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 vertical grey text is relevant, as is the "Transport" label. The "Transport" label is what distinguishes the Transport entry from the Troop entries. Either "Transport" satisfies the rule on P.62 of the rulebook, and their agreement simply confirms that neither is a typo. Neither can be reasonably argued against (and here I'm charitably including "No it's no!" in the category of argument...).

I think it's interesting that the last line of the Fire Warrior Team Entry is:

"Transport: If it numbers twelve models or less (including drones), the team may be mounted in a Devilfish troop carrier."

And the very next line on the page, titling the Devilfish entry is:

"TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER"

Which is, as Orlanth points out, in agreement with the Army List Entry typing in grey beside that entry.

Nurglitch wrote:Beast: That is incorrect. The rules clearly state that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Any arguments reaching a contradictory conclusion are unsound, either because they are premised on false statements as Meep357's argument is, or made with invalid reasoning.

As for myself I have made a commitment to telling the truth as part of my training, and my experience in teaching critical thinking and logic has shown me that patience is required when explaining things to recalcitrant interlocators. Thus I am neither tired of promulgating the truth, nor tired of refuting the untruths clouding the truth.

Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Trying to make yourself sound more educated than your discussion rivals also doesn't help your argument either. There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...


Edited for spellilisciousness

Orlanth wrote:Actually you pointed something else out, the title. The grey lettering on the sides is the only definative labelling, because it is used to describe EVERY unit in the main codex misting. As described above. There is no getting away from it. The title 'Transport: Devilfish' et al isnt quite so clear.

Stick to the verticle grey text and you cannot be argued against, well they can try, but its not worth answering as the grey text is consistent thoughout.

Actually, every unit has the symbol for their FoC slot to the side also. The Devilfish has the one for Troops, denoting it as being a Troops Choice.

Beast wrote:Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Okay, let's assume for a second that I'm not willfully blinkering myself to "RAW" when it is repeatedly shown to me. Let's assume I am merely an idiot whose hand needs to be held. Could you show me, the idiot, step by step how the argument I have put forth is incorrect? Remember that I'm an idiot and need it explained fully because I'm not smart enough or telepathic enough to understand what you mean.

Beast wrote:Trying to make yourself sound more educated than your discussion rivals also doesn't help your argument either.

I have no discussion rivals. My interlocaters are my companions on the journey to discover the truth.

Beast wrote:There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...

You know, I'd never claim that I was smarter than someone, but I would claim that I was gruner than someone. You see, by being gruner than someone I know that I am grune enough to be gerb, and if I am gerb than someone who doesn't pib with me must be ungerb and thus obviously not grune at all. And I must be gruner than someone who is not grune at all, right? I know that because I am grune, not because over any silly stuff like evidence or reasoning. Being gruner than thou is all I need to be gerb and thus someone to whom all must bow and pib with.

As you say, this is clearly an important issue for me, as my self-esteem and internet penis depend upon it. I have to prove that I am the grunest. Since I am clearly also an idiot, I implore you to take mercy on someone that is not as grune as you and help me pib with you such that I can partake in your grunes and thus also be grunest.

Ahem, seriously though, it would be nice if you carefully explained why I was wrong so I could understand. It would mean the world to me.

Beast wrote:
There is always someone (usually many) that is smarter than yourself. To think or claim superiority in any discussion here will be met with nothing but scorn (spoken or not). This is clearly an important issue for you but not for me so I will gracefully (or not ) step out. Feel free to get in the last word if you need to...

Nurglitch-You know, I'd never claim that I was smarter than someone, but I would claim that I was gruner than someone. You see, by being gruner than someone I know that I am grune enough to be gerb, and if I am gerb than someone who doesn't pib with me must be ungerb and thus obviously not grune at all. And I must be gruner than someone who is not grune at all, right? I know that because I am grune, not because over any silly stuff like evidence or reasoning. Being gruner than thou is all I need to be gerb and thus someone to whom all must bow and pib with.

Man you make me laugh! That was a pure Gold response.

Nurglitch-Exalt!!

Nurglitch wrote:

Beast wrote:Actually you are the one who is incorrect, as has been demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways. But feel free to play on as you like- this is only a toy soldier game after all. Willfully blinkering yourself to RAW when it is repeatedly shown to you (as I can only assume from your stance) doesn't help your argument though.

Okay, let's assume for a second that I'm not willfully blinkering myself to "RAW" when it is repeatedly shown to me. Let's assume I am merely an idiot whose hand needs to be held. Could you show me, the idiot, step by step how the argument I have put forth is incorrect? Remember that I'm an idiot and need it explained fully because I'm not smart enough or telepathic enough to understand what you mean.

Been lurking a while, figured I'd create an account to answer your question, since no one seems to be able to do so. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have noticed you are presuming something.

nurglitch wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

This rule tells us that some transports are dedicated transports.

Agreed. Some transports are dedicated. The issue is whether the word "transport" describes:
1) an entire entry
or
2) a vehicle

If the word "transport" describes an entry, then land raiders (because they can be taken by terminators) are dedicated. You get around this by pointing to a specific (C)SM rule that allows Land Raiders to be taken as non-dedicated transports. Under this argument, all Devilfish, no matter how assigned, are necessarily dedicated, and therefore cannot be taken as a troops choice.

However, if the word "transport" describes an individual vehicle, then when the vehicle is chosen at army creation distinguishes whether the vehicle is dedicated or not. Choose a Devilfish with a squad of FW, it's dedicated. Choose a Devilfish as a troops choice, not dedicated.

The issue between the two positions, I believe, boils down to the above choice. Do the rules point to entries in a codex or do they point to an individual vehicle. It is my opinion that, because of the language "directly assigned to that particular unit," that the rules are referencing individual models, and not the whole entry in the codex.

Hope I've at least contributed to the discussion.

egd: Certainly you have contributed to the discussion. It's nice to talk to someone willing to take the time. Please check the following for me, if you please:

In the case of the Devilfish the entire entry, the one labeled "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER", the entire entry and the vehicle in it are the same. So the term 'transport' on P.62 is satisfied either way, it seems.

Whether the rules in the rulebook point to the entry "Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier" or to the vehicle with a transport capacity known as the Devilfish Trooper Carrier it appears that a transport satisfies the reference.

Part of my argument, perhaps the main part, is that when a vehicle with transport capacity is chosen as part of another unit, it is a dedicated transport as per P62. And it is other than a vehicle chosen as its own unit. Being able to take a Devilfish as a dedicated transport therefore excludes it from being chosen as an independent unit, such as a Troop selection.

Considering that the entire entry for the Devilfish is labeled "Transport", both in the title and in the grey sidebar where the Force Organization Chart slot names are usually written in Codex: Tau Empire it seems we have a candidate to satisfy the language of the rule on P.62.

If the individual Devilfish can be directly assigned to another unit, then Devilfish in general can only be dedicated transports.

If the Devilfish entry can be directly assigned to another unit, then the Devilfish entry can only be dedicated transports.

Nurglitch wrote:
Ahem, seriously though, it would be nice if you carefully explained why I was wrong so I could understand. It would mean the world to me.

Baaah! That, my friend, was spoken like a true grunemeister. Your grunish response sucked me back in (although it needs a bit more gerb but not so much that it becomes overly grune, lest you be seen as an arrogant gip that can only pib when he gets his way)... Go back and re-read Meep's first post in this thread or go search for the 10,000 other threads that deal with this... I don't think I can explain it any better than Meep or anyone else has already done. If you don't get it, then you don't get it... All the evidence, quotes and references are already there.

Now you can join with us, your interlocutors, and open your eyes as you continue your 'journey to discover the truth'.

Nurglitch wrote:
If the individual Devilfish can be directly assigned to another unit, then Devilfish in general can only be dedicated transports.

If the Devilfish entry can be directly assigned to another unit, then the Devilfish entry can only be dedicated transports.

This may be where you are going wrong... Since we are talking about BGB reference and general rules, substitute the words 'Land Raider' for 'Devilfish' in your quote above and then tell us that a Land Raider can only be a dedicated transport. You won't be able to because it can be either a dedicated transport for a unit or a FOC choice all by itself (as a Heavy Support choice). Now how is that different than a Devilfish being either a dedicated transport for a FW (or Pathfinder) team or taken as a FOC choice all by itself (a Troops choice in this case). The rules in the Tau codex allows it to be taken as its own FOC choice unlike all other codeci do for their 'truly' dedicated transports.

Edit: typos

The difference between a Devilfish and a Land Raider is that the Land Raider has additional rules stating it may be taken as a dedicated transport or it may taken as a separate unit. The Land Raider is an exception to the ordinary rules, not an exemplar of them.

The Devilfish lacks the additional rules that allow the Land Raider to be taken as either a dedicated transport or a Heavy Support choice. Since it can be taken as a transport for Fire Warrior Teams and Pathfinder Teams it cannot be taken as a Force Organization Chart choice.

The rules in Codex: Tau Empire appear to preclude the Devilfish from being taken as a Force Organization Chart option because Force Organization Charts admit only HQs, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. The Devilfish is listed as a Transport.

I still don't see what I'm missing here.

Well then I can't help you. Although you just validated my example. Actually the LR has the same rules layout as the DF. Both are listed as vehicles that have a troop capacity and both are listed in other unit entries, saying that they may be taken as a dedicated transport. And they are both listed as choices unto themselves and do not carry the same restrictions that say the Rhino/Razorback/Trukk/Chimera etc Transport entries do. The Land Raider is not an exception to the rules, it is in fact an exemplar of their type (like Falcons, Immolators, DF, etc...) Sorry if you don't see the distinction.

Nurglitch wrote:Considering that the entire entry for the Devilfish is labeled "Transport", both in the title and in the grey sidebar where the Force Organization Chart slot names are usually written in Codex: Tau Empire it seems we have a candidate to satisfy the language of the rule on P.62.

However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Nurglitch wrote:The Devilfish is listed as a Transport.

I still don't see what I'm missing here.

That it is also specifically listed as being a Troop choice as per the symbol in the grey area also.

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

Beast: So what is the point that I'm missing? Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that I'm just too stupid to understand?

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

Beast: So what is the point that I'm missing? Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that I'm just too stupid to understand?

I never characterized or said you were too stupid to understand. Those are your own sarcastic words. Trying to falsely ascribe them to me is underhanded at best, and most likely considered as a troll here. What I did say was that the points have all been laid out for you to read by numerous other posters here and that if you don't understand those points, then I can't explain it any better than them.

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:However, the Devilfish entry has the symbol used to denote a Troops unit in the Grey area, which by RaW means that it is both a Troops unit and a Transport.

Where does it say that the symbol beside the Devilfish entry denotes that it is a Troops choice?

The same place it says that the word next to entries in the codex denote what choice they are.

Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

"Seriously, there's a thread in this forum where someone is claiming that Devilfish are not dedicated transports, and then you start this thread? What's up with you people? " quoted from Nurglitch in the "Are gretchen 'orks'?" YMDC thread...

The answer to your question is that someone needed RAW clarification on a rule to which they didn't know the answer. Okay with you if we discuss it and enlighten him on the various opinions/quotes/references of the issue so he can make his own informed decision (on his journey to the truth)? And I wouldn't say it is 'someone' claiming DF are not just ded. transports- it is a bit more of a widespread opinion than just one person... I personally don't like the ruling and refuse to play my own Tau that way, but RAW is what it is. So from a RAW perspective, we are the ones who should be taking your exasperated and supercilious attitude towards you... From a 'Rules As probably Intended' view , I agree 100% with you. But since this isn't a RAI thread we will likely have to just disagree...

Beast wrote:I never characterized or said you were too stupid to understand. Those are your own sarcastic words. Trying to falsely ascribe them to me is underhanded at best, and most likely considered as a troll here. What I did say was that the points have all been laid out for you to read by numerous other posters here and that if you don't understand those points, then I can't explain it any better than them.

Of course you didn't say that I was too stupid to understand or characterize me as being too stupid. I said that, not you. If I ascribed that to you I would have said:

"Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that you say I'm just too stupid to understand?"

Or:

"Surely you're not going to leave it with the argument that you think I'm just "too stupid" to understand?"

However, given that apparently the reasons why my reading of the rules is incorrect has been, as you say, "demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways" (see that? that's attribution), then the only reason why I am unable to acknowledge the truth of the matter must be because I am stupid.

Or, just possibly, because my reading of the rules has not been demonstrated to be incorrect numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways (I love vague predicates, they just sound so learned!). Either/or.

skyth wrote:The same place it says that the word next to entries in the codex denote what choice they are.

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is that on P.62 there is a sentence with that symbol describing how any transport vehicle with that symbol may be taken as a Troop choice as well as a dedicated transport? That can't be right, because there is no such sentence or text.

skyth wrote:Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

Ah, I think I understand. You meant to say that there is a rule describing how every Force Organization Chart choice is denoted by a particular symbol, rather than that there is a rule on the same page (P.62) as the rule that tells us that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Where in Codex: Tau Empire is this rule stated?

Nurglitch wrote:
Of course you didn't say that I was too stupid to understand or characterize me as being too stupid. I said that, not you.

However, given that apparently the reasons why my reading of the rules is incorrect has been, as you say, "demonstrated numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways" (see that? that's attribution), then the only reason why I am unable to acknowledge the truth of the matter must be because I am stupid.

Or, just possibly, because my reading of the rules has not been demonstrated to be incorrect numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways (I love vague predicates, they just sound so learned!). Either/or.

Nice after-the-fact attempt at dodging responsibility for your words, but I'm certainly not buying it.

Your reading of the rules has in fact been demonstrated to be flawed "numerous times by numerous people in numerous ways". Just because I didn't want to list all the people (Meep , skyth, me, etc, etc, etc) as the individuals that comprise "numerous" did't make it incorrect or vague. Re-read the thread and you will see that it isn't a vague predicate at all- it is actually an accurate reflection of this (and other) threads on this topic.

This is getting a bit tedious and devolving into ad hominem attacks, so... Congratulations, your quest for truth is finally at an end! DF are only ever dedicated transports and anyone who claims otherwise is a non-grune simpleton who is utterly incapable of gerb and wouldn't be able to pib if his life depended on it! Yea!!!

Edit:
pesky spelling and grammar!

Dodging responsibility for my words? Is that what you call pointing out that perhaps your knee-jerk response was inappropriate? Buy whatever you like, I recommend the truth.

I've re-read the thread, I've read all the posts, and I still can't figure out how my reading of the rules is anything other than the truth of the matter. Now I'm relying, somewhat tenuously apparently, on your charity and good sense to help me see what I've missed.

Please, help me see what I'm missing. If I've re-read the thread several times and still can't see it, it would be a big help to me if you spelled it out in really simple and easy to understand terms. It seems unlikely that I'm so stupid that I can't see what must be right in front of my eyes, and I'm certainly curious about the matter.

Nurglitch wrote:Part of my argument, perhaps the main part, is that when a vehicle with transport capacity is chosen as part of another unit, it is a dedicated transport as per P62. And it is other than a vehicle chosen as its own unit. Being able to take a Devilfish as a dedicated transport therefore excludes it from being chosen as an independent unit, such as a Troop selection.

I think here is your problem. Your argument basically (from what I can see) hinges on the argument that if a transport can be taken as dedicated, then it must be dedicated (all transports of that type must be dedicated).

The opposition takes the position that a troop may take a transport, which makes it a dedicated transport. But if the transport is not selected as a troop option, then it is not dedicated.

Both sides seem to satisfy the rules on p. 62, and there are arguments to support each side. I think that RAW suggests that Devilfish can be taken separately, but RAI is unclear (although it slightly favors dedicated only).

egd: It's good to have you in this thread. Cheers.

The reason why my argument seems to hinge on that premise (that if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry and thus be a dedicated transport) is that's what the text on P.62 states.

Here's the thing: If another Army List Entry may take a transport, that makes it a dedicated transport, right?

Well, if another Army List Entry may take a transport that means whether it actually takes the transport option or not, it could have and that possibility is what makes the transport in question a dedicated transport.

Now if a transport (or vehicle with a passenger capacity) may not be taken as a transport option by another unit, then it is not a dedicated transport. It's hard for a vehilcle to be a dedicated transport when no unit has the option of taking it.

That's my argument, in part, that the option of taking a Devilfish as a dedicated transport is what prevents it from being taken as an independent Force Organization Chart slot. That's what the text on P.62 states.

The other parts of my argument are corroboration of the Firewarrior Team, Pathfinder Team, and Devilfish Trooper Carrier Army List Entrie. That's the part of my argument that says: "And because there's all this corroborating information, it is not only true that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport, but it is clearly the case that the Devilfish is a dedicated transport."

Nurglitch wrote:

skyth wrote:Every entry in the codex has the symbol for the FoC slot that they occupy next to them.

Ah, I think I understand. You meant to say that there is a rule describing how every Force Organization Chart choice is denoted by a particular symbol, rather than that there is a rule on the same page (P.62) as the rule that tells us that Devilfish are dedicated transports. Where in Codex: Tau Empire is this rule stated?

Although not written in text, the BGB and all the current codexes have that "Standard Missions" chart that shows Troops as having the triangle pointed to the right symbol. I don't have the Tau codex to see if it has the paragraph about how to use the FOC, but the Blood Angels has one on page 14. I guess if it isn't in paragraph form it isn't a rule to you?

And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must. Your bragging about your logical prowess has become irritating over time.

snooggums wrote:Although not written in text, the BGB and all the current codexes have that "Standard Missions" chart that shows Troops as having the triangle pointed to the right symbol. I don't have the Tau codex to see if it has the paragraph about how to use the FOC, but the Blood Angels has one on page 14. I guess if it isn't in paragraph form it isn't a rule to you?

Don't be silly. Being written in the text, rather than literally being text, is quite sufficient for the expression of a rule. It would be stupid to ignore diagrams about the rules, after all. But thank you for providing the requested information. However, now that you mention it, the "Troops" symbol is explained textually on P.77 of the rulebook, but that section does not appear to make any reference to the place of dedicated transports in the Force Organization Chart.

So what if the "Triangle Symbol" denoted that a Devilfish was a Troops choice? Well, the same thing applies. As no additional rules exist like those pertaining to the Land Raider that allow it to be taken as both a Troops choice and a dedicated transport, and that since it may be taken as a dedicated transport it cannot be taken as a Troops choice despite the labeling

Considering the location of the Devilfish Unit Entry in the Troops section of the Army List, and right below the first entry to have them as a dedicated transport option, it follows that the "Triangle Symbol" indicating that the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the Army List does not disagree with the labels and rules that mean it can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

snooggums wrote:And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must.

People have attempted to point that out, sure, but you cannot point out that which is false. It is true that being taken as a dedicated transport means an Army List Entry may only be taken as a dedicated transport. That's what P.62 states. The Land Raider is often mistaken as falsifying this, but it does not because has additional rules that allow it to be taken as both a dedicated transport and a Heavy Support choice.

snooggums wrote:Your bragging about your logical prowess has become irritating over time.

Since I haven't been bragging about it, you must be irritated by something else. Perhaps you will find my manner less irritating if you give up taking it as a personal insult to you. Or just leave your personal baggage at home, whichever.

Nurglitch wrote:So what if the "Triangle Symbol" denoted that a Devilfish was a Troops choice? Well, the same thing applies. As no additional rules exist like those pertaining to the Land Raider that allow it to be taken as both a Troops choice and a dedicated transport, and that since it may be taken as a dedicated transport it cannot be taken as a Troops choice despite the labeling

Considering the location of the Devilfish Unit Entry in the Troops section of the Army List, and right below the first entry to have them as a dedicated transport option, it follows that the "Triangle Symbol" indicating that the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the Army List does not disagree with the labels and rules that mean it can only be taken as a dedicated transport.

You are trying to get me to provide a special rule that is not required, as it clearly outlines what a transport is which is different than a dedicated transport. Clearly being marked with the symbol from the FOC hierarchy the Devilfish can be taken as a troop choice as a regular transport. It's location under a unit which is able to take it as a dedicated transport is irrelevant.

snooggums wrote:And as has been pointed out many times in this thread, just because it can be taken as a dedicated transport does not mean it must.

People have attempted to point that out, sure, but you cannot point out that which is false.

I cannot prove a falsehood, yet it has been clearly stated where the rules state that the Devilfish is a transport and also that it can be taken as a dedicated transport. I cannot falsify your requirement that it only be dedicated because it doesn't say anything about that restriction that you are making up.

Nurglitch wrote:egd: It's good to have you in this thread. Cheers.

Thanks.

Nurglitch wrote:The reason why my argument seems to hinge on that premise (that if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry and thus be a dedicated transport) is that's what the text on P.62 states.

The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:
"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

"These" - does it refer to the "vehicle selected along with the unit" or does it refer to the "transport option?"

Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

Jesus, this is getting out of hand.


IMO, everyone needs to STFU with the insults.

All it does is take away from the discussion at hand. Every time you take a moment to insult another person in the thread, or respond to the insult, is energy & attention taken away from the discussion.
It's counter-productive.

...and annoying.

Here's the deal... egd seems to be the only one with his head on straight. He's not getting petty.
Nurglitch, no insult intended, I agree with your argument, if not your demeanor.

The same for beast, meep & skyth. Come on, guys. Let's take a deep breath and chill.
Disagreeing doesn't have to = arguing.

Now.

Forget the Land Raider for a moment.
Let's use the only 2 books that matter for the moment, the BGB & the Tau codex (note: I will mention the LR again).

This is the foundation of my post:
WH40K is a permission based game. I think we can all agree on that.
You can do what the rules tell you is possible. Agreed?
Otherwise, you'd have people bringing killed models back onto the table as reserves (since the rules don't say you CAN'T). AFAIK, only certain Tyranid units have that ability, and you have to pay for it.

So, we can only do what the rules tell us we can.

The rules say (not a quote) that any vehicle with transport capacity is considered a dedicated transport. That seems obvious, and I THINK we can agree on that.

IN GENERAL, a dedicated transport can NOT be taken as it's own FOC selection. We agree on that, too, I think.
Unless there is a rule stating that the transport can ALSO be taken as it's own FOC selection, then it may not be.

Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

I maintain that you cannot, because it does not exist.

Now, back to the Land Raider.
Based SOLELY on the BGB, the LR would be a dedicated transport and unable to use it's own FOC slot.

The Codex: SM, however, specifically makes the LR a Heavy choice with the OPTION to be used as a dedicated transport for a unit. It specifically mentions it in the unit description and makes it clear that it is an exception to the norm.

This is where the 2 become divergent. The Devilfish has no such text.

Warhammer 40K is not a game that allows you to do something because of words that were omitted from text. It is a game that allows you to do something because it specifically says you can.

If you disagree with me, fine. I understand.
If you want to point out that I'm wrong, I can take it.

If you want to tear down my "argument," I'm okay with that, too. Should you do so, please start at the foundation and address every point I made. I've noticed that, on both sides, there is a tendency to gloss over pieces you do not have a direct answer to.

If you don't address each point I make, I'll write off your response as unimportant.


Eric

snooggums wrote:You are trying to get me to provide a special rule that is not required, as it clearly outlines what a transport is which is different than a dedicated transport. Clearly being marked with the symbol from the FOC hierarchy the Devilfish can be taken as a troop choice as a regular transport. It's location under a unit which is able to take it as a dedicated transport is irrelevant.

I'm not trying to get you to provide anything more than you did, the section of the rulebook you thought indicated that the triangle symbol indicated a Troops choice in the Force Organization Chart. That section of the rules could equally have been rules like those about the Land Raider, as you seem to be saying that the symbol indicates the same sort of rule. Now, I didn't say the Devilfish Army List Entry location was relevant. I did suggest that its location made the Troops symbol irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, then it cannot clearly indicate that the Devilfish may be taken as an independent Force Organization Chart slot.

What is relevant is the fact that the Devilfish is labeled "Transport" (twice) and that it is a transport option for two Army List Entries.

snoogums wrote:I cannot prove a falsehood, yet it has been clearly stated where the rules state that the Devilfish is a transport and also that it can be taken as a dedicated transport. I cannot falsify your requirement that it only be dedicated because it doesn't say anything about that restriction that you are making up.

I am most certainly not making up anything about the rules on P.62. The rules state that transports are either dedicated transports because they are selected as part of another Army List Entry, or they are selected to fill their own Force Organization Chart slot.

"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit."

The Firewarrior and Pathfinder unit entries satisfy this.

"These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transport vehicles."

The Devilfish is thus a dedicated transport vehicle.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a Force Organization Chart slot (for example, Eldar Falcons), and can be used to provide ad hoc transportation to any unit that can embark on it."

Other transport vehicles, i.e. those that are not dedicated transport vehicles, are chosen separately.

The first sentence indicates the conditions for being a dedicated transport, the second sentence names them as a dedicated transport, and the third sentences explains that only vehicles other than dedicated transports are chosen separately. So yes, the rules do make the restriction that I am reporting. They express it in the third sentence I have quoted. I have shown your denial of the restriction to be false.

egd wrote:The text on p.62 does not make that distinction:

Certainly the text you quoted does not make the distinction, but the quoted text is incomplete. It lacks the third sentence that I quoted to show how the text is to be read.

But with regard to the following text (re: "These"), surely the term "these transport vehicles" refers to the "transport option" in the previous clause rather than the "vehicle selected along with the unit" because of number agreement. If it agreed with the latter, it would be "this transport vehicle" indicating the particular vehicle rather than the type of vehicle.

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I do very much appreciate it. But can you understand why I, given this counter-argument, might reject it?

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

My argument, such as it is, can truly be quoted as "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry". But taking that to mean "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of that Army List Entry" would misrepresent my argument. As above, with the "these", my argument means: "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of other Army List Entries" or "if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as a dedicated transport vehicle".

egd wrote:Of course, GW writers are not necessarily known as the most precise wordsmiths in the world, so this result doesn't make sense, even tho the p.62 rule can be read as such. RAW is inconclusive, RAI clearly demonstrates that "these" refers to the individual vehicle, not the codex entry.

To be honest the more I actually walk the talk, so to speak, and apply what I teach in my classes to the problem of Warhammer rules I find those rules to be sufficiently precise such that the careful and critical reading I would give to scholarly articles yields clear and consistent results when applied to the Warhammer 40k rulebooks. RAI & RAW, being a flawed methods of reading, would naturally yield inconclusive results. I'm just trying to explain myself and the method I'm using here.

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

I think it is best to ignore RAW and RAI when reading the rules and to read the rules carefully and critically. When read carefully and critically (meaning avoiding things like number disagreement) as I've shown the question of whether Devilfish can be taken as Troops seems to be conclusively answered by "No."

Well written, egd.

egd wrote:"Sometimes a unit entry in a Codex book will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit. These transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit and are known as dedicated transports."

"These" - does it refer to the "vehicle selected along with the unit" or does it refer to the "transport option?"

"These," (and I agree with you re: wordsmiths) would refer to the vehicles. In the previous sentence, "the vehicles" (transport options) is augmented by the following text: "allowing a vehicle to be selected along with the unit"
Thus, any vehicle allowed to be selected along with the unit.

egd wrote:Again, I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the argument. I think that either option would be supported by RAW because the language is inconclusive.

I see what you're saying. I just don't understand how someone would choose to rad it that way since the general premise in 40K states that the more restrictive (i.e. weaker) option should be chosen when there is a discrepency.

egd wrote:But look at the Chaos Codex for example. Under the "Chaos Space Marines" entry it allows you to take a Rhino transport. Going by your argument ("if a transport can be taken as part of another Army List Entry, then it can only be taken as part of another Army List Entry"), the Rhino can only be a dedicated transport. Applying the rest of the rule "[t]hese transport vehicles are directly assigned to that particular unit," would suggest that, since Rhinos can be assigned to CSM, then they can only be assigned to CSM, and not to Rubrics, Berzerkers, etc.

Except that the units you refer to ARE CSM, they are simply marked CSM. They still qualify (plus, I believe their text states that they can take the Rhino).

egd wrote:So at best, the question on whether devilfish can be taken as troops is inconclusive, by RAW. RAI doesn't work for the Devilfish, because there's no sure evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

Hopefully, I've made "our" side clearer.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Nurglitch, no insult intended, I agree with your argument, if not your demeanor.

That is not an insult, and I could not rightly take it as such. My demeanor is irrelevant to the argument and I certainly appreciated the fact that you are able to focus on what is relevant. More people like you and egd in this thread can only be a good thing.

MagickalMemories wrote:The rules say (not a quote) that any vehicle with transport capacity is considered a dedicated transport. That seems obvious, and I THINK we can agree on that.

I would have to disagree, although I suspect you have mispoken yourself here. The rules say that some vehicles with transport capacity are dedicated transports and that other vehicles with transport capacity are not.

MagickalMemories wrote:IN GENERAL, a dedicated transport can NOT be taken as it's own FOC selection. We agree on that, too, I think.
Unless there is a rule stating that the transport can ALSO be taken as it's own FOC selection, then it may not be.

The vehicles taken as dedicated transports are other than those that are taken as Force Organization Chart slots. So far only the Land Raider has a rule stating that it may be taken as either a dedicated transport vehicle or as a own Heavy Support slot.

MagickalMemories wrote:Show me where, in any part of the Tau codex, it specifically states that a Devilfish may be taken as a troop choice. Do not utilize symbols or words written sideways next to the unit. Please quote the relevant text and page #.

Actually all information in the rulebooks including layout and diagrams are relevant, although in this specific case the Troops symbol by the Devilfish entry has been shown to be irrelevant and the grey lettering "Transport" has been shown to be relevant.

MagickalMemories wrote:If you don't address each point I make, I'll write off your response as unimportant.

As a rule, one that I adhere to strictly, I've only addressed points that I think need addressing on the basis of technical merit. Otherwise it's good enough.