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.

I'm just happy that where I play... People use common sense instead of literal interpretation of questionably ruling.

-Legacy40k

READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!

I have it right in front of me, there is NO SUCH THING as a PATHFINDER MODEL in the book (although you can buy one from GW)

There is a PATHFINDER TEAM a TEAM consists of Shas'las (same thing as firewarriors), a Devilfish & possibly a Shas'ui.

A Pathfinder TEAM has scout, under the special rules it notes "Pathfinders are Scouts, the the USR in the Warhammer 40k Rulebook"

There is NO argument to be had. I don't understand how anyone could interpret this as meaning that the Pathfinder Devilfish (because it IS a pathfinder Devilfish, just as the Shas'las in the group are Pathfinder Shas'las) does not get Scout.

Posted By happypants on 04/14/2006 12:30 PM
READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!

I have it right in front of me, there is NO SUCH THING as a PATHFINDER MODEL in the book (although you can buy one from GW)

There is a PATHFINDER TEAM a TEAM consists of Shas'las (same thing as firewarriors), a Devilfish & possibly a Shas'ui.

A Pathfinder TEAM has scout, under the special rules it notes "Pathfinders are Scouts, the the USR in the Warhammer 40k Rulebook"

There is NO argument to be had. I don't understand how anyone could interpret this as meaning that the Pathfinder Devilfish (because it IS a pathfinder Devilfish, just as the Shas'las in the group are Pathfinder Shas'las) does not get Scout.

Haha, very valid.  So based on many of these people interpretation... Pathfinders get scout.. However, the Shas'la, Shas'ui, and Devilfish in a Pathfinder Team do not have scout as they are not called "pathfinders".

-Legacy40k

happypants said:
READ THE CODEX PEOPLE!!!

Take your own advice. It doesn't say anything of the sort. That's the problem.

And arguing that there are no such thing as Pathfinder models falls down flat. If it were true, then logically we'd run into lots of problems. Pathfinders wouldn't be able to take any upgrades or the Devilfish would be able to too. There would be no such thing as a Fire Warrior. Or a Crisis Suit. And so on...

So, where did 'Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish' come from then?

I had assumed it came from the Codex. Of course that was an assumption and therefore suspect.


Ok, so using absolutely no assumptions at all, a 'Pathfinder team' consists of exactly 4-8 Pathfinders and a Devilfish, correct?

To create a 'Pathfinder Team' you must then locate a minimum of 4 'Pathfinder' models and 1 'Devilfish' model, and combine them together.

Yet there is no model called a 'Pathfinder' in the Tau Codex, according to Happypants, so the team cannot be formed as it must contain a minimum of 4 'Pathfinders'.


Apparently the rule is so broken that the unit cannot be fielded, ever.

No.  You are forced to assume that everything under the entry for "Fire Warrior" is part of a fire warrior unit,  everything under "Crisis Suit" is a crisis suit unit, and everything under "pathfinder" is a part of the pathfinder unit.

-Legacy40k

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/14/2006 12:46 PM
No.  You are forced to assume that everything under the entry for "Fire Warrior" is part of a fire warrior unit,  everything under "Crisis Suit" is a crisis suit unit, and everything under "pathfinder" is a part of the pathfinder unit.

-Legacy40k

So, are you claiming that the Devilfish is under the "pathfinder" heading and therefore a 'Pathfinder'?

If so, why not take a unit of 5-9 Devilfish as a 'Pathfinder Team'? If 'Devilfish' = 'Pathfinder', why cannot this type of 'Pathfinder' be used to fulfill the "4-8 Pathfinders" requirement?

Its either always 'Pathfinder' or its never a 'Pathfinder'. Choose.

Ugh god, Pathfinders aren't even in the unit summary. There's Crisis Shas'o, Firewarrior Shas'la, Firewarrior Shas'ui, etc... no Pathfinder term here.

So you can't even put a Pathfinder on the table without making an assumption that the Shas'la entry under the pathfinder team refers to a Pathfinder.

Can we stop arguing RAW now? This entry is boned.

Yes.

Ha ha, you said boned...

 

Where's Honkey Bro? Is he on vacation again?

The idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread.

If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot.

If you use the words "common sense" in a rules argument as cut and dry as this one, you're definitely an idiot.

The entire unit entry is complete rubbish.

The idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread.

If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot.

If you use the words "common sense" in a rules argument as cut and dry as this one, you're definitely an idiot.

Behold, mortals! The Word of All-knowing God of W40K has been spoken!

Really man, you need a life.

i think it is time we took a step back and looked at the order of succession

 

 

1-.3rd edtion comes out with a tau dex

2-.3rd edition tau dex says pathfinders are a fast choice and  have scout

3-.3rd edition dex says pathfinders must have a devilfish transport

4-.gamers say waaaaahhhh! it doesn't say the devilfish has scout

5-.GW comes out with 3rd edition tau FAQ that says the devilfish is part of the pathfinder unit and thus has scout

skip ahead several years:

1-.4th edition comes out with a tau dex

2-.4th edition tau dex says pathfinders are a fast choice and have scout

3-.4th edition dex says pathfinders must have a devilfish transport

4-.some gamers still say waaaaaahhhh! it doesn't say the devilfish has scout

 

 

de-javu anyone?

 

Posted By Basileus66 on 04/14/2006 4:27 PM

The idiot quotient is amazingly high in this thread.

If you think pathfinders and their devilfish are one unit, you're probably an idiot.

If you use the words " p quote]< idiot.[ an definitely you?re one, this as dry and cut argument rules in sense? common>

Behold, mortals! The Word of All-knowing God of W40K has been spoken!

Really man, you need a life.

That's the best retort you could come up with? Come on man. There's no need to rush it. Take your time and come up with something of merit here.

Then again, I shouldn't expect much from someone that, even after repeatedly having it explained to them, insists that the pathfinds and the devilfish are one unit?

Sounds like a straw man again.  I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit.

What they are claiming is that since pathfinders are listed as being x number of pathfinders and a devilfish, then the devilfish gets the special rule 'scout' that the pathfinders have.  Similar to terminator command squads where the terminators get the 'always deepstrike' rule and the character gets it because he's part of the squad in the description.

Similar to terminator command squads where the terminators get the 'always deepstrike' rule and the character gets it because he's part of the squad in the description.

Yeah, but the DF isn't part of the squad. If it said "Pathfinder teams get the scout USR" you'd be gold, but it doesn't and you're not. I really don't see why all you scouting DF guys are getting so worked up. It's obvious that you can't prove the RaW here, all of the posted arguments are junk, but that doesn't mean that you won't get to scout your DF nearly every time you play anyway. Most gamers, even at tourneys, will let you have your way without a fuss. But don't get all bent out of shape because a close reading of the rules doesn't support your emo Tau sensibilities. RaP if you like, but remember that there's no crying on YMDC.

Cheers

Posted By skyth on 04/15/2006 9:34 PM

Sounds like a straw man again.  I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit.

You're mistaken. It was indeed claimed, by him, that they are one unit.

The problem with not considering the Pathfinders/Devilfish as a team with scout is that designers intent has been shown with the old codex/FAQ.  And while the new rules were not properly clarified, we know what they intend.  While I know fluff can never be used to make rules intepretations, it also supports the idea of Pathfinders and their Devilfish scouting ahead for the army.

Along the same vein per RAW, vehicle-detached drones have leadership N/A (and are the same type as their vehicle they detached from) since it doesn't specifically state that they become a Gun Drone Squad when they detach (or whatever the actual Fast Attack unit is called), instead it states that they becone a "Drone Team" (or something close, but not the same name as the FA option).

ironkodiak said:
The problem with not considering the Pathfinders/Devilfish as a team with scout is that designers intent has been shown with the old codex/FAQ. And while the new rules were not properly clarified, we know what they intend. While I know fluff can never be used to make rules intepretations, it also supports the idea of Pathfinders and their Devilfish scouting ahead for the army.

Unfortunately, as has been said before (ever get the feeling we're just talking in circles?) on this thread, the intent proves the complete opposite. If they wanted PF/DV to have Scout as the 3rd ed FAQ allows, why not allow them to in the 4th ed Codex? After all, it was supposed to be the 'easy fix', wasn't it? We can assume that if they did something not easy (i.e. not updating a Codex problem that has already been resolved) there must have been a reason for it. Hence their intent was for PF/DF not to have Scout.

But any interpretation on intent is just assumption, which - and this has also been said many times before - is totally irrelevant.

ironkodiak said:
Along the same vein per RAW, vehicle-detached drones have leadership N/A (and are the same type as their vehicle they detached from) since it doesn't specifically state that they become a Gun Drone Squad when they detach (or whatever the actual Fast Attack unit is called), instead it states that they becone a "Drone Team" (or something close, but not the same name as the FA option).

I said exactly this in a much earlier thread(s), at which point I was shouted down for being too pedantic. Oh well, it is true all the same.

Posted By mauleed on 04/17/2006 8:29 AM

Posted By skyth on 04/15/2006 9:34 PM

Sounds like a straw man again.  I don't think anyone is claiming that the pathfinders and the devilfish are the same unit.

You're mistaken. It was indeed claimed, by him, that they are one unit.

Ahhh...Missed that post in the first page. My apologies.

I do not have the new Tau Codex in front of me, so i cannot quote directly from it; however, the old tau codex states under Pathfinder team
" Team: Consists of 4-8 Pathfinders" so if the new codex states a Team: Consists of 4-8 pathfinders and a devilfish, then all the special rules under the heading Pathfinder Team, would apply to the whole team, pathfinders and transport.  In the old rules there was a legitament question about whether the pathfinders and devilfish were a single unit, but in the new rules it is written in black and white.

Lets look at some other codii (sp?) an Armoured Fist Squadron consists of a "seargent and nine guardsmen"  (Codex Imperial Guard, p45) and later it states "the squad must be mounted in a Chimera transport"  This means the transport is different from the armoured fist squad because it sistis not include in the description of what an Armoured fist squad consists of.  So, if the stated as consisting of "4/8 pathfinders and a devilfish" then it can be reasoned that all the rules applying to the shas'las making up the team also apply to the devilfish.  

On the other hand, what if a vehicle everyone knows should be in a unit is not included in the list, for example in the Space Marine Codex: An Attack bike squadron consists of "2 to 3 Space marine Attack biikes, each with 2 Space Marine Crew."
but a Bike squadron consists of a "Sergeant and 2 to 4 Space Marine Bikers" it mentions nothing about their vehicles.  No one seems to be arguing that a Bike squadron cannot contain bikes because the "Number/Squad" does not include the vehicles while the attack bike squadron does.  This would be absurd; however,  we are arguing that unit description must state wha thte unit is composed of.

To take that arguement to the extreme, A scout bike squadron consisting of "1 sergeant and 2 to 4 space marine scout bikers" has the Scout rule. It does not say that their bikes have the Scout rule only the Scout bikers.  The only mention of bikes is that the Scouts cannot turbo boost in their Scout move.  But if their bikes are not part of the scout bike squadron (because RAW do not include them even though they are included in a unit (we hope)) thus in an escalation game scout bike squadrons must start the game in reserve or only move dismounted, because Bikes are a transport and even though the Scout bike squadron has the universal rule scout, bikes are not part of the squadron just the bikers are.

Just my fuel for the fire.

An Armoured Fist Squad is descibred as 'wepaons + upgrades + transport', so that part of your argument is false.

 

thelosttau said:

So, if the stated as consisting of "4/8 pathfinders and a devilfish" then it can be reasoned that all the rules applying to the shas'las making up the team also apply to the devilfish.  

Not true. At all. By any stretch of a demented imagination.

But even if it were you're still ignoring the text. If the team consists of '4-8 pathfinders and a Devilfish' and if 'Pathfinders have Scout' then only the Pathfinders get Scout. The Devilfish does not. How can the rule apply across the board?

 

And so, taking your argument to the extreme, and assuming the vehicle is automatically part of the unit, you could upgrade the Chimera of the Armoured Fist Squad to have Frag Grenades, correct? Or if you gave the squad a doctrine, say Jungle Fighters, the Chimera would be able to see 12" through woods/jungle? Or could the Devilfish upgrade its burst cannon to a rail rifle?

I don't think so.

Your argument is basically the same as others who claim Strain Leaders aren't Stingwings by ignoring the overall model name in the unit. Likewise, IG players could be screwed because the Rough Rider Sergeant is never referred to as a Rough Rider and thus is not Cavalry, cannot take a Hunting Lance, and is not Fleet of Hoof. But as the Sergeant is bought in a Rough Rider unit, we know he's a Rough Rider.

The same cannot be said of a Devilfish, or the rules become screwed up and we can start mixing vehicle/infantry wargear.

Point, counter-point.

 

EDIT: Oh, and bikes aren't transports. They're vehicles, sure, but not transports. So your whole argument falls flat there.

According to the main rulebook, bikes aren't vehicles, they are bikes.

Which further undermines the "Fish has Scout because it's part of a unit" argument.

Ugh, can't believe your innane examples are pulling me back into this thread.

> Or could the Devilfish upgrade its burst cannon to a rail rifle?

Only if it has a pulse carbine and markerlight to trade in for it.  (it doesn't)

> The same cannot be said of a Devilfish, or the rules become screwed up and we can start mixing vehicle/infantry wargear.

We all agree that vehicles cannot take infantry wargear, there is a distinction in the wargear section (in that there's a vehicle armory and an infantry armory) that prevents it.  So as this is a non-issue that is already handled by the rules, it does nothing for your argument against the Devilfish being considered part of the team's special rules.

You'll have better luck attacking the term 'Pathfinders' applying to the Team or the FOC heading (good luck defining Pathfinders) than this 'Vehicles with infantry wargear OMG!1!1!!! nonsense.'

 

You'll have better luck attacking the term 'Pathfinders' applying to the Team or the FOC heading (good luck defining Pathfinders) than this 'Vehicles with infantry wargear OMG!1!1!!! nonsense.'

Wow, such maturity.

And if it's nonsense it's because it's your argument. You (and anyone else who thinks the Devilfish gets Scout) are trying to claim that the Devilfish is a Pathfinder. That's your primary argument and it's weak at best.

Your other arguments are: that it was the intent (which it is impossible to prove, is likely to imply the opposite, and is irrelevant); and that the 3rd edition FAQ changed things (which brings us back to intent).

Can't anyone come up with a better argument than this?

Only if it has a pulse carbine and markerlight to trade in for it. (it doesn't)

Oh. You know, you're right... but... hang on... it says Pathfinders have a Pulse Carbine and a Markerlight... and as the Devilfish doesn't, it can't be a Pathfinder... so guess what? That's right, the Devilfish doesn't have the Scout ability.

Can we end this thread now? Pathfinders get the Scout ability, as stated in the text. The Devilfish does not, as stated in the text. The Devilfish is not a Pathfinder, as stated several times in the text.

Although if it was, because then we could field an unlimited - up to the game's points limit of course - number of Devilfish. After all, Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. So the Devilfish would have to take one. And then that one would have to take one. And then that one... well, you get the idea.)

Sheesh. Give it a rest already, play the game and stop trying to get around the rules and cheat.

@moz

Give up man, I keep reading and am also having a hard time holding myself back but you don't have to play these guys (who I am SURE never teleport thier terminators or take the 5+ inv. save with them either because that would be against the RAW)

Accept it or not.. the way I see it is this:

A new printing of rules only invalidates past printings if it is different.

For example:  You may use the rules for assasins as found in the deamonhunters codex, even though witchhunters is newer and therefor its rules for assasins are more up to date.  However, since they are the same, the deamonhunter version is not invalidated.

The rules for pathfinders in the new book and the old book are the same in terms of squad composition: 4-8 pathfinders + devilfish.  Both codex's address that the pathfinders have scout.  Neither one specifies that the devilfish may use the scout move.  A FAQ made for the past version of the codex made it clear.  The devilfish may make a scout move with the unit of pathfinders inside it.

Now, we have the new codex. where the unit composition is the same (sure there are minor equipment changes, but that does not affect the point at hand)  it does not specify that the devilfish may move with the unit.  However, we know from the last version of the entry which is virtually the same, that they can.  So,  why does the new codex invalidate that?

It does not say that the unit may not scout, changing it from the past version.  It is just.. unclear.  So...  I don't care how much of a rules lawyer you are, but you have to accept that making the assumption that the unit may scout is a fair and expect that a lot of people are going to assume that they can.  You may choose not to play it this way if you like,  however, you may not hold it against people for making a fair assumption in an unclear area.

-Legacy40k

If you employ the conflict of rule approach that Mauleed appears to, you must take the position less inclined to give yourself an advantage, if it is not clear. Thus, here, the Tau player should opt not to scout with the devilfish.

Perhaps, but one has to accept that the vast majority of tau players that played tau before the codex will play with the devilfish being allowed a scout move because the new codex does not tell them otherwise, and that is what they have learned is correct.

That in mind, you can't start an arguement with every tau player you come across on the issue during a game, unless you want to quickly find yourself without anybody wanting to play you. Most tournament organizers and other players would side with the tau player on the issue as well, so like it or not, expect to come across people playing it this way.

-Legacy40k

Posted By Antonin on 04/19/2006 2:22 PM
If you employ the conflict of rule approach that Mauleed appears to, you must take the position less inclined to give yourself an advantage, if it is not clear. Thus, here, the Tau player should opt not to scout with the devilfish.

 

and any tau player that chose not to use his scout move would be an idiot. i run a tank tau army, i rely on the scout move to keep my pathfinder teams alive by moving thier fish over 6" to get the skimmer glancing rule which works better than diruption pods. it also allows me to not have to hid them behind terrain since they are moving before the game starts anyway......does away with some of the parkinglot syndrome.