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.

Hmmm, @focusedfire, yes and no

dumbA.S.S. Codex wrote: All models with battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems, as detailed in their army list entry. These may be in any combination, up to any points cost within the normal limits. A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list. No model can pick the same item twice, and all equipment, other than wargear (which is assumed to be integrated), must be represented on the model.

1st sentence, rephrased - A model wearing a battlesuit is assigned xnumber of items from the Battlesuit Weapons Systems and Battlesuit Support Systems lists, in any order no more than one time(twin linked is considered one item that fills two allotted spaces).

3rd sentence, rephrased - A model wearing a battlesuit, that also happens to have access to the Battlesuit Armoury, in addition to it's allotted requirements, may take up to 100 points worth of items from the wargear list.

Codex wrote: Equipment: Each team member is equipped with a XV8 Crisis battlesuit, and must select three battlesuit weapons systems or support systems.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points, giving him access to Special Issue wargear.

Equipment: each team member is equipped with a bust cannon and Stealth armour with integral stealth field generator. Each team member may select one battlesuit support system. If this option is taken, all members must do so, though each may select a different system.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the battlesuit wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points. The team leader or Shas'vre may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

Equiptment: Each model is equipped with an XV 88 Broadside battlesuit, and is armed with a twin linked railgun and Smart missile system.
Options: The Broadside team members must choose one battlesuit support system. The smart missile system may be replaced with a twin-linked plasma rifle at +10 points.
Character: One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list. A Shas'ui may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an aditional 5 points.

The fact that it is mentioned specifically when a model may choose from the wargear list implies that the others may not. This incongruence is evidence of the fact that the codex was written by a committee of college dropouts.

Also, "Each model is equipped with an XV 88 Broadside battlesuit" that means that for the purposes of A.S.S., and indeed all equiptment, drones are not considered models in the unit, but as wargear

@Whitedragon-I was very careful to quote very precisely. Even to the Horrid punctuation and sentence structure. My Sentence structure and punctuation may not always be excellent, but then I'm not writing a rule book for sale.

Please to tell me what false assumptions. I am merely quoting the rules. The rules I went looking for to find the limitations and restrictions everyone was saying applied.

What I found was that there are no such limitation by RAW and that I'd been operating under the same assumptions that everyone else had with a few small exceptions.

I was as surprised by some of this as you may be. I am now very thankful that you made this a YMDC discussion.

Come now gentlemen, let's keep our heads here! focusedfire, are you prepared to explain what you just explained to us, word for word, to a tournament opponent whose blood pressure is quickly rising and a skeptical tourney ref whose breathing down your neck?

There are things in the Tau codex we can slip by with: i.e. multitrackers or Drone deep strike assault moves, but at some point you have to realize no one in their right mind would allow you to take 6 drones without controllers...I certainly wouldn't!

Edit: If you didn't need to take controllers to take drones, nothing is also stopping you from taking as many drones as you want! Is that to be allowed as well?

@Maj Tom- You are having to rephrase to make your case vs a RAW. This isn't the strongest position to be in.

It is the Third sentence in the Battlesuit Armoury header paragraph that is the Devil in this detail.

By its actual wording it gives all of the XV-8 and XV-88 suits access due to the hardpoint slots they have to/may fill. After rereading the Stealthsuit entry they would qualify also from being allowed to take one support system.

So by the wording of that third sentence it made the Shas'ui team leader access to wargear wording superfluous/redundant/unnecessary.

The rephrasals were a way of my stating just what i thought the particular wording meant, as RAW, we interpret all words, so RAW could not technically exist because words are an expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

The point I was making was that All battlesuits (other than stealth, due to the word 'may') are assigned a specific selection of options from lists that happen to be in the armoury. They have no choice they *must* take any X# weapons systems/Support systems in any combo. Whereas the word *access* represents that the model in question has optional extra equiptment, and it is not a mandatory assignment.
E.X. A janitor may have a keycard to the same building as a CIA agent, but the Agent has higher *access*. The janitor must go in said buildings to clean, The CIA agent may enter those building. The janitor obviously cant go into restricted areas, where they keep the alient mutant attack bunny, while the CIA agent can.

Also, the fact that it sates that the team leader may select items from a battlesuit Wargear list indicates that his access to the Wargear list specifically is dependant on his team leader status.

@Sychronicity- I'm already used to spending time explaining the Tau to my opponents.

Now, I was just as surprised to find that by RAW there was no requirement for a controller to take drones. I DON'T EVER INTEND to play it that way(Not yelling, trying to let people know). I'll be happy to let this dirty little secret die. This would leave the door open to drone anarchy.
I, also, don't need to use the "drone controller not being mandatory" RAW interpretation in order to make my case about the ASS/Broadside/drones question.

It turns out by the wording from the Battlesuit Armoury lead paragraph that all Battlesuits have access to the wargear list.

Now, this I will use this to support my broadsides taking drones while equipped with ASS.

Whats funny is that it has never really come up. It didn't become a debate untill some other Tau players questioned it because they had never read it that way.


Edit for spelling

If anyone could take items from the wargear list, why would they specify in the team leader option that they can take from the wargear list.

"One Shas'ui per team may be designated as a team leader at +5 points, and may ____ select items from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

The two possible interpretations for this (even as RAW) both involve the insertion of an implied word

I1 inserts the word "thus"
I2 inserts the word "still"

I tend to go with interpretation 1

@Maj Tom- Your operating under the false assumption that somewhere in those paragraphs there was wording that seperated the Battlesuit Weapons and Support list from the Armoury.

There is no such wording.


I also have to politely disagree about paraphrasing. Words have meaning. Using synonyms to twist the meaning to your end is not fitting for a RAW argument.

This is because 2 words that are synonyms can have slightly differing meanings. Also, those 2 words can have other synonomous words that don't relate to the first synonym.

Maj. Tom wrote:If anyone could take items from the wargear list, why would they specify in the team leader option that they can take from the wargear list.

Broken Record says, "Because the Tau Codex is a poorly-written pile of poodoo."

@ KaloranSLC: Given
@ Focusedfire: the same word will not mean the same thing to two people. An excessive example is the word "Boot". to You an I it means a form of footwear, To a german, it means a type of floating vehicle that is propelled either by wind, engine, or paddles(or some other creative manner of locomotion)
We equate words to other words subconsciously, and thus a word has two or more meanings depending on which synonym we equate it to. A skilled writer uses context clues to goad us and guide us to equate it with the same synonym that he/she intended when writing. A drunken irishmen stomping on a keyboard, river-dancing, does not have this grace, and as these are undoubtedly the authors of the great and *infallible* codex, there is great room for interpretation, even while remaining within the realm of RAW.

HOLD The Phone!

Where does it even say that A.S.S. takes up a hardpoint?! Structurally speaking, stabilisation would not be of much use mounted on top of a railgun (where the HP is), It would either be withing the suit body, on/on the legs, in/on the arms or shoulders, or all 3. thusly it could take drones, (as in any HP mounted support system)

Maj Tom-Actually to a german it might mean a type of drinking glass also.

Thing is that the Germans have a codex translated to their language. Now due to the fact that nothing of the scope of a codex can be truly translated. There is always something lost. Paraphrasing just complicates this.

This means that when trying to determine the rules if your dealing with a translation then its meaning has been degraded from the orignal to some extent. This isn't intended as a slight to non-english speaking countries, just an observation based on the fact of linguistic and cultural differences.
This could also be viewed from the other side as to the English version is somewhat innacurate. It all depends upon your cultural perspective.

What I working from is the English version. It only compounds problems in translation by paraphrasing. In the case of RAW its best to not change the words when debating but instead work from the original print words from the Codices or rulebooks.

@Maj Tom-Now your beginning to see the depths of this rabbit hole.

I knew it was deep but some of the stuff being found is still a complete surprise to me.

Now the standard answer to the hardpoint question is, its listed under support systems and as such uses up the available space.

Heck, is the term hardpoint still even used in this codex?

I think we may end up needing Yakface in here to help sort this mess out.

focusedfire wrote:I think we may end up needing Yakface in here to help sort this mess out.

I doubt even he can sort it out.

I totally agree with the view of synchronicity. If broadsides can't use it, what's the point of having it? anyway, drones are wargear, and assumed to be represented on the model, so I don't see the argument.

I too am working with an english version, i was just making an example.
And i agree that we should work off of the original rules, which is why i posted my intepretation after i posted the Codex entry verbatim. What im trying to say is that even verbatim, depending on the quality of writing, and too on the person reading it, can have differing meanings for different individuals, even when in the original language.

I think we should tell Yakface to redo the codex while sober.

How would we question this man with the face of a Yak?
I cant figure it out because GW's site is impossible to navigate

The ASS is a support system. The last time I checked, that took up one of the mandatory "Battlesuit Support/Weapon" system slots. You cannot make the argument that it does not use a hardpoint.

The argument you guys are using here is not traditional RAW. I know that may seem ridiculous, but hear me out. Your argument relies on the absence of clarification and specifics.

Clearly an argument based on the absence of a written rule has no right to be called Rules As Written, because the rules aren't written, their implied.

I can tell you what is written. It is written that a Team Leader or Shas'vre has access to Wargear, and may buy 100pts worth of it. It is written that a Drone controller allows you to buy two drones. It is not written that you may choose wargear without being a Team Leader/Shas'vre, and it is not written that you may do this without a Drone Controller.

You see why it's impossible to be a RAW argument, because the rules to support your claims don't exist, merely the absence of them.

We call that a "Loophole," but certainly not "RAW."

@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Now, both the Weapons systems and the Support systems are loctated in the armory.

Hence, all battlesuits that take either weapons or supports systems gain access to the wargear list.

Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.


Gotta go, things to do IRL.

focusedfire wrote:@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.

C'mon, that is one sentence against several that say otherwise! In all other instances, it states that you must be a team leader or above to use wargear! Just because it's a contradiction doesn't mean you automatically get to do it. It means its a contradiction, read my sig!

focusedfire wrote:Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

You know as well as I do it's not RAI, because let's be reasonable here. If GW wanted every battlesuit to take wargear (i.e. the rule you keep quoting), they wouldn't have stated on several occasions that you must be a team leader or above to do so. Explain that!

And I mean that in the most lighthearted, friendly, slap-on-the-back-and-laugh kind of way, my friend!

synchronicity wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@Synchronicity- What is written is that "A model in a battlesuit with access to the Armoury may also choose up tp 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

This is not implied, inferred, or any other form of rationalization it is only reading what was written.

C'mon, that is one sentence against several that say otherwise! In all other instances, it states that you must be a team leader or above to use wargear! Just because it's a contradiction doesn't mean you automatically get to do it. It means its a contradiction, read my sig!

focusedfire wrote:Is this RAW? Yes

Is this RAI? I don't know.

You know as well as I do it's not RAI, because let's be reasonable here. If GW wanted every battlesuit to take wargear (i.e. the rule you keep quoting), they wouldn't have stated on several occasions that you must be a team leader or above to do so. Explain that!

And I mean that in the most lighthearted, friendly, slap-on-the-back-and-laugh kind of way, my friend!

We know that rule-book trumps codex, but does codex trump codex?

@Sychronicity-What are the other sentences that say otherwise. They say if a model is promoted it may take from the wargear list.

It never says only promoted models.
There is no statement that says team leaders only.
Not even a you must be Shas'ui to enter this portion of the armoury.

It doesn't say that the other models can't, just that the Team Leader will be able to. This does not contitute a limitation on the other models.

The only limitation clearly addressed in any of the entries your referring too is the limitation to special issue wargear. This is completely seperate from regular wargear.

In summation I, again, propose that the rules as written state, when taken at face value and literally, that any Battlesuit model that can take an item from the weapons or support entries in the Armoury are allowed to take wargear also.

@focusedfire: I feel you are abusing a stray rule from an admittedly poorly written sentence. Explain to me why they feel they need to specify what access a team leader is able to take under the entries for an HQ, Bodyguard, Stealth, Broadside, and Crisis suit entries if every suit already has access to the full armory?

Do you really think that is how the wargear selection system is supposed to work for Suits? When different rules become redundant, you have to consider intent. That's all I'm saying.

How things are "supposed" to work have no bearing on how things DO work.

The sooner people realise that the easier this all becomes.

I understand that some might see it as "abuse" but in all honesty, Look at the tau Codex. Can you really justify NOT letting him abuse the gak out of it?

synchronicity wrote:Do you really think that is how the wargear selection system is supposed to work for Suits? When different rules become redundant, you have to consider intent. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you for arguing my original point as to why the entire UNIT of broadsides would be allowed to take drones. What you and several others proposed made the line "The unit may still take drones." redundant by giving the drones to a single model that already could take them. Yet, at that time, you were not willing to consider intent.

What it comes down to is that I've shown there is a case for the entire broadside unit taking drones from both a RAW and RAI points of view.

I've also shown that by RAW you could build a monster drone army. Would never try this at tournament, I'll leave that to someone else. But the idea of the monster drone blob of doom does seem like a fun way to pass a friendly gaming afternoon.


Someone said something earlier in this thread about having a talk with Andy Hoare. Thing is I'd love to and not in the way implied. I'd also like to talk with the team that added additional text.
Why? Because this was an incredibly rushed book and it shows. I'd like to find out what it was like trying to turn this codex out in such a short time and what the actual intentions were for how these rules worked. How much did the editing process hurt the clarity of the rules?

Becuse of this lack of clarity and that diggin deeper only muddies the waters I'm still going to try to bring this thread to Yakfaces attention and see if there is anything here FAQ worthy.

@Maj Tom- Yakface along with Legoburner are the owners of Dakka Dakka or as close to it as you can get.

This Thread was linked to TO where I normally post - http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=82016.0 - which lead me to read the thread on Dakka Dakka...which I read with a growing sense of disbelife!

focusedfire wrote:What it comes down to is that I've shown there is a case for the entire broadside unit taking drones from both a RAW and RAI points of view.

I've also shown that by RAW you could build a monster drone army. Would never try this at tournament, I'll leave that to someone else. But the idea of the monster drone blob of doom does seem like a fun way to pass a friendly gaming afternoon.

No you havent - what you have shown is rules lawyering and a deliberate misunderstanding of the basic rules based on the misreading and taking out of context of 2 sentences from the Codex.

Lets look at the facts.....

The Sentence the "Unit may still take drones" is part of the A.S.S entry - it simply states that the UNIT - ie the team that has brought the A.S.S may still take drones (in context meaning that the unit may take drones despite the earlier part of the section that says all members of the unit must buy the A.S.S if one does. - Very Clear.)

What is does not say is that the A.S.S lets you control drones, or take drones, or make love to drones, or become best mates with them. It says you "MAY Take Them" - if you take them you have to have a drone controller, this is a prerequisite for having drones [there is no argument here] - so the unit MAY take drones if they have a free Hardpoint for the Drone Controller, or if they have access to the Wargear section and may buy a Hard Wired Drone Controller.

This brings us neatly on to your contention that any model has access to the Battlesuit Wargear list - Rubbish - Sorry but Rubbish, Both in terms of the Codex and the Main Rule Book. - Basically you are basing that decision on the deliberate misreading of one sentence in the header of the armouy section, and ignoring the section before it that very clearly states the suits have access to the various systems as detailed in there army list entry.

Lets start with RAI -

The Entry for Crisis Suits for example, states -

"......and must select 3 Battlesuit weapon systems or support systems"

Note - no mention of Wargear.

It then goes on to say -

".....may be designated a TL at 5 points and may select items from the Battlesuit Wargear List".

So - it specifically states that the TL can buy Battlesuit Wargear, it does not say the Crisis Suits can. You are just adding that bit in yourself, its not RAW. The First line in the Battlesuit Armoury section tells us to consult the army list entry to define what the suits can have, the army list entry does not give the normal suits access to wargear...It's that simple.

Look at it this way, when you buy a Team Leader for your suits it costs you an extra 5 Points - so what are you paying that 5 Points for? Better Stats? - No, the TL has exactly the same stats as the normal suit. Better Weapons? - No, the TL has access to the same weapons. So whats the 5 points for? - The 5 points pays for you to have access to the Battlesuit Wargear list - thats why you pay it - if everyone had access to that list whats the point in paying 5 points extra for a model exactly the same in every way as the basic, normal Infantry?

However you are claiming that this is irrelevant and that as a loophole under a RAW reading [based on one misread sentence] that any model can buy Wargear and have access to the list - Ok lets assume that this is correct by RAW standards [it isnt but lets pretend for a second] have you actually examined the BS Wargear list and its associated rules? - Because he who lives by the RAW dies by the RAW.

If you read the Hard Wired section of the armoury it states.

"..........the only difference is that only Characters [under Raw in the BOB, Team Leaders and 'VRE's are upgrade CHARACTERS within the unit] with access to Wargear may choose them"

So two points there - only CHARACTERS can take HW systems - (Not Normal Suits) and only Characters with access to Wargear may choose them..IE. The Units mentioned Specifically as having access in there Army Entry List.

Now lets look at the Wargear List - there are 12 items on it:

3 Types of Drone (which as we established you must have a Drone Controller to buy and use).

4 Special Issue Items - Which again you can only use if it specifically says you can take them. ["....and only by those Models whose army list entry states they make take special issue systems."]

4 Hard Wired Systems - Which can only be used by a Character as stated above.

1 Bonding Knife. - Can be used by anyone with access to Wargear.

So - If we go along with the ridiculous assumption that any Model can buy 100 pts of equipment from the armoury (despite it being contradicted/overuled/out of context with the rest of the list) we can see very very clearly, that under the exact definition of RAW the only thing on the Wargear list a normal trooper could buy would be the Bonding Knife - He has no independant access to anything on that list, in fact - the opposite - it is mentioned specifically in the Codex that they can't take any of the items. [And if you look at the entry for Bonding Knives it says ".........Carried by the leader". ]

The rest of the CODEX - through RAW, and the MAIN RULEBOOK combine to show that under an exact RAW reading normal suits can not actually purchase or use Special Issue Systems or HardWired Systems [IE. anything on the BS Wargear list] - So No, under the RAW (and the RAI) there is NO WAY AT ALL that you can create your massive drone army, and that BROADSIDES with the A.S.S only have access to DRONES if they have a teamleader or 'Vre who can actually use the Hardwired Drone Controller to purchase the maximum 2 Drones.

That's RAW, Thats RAI, - Thats the way its played and if someone tried this on me in a friendly game I would refuse to play them, if someone tried it in a tornament I would take great pleasure in seeing them physically ejected by security and disqualified for having a blatently illegal list.

being fair focusedfire you can still take drone controllers as the support system + the hard-wird one in the team leader thats 8 drone (nearly 4 time the normal number of models you can take in the unit)

Just for clarity's sake Myself and, i believe, focusedfire are merely playing devil's advocate and do not truly believe the points we are arguing, nor would we use them, whether we are deemed right or wrong, b/c common, it would be cheap

@focusedfire: I don't know friend, I just can't see your argument. You are completely convinced you have this figured out, and I am completely convinced it' a pile of doo. So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. If we met at a tournament, I, like my talkative friend above me, would call a GW ref to check out your list. If you would be able to convince him, I would be happy to play you.

I think we can all agree, however, that the codex could use a tune up as far as clarification goes.

Maj. Tom wrote:Just for clarity's sake Myself and, i believe, focusedfire are merely playing devil's advocate and do not truly believe the points we are arguing, nor would we use them, whether we are deemed right or wrong, b/c common, it would be cheap

However, I believe focused wants his ASS Broadsides to have multiple drones, and that's why we've been going 'round for so long.

synchronicity wrote: However, I believe focused wants his ASS Broadsides to have multiple drones, and that's why we've been going 'round for so long.

Or, he, like myself, enjoys locking blades and matching wit with his fellow man, not t prove a point, not to accomplish anything, but merely to test his argumentary mettle