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.

Non-dedicated D'fish would be useful for the following reasons:

1. Mech Tau typically have few FCW squads and would not be worried about filling Troops slots with D'fish, especially when it's a not bad Tank in its own right.
2. The upgrades available make scoring D'fish much more attractive. (Upgrades like SMS, sensor spines and so on can make a non-scoring transport a serious points sink.)
3. Airlifting sniper drone teams and possibly Gue'la or Kroot could be handy.

@Burnthexenos... What is it about non-dedicated Tau transports that particularly excites your ire? Other armies have them, why should Tau in particular be denied? Is it beyond possibility that GW might have changed their mind about Tau transports since the previous codex?

Well the reason I ask about the pathfinder entry, is what is the exact wording for thier taking of a transport, and how does that compare with the firewarrior entry.

Might shed some more light on the subject.

Antonin, how the hell does that work..the devilfish cant scout..but the pathfinders can...but the pathfinders are REQUIRED to take a devilfish! Did they just put the scout rule in for extertainment value? To fill up a bit of space?

Mauleed, I know technically you are correct, you can take devilfish without fire warriors. But legal or not, chances are they will rule against you. They may well know its legal, but stuff like this wasn't supposed to happen (IMO, of course) so odds are that they will prohibit you from taking a couple of devilfish as non dedicated transports. I know I would.

That said, you dont intend to use them in tournaments anyway, which is just aswell...you wouldn't want to risk a ruling against you.

Iorek, discussion about this is fine, as long as you never use it in a game. But from the way some people were talking, it sounded like they may well try and use devilfish as non dedicated transports.

Discussion is fine. Abusing the rules on the table is not.

Kilkrazy, IMO, the devilfish is kind of like the rhino for the space marines. It serves a purpose, whichis to transport your troops across the field. It can be borght for troops units etc..#

I dont think it would be a particually powerful option. But some sense should be applied here. The Devilfish says Transport: Devilfish next to it...I think its safe to assume its supposed to transport a unit, not fly around by itself!

I think GW would have bothered to mention that they could be taken seperatly. Yes, I know they could also have bothered to mention that they must be taken as dedicated transports. But they did neither, so we must decide which seems more likely: Tau devilfish transports flying about by themselves, or Tau devilfish TRANSPORTS transporting something.

Someone mentioned empty land raiders. I would point out this is completely different, the land raiders cost 250pts each and take up a heavy support slot!

burnthexenos,

You might want to do a search on the pathfinder/devilfish bit, there was a 11 page thread in YMDC about that very subject.

The only reference I have found regarding Dfish being unable to carry Gue?vesa or Kroot is in the ?Vehicle Design Rules?, Chapter approved ? 3 ?.

Therein it is stated that Tau transports can only carry Tau, no Humans or Kroot.

All my CA books are currently in storage, so that is from memory.


I never saw anything in the old Tau Codex indicating that the Devilfish can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

The Dfish is a transport option for FCW, and a mandatory addition for pathfinders. It is also a troop choice in both the old and new Codices.

In the old Codex the only thing that separates the Dfish listing from Kroot or Fire Warriors is light shading around the text. Additionally, the new Codex uses a ?troop choice marker? to indicate that the Fish is a separate unit, and may be taken as an independent troop choice.

On the other side of this coin is game balance and victory points; I limit myself to 18% non-scoring units. In the case of Tau this means that I take Stealth teams instead of FCW.

Field of Battle is difficult for my Tau, especially if I do not have lots of mobile, scoring units (ie. Stealth teams over Fish mounted FCW). Annihilation was also tough for Mech Tau, precisely because they start with so many non-scoring transports.

So maybe with the new Tau Codex GW is trying to get more Fish mounted FCW on the table and fewer Stealth teams.

Regardless of interpretation my Tau list will remain the same (for a week or 2 anyway) two, 4 man stealth teams and two, 10 man, fish mounted, FCW teams.

Although I do think that counting the fish as scoring units will win me a few more games.

 

And yes, I'm going to write my list up indicating that the 2 FCW fish are scoring, non dedicated transports. I'll let you know how it goes over with the Wednesday night crew.

 

@burnthexenos

As a Tau player I have issues with the fact that the 'fish does not scout and REALLY think it sucks, especially for a unit that is borderline to begin with, but the Spanish FAQ says quite clearly that the 'fish does not scout.

Out of curiosity, what are the other non dedicated troop transports available in the game?

I know the land raider but no others.

Posted By burnthexenos on 07/03/2006 3:52 PMMauleed, I know technically you are correct, you can take devilfish without fire warriors. But legal or not, chances are they will rule against you. They may well know its legal, but stuff like this wasn't supposed to happen (IMO, of course) so odds are that they will prohibit you from taking a couple of devilfish as non dedicated transports. I know I would.

It:s a good thing you don't judge then. I'd fear you disqualifying my space marine list for running empty land raiders.

So, out of curiosity, is this Anderton's new identity, because he shares the aforementioned Cap'n's propensity for being absolutley self-assured while being absolutely wrong on just about every point he's trying to make.

Posted" by="" happypants="" on="" 07/03/2006="" 9:48="" pm=""><br">Out of curiosity, what are the other non dedicated troop transports available in the game?

I know the land raider but no others.

Ork Battlewagons
Ork Looted Vehicles that were originally transports
Eldar falcons
Some Forgeworld Sisters of Battle thing whose name escapes me

I think thats it...

The sisters have the Immolator (dedicated transport OR heavy support w/ transport capability). I believe the FW one you're thinking of is the Repressor. But (if memory serves) it's a dedicated transport.

The SoB Immolator can be taken as either a Heavy Choice or a transport. I don't know if that:s what you're talking about, as it's not FW. The Repressor, maybe (which, IIRC, is dedicated transport only).

 

*edit* Beaten to the punch. Next time Gadget, next time!

Yes, there is certainly precedent for it, and I believe that by the rules as written, there is no other conclusion to draw.  If GW doesn't want us taking empty Devilfish, it is now up to them to clarify this.

I have been asked to post the following by a member from another board.  I in no way endorse or agree with it, but respect the poster and believe in full discussion so have posted it below:

"Did anyone stop to think that maybe this all comes about, and the only reason GodHead could find this in the new SM codexes, is because of all the 4th ed codecies, SM's are the only ones capable of taking either dedicated (Rhino, razorback, Drop Pos, Landraiders) and non dedicated (landraiders) transports so that their's would be the only ones requiring clarification.

Just another thing, what do Falcons and Landraiders (the only non-dedicated transports I know of) have in common? They're heavy support choices. I really don't see GW giving us a tank as good as a fish, particularly a warfish, as a troops slot unit.

As cool as it would have been I don't think Fish are going to be a non-dedicated transport. If they were could you really see yourself trading in a hammerhead or broadside squad for one? "

Posted By GodHead on 07/03/2006 10:44 PM
Yes, there is certainly precedent for it, and I believe that by the rules as written, there is no other conclusion to draw.  If GW doesn't want us taking empty Devilfish, it is now up to them to clarify this.

I have been asked to post the following by a member from another board.  I in no way endorse or agree with it, but respect the poster and believe in full discussion so have posted it below:



Just another thing, what do Falcons and Landraiders (the only non-dedicated transports I know of) have in common? They're heavy support choices. I really don't see GW giving us a tank as good as a fish, particularly a warfish, as a troops slot unit.

As cool as it would have been I don't think Fish are going to be a non-dedicated transport. If they were could you really see yourself trading in a hammerhead or broadside squad for one? "

 

My current working theory is that GW keeps its rules vague by design. That way they can monitor tournament play for a couple of seasons to get an idea of how a given interpretation affects play and game balance.<?

 

 If game play is seriously unbalanced by a vague rule they write up a hard FAQ to resolve the issue. If game play is not broken by a vague rule then GW takes no positive action.

 

There are many rules issues out there that could easily be resolved one way or the other; ?magic cylinder?, rapid fire range, librarian psychic powers, and wound allotment for mixed armor to name a few.   

 

Why would GW leave these issues up in the air? The only thing that comes to mind is that these vagaries allow them to manipulate the core rules after some real world play testing. This in turn allows them to leverage armies that may prove to be out of balance.

Regarding Heavy Support choices;

 

Empirical proof based on 2 out of 3 cases really doesn?t hold much water. The BBB P.62 under the heading ?WHO CAN USE A TRANSPORT VEHICLE?? states ??dedicated transports. Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization chart slot (for example, Elder Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it.  

 

There is no requirement that the FOC slot for a non dedicated transport be a Heavy Support choice.

 

Posted By mauleed on 07/03/2006 2:47 PM

b. I'll be blasting them all over the Internet if they screw up a rules call

....so generally they'll pause a moment and think before making some sort of sloppy ruling.

Oh Noes!!!

What makes you think you're so much different to the other random rules-lawyers who think they know more than the games designers?

You really think they'd be bothered about what some punk kid says about them on the interweb?

Just to ring in here...

IMO, I don't think this could have been a typo, if it were it would mean that 1. They changed the text from the original which is something they are not really apt to do because of the GW affinity for copy and pasting things from previous codices. 2. There was a mistake in the design of the entire book by putting a troop insignia beside the 'fish.

I just want to let you all know I feel dumber for reading this thread.  It never stops amazing me how stupid people can be about things.  "Oh it doesn?t say it is a dedicated transport so I can take them as a troop." 

Next to the devilfish listing in the Tau Empire codex right were Godhead's little friend found what he figured was conclusive proof that you can take empty devilfish as a troop option, is the word in grey down by the bottom of the page TRANSPORT and at the top of the page in the Space Marine codex it Says in big words TRANSPORT Vehicles and in the marine quote right under that heading it says "units have the option of selecting a transport vehicle.  These vehicles do not use up any additional Force Organization chart selections, but otherwise function as separate units.  The vehicles described here may only transport the units they are selected with, and may not be used to transport other units during the course of a battle"  But never says the words dedicated transport to describe the rhino or razorback, so can I field empty razorbacks? NO! Because it is listed under Transport Vehicles,  OMFG just like the devilfish is listed as a...wait for it, wait for it, let that feeling of stupidity sink in, Transport.  So you can't take an empty devilfish just like it has always been.

Next time kiddies I want all of you to actually crack open those rule books you own and read the words inside rather then just going on what someone prints here online.

What you are missing cowboy is that there is a FOC symbol next to the 'fish. And it says: Unit Type: Vehicle Skimmer not "Unit Type: Transport" so you may also want to re-read the rules there.

Crack open a marine codex and tell me where next to the rino it says "unit type: transport".  It says "unit type: Tank"  Also down just below the FOC symbol it does say TRANSPORT, not troop like next to the firewarriors above.  I did read the rules, why don't you do the same happy

I looked all over and can't find the entry for rino anywhere...

*runs away*

That's nice.  Now why would I apply rules from some other codex to a Tau army?

Yeah, I was just about to mention that when I take my Tau army out to game, I didn't realize I had to bring the Space Marine codex with me.

I don't see the big deal about empty devilfish.  Being able to pick empty razorbacks in a marine army, yes, I can see everyone making a big deal about that.  But the marine dex specifically says you cannot do it, while the Tau codex is written differently and allows you to do it.  How can this be argued?

- Oaka

By the same 'logic', the Dark Eldar Raider is listed under troops and does not say dedicated. I guess that means for 60 points each, I can have a Raider with a Disintergrator flying around hunting termies with S7 AP2 blast action.

@Dragonpup, there is no FOC symbol next to 'transport: Raider'

Happypants, the FOC symbol doesn't appear next to anything in the DE Codex. Guess I can't fill out that 2+ troops and 1+ Hq requirement. :-(

It should be possible to test the legality of a Tau unit by reference to Tau Empires, the BBB, and the Tau Empires or BBB FAQs. It should not be necessary to refer to any other codexes.

@dragonpup, I don't know if you have the older codex or something but at the far left you will see an arrow that points downwards in the DE codex beside both the warrior squad and raider squad. There is none beside the raider.

I know that most people here put no trust in the Rulez Boyz but I just called the GW Canada guys on this one and they said that yes, it can be taken as its own unit. GW Canada doesn't have as many people in it as GW US so isn't as good to call 3 or 4 times to get an answer on the same thing but the guy was quite sure about it. I didn't even note any of the arguments to try to lead him or anything, just asked "Can a Tau Devilfish be taken as its own troop unit" He also said he has had calls on this before.

No.

Just no. So compelled to say no I signed up to say so.

By this logic it's fair to take wave serpents as troops (check your current codices, it's under "troops" with the same "transport" designation as the 'fish).

The devilfish is listed specifically and only as a transport. It is not listed as a "normal" force org unit like the land raider, and I don't see how people can justify a spurious piece of graphic design (the troop icon) as a reason to say it's a troop choice.

It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's probably a duck.

I agree rork. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to exploit every little loophole in the game they can.

Ill say it again...play the game, not the rules.

Oh, the empty land raiders is a completely non related arguement. The land raider is a scoring uit, takes up 250pts and a heavy support slot, and does not have the word "transport" next to it.

Anyone using empty Devilfish is cheating.

After looking at this again, I am going to change my position.

The name for the unit is "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier"

Now, examine your codex. Next to Kroot and Firewarriors, you have the symbol for troop, as well as a light colored word to the left of the descritption that says Troops. Now the devilfish has next to it the Troops symbol, but is called a "Transport"

There are two listing in the codex that describes it as a transport rather than troops. I think it is pretty good footing to say that the devilfish is a dedicated transport.