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.

No it doesn't. Stop making stuff up it does not help the discussion move forward nor does it help your argument. It just comes across as rude, if not trollish, behaviour. Now can you politely point to any rules that actually support your position please?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Coldstar's rules do not specify that the only Drones it can carry are the ones purchased for it. The Coldstar's rules do state that ANY Drones with him are carried:

“XV86 COLDSTARBATTLESUIT
A Commander equipped with an XV86 Coldstar battlesuit has the Flying Monstrous Creature (Character) unit type, but does not have the Fear, Smash, or Vector Strike special rules. They also have a multi-tracker and blacksun filter.
If the Commander has any Drones, they form a unit with him while he is Gliding. When he is Swooping, the Drones are removed from the battlefield. If he is slain whilst Swooping, his Drones are destroyed. If a Swooping Commander changes flight mode (or is grounded), his surviving Drones are immediately placed on the battlefield in unit coherency with him”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

Any Drones. Any.

Per the IC rules and the TE Drone rules, a Coldstar attached to a unit of Drones is a single unit, regardless of whether or not the Coldstar purchased Drones of its own. If GW wanted to exclude Drones from an attached unit, they would specified just the Coldstar's Drones. GW did not. What they did do is state that "any" Drones accompanying the Coldstar are effected.

SJ

The rules I underlined for you clearly show that a Commander and his drones that join a unit of drones are two separate things. The commander cannot take drones that are not his, aka purchased.

jeffersonian000 wrote:The third line tells use that an attacked unit of Drone will die if the Coldstar dies while swooping.

Really?

Where you talking about this?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

“XV86 COLDSTARBATTLESUIT
A Commander equipped with an XV86 Coldstar battlesuit has the Flying Monstrous Creature (Character) unit type, but does not have the Fear, Smash, or Vector Strike special rules. They also have a multi-tracker and blacksun filter.
If the Commander has any Drones, they form a unit with him while he is Gliding. When he is Swooping, the Drones are removed from the battlefield. If he is slain whilst Swooping, his Drones are destroyed. If a Swooping Commander changes flight mode (or is grounded), his surviving Drones are immediately placed on the battlefield in unit coherency with him”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

Where it states that HIS Drones are Destroyed? I see nothing about "unit", much less "attached unit" (attached, not attacked, right?) in that sentence.

So why do you keep pressing it as if a unit of Drones with a Commander joined to it suddenly becomes entirely HIS Drones? It is the only thing that would explain this odd interaction which has seemed to skip a few steps for being an actual rule.

You are arguing intent, I am arging written. Since you cannot know the intent, you cannot with authority state that your position is correct. As written, any Droid in the Coldstar's unit goes with him.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You are arguing intent, I am arging written. Since you cannot know the intent, you cannot with authority state that your position is correct. As written, any Droid in the Coldstar's unit goes with him.

SJ

No, I am arguing Written. "HIS DRONES" is what is written. Not the unit of Drones he joined. Not the Drones in any unit he joined. It is simply HIS Drones. At no point is any Drones other than Drones the Commander has mentioned in that rule.

Can you demonstrate how any Drones not purchased from his options could be classified as his, especially when they are not taken as an IC's option?

You have yet to provide any evidence of this and keep misquoting things. Keep in mind Tenet 1.

It doesn't say "his drones" form a unit with him while gliding, it says "any drones", which does cover any drones he is in a unit with as an IC. And of course HIS drones are destroyed as they are part of HIS unit, yet not on the table. HE is transporting the drones while swooping, be they purchased or joined.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It doesn't say "his drones" form a unit with him while gliding, it says "any drones", which does cover any drones he is in a unit with as an IC. And of course HIS drones are destroyed as they are part of HIS unit, yet not on the table. HE is transporting the drones while swooping, be they purchased or joined.

SJ

Really because your own quote says the opposite:

jeffersonian000 wrote: If the Commander has any Drones

Not "with any Drones" as you claim but "HAS any Drones". The commander still has to have the drones for them to come with him.

"If the Commander has any drones" is not the same as "if the Commander has purchased drones". The "has any drones" part is not exclusive, it is inclusive as the Coldstar is still an IC and may join a unit of drones.

SJ

How else does a commander get to HAVE drones?

jeffersonian000 wrote:It doesn't say "his drones" form a unit with him while gliding, it says "any drones", which does cover any drones he is in a unit with as an IC. And of course HIS drones are destroyed as they are part of HIS unit, yet not on the table. HE is transporting the drones while swooping, be they purchased or joined.

SJ

It does reference his Drones while Gliding. "If the Commander has any Drones" indicates we are talking about his Drones. The "has" provides a concept of a type of ownership. "His" is a pronoun which also provides a concept of ownership. There is no escaping the context that the Drones talked about in the Coldstar rule only apply to those which were purchased with the Commander and none others.

But the last part was regarding him Swooping, remember? And Swooping does reference "his drones" specifically.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

“XV86 COLDSTARBATTLESUIT
A Commander equipped with an XV86 Coldstar battlesuit has the Flying Monstrous Creature (Character) unit type, but does not have the Fear, Smash, or Vector Strike special rules. They also have a multi-tracker and blacksun filter.
If the Commander has any Drones, they form a unit with him while he is Gliding. When he is Swooping, the Drones are removed from the battlefield. If he is slain whilst Swooping, his Drones are destroyed. If a Swooping Commander changes flight mode (or is grounded), his surviving Drones are immediately placed on the battlefield in unit coherency with him”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

Why do you so quickly forget that which you quote?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
"If the Commander has any drones" is not the same as "if the Commander has purchased drones". The "has any drones" part is not exclusive, it is inclusive as the Coldstar is still an IC and may join a unit of drones.

SJ

Again, where does it state that any Drones of any unit he joins become his?

How can any other Drones but the one purchased from his options be considered his?

Answer this part, as you have yet to.

As a Tau commander he probably technically owns all the drones in the force, hell they probably all technically own all of the drones. Space communism is a beautiful thing.

Seriously though there's no game definition for ownership, we don't have enough information to call it one way or the other. Extrapolating "If a commander has" to mean "If a commander has any drones that he purchased originally..." is as much of a stretch as "If a commander is in the same unit as..." both arguments require text to be added to justify that interpretation, and as such both are HIWPI.

In cases like this RAI is the only option. My particular feeling is that only purchased drones are intended to be included.

The only way the commander can have drones is of he purchased them. It is not the same thing as joining a unit. This is the most conservative interpretation as well.

Actually he has any drones purchased FOR HIM. That is how English works. The claim Jeffersonian is making would lead to him always forming a unit with ANY drones he joins. So he joins a drone squad, they are now his. He then joins a Crisis team with 6 Drones they become his too. By the end of the game the commander could be running around with literally hundreds of drones...

NickAtkins wrote:As a Tau commander he probably technically owns all the drones in the force, hell they probably all technically own all of the drones. Space communism is a beautiful thing.

Seriously though there's no game definition for ownership, we don't have enough information to call it one way or the other. Extrapolating "If a commander has" to mean "If a commander has any drones that he purchased originally..." is as much of a stretch as "If a commander is in the same unit as..." both arguments require text to be added to justify that interpretation, and as such both are HIWPI.

In cases like this RAI is the only option. My particular feeling is that only purchased drones are intended to be included.

Not really. There is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise, and Jeffersonian even quoted it.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

INDEPENDENT CHARACTERSAND DRONES
Independent Characters who have taken Drones as upgrades are still permitted to join units, in which case both the character and his Drones join the unit. If the Independent Character then leaves the unit, all his surviving Drones also leave the unit, forming a separate unit with him.
If the Independent Character is killed whilst part of a unit, his surviving Drones are thereafter part of that unit and cannot leave it; the Independent Character’s unit has, for the purposes of Victory Points, been destroyed.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

It is the same language used when dealing with Independent Characters who have taken Drones as upgrades. So, their is consistency in applying it to the Coldstar Battlesuit language as well.

It is only when one does not take a full sentence, full paragraph, or even connected rules in to consideration that context is lost and "odd interactions" can come in to play in this situation.

Also the odd interaction requires has and with to be interchangeable when they are not. For instance a penniless man in a Bank Vault is with lots of money but has none. Whilst a popular in a room on his own is not with friends though he has many of them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Actually he has any drones purchased FOR HIM. That is how English works. The claim Jeffersonian is making would lead to him always forming a unit with ANY drones he joins. So he joins a drone squad, they are now his. He then joins a Crisis team with 6 Drones they become his too. By the end of the game the commander could be running around with literally hundreds of drones...

Incorrect. Rules exist for ICs to join and leave units, yet while the IC is joined the IC is a member of that unit. The TE codex adds the ability for an IC to not only purchase Drones, but to join a unit with those Drone as well as join a unit with their own Drones. These TE rules define how an IC with purchased Drones interects with the unit, including what occurs with their purchased Drones if the IC dies. The Coldstar adds additional interaction rules including the ability to transport Drones while swooping. No specific restriction is set that the Drones in question must be those purchased by the Coldstar. The odd interaction is that due to the lack of restrictive language, a Coldstar attached to a Drone squad counts those Drone as part of his unit while gliding, and those Drones are removed from the table while swooping. That's what makes it odd. People can argue intent that such an interact should not occur, however, intent cannot be known without an FAQ or Errata or official GW article.

The argument stated that the join unit of Drones are not "his" is refuted by the IC rules and the Drone interaction rules. Arguing that the Coldstar rules only apply to the Drones the Coldstar purchases is arguing RAI, not RAW. RAW allows this weird interaction because permission is given, permission that is not restricted to specific Drones.

SJ

Again equating with and has. Yes the IC is part of the drone unit for all rules purposes whilst attached, that is undisputed and entirely irrelevant. Prove that the drones in the unit become his drones whilst attached (and thus become subject to all the rules that come with that and being there on treated exactly like drones purchased for him).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So to sum up we are stating that "the drones he has" and "his drones" are synonymous. This is following how normal English works. You are claiming these are two different sets and that instead "the drones he has" is synonymous with "the drones he is with" contra to how the English works. Saying this is covered by the IC rules yet refusing to quote anything that supports this stance. Please do so or clearly mark your posts as HYWPI.

Your inability to read or acknowledge the posted rules governing this situation does not equate to no support for this stance. My posts are RAW. The counter-argument is RAI.

SJ

I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

Well you haven't I've read all your posts. If you have just copy and paste the relevant post.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

I think you are confused which can happen when dealing with all these rules we have to deal with but this is just my opinion. We know exactly where you stand so no need to keep repeating yourself.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

I think you are confused which can happen when dealing with all these rules we have to deal with but this is just my opinion. We know exactly where you stand so no need to keep repeating yourself.

Apparently.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

You have quoted nothing to support your case and everything that counters it. From the IC and Drones rule to the Coldstar rules, you have not properly presented anything that supports the case that any Drones in a joined unit are his. In fact, IC and Drones specifically counters this line of thought.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

I think you are confused which can happen when dealing with all these rules we have to deal with but this is just my opinion. We know exactly where you stand so no need to keep repeating yourself.

Cool then Dozer can you please quote or explain where he proved that any Drones in any units he joins become his drones and from that point onwards must follow the commander leaving their previous unit when the Commander does. Please show where he proved this or supported this?

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'll take that as concession we have explained in detail why the rules work the way they are written. You have not countered a single point we have made. You've stated you are arguing RaW whilst posting rules that state the opposite of what you claim.

Your refusal to explain or support your argument puts us at an impasse. Unless you are going to explain how him being a normal member of the unit makes the drones within that unit become his drones (and thus stay with him should he leave said unit).

Already did, multiple times, you just continue to ignore it.

SJ

You have quoted nothing to support your case and everything that counters it. From the IC and Drones rule to the Coldstar rules, you have not properly presented anything that supports the case that any Drones in a joined unit are his. In fact, IC and Drones specifically counters this line of thought.

I made a statement, backed it up with rules, hand held the nay sayes through why those rules support my statement, and pointed out that the counter-argument is based on assumed intent, not the written rules.

SJ

Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "be polite"

Where did you do this? Because you didn't do that in this thread at all. You made claims then quoted rules that stated the opposite. This was pointed out to you and you just repeated your incorrect claims and told us that was RaW and that we were arguing RaI, without ever supporting any claim you ever made.

jeffersonian000 wrote:I made a statement, backed it up with rules, hand held the nay sayes through why those rules support my statement, and pointed out that the counter-argument is based on assumed intent, not the written rules.

Which rule, read in context, supports anything you have said regarding Coldstar taking Drones that were not purchased with his options?

jeffersonian000 wrote:First part is supported by:

INDEPENDENT CHARACTERSAND DRONES
Independent Characters who have taken Drones as upgrades are still permitted to join units, in which case both the character and his Drones join the unit. If the Independent Character then leaves the unit, all his surviving Drones also leave the unit, forming a separate unit with him.
If the Independent Character is killed whilst part of a unit, his surviving Drones are thereafter part of that unit and cannot leave it; the Independent Character’s unit has, for the purposes of Victory Points, been destroyed.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

This one establishes the definition of "his Drones" before ever concerning Coldstar's rules. The context in use is UCs who have taken Drones as upgrades can join units with "his Drones". If he leaves, "his Drones" leave with him. Nothing about transferring ownership from Drones already in the unit is mentioned.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

“XV86 COLDSTARBATTLESUIT
A Commander equipped with an XV86 Coldstar battlesuit has the Flying Monstrous Creature (Character) unit type, but does not have the Fear, Smash, or Vector Strike special rules. They also have a multi-tracker and blacksun filter.
If the Commander has any Drones, they form a unit with him while he is Gliding. When he is Swooping, the Drones are removed from the battlefield. If he is slain whilst Swooping, his Drones are destroyed. If a Swooping Commander changes flight mode (or is grounded), his surviving Drones are immediately placed on the battlefield in unit coherency with him”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Tau Empire (Mobile Edition).”

Then we have Coldstar, which still only ever references "his Drones" and "Drones" he "has". Still nothing about taking Drones from a unit he has joined.

So, no. You have quoted nothing to support your statement, and only quoted the rules which countered what you have said.

Of course, it could work as you suggest, but it would be taking only bits and pieces of the rules and not using them in your entirety. This would be RAPW. But I don't know of many who accept only part of the Written Rules as standards to work with as RAW.

Jeffersonian wrote:I made a statement, backed it up with rules, hand held the nay sayes through why those rules support my statement, and pointed out that the counter-argument is based on assumed intent, not the written rules.

Having read through the whole chain I'm afraid you have been incorrect. You want the rule to work this way so you are doing your best trying to mold the written to your way.

It doesn't work that way. The IC becomes part of the unit, not the opposite. A commander without weapons does not suddenly gain weapons when he joins a crisis suit. A unit of drones, any drones other that what he purchased, do not become his.

Flingitnow, Charistoph & others have pointed out your mistakes many times already. You should know when you are incorrect.

I think we can probably put this thread to rest. We seem to have a majority consensus (which I can soundly count myself among) that the drones that are part of the unit do not disappear when the coldstar commander does. Only the ones that the actually purchases (defined as "his drones" are the ones that disappear.

At worst, one could admit to the ambiguity in the statement "any drones are removed" because it is not defined perfectly in that clause as to whether "any drones" references the purchased drones or "any drones in the unit". I understand jeffersonian's claims that it is difficult to compartmentalize the unit from the rest of the drones, but that claim in RAI just as much as the other side is. The assumption is made that intent is one way or the other. Without explicit permission, I do tend to go for the most conservative approach that potentially gives the least benefit (if there really even is any) and say that the drones that disappear are only his purchased drones, as that is what the first clause of that same sentence implies. Just feels like too much of a stretch to say that other drones disappear as well. Codex > BRB and all that