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.

Yea, its just imo, that you should take the bad along with the good when rules get updated. And this seems to be getting rid of the good part.

I thought that the good part was that a non-walker vehicle could kill models in CC? Even before they swing, iirc.

Well, they could do that in 4th though.

Timmah wrote:Well, they could do that in 4th though.

and in 4th you could only aim you attacks at models in B2B (or with 2" for infantry)

Tri wrote:

Timmah wrote:Well, they could do that in 4th though.

and in 4th you could only aim you attacks at models in B2B (or with 2" for infantry)

Which is all flechettes would hit in 4th ed...

Which is how they got both the good and the bad.

But they didn't both get good & bad.

Then:

Only vehicles in a squadron that were based up with assaulters could be damaged, and only those vehicles could use their flechettes.

Now:

All vehicles in a squadron can be damaged, regardless of whether they're based up, and still only the vehicles in base contact with an assaulting model can use their flechettes.

So, currently, assault is more deadly to vehicle squadrons, and no more deadly to units assaulting squads with flechettes.

Currently they can kill models that are 10 feet away.

kirsanth wrote:Currently they can kill models that are 10 feet away.

Flechettes can still only attacks back against those models that are attacking...unless the opponent wants to remove one from 10 ft away thanks to wound allocation.
In fact, this makes them worse, because you can remove models that couldn't strike anyways.

Actually, I misread, I think.
Not only does it not allow 10 foot hits, as that model is wounded, it denies wound allocation.

That seems a plus to me, as allocation is a bonus for the unit.

But that still doesn't change the fact that a cagey opponent could assault all his troops against a single model in a squadron and wipe it out, which is not what could happen when the rule for flechettes was written.

Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly, while the rules for the flechettes remain the same. This, functionally, reduces the effectiveness of the flechettes.

Saldiven wrote:Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly

Sums up a major change to 5e well enough.

synchronicity wrote:
Hey, as long as it doesn't result in 60 attacks against 12 Orkz, I'll take it!

Personally I have no problem with some units being things you ought to shoot (even with orks) and god knows lootas can deal with Piranhas more then adequately.

Jack

Gwar! wrote:I think most of the animosity comes from the small but vocal player base of Dark Eldar, Necron, Inquisition and (until recently) Space Wolf Players, who resent that an unwanted, unneeded army created solely to take cash off the anime fan playerbase have gotten a codex AND THEN ANOTHER ONE, while they still are using 10 year old codexes.

Hell my puppies have a super codex now and I still hate the Tau.

That's petty and unproductive.

You and the others should be hating GW for their slack publishing schedule, not the Tau codex. Enough hate at them and they might pull their finger out and publish a new codex for the other armies.

kirsanth wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Close combat for squadrons has gotten more deadly

Sums up a major change to 5e well enough.

In 5th edition, close combat got more deadly for both sides of the assault.

In this case, it is only more deadly for the vehicle squadron being assaulted.

Hence my feeling of imbalance in this interpretation.

I feel the same way, however I don't see a better way of solving the problem except to junk the core rule of assaulting vehicle squadrons and say that the models individually engaged are the ones that shoot and fight. There are several arguments against making that change.

As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

Looking at it in the wider context, no-one is forced to assault Piranhas. They are thin-armoured, open topped vehicles and can be shot at instead.

Kilkrazy wrote:I feel the same way, however I don't see a better way of solving the problem except to junk the core rule of assaulting vehicle squadrons and say that the models individually engaged are the ones that shoot and fight. There are several arguments against making that change.

As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

Looking at it in the wider context, no-one is forced to assault Piranhas. They are thin-armoured, open topped vehicles and can be shot at instead.

got agree. Also 30 orks can fire a massive amount of Str4+ on there own. If they do charge it should be to kill the last 1-2 that they failed to kill with shooting.

I may be playing Devil's Advocate here, but just because an imbalance occurs because of a BRB rules change doesn't mean it's up to us to rebalance it. As a Tau player, I stand to gain the most out of anybody from an "all Flechettes fire" ruling. But we have to make the distinction between what we want to happen, and what should happen. Arguing that all Flechettes should fire because squadrons are now more vulnerable to assaults in order to rebalance what was once balanced is not a reason to argue for it. We can't update rules for 5th ed (unless you want to house rule it, which I see as perfectly acceptable).

All we have is RAW. And when RAW is ambiguous/contridictory/unclear (as it usually is) we have RAI/Spirit of the rules. It's a crappy situation, but we shouldn't decide what works and what changes in order to give our Piranha squadrons a leg up in this edition, no matter how much they have been shafted.

Unless you want to house rule it!

Timmah wrote:Yea, its just imo, that you should take the bad along with the good when rules get updated. And this seems to be getting rid of the good part.

Saldiven wrote:In this case, it is only more deadly for the vehicle squadron being assaulted.

Hence my feeling of imbalance in this interpretation.

Killrazy wrote:As a Tau player I naturally prefer the Fire All Flechettes interpretation.

You've got a point there, and let me address it in two ways.

1. The BRB RAW suggests that Fire All Flechettes is correct. It's INAT which disagrees, and the choice is between the two interpretations.

To be fair, the INAT decision wasn't just tossed out, it was thought through (perhaps better than the basic rules) and could be right.

2. By RAW, Valkyries can't dismount troops because their base is over 2 inches high.

No-one serious suggests that Valkyries should not be allowed to dismount troops. Here is a clear indication that people are happy to accept a rebalancing in the case of a specific unit being shafted by RAW. The question is whether the Piranha becomes a death machine by virtue of FAF and needs to be rebalanced.

As I said above, assaulting Piranhas isn't the only way to attack them, and the flechettes are not a factor if you don't assault. Being open-topped, light armoured skimmers they are pretty vulnerable to fire.

Plus, if I remember the points correctly, a squadron of five Piranhas with flechettes is 350 points. It's a expensive unit and should be powerful.

So to me, and I freely admit I'm biased, there are arguments both ways; I prefer the one that favours the Tau and I don't think it's outrageous or hugely game unbalancing.

On a general note, all units shouldn't be and aren't easily killable by all other units, so it is not reasonable to find a unit which is a total **** to assault, as long as it can be attacked a different way. We should be wary of looking at things in isolation.

Despite all the above, I respect the INAT docs and much prefer a clear decisive FAQ to arguing about lots of petty points in the rules.

synchronicity wrote:Unless you want to house rule it!

I don't disagree with folks house ruling whatever they like, but I actually think this is a scenario where the RAW is fairly clear, it just spits out a result that is very different from the prior edition and seems over the top to some (most even) folks, the combination lends them an excuse to argue against it even though the rules say what happens.

Jack

Killrazy wrote:1. The BRB RAW suggests that Fire All Flechettes is correct

Jackmojo wrote:but I actually think this is a scenario where the RAW is fairly clear

People see what they want to see. We're all guilty. To me the RAW is fairly clear as well, but not in your interpretation. I believe RAW supports my position, and you believe it supports yours. There's not much we can do for each other, other than shake hands and part ways. I'll admit, I see the case for your objections, but I think I've made an equally sound case. Current INAT ruling supports the outcome of mine, too, but I'm not submitting it as evidence for anything other than the fact that the problem is not a simple answer that can be summed up with "well RAW supports 'x'"

The RAW in my eyes is not clear enough to say it supports anything other than a known problem. But it's been a fun debate over the week! Let us not forget each other's postions in the future should revisions be made to FAQ's, GW or INAT. I'm not bowing out because I don't think it's worth debating further, but I think we've all reached the point where we can't do much for each other! I wish I could give you guys a longer run for your money, but I'd just be restating stuff I've already written. Peace.

~Sync

Just being clear through all this the flechettes attack first in an assault or at the same time or after?

It strikes before any attacks occur.

I'm not sure how useful this will be to anyone, but my gaming group found a middle ground that irritated everyone, but less.

The number of flechette discharged is the lesser of: The number of attacks the squadron is receiving, or the number of piranha.
I'm not sure if that reads clearly, so an example:

A ten man IG squad charges a five piranha squad. Each guardsman has 2 attacks, and threatens 2 piranha. (20) Twenty flechette attacks.
Some ginormous CARNIFEX (oh noes!) charges a two piranha squad. The carnifex has 97 attacks! and threatens both piranha. (2) Two flechette attacks.

Our reasoning is that a threatened piranha activates it's individual wargear against individual attackers, rather than a threatened squad of piranha activating their collective wargear at units.

Perhaps not RAW or RAI, but it seems to work fairly.

But to be clear, the INT FAQ says any model assaulting the "squadron" receives a wound on a 4+.

So it seems there is no benefit for taking more than one in the squadron. And since you can't separate models from it's parent unit, then all the models making up the unit would take a wound on a 4+.

So there's no multiple hits.

The unit of 20 ork models assaulting the unit of 5 piranha's would let the Tau player roll 20 dice, wounding on 4's.

The advantage is that you have more than one model to remove before the Flachettes stop being able to apply.

edited so the sentence makes sense.

I would assume that's a choice the other player would be willing to take. Seems the scenario with a Nob assaulting with his 19 other wounds (boys), he would take the chance.

I mean that if you only put flachettes on ONE vehicle, and that one gets destroyed, no more flachettes apply.

If you put them on every vehicle, all vehicles need to be destroyed before flachettes can no longer be used.

Ah - I see. True enough.

I'd suggest using the INAT ruling with another change to the Tau Codex. On page 30, change the following part of the Tau Vehicle Upgrades list on the top of the page:

Flechette discharger...... XX pts

changed to

Flechette discharger...... XX pts (per vehicle or squadron)

The upgrade is cheaper, but then it's less useful as well. And it'll keep working for every vehicle in the squadron until they're all gone