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.

Lynata wrote: But, just to clarify, you are advocating the idea that anything and everything pre-5E is invalid and should be forgotten because it was "cut"?

no.
Codices may contain 4th ed material until they update.
Don't see why unreliable became invalid here, but I'll take the blame for driving this thread down this road.

Lynata wrote: As I said, it's possible that the Gue'vesa as we know them are on this pile, too. From all I've read in the Tau Empire Codex, however, I see no reason to believe this just yet, because we're still missing the contradiction.

A contradiction which you need a BL publication for. As you seem to discount such a source,
the more recent telling isn't usable and I for one deem that a mistake as a codex from 2005 is surely on the list for an update and the best hint where this is going could be someones work who isn't alien to the faction he wrote of.

Lynata wrote:Personally, I'd make a difference between "old fluff" and "outdated fluff". Old fluff is called old because few people are aware of it, which is why some players may perceive something differently than others. Old fluff may in some cases be outdated, but its actual status is a matter of contention, because the studio did not yet indicate it actually having been dropped "for reals".

Do they indicate if anything is dropped or replaced?

Lynata wrote:Of course, in theory you could now argue that the Codex: Tau Empire isn't 5E and that the Tau don't have any fluff now.

I would claim that: They would still have any bit in 5th ed codices with the name Tau in them.....
........If I would be foolish enough to get caught in this trap.

Lynata wrote:The IG had a number of Codices that didn't even hint at the existence of the Mordians.

Can't be the 3rd ,4th or 5th ed one as those include Mordians.

Lynata wrote:The Praetorians are no longer mentioned at all, even though they once had their own minis.

They didn't survive the colonial wars of britain...

Lynata wrote:Does this mean that GW wanted to change the "image they wanted to transport" for the Guard? Was it a conscious choice to leave them out? Or did they maybe just not include them because they aren't as important, yet may still be around?

yes , yes ( but the example doesn't work ) , maybe.

Lynata wrote:As for BL, I wouldn't necessarily say "expanded", as this implies a consistency that does not exist. BL novels integrating seamlessly with studio material or each other seems more like a coincidence based on author awareness, and less on Black Library or GW actually giving a feth about it.

I'd call the "space marine battles" series an expansion. The basic stories are all there, just re-created and blown up to fill more pages.

Lynata wrote: We've already established the people in this thread are using different definitions of what constitutes "valid fluff"

So there is no official ruling and our individual interpretations are incompatible. That would seem to be the only thing we can agree on in here. Anything else is just moving in cycles.

1hadhq wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote: So sure, you could have the view that in your personal version of 40k Gue'vesa don't exist, you could say the same for the Tallarn or Adeptus Arbites.

Could you please find worse examples than Arbites and Tallarns?
Tallarns out perform Gue'vesa at fluff so hard, no one would remember those helpers ever existed if there was a fluff competition. You know, Tallarns are in every IG dex, not as a sidenote, not as a secondary thought but really fleshed out. Like Arbites, who got BL to support them, Models from GW to buy, etc etc.
How can one compare one of the wellknown sources of IG Regiments with something that showed up just once in a CA article and never had models or conversion bitz offers? Really, get something believable.
Legio Cybernetica for example...

Fine then, I don't see how this helps your argument at all? The Skitarii legions of the Adeptus Mechanicus most recent mention is in Dan Abnett's BL novel Titanicus as far as I'm aware. And that's nearly as old as IA 3.

Hazardous Harry wrote: There is no such ambiguity with the existence of the Tallarn, or the Adeptus Arbites, or the Gue'vesa. And you STILL have yet to provide a reason why you think 'Old Fluff =/= Fluff".

When has old fluff started to become actual fluff? Old fluff is called old because.....
Think about it. If it was fluff of the current line of publications, it wouldn't be called old fluff. Sure any type of fluff is and always stays fluff. That doesn't mean the prefix "old" is for nothing.

As Lynata has pointed out, there is a big difference between Old Fluff and Outdated Fluff. And after all this time you still haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the Gue'vesa are outdated. You keep dodging around this and it's getting a little annoying.

Hazardous Harry wrote: It would be like quoting a Grey Knights book to point out the Deamonhosts don't exist.

I could quote the ancient pamphlet where Grey Knights were just a squad of Termies, to deepstrike in wherever the demon raised its ugly head. No demonhosts there, just the demons themselves. Sure only a few pages but still..

Seriously, the point isn't if Gue'vesa were part of a publication in the past.
Until you provide something to show their existance in any publication of 5th ed, I am not going to point out any non-existance of even the smallest and most unimportant creature of 40k.

You're being ridiculous. The onus is on YOU to prove that the Gue'vesa no longer exist in the newer fluff, that there is some entry that makes the older fluff containing the Gue'vesa outdated. To do so you would somehow have to prove that there are no human worlds under the auspices of the Tau Empire. Good luck with that.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
As it is though the codex actually states that the Kroot and Vespid are certainly not the only alien allies the Tau have.

To be "not the only" covers a lot of possibilities. No indicator any of those are humans.

Except, you know, humans are explicitly stated to be amongst the many alien allies the Tau have in the older fluff, this entry in the newer fluff doesn't contradict that in the slightest.

Hazardous Harry wrote: ... nothing short of a direct statement or implication stating that they did not exist would be needed to establish that the civilian ordos do in fact no longer exist.

BTW, there is a difference between being 'not used' and 'no longer exist' and if you get off of that war-path to paint me as one who tries to throw the less supported into the trashcan of no return, you will see that I didn't claim they
cannot exist anymore but that my statement was we can not be sure if they still exist since their support has been cut .

They are still being used. As far as I know the use of any Tau unit from the Imperial Armour volume 3 is the same as using any unit from the more recent IA releases.

Hazardous Harry wrote: There are plenty of Imperial Guard regiments that have been mentioned once or twice and either been forgotten or never mentioned again. Take the Savlar Chem Dogs for Armageddon Ork Hunters. You can't successfully argue that these bits of background info no longer exist because the newer codicies make no mention of them.

The bits exist, but Regiments get lost or destroyed so I wouldn't expect GW to use the same names when the theme is that no one exactly knows how many regiments exist and where they are actually deployed.
Sorry, IG regiments will never work for what youre arguing for. GW treats most of them like one-use-only.

1hadhq wrote:Do they indicate if anything is dropped or replaced?

I would say so, yes. That is what a contradiction mounts up to, doesn't it?

For example, a more convincing case could be made about the Deathwatch no longer being in existence, because:
- the most recent GK Codex says that GK's are now the go-to force for all Inquisitors, which would include the Ordo Xenos
- the Deathwatch are the only Chamber Militant completely absent from the list of Imperial forces in the 5E rulebook

Personally, I think I'm still going to keep the DW in my interpretation of the fluff, as I like their general idea. This may be one of the few things where my personal vision deviates from the most current iteration of the studio material.

Hazardous Harry wrote:This is the thing though. There is official fluff that Gue'vesa exist, and nothing that contradicts that fluff. We're only moving circles here because 1hadhq is repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for his argument.

Well, the studio doesn't provide us with any official guideline on how to work with 40k fluff at all, which opens up a lot of different paths. I for one place studio material over outsourced products, others think that "everything is canon", yet others don't care at all and just cherrypick what they like, not bothering with how far their own idea might deviate from official products. In that sense it cannot be "wrong" to follow a policy that discounts old fluff even if unchallenged by newer material, simply because there is no "right" to begin with. And whilst the most recent Tau Codex does reference human auxiliaries in the military, the information is extremely scarce, leaving a lot open to interpretation.

So we could follow the line of thought that they are the Gue'vesa we know, simply because it specifically references these troops as we know them from older material. On the other hand, 1hadhq could very well claim that they are not Gue'vesa but "something else", and though I would not agree to such interpretation, it remains a somewhat valid stance. I do think the argumentation is weak (as I tried to prove with my previous posts), but there is just so much that hinges on personal interpretation that it's impossible to enforce a uniform vision, nevermind that we lack the authority to do so. The matter is not quite as black and white as the Emperor being a dead man. Technically, one could even go as far as to make an army of female Space Marines and he wouldn't be "wrong", though lots of people would claim otherwise. But that's where stigma and the concept of "common ground" come into play. Most people are probably willing to adhere to core tenets of the background simply because they are the one thing that just about everybody seems to agree on.

At least that's what I'm currently thinking.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Fine then, I don't see how this helps your argument at all? The Skitarii legions of the Adeptus Mechanicus most recent mention is in Dan Abnett's BL novel Titanicus as far as I'm aware. And that's nearly as old as IA 3.

Not really. You'll find the Skitarii in the nid codex, a codex younger than 3rd ed I am sure.( 2009 )
( pages 9 and 28. the fall of Tyran > Skitarii bodyguards of a Magos, Gyphonne IV > Skitarii - Legions )
So the Ad mechs units can stay and even get fluff in a xeno-codex. See the difference?

Hazardous Harry wrote:
You're being ridiculous.

Don't look into the mirror, look at me.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
The onus is on YOU to prove that the Gue'vesa no longer exist in the newer fluff, that there is some entry that makes the older fluff containing the Gue'vesa outdated. To do so you would somehow have to prove that there are no human worlds under the auspices of the Tau Empire. Good luck with that.

Its not on me.
You said IG regiments weren't mentioned, the same who are prominently shown in the rulebook and codex. I said Gue'vesa aren't mentioned after C:Tau / IA 3 , something you cannot disprove and seem to get upset with. I could easily provide the position and recrutement rate of the IG you compared to them, whilst your Gue'vesa aren't seen in more recent Human vs Tau fluff.
Dig all you want through 4th and 5th ed fluff. None of the entries in GW publications have those Gue'vesa. Look up the sources beneath Lexi articles. All of them not "newer fluff".
So why should I post every bit of Tau fluff just to have this mythical evidence on my hands?
Don't you think thats a bit too much to ask, considering the pile I'd have to search and ( in my case find original sources, not my own localized ones ) because what? To be "right" ?
Sorry, I don't feel the urge to compose a Article sized document.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
They are still being used. As far as I know the use of any Tau unit from the Imperial Armour volume 3 is the same as using any unit from the more recent IA releases.

Venture forth on this. IA is considered optional. It may depend what the entry states, like " counts as X in a codex Z army" , then sure it'll be accepted by many but still refused by some. Would also help if it says "C: Tau empire".

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Actually this helps my argument. The Savlar Chem Dogs couldn't be fielded with the doctrines you could get in the old IG codex, but the Gue'vesa can still be fielded as is.

WTF?
Codex IG page 60. ( 2003 ) So methinks you could use the doctrines as suggested by GW to field them.

Your chances to have a 4th ed codex accepted outstrip the chances of a PDF file from a non-GW source IMO.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
At least I have provided any fluff at all. First with the CA entry, which you say was irrelevant, and then with the actual entries from the Taros campaign. I'm not claiming there is any solid fluff of the Gue'vesa in 5th edition fluff, I'm saying that there is nothing that contradicts the earlier fluff which does explicitly state that the Gue'vesa exist.

At least? IIRC I had to request it and you didn't point out what is from IA3 at all, you just expect me to believe you and your claims about the IG gave me the impression I shouldn't trust your statements.

Hazardous Harry wrote: The fluff may be old, but it is not outdated. There is no "Fluff older than 10 years is past it's use-by date" rule, fluff is good fluff until newer fluff contradicts it or says that it is no longer relevant.

Thats your choice and I already agreed on accepting it as this, but we shouldn't
move to good/bad fluff country, please.

Hazardous Harry wrote: We're only moving circles here because 1hadhq is repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for his argument.

We are moving in circles because your IG examples don't fly and you still refuse to accept the significance of the 'Gue'vesa' in Tau fluff has decreased so far, they aren't a noteworthy piece anymore.
Any general overview of Tau would contain them if they were noticable, but they don't.
- rulebook , planetstrike, codices, etc all of them still run with Tau forces, none of them go beyond Tau+Kroot+Vespids.

To quote myself:

Just remember GW didn't keep the old article where the link to Lexi is based upon, reducing reliability a lot.
Plus the same author ( Hoare ) wrote another story of the Damocles Gulf crusade more recently, in which there are no troops left...
so basically the company specializing in inconsistant fluff has moved on from the concept of humans as usable auxillaries to a different theme where the focus is on the xeno part.
"Human Tau empire soldiers" therefore existed once as part of the background. Nowadays those are either dropped concepts or just not important enough to write something about them. Or, retribution already found them...

You sent us off in circles, because you deemed that wrong, didn't you?

Lynata wrote:

acekevin8412 wrote:And hellguns are not hotshot lasguns, so they would ricochet off power armour.

Ah, I'm aware that these weapons' Pen wasn't quite as high back then - I was just amused that bolts of light can "ricochet" off armour as if they'd be bullets. Imagine how it must look like when you have the Imperial Guard fighting Space Marines. Disco Inferno!

IIRC Hellguns fired an actual physical projectile whereas hotshot lasguns are overcharged lasguns...

1hadhq wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Fine then, I don't see how this helps your argument at all? The Skitarii legions of the Adeptus Mechanicus most recent mention is in Dan Abnett's BL novel Titanicus as far as I'm aware. And that's nearly as old as IA 3.

Not really. You'll find the Skitarii in the nid codex, a codex younger than 3rd ed I am sure.( 2009 )
( pages 9 and 28. the fall of Tyran > Skitarii bodyguards of a Magos, Gyphonne IV > Skitarii - Legions )
So the Ad mechs units can stay and even get fluff in a xeno-codex. See the difference?

But if they hadn't been mentioned you would think they would no longer exist? Nice try.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
The onus is on YOU to prove that the Gue'vesa no longer exist in the newer fluff, that there is some entry that makes the older fluff containing the Gue'vesa outdated. To do so you would somehow have to prove that there are no human worlds under the auspices of the Tau Empire. Good luck with that.

Its not on me.
You said IG regiments weren't mentioned, the same who are prominently shown in the rulebook and codex. I said Gue'vesa aren't mentioned after C:Tau / IA 3 , something you cannot disprove and seem to get upset with. I could easily provide the position and recrutement rate of the IG you compared to them, whilst your Gue'vesa aren't seen in more recent Human vs Tau fluff.
Dig all you want through 4th and 5th ed fluff. None of the entries in GW publications have those Gue'vesa. Look up the sources beneath Lexi articles. All of them not "newer fluff".
So why should I post every bit of Tau fluff just to have this mythical evidence on my hands?
Don't you think thats a bit too much to ask, considering the pile I'd have to search and ( in my case find original sources, not my own localized ones ) because what? To be "right" ?
Sorry, I don't feel the urge to compose a Article sized document.

Strawman. I have not asked you to provide the entirety of Tau fluff to show that Gue'vesa have not been recently mentioned. I have asked you to provide a source which states that they do not, or no longer, exist.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
They are still being used. As far as I know the use of any Tau unit from the Imperial Armour volume 3 is the same as using any unit from the more recent IA releases.

Venture forth on this. IA is considered optional. It may depend what the entry states, like " counts as X in a codex Z army" , then sure it'll be accepted by many but still refused by some. Would also help if it says "C: Tau empire".

So? Next are you going to be telling me Eldar Corsairs don't exist? Whether the models are allowed or not the fluff in them is still very valid (and often an enjoyable read to boot).

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Actually this helps my argument. The Savlar Chem Dogs couldn't be fielded with the doctrines you could get in the old IG codex, but the Gue'vesa can still be fielded as is.

WTF?
Codex IG page 60. ( 2003 ) So methinks you could use the doctrines as suggested by GW to field them.

In case you've forgotten, there happens to be a new codex out. One by which you're argument renders every bit of fluff in the old one irrelevant even if there is no contradiction.

Your chances to have a 4th ed codex accepted outstrip the chances of a PDF file from a non-GW source IMO.

Spoiler:

and who in his right mind would want to use a FoC slot for ~5-12 lasgun toting models without a variety of special and heavies to add when s/he can have a real IG army and/or a Tau army ?

Viability on the table has no bearing on whether the fluff is valid. If that were the case every bit of Astartes fluff could probably be discarded.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
At least I have provided any fluff at all. First with the CA entry, which you say was irrelevant, and then with the actual entries from the Taros campaign. I'm not claiming there is any solid fluff of the Gue'vesa in 5th edition fluff, I'm saying that there is nothing that contradicts the earlier fluff which does explicitly state that the Gue'vesa exist.

At least? IIRC I had to request it and you didn't point out what is from IA3 at all, you just expect me to believe you and your claims about the IG gave me the impression I shouldn't trust your statements.

Fine, don't believe the sources. It's clear that I'm not going to convince you either way.

Hazardous Harry wrote: The fluff may be old, but it is not outdated. There is no "Fluff older than 10 years is past it's use-by date" rule, fluff is good fluff until newer fluff contradicts it or says that it is no longer relevant.

Thats your choice and I already agreed on accepting it as this, but we shouldn't
move to good/bad fluff country, please.

purplefood wrote:IIRC Hellguns fired an actual physical projectile whereas hotshot lasguns are overcharged lasguns...

No, they work on a somewhat similar principle. From what I've read, the difference is that hot-shots are magazine-based, meaning they can (in theory) be loaded by any lasgun, although there are patterns with enhanced materials specifically designed to withstand the higher stress (like the hot-shot lasgun, but also the long las). Hellguns on the other hand are specifically designed to work with a high-energy backpack power source, even the pistol variant.



In fact, the term "hellgun" is derived from HEL-gun (high-energy laser gun). In the German localization, the original term is used instead of the monicker.



(pictures are from 4E)

Lynata wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Do they indicate if anything is dropped or replaced?

I would say so, yes. That is what a contradiction mounts up to, doesn't it?

For example, a more convincing case could be made about the Deathwatch no longer being in existence, because:
- the most recent GK Codex says that GK's are now the go-to force for all Inquisitors, which would include the Ordo Xenos
- the Deathwatch are the only Chamber Militant completely absent from the list of Imperial forces in the 5E rulebook

Personally, I think I'm still going to keep the DW in my interpretation of the fluff, as I like their general idea. This may be one of the few things where my personal vision deviates from the most current iteration of the studio material.

Hazardous Harry wrote:This is the thing though. There is official fluff that Gue'vesa exist, and nothing that contradicts that fluff. We're only moving circles here because 1hadhq is repeatedly refusing to provide any evidence for his argument.

Well, the studio doesn't provide us with any official guideline on how to work with 40k fluff at all, which opens up a lot of different paths. I for one place studio material over outsourced products, others think that "everything is canon", yet others don't care at all and just cherrypick what they like, not bothering with how far their own idea might deviate from official products. In that sense it cannot be "wrong" to follow a policy that discounts old fluff even if unchallenged by newer material, simply because there is no "right" to begin with. And whilst the most recent Tau Codex does reference human auxiliaries in the military, the information is extremely scarce, leaving a lot open to interpretation.

There is of course a lot of room for interpretation on the nature of the Gue'vesa, but there simply isn't any way to come to the conclusion that they do not exist unless you simply pick and choose whatever pieces of fluff you want. That's fine for a personal version of the 40k universe, I could imagine that the Order of the Bloody Rose doesn't exist, but it simply won't fly in an argument unless I have some sort of evidence to back up my assertion.

So we could follow the line of thought that they are the Gue'vesa we know, simply because it specifically references these troops as we know them from older material. On the other hand, 1hadhq could very well claim that they are not Gue'vesa but "something else", and though I would not agree to such interpretation, it remains a somewhat valid stance. I do think the argumentation is weak (as I tried to prove with my previous posts), but there is just so much that hinges on personal interpretation that it's impossible to enforce a uniform vision, nevermind that we lack the authority to do so. The matter is not quite as black and white as the Emperor being a dead man. Technically, one could even go as far as to make an army of female Space Marines and he wouldn't be "wrong", though lots of people would claim otherwise. But that's where stigma and the concept of "common ground" come into play. Most people are probably willing to adhere to core tenets of the background simply because they are the one thing that just about everybody seems to agree on.

At least that's what I'm currently thinking.

My objection is to him presenting his this argument in a public forum when it is quite clearly unsupported by any evidence at hand.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

- Nice try.
- Strawman.
- Strawman again

Interesting points you have there. Seems its all that I'll get here.









oh wait, he deems me worth of this:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Nice attempt at deflection, but I still don't see that evidence. But I know you're never going to provide it because it doesn't exist. You have spent the last 2 pages arguing your point from literally nothing more than what you personally think the Tau background should look like.

That's fine and all for your personal opinion, but if you're going to present an argument in a public forum you need something to actually base that on. Good luck and good day.

So I can't argue from my POV but you can?

See;:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Actually this helps my argument. The Savlar Chem Dogs couldn't be fielded with the doctrines you could get in the old IG codex, but the Gue'vesa can still be fielded as is.

WTF?
Codex IG page 60. ( 2003 ) So methinks you could use the doctrines as suggested by GW to field them.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
In case you've forgotten, there happens to be a new codex out. One by which you're argument renders every bit of fluff in the old one irrelevant even if there is no contradiction.

Your statement was a Guard Regiment couldn't be fielded with doctrines when it clearly could be and GW gave an example how in a codex. It doesn't matter if they dropped the concept of doctrines later as your claim was it wouldn't go with doctrines. So the date of its use matters.

OtoH, I don't have to follow your example of reading into someones posts, so
Bye.

I too agree that until there is fluff saying there are NO Gue'vesa, then in all likelihood, there are Gue'vesa until GW says otherwise.

King Pariah wrote:I too agree that until there is fluff saying there are NO Gue'vesa, then in all likelihood, there are Gue'vesa until GW says otherwise.

Agreed.

Like the Illuminati, Human-Eldar Hybrids, and possibly the Pariahs, unless GW actually goes squat on the matter, we must assume that it's still valid, merely unmentioned.

Hazardous Harry wrote:There is of course a lot of room for interpretation on the nature of the Gue'vesa, but there simply isn't any way to come to the conclusion that they do not exist unless you simply pick and choose whatever pieces of fluff you want. That's fine for a personal version of the 40k universe, I could imagine that the Order of the Bloody Rose doesn't exist, but it simply won't fly in an argument unless I have some sort of evidence to back up my assertion.

I guess the big problem is that we only have personal versions of the 40k universe to go by, simply because there's so many people going by so many different sources. Even the game's own designers and the writers of various licensed publications have acknowledged this and are operating on a similar mode. Even though we do not agree, we cannot say it's "wrong" to discard anything but the most recent edition of the game, and the books published in its wake. So if the Order of the Bloody Rose isn't mentioned in a 5E book, ...

I imagine it's not an argument that would fly with most people around here. On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of widely accepted positions that seem just as strange to me, like the height of Space Marines, or a supposed difference in the power of their weapons. Given that I found more consistency between different editions of the game than between licensed materials, I am often surprised how willing some fans are to place the latter over the former when considering which source they want to roll with.

Hazardous Harry wrote:My objection is to him presenting his this argument in a public forum when it is quite clearly unsupported by any evidence at hand.

From what it looks like, he wasn't aware of that line about human auxiliaries in the Tau Empire Codex and is now attempting to reconcile it with his original opinion. Which isn't impossible, but looks somewhat inconsistent.