy.

I would agree, basing this on the fact that Pathfinders are not models but a 'unit' of models that includes the fish as part of said unit and therefore the scout rule does not get 'added on' to the fish but is inherent to it.

Posted By blue loki on 04/12/2006 7:50 AM

Posted By mughi3 on 04/11/2006 7:49 PM

2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy  inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.

No. A transport can not "act independent of the unit it is a part of", as it is not a part of the unit that it is purchased with. It is a completely seperate unit which just so happens to be purchased along side a different unit by using the same FOC slot, and that is why it acts independently. Yes, a transport is associated with a specific unit, but (so far) it is never a part of the unit that it is associated with.

There is no rule on how vehicles should act when part of a non-vehicle unit. Since we lack any rule on how they should act, we must treat them just like any other part of the unit.

So, if you want to treat the D-Fish as part of the unit, you may grant it any benefits that the unit has, but you must also accept the bad with the good and accept all of the negative effects as well.

taking all the rules together i do not see the problem

 

read the entry

a pathfinder TEAM includes the fish as such it is part of the unit and therefore benefits from the scout ability given to the TEAM(just as in previous FAQs), but it is also a VEHICLE and as such benefits from the vehicle rules for a transports ability to operate independant of the squad.

there is no need to have more rules as to how a vehicle should act as part of a non vehicle unit since the rules already exhist in the vehicle/transport section.

my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ

i don't like the fact that 2 mystics can concievably kill my entire deathwing if it deepstrikes by allowing a single dev squad within 12" to shoot a half dozen times at different targets during the same round, but it is legal as written and i will still take the army on by adjusting my tactics accordingly.

mughi3 said:
taking all the rules together i do not see the problem

Then I suggest you follow your own advice and "read the entry". Contrary to what you claim the Scout ability is not given to the team; it is given to the Pathfinders only. A Devilfish is not a Pathfinder. It does not, therefore, get the Scout ability.

And again, a single FOC choice must be deployed at the same time (there is only one exception IIRC, namely IG LI units, but I believe that deploying pregame is 'the same time' even if divided into 'separate times'), and therefore in Escalation missions the Pathfinders cannot deploy.

mughi3 said:
my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ

Then you're not using the Scout move as written. In fact, you've acknowledged the rules and chosen to ignore them. Cheating, in other words.

Posted By mughi3 on 04/13/2006 7:50 PM

Posted By blue loki on 04/12/2006 7:50 AM

Posted By mughi3 on 04/11/2006 7:49 PM

2.as per the vehicle/transport rules the fish is a vehicle and as such can act independent of the unit it is part of. because it is the dedicated transport only that pathfinder team may ride in it and they have the choice to deploy  inside it or not. none of the negative effects you cite apply as per the rules.

No. A transport can not "act independent of the unit it is a part of", as it is not a part of the unit that it is purchased with. It is a completely seperate unit which just so happens to be purchased along side a different unit by using the same FOC slot, and that is why it acts independently. Yes, a transport is associated with a specific unit, but (so far) it is never a part of the unit that it is associated with.

There is no rule on how vehicles should act when part of a non-vehicle unit. Since we lack any rule on how they should act, we must treat them just like any other part of the unit.

So, if you want to treat the D-Fish as part of the unit, you may grant it any benefits that the unit has, but you must also accept the bad with the good and accept all of the negative effects as well.

taking all the rules together i do not see the problem

 

read the entry

a pathfinder TEAM includes the fish as such it is part of the unit and therefore benefits from the scout ability given to the TEAM(just as in previous FAQs), but it is also a VEHICLE and as such benefits from the vehicle rules for a transports ability to operate independant of the squad.

there is no need to have more rules as to how a vehicle should act as part of a non vehicle unit since the rules already exhist in the vehicle/transport section.

my pathfinders always start in thier fish(hell they almost never get out..it is a tank army afterall) and i will be using the scout move for the team as it is written. of you don't like it don't play me. complain to GW and mabey they ill re-inforce the previous FAQ

i don't like the fact that 2 mystics can concievably kill my entire deathwing if it deepstrikes by allowing a single dev squad within 12" to shoot a half dozen times at different targets during the same round, but it is legal as written and i will still take the army on by adjusting my tactics accordingly.

I agree completly.  Sometimes codex's omit things or have spelling errors,  does this mean you should use those instead of common sense? no!  I remember when the chaos codex came out and thralls with T1 with 3 wounds.  Thats what was written.  Was that how it should be played? no.  What about the wargear book that cameout recently that states that an Eldar Exarch dire sword is a chaos only item.  That is what is written, but common sense dictates that it should not be played like that.

I dont understand why people need to look for tiny reasons to neuter armies instead of using common sense.  Is it some sort of a thrill to find these errors, point them out and then try and prove them as law?  GW's editing is often sub par and they make extensive use of copy and paste, mistakes happen, words are ommited, and as I recall the design team once mentioning.  They expect people to use common sense when issues like this come up, they should not have to address them in an FAQ.

-Legacy40k

Want they wanted to do is irrelevant.

What they did is all that is relevant.

Ridiculous.

That brand of literal interpretation of the rules breaks the game, several ways in this topic alone. There is another way to play the game, which is to allow a sliver of variation in how you interpret the rules, to allow for not completely rigorous rules writing. Its clear they don't write the rules hyper-rigorously, so why is the prevailing view on this forum that we should read the rules so rigorously? It clearly breaks the game all over the place.
Sure, if you allow a little common sense to creep in then different people will think you play the game differently as we don?t all share the same reading of words & sentences. But we have that anyway already right here.

Its clear they don't write the rules hyper-rigorously, so why is the prevailing view on this forum that we should read the rules so rigorously? It clearly breaks the game all over the place.

Because if you don't, you're not playing 40k? Instead, you're playing some home-grown version. And by following RAW as much as possible, we're not breaking the game. We're merely breaking your home-grown wishing of what the game might be.

The PF/DF-Svout issue was a problem in 3rd edition. It was cleared up in the FAQ. It would not be hard to amend the 4th edition Codex with the FAQ. This was not done. Therefore, there is an implication that the intent argument sides with the RAW.

Not that this matters, of course, because as several people have said already, intent is irrelevant. Follow the rules and don't cheat.

Assuming the rules were written tight enough to allow for only one interpretation in any given instance Stu, you would be correct, and there would be no YMDC.

Alas...

 

Agreed. And there is only one interpretation in this case. As has been said countless times by numerous people, Pathfinders have the Scout ability, their Devilfish does not. That is what the rules state and thus their is no interpretation needed. Saying otherwise is ignoring the rules, which is 'house-ruling' at best and cheating at worst.

There are other cases where the rules contradict themselves and thus YMDC will be needed to reach a consensus. This is not such a case however, as the rules are 'tightly written' and perfectly clear.

And besides, YMDC will always be needed because there will always be people who have questions, be they stupid or clever (the people or the questions), and I include myself among that number.

And as many people have also said, giving equal credit to a second interpretation which you ignore, the term 'Pathfinders' under special rules applies to the Team.

Moz said:
And as many people have also said, giving equal credit to a second interpretation which you ignore, the term 'Pathfinders' under special rules applies to the Team.

If enough people said all Land Raiders should have AV10, would that make them have AV10? Would that make the rules rewrite themselves so Land Raiders did have AV10?

No, of course not. A miilion people or more in agreement can still be wrong, you know.

There is no credit, equal or otherwise, in an interpretation of a rule that totally denies that rule.

Again: Pathfinders have the Scout ability because the rules say they do. The Devilfish does not have the Scout ability because the rules say it does not. Or more accurately, does not say it does.

There is no other possible interpretation of that except that Pathfinders have the Scout ability and the Devilfish does not.

What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10.  Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.

When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?

-Legacy40k

And by exactly the same interpretation, Vespid Stingwing Strains do not have fleet as the Strain Leader that is part of the Team does not. No one buys that, and few people buy that the pathfinders lose their Scout USR due to the mandatory devilfish (that is part of the team) as well.

RAW it can go a few different ways, Rules-as-played you will see it played as the FAQ from 3rd ed defined most likely.

How many people played their terminators with 3+/5i after the first print of the wargear book came out?

I'm thinking of a number between 0 and.... 0

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/14/2006 9:49 AM
What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10.  Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.

No, not 'obviously'. You are assuming it is a misprint, and your assumption is not backed up by the rules. Assumptions have no place in this forum.

Ha! 'Everybody knows better.' That's funny. Wars have been fought over the premise that 'everyone knows better', but it does not make them correct. At one time, it was theorized that the world was round, not flat. The theory was ridiculed, because 'everyone knew better'.

Mob mentality does not truth make.

 

When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?

Absence of a similar error elsewhere is no basis for an argument. There is ALWAYS a first time for everthing.

Let me see if I understand your argument. Am I correct in saying that you argue that because the Devilfish is listed as an option (well, as a mandatory upgrade really) under the Pathfinder Team heading, you believe that same Devilfish to be a Pathfinder? Does that sound right?

Well, if that?s your argument, then it?s a crock. For the following reasons:

1. My ?team? is my fellow employees and myself. It does not include the vehicles we use to travel to and fro. No one in his or her right mind would argue otherwise;

2. The rule in question refers to ?Pathfinders? and not ?Pathfinder Team?, which presumably it would if the Devilfish was meant to be included; and finally, the big kahuna?

3. If the Devilfish is part of the Pathfinder Team as you suggest and thus a Pathfinder, presumably the same logic applies elsewhere. So a Devilfish bought with a Fire Warrior Team is obviously a Fire Warrior and we can upgrade it?s Burst Cannon to a Pulse Carbine for no extra cost, right? Heaven forbid we apply logic.

Here?s this argument in a nutshell:

Parent: ?Rules say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red!?
Parent: ?You can?t have red as the rules say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?Red is the intent! I want red! Waaaagh!?
Parent: ?Red is possibly the intent but it seems more likely that blue is the intent.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red!?
Parent: ?Rules still say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red. And red is a kind of blue, right??
Parent: ?No, blue is blue and red is red. The rules say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red. Mom (i.e. old Codex) said I could have red.?
Parent: ?No, mom said green. This is irrelevant, as your Mom (i.e. old Codex) is dead and she told you that years ago. And the new rules say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red. And Mommy said on her deathbed (i.e. the old FAQ) that I get red!?
Parent: ?Yes, but what Mommy said on her deathbed (i.e. the old FAQ) no longer applies. The new rules take precedence. And the new rules still say blue.?
Little Timmy: ?I want red. Everyone else has red!?
Parent: ?Everyone else has blue but has stupidly been listening to your Mom and is going to end up in jail.?
Little Timmy: ?I don?t care what you say! I want red! I want red! I want red! I want red!? ? and so on and so on ad nauseum, like one of those oh-so-pleasant screaming tykes you?ll encounter in the grocery store whose parents have no control over them. Sigh.

Are you trying to imply that if an ork truck is painted blue, it may not take the "red ones go faster" upgrade?

-Legacy40k

Because the 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish', no I don't think it's crazy to assume that they mean for the Devilfish to be included in the Team. Because special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases, I don't think it's a stretch to apply them to the Team.

Lets go into the Kroot entry:
"Squad: The squad numbers from 10-20 Kroot, 0-12 Kroot Hounds, and 0-3 Krootox Riders."

Special rules:
"Fieldcraft: Kroot gain +1 to their Cover Save in woods or jungles. Kroot etc.. etc.."

So, kroot hounds and krootox riders don't recieve this benefit either eh?

No one buys this. The special rules sections for every single mixed unit in the codex reference the rules for the team/squad/strain by referring to the name of the entire unit, it is all throughout the codex and if you deny it in one place you logically deny it everywhere and a solid 3rd of the units in the list are consequently busted. Your interpretation of the term 'Pathfinders' in the special rules heading is flat wrong.

Legacy40k said:
What if the Dark Angels codex does come out with a landraider with AV10. Obviously a misprint, but based on what you have said, you would expect all dark angels players to treat their land raider as armour 10, even though everybody else knows better.

Who?s everyone? If everyone knew better, why are we having this argument? Rules, common sense (such as it is), and intent all side with the Devilfish not having the Scout rule yet ?everyone knows better?. Why wasn?t I informed?

Legacy40k said:
When was the last time rules for a unit that can only be bought one way only applied to half the unit?

Lots of times. Pulse Carbines for Fire Warriors under the old Codex, for example. Or lots of doctrines for IG (Light Infantry, Slave Levies, Close Order Drill, Carapace Armour, etc.). Any time you buy an optional upgrade that the whole unit can take but you buy it for only half the unit. And Majority Armour. That?s a biggie. Any unit with a transport, that?s another. Unless when you buy the Smoke Launchers upgrade for your Dreadnought your Droppod gets them for free. Oh, but wait? the droppod isn?t part of the unit, is it? It?s only a transport. Kind of like the Devilfish, I suppose?

But I take it that by ?only be bought one way? refers to the mandatory inclusion of the Devilfish, right? Still plenty of examples, I?m afraid to say. Or are you arguing that the Chimera of an Armoured Fist squad with the Jungle Fighters doctrine may Infiltrate? Or ignore jungle terrain? Or see 12? through jungles?

Moz said:
And by exactly the same interpretation, Vespid Stingwing Strains do not have fleet as the Strain Leader that is part of the Team does not. No one buys that, and few people buy that the pathfinders lose their Scout USR due to the mandatory devilfish (that is part of the team) as well.

I don?t buy that because the Strain Leader is a model that is described as a Stingwing. The Devilfish is a model that?s described as a transport that can be taken by units of Pathfinders or Fire Warriors. Two completely unrelated concepts. Apples and oranges.

And no one has sad that Pathfinders lose their Scout USR. If people would only read things carefully, we wouldn?t have half these problems.

Moz said:
Your interpretation of the term 'Pathfinders' in the special rules heading is flat wrong.

But you've just used it yourself! :-? Your argument is that I am wrong because of BLUE and you are right because of BLUE. That makes no sense.

Moz said:
Because the 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish', no I don't think it's crazy to assume that they mean for the Devilfish to be included in the Team. Because special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases, I don't think it's a stretch to apply them to the Team.

Okay, let's break this down. See the use of the terms 'Pathfinders and a Devilfish'? So Pathfinders are separate concepts to that of a Devilfish, agreed? The rules have stated as much (here and elsewhere).

So, as (contrary to what you keep trying to claim that 'special rules appear to apply to the Team in all cases' which the rules clearly state they do not) the rules state that only Pathfinders get the Scout USR, you therefore agree that they do and the Devilfish does not.

Or are you just having fun contradicting yourself and getting dizzy from all the circular logic you seem to want to apply?


Legacy40k said:
Are you trying to imply that if an ork truck is painted blue, it may not take the "red ones go faster" upgrade?

I don't know whether or not this was meant to be funny but it made me laugh.

First up, Strain Leaders are never mentioned to be stingwings in the rules. Perhaps in the fluff, are we using fluff for rules now?

Second, a single word can have multiple meanings, particularly when dealing with plurals. Pathfinders is a common term for the team, pathfinders is also a common term for the shas'la models. A precedent is set by all units in the codex that specific models are called on by the plural term when talking about wargear issues, equipment choices, stuff that must be modeled. When moving to special rules, the precedent is set through every other unit in the codex that the plural term is used to reference the team. I again point you to the Kroot, Stingwings, and Pathfinders entry which are coincidentally the only 3 mixed units in the codex with special rules, and are coincidentally all written in the same manner using the term Kroot, Stingwings, and Pathfinders to refer to the team as a whole.

I agree that a Pathfinder is different than a Devilfish, I agree that a Krootox is different than a Kroot, and I agree a Stingwing is different than a Strain leader. I also believe each of these units benefits entirely from the special rules it is given. I wish you the best of luck convincing any player otherwise, as it's not going to happen.

Okay, in brief, here's the argument:

I say: "A Strain Leader is a Stingwing because he's part of a Stingwing unit."

You counter: "Ah, but then you must admit that a Devilfish is a Pathfinder because it is part of the Pathfinder Team."

And I counter: "No, because the Devilfish is a transport that can be bought for various different units, while the Strain Leader is not. A Devilfish is still not a Pathfinder. If it was could it take Pathfinder upgrades (i.e. a Rail Rifle)? Would a Devilfish in a Fire Warrior squad be a Pathfinder or a Fire Warrior or a Devilfish? None of the above, obviously. Therefore, the Devilfish is one concept, the Strain Leader another. You are comparing apples and oranges again and coming to a false conclusion."

How does that sound?

Saying that 'Pathfinders' means 'Pathfinder Team' is an assumption. We don't work with assumptions in here unless there are no other options.

Without making any assumptions, 'Pathfinders' means 'Pathfinders'. Pathfinders are a specific model type to which the rule can validly be applied, hence we need not make any assumptions in order to apply the rule.

i doubt you're deliberately mis-construing this argument stu but its sure belabouring the point.
the arguement is not that the devilfish becomes a pathfinder. duh.

the assumption made, for sake of the game actually making sense and functioning better (hah) is that the Scout rule is applied to the whole pathfinder force-org selection. ie: "pathfinders" (as a FOC selection) have Scout.

doing this is admittedly a stretch. i take this stand because it causes the least other rules problems. how do you handle their deployment otherwise?


the pathfinder issue aside, its all well and good aping this toughguy literal stance, but you run into just as many stupid problems as you would do with a more 'human' (?) interpretation. and, the literal stance isn't some gold standard of purity and equality anyhow, it is taken to different lengths by different people in different areas and in different tournaments.

if you persue that path as far as you possibly can, the game becomes ridicious. there's plenty of examples of bizarre, ugly things you can do by literal interpretation. people will not play the game when its that twisted and slowed. but, people will accept some things which are minor.... its just a limit at which people will be forced to take a step back and say "thats slowed, it can't mean that surely" (ref: termies in termy armour)

for different people, this limit is different. its not cheating to use common sense, its actually required for the game to work properly, and GW themselves say so quite regularly. the game is not designed for literal interpretation, as its just not written that rigourously.

i admitt, the stance i'm taking on this comes with its own set of problems, its back to the way different people interpret the wordings and at what limit people will say 'they can't have meant that' and so on. all i am saying is a truely literal interpretation is not practical, a interpretation that is only strict in parts is hypocritical, and the only answer is to use some common sense and accept the problems that come with that (ie. your opponent might be an idiot)

Loki - That's one way to handle it, but without making any assumptions we break a lot of stuff. Kroot are specific model types, and Stingwings are specific model types with a defined statline etc... We must make assumptions to link Krootox, Kroot hounds, and Strain Leaders to these terms. if you want to play the RAW as strictly as possible without making these assumptions, very odd things occur like the vespid unit losing fleet, kroothounds and krootox losing the field craft benefit, and pathfinders with the scout USR starting off the table in Escalation.

Stu - In regards to taking upgrades, the codex through all entries mentions the specific models that are applicable. In regards to special rules there are numerous instances where it appears the plural term for the primary model of the unit is used to apply abilities to the unit as a whole. This is an assumption made to preserve not just the use of the Pathfinders scout ability during escalation, but to preserve the given abilities of Kroot and Vespid.

I will concede that if you approach this topic in a logical step by step analysis where a term is defined and made unique, where all references to the term apply only to that referenced definition, and where the entry 'Team: 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish' qualifies as a suitable and unique definition for the term 'Pathfinders' - that these and only these models get the Scout USR.

I wont speculate how this will effect the game having a mixed unit of Scout models and non scout models because I feel that I have ample logical ammunition to show that the term is not uniquely defined in the form of the Stingwing and Kroot entries. I will discuss these options with my opponent before the game, and barring a concensus of our opinions on the interpretation we will D6 it. Life will go on.

Posted By Moz on 04/14/2006 12:01 PM
Loki - That's one way to handle it, but without making any assumptions we break a lot of stuff. Kroot are specific model types, and Stingwings are specific model types with a defined statline etc... We must make assumptions to link Krootox, Kroot hounds, and Strain Leaders to these terms. if you want to play the RAW as strictly as possible without making these assumptions, very odd things occur like the vespid unit losing fleet, kroothounds and krootox losing the field craft benefit, and pathfinders with the scout USR starting off the table in Escalation.

Oh, I completely agree. However, when arguing your stance, you must admit that you are making an assumption. If you can get your opponent to agree with your assumption, then more power to you. But know that it IS an assumption, and assumptions are flawed by definition.

In effect, you are arguing Rules-as-Played directly against Rules-As-Written. And, when called on it by someone who is arguing the RAW standpoint, the RAW argument will win by default, as the RAP argument is based on an assumption.

RAW wins. Is it broken? Yes. Is it unplayable? Maybe. Is it something to hash out with your opponent beforehand? Most definately.