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.

Check the second bullet on page 29 in the Codex: Tau Empire, where MarkerLights can be used to increase BS "... up to a maximum of 5." The Game Mechanic of 4e only had BS up to 5 so this "... up to a maximum of 5" made sense.

Then there's the 5e game mechanic of Ballistic Skill 6 or Higher.
-------------
If you were a TO, how would you make this call during a tourney: Using lotsa ML hits on a mob of orks, a Tau player wishes to increase the BS on a RailHead submunition round beyond 5, really reducing the chance of scatter.

Would you go with:
A. "Codex overrides RuleBook" and thus only BallisticSkill 5
or
B. would you see the discrepancy in 4e's lack of Ballistic Skill 6 or Higher and give the tau player the chance to use MarkerLights to increase BallisticSkill to 6 or higher?

Brothererekose wrote:Check the second bullet on page 29 in the Codex: Tau Empire, where MarkerLights can be used to increase BS "... up to a maximum of 5." The Game Mechanic of 4e only had BS up to 5 so this "... up to a maximum of 5" made sense.

Then there's the 5e game mechanic of Ballistic Skill 6 or Higher.
-------------
If you were a TO, how would you make this call during a tourney: Using lotsa ML hits on a mob of orks, a Tau player wishes to increase the BS on a RailHead submunition round beyond 5, really reducing the chance of scatter.

Would you go with:
A. "Codex overrides RuleBook" and thus only BallisticSkill 5
or
B. would you see the discrepancy in 4e's lack of Ballistic Skill 6 or Higher and give the tau player the chance to use MarkerLights to increase BallisticSkill to 6 or higher?

I would go with "use the rules".

No more than BS 5. Anything else is [word for knowingly breaking the rules]. Personally I cannot even see how this is a question for YMDC. This sounds more like a Proposed Rules post.

And for your information, 4th and 3rd edition had models with more than BS5. Three off the top off my head are Phoenix Lords, Autarchs and Dark Eldar Archons.

Yep - BS5 is the max you can go to.

A and B are both wrong. What page in the rulebook describes marker lights and their 5e rules? They aren't, so this has nothing to do with the Codex overriding the rulebook. The rules for markerlights are entirely in the Tau Codex, it's not like Smoke Launchers where there is an entry both in the main book and the codex that conflict. So there is nothing to do with overriding, you simply follow the only set of rules for the item. Trying to ignore the rules when they are clear and unambiguous is normally referred to as [something we're not supposed to say here].

So it is [that thing] with a thin clearly invalid justification, like saying "since heavy weapons did multiple wounds in 1st edition, multi-meltas had a radius, and my model is from that era, my multi-melta fires a blast that does 2D12 wounds to all of the MCs under the template." Actually, a quick look at the 4E codex says it's even worse than my example - the game mechanics of 4e DID have BS of over 5, P22 of the hardback rule book tells you how to handle BS over 5. And even worse, the fact that BS over 5 had the same chance to hit at BS5 means that the rule you're trying to ignore served no purpose under a strictly 4e ruleset, therefore the ROI is clearly that the limitation is there in case future editions add rules where BS over 5 has a game effect, since there was no other reason to include that rule in a 4E codex.

When you ignore the rules for a piece of wargear on an argument about previous edition rules, get those rules wrong, and the ROI shows that the rule you're trying to ignore was put in specifically to limit the item for future editions, you're way past different interpretation.

Yeah BS5 is the maximum. I can't see why anyone would assume that that bit should just be ignore just because there are other guys with BS5+.

Gwar! wrote:No more than BS 5. Anything else is cheating.

'Cheating' is a rather strong word, given the spirit of this inquiry, Gwar.

I had grandparents and other family that played cards for money. I was raised hearing that being called 'cheater' meant an invitation to step outside, either to defend your rep or you were the one issuing it to trash the jerk who was cheating.

I often heard the phrase that 'cheaters should be taken outside and shot.'<---Probably a holdover from 'wild west' days in American culture, given my grandad's age and the people he played with when *he* was young. I would think that a great many folks take offense to the term being applied in their direction.

Anyway, you didn't know you were being really offensive. Now you do.

I abhor cheaters (the few douche bags in the local 40k scene who are known cheaters) and would prefer the term not lobbed in my direction, even in my inquiries.

People will probably consider you less of a tool if you tempered your adjectives.

Heh. And I tell people to lay off you.

Note: Lotsa 'smiley' icons.

So, back to friendly rules discussion?

Gwar! wrote:And for your information, 4th and 3rd edition had models with more than BS5. Three off the top off my head are Phoenix Lords, Autarchs and Dark Eldar Archons.

I'm aware of the elven higher BSs in the older codexes, even as far back as Dark Eldar, but what's the relevance to my question?

Did 3e have a Game Mechanic for BS 5+? For instance, the Archons? (I started 40k with 4e's rules).

As for the current Eldar book, there was reasonable speculation that it was written with 5e in mind, so their higher BSs might not apply to the point you're starting to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:- the game mechanics of 4e DID have BS of over 5, P22 of the hardback rule book tells you how to handle BS over 5.

What's the BRB say that isn't in the little one?

Brothererekose wrote:I'm aware of the elven higher BSs in the older codexes, even as far back as Dark Eldar, but what's the relevance to my question?

The relevance is you trying to claim that "Since 5e has rules for BS6+ the Tau should get to use them even though they are from an old codex and the rules are 110% crystal clear."

As for the current Eldar book, there was reasonable speculation that it was written with 5e in mind, so their higher BSs might not apply to the point you're starting to make.

Funny, I remember it being printed and used in 4th edition. I assume it was written for 4th edition rules then.

Gwar! wrote:No more than BS 5. Anything else is [word for knowingly breaking the rules].

Ah, thanks for the edit. "Knowingly breaking the rules" because there's a discrepancy (at least, I thought there might be) and doing so "to deceive your opponent" are two different things.

Gwar! wrote: Personally I cannot even see how this is a question for YMDC.

... because a Tourney Official might have had to .... "Make Da Call" ?

I nearly posited it in the last tourney I was in. I changed my mind before even bringing it up as I thought BS 5 was enough for my submunition shot, and I'd use the leftover MarkerHit for another shooter. It later it occurred to me to get some input on how people would call it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:The relevance is you trying to claim that "Since 5e has rules for BS6+ the Tau should get to use them even though they are from an old codex and the rules are 110% crystal clear."

I'm not claiming "Since 5e has rules for BS6+ the TTau should get to use them" ... I am asking how players/TOs would call it. *If* was was pitching the idea to see if there was a general acceptance of it, *then* we'd be in the Proposed Rules forum.

Funny, I remember it being printed and used in 4th edition. I assume it was written for 4th edition rules then.

Yeah, it was printed during 4e, so was the Dark Angels, but ... the 'written with 5e in mind' ... ?

Nevermind, thanks anyway, Gwar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Someone else, since I'd prefer not to escalate to FlamerWar with Gwar.

Did 3e have a Game Mechanic for BS 5+? For instance, the Archons? I started 40k with 4e's rules.

Brothererekose wrote:Did 3e have a Game Mechanic for BS 5+? For instance, the Archons? I started 40k with 4e's rules.

I am not trying to flame, I am just being honest. Why does it matter if there was or wasn't? The fact is, the Tau codex says to a maximum of 5. For all we know, maybe that was written for 5th in mind too.

Gwar! wrote:I am not trying to flame, I am just being honest.

Honesty isn't your problem, Gwar. Obnoxious posting is. Reading in to more than the words posted is also a problem.

Gwar! wrote:Why does it matter if there was or wasn't?

Why are you concerned? I thanked you and directed to "Nevermind". My question about 3e is so that I can know what was going on in 3e. Are you guessing, anticipating that I'm going to bring that info into the discussion as a syllogism to justify (in the original post) Option B?

The answer is, no, I don't plan to.

Gwar! wrote: The fact is, the Tau codex says to a maximum of 5.

Sigh. The fact is, in the original post, Option A says the same thing, Max BS 5.

I just wanted to know how people would call it.

Gwar! wrote: For all we know, maybe that was written for 5th in mind too.

<--- This is the kind of post that people can cite your obnoxiousness. Codex:TE was printed in 05. 4e in 2004. Do try to drop the sarcasm ...

Meh, i dont see how calling cheating cheating i a bad thing, if you arent playing by the rules you are by definition cheating ....

If being called a cheater hurts their feelings they should play by the rules?

Brothererekose wrote:Did 3e have a Game Mechanic for BS 5+?

Yes. The To Hit chart went up to BS10.

kill dem stunties wrote:... if you arent playing by the rules you are by definition cheating ....

That's not the definition of cheating. Both players agreeing to play it differently, or simply being mistaken can both result in someone not playing by the rules without being a cheat.



Meanwhile, the original question has been answered, and this thread isn't going anywhere good. Time to move on.