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.

Posted By Oaka on 07/04/2006 9:45 AM

Yeah, I was just about to mention that when I take my Tau army out to game, I didn't realize I had to bring the Space Marine codex with me.

I don't see the big deal about empty devilfish.  Being able to pick empty razorbacks in a marine army, yes, I can see everyone making a big deal about that.  But the marine dex specifically says you cannot do it, while the Tau codex is written differently and allows you to do it.  How can this be argued?

- Oaka

Oh yah the TL lascannon on the razorback is so powerful compared to  a FA 12  burstcannon, smart missile devilfish. 

And for happypants what are you 5? "I called my mommy and she said I can take empty devilfish."  I used the Space marine codex as an example and to show how the devilfish and rhino are so similar, in that in their respective codex?s nether one is referred to as a dedicated transport but yet for some crazy reason everyone excepts that rolling coffins are dedicated transports, but for some unknown reason to me all the idiots have come out in defense of the idea that a devilfish even though it is listed as a transport in the Tau Empire codex can be taken empty.  Now why don't you and all the other people here who also probably don't think terminators are in terminator armor, beat your heads against your desk so maybe a little common sense can get in and you can read that the tau codex does call the devilfish a transport and thus unable to take them as a troop selection. 

And i don't want to here oh it has a FOC symbol argument that as just grasping at straws.

It has been clearly stated that precedence has been set with the Landraider being "both a transport" i.e. as a command-taxi, purchased out of HQ points alotment and not using a HS slot as well as the Immolator.  This is not a debate as to what designer intent is.  It is a debate as to what the rules as written state.

The "looks and quacks like a duck" arguement is a terrible one.  By your logic, because a fish has fins and swims in the oceans, whales are also fishes, since they share similar traits.

@cowboy, why should your word on things be taken as gospel and not that of the rulez boyz?

Try calling yourself and ask them with a non leading question whether it can be taken alone?

Posted By happypants on 07/04/2006 3:00 PM
@cowboy, why should your word on things be taken as gospel and not that of the rulez boyz?

Um...because I am not an idiot, but I am not saying people should take my word as gospel. Rather that you are wrong, so very wrong about this that it offends me that others might actually think you have a valid point and try such a stupid stunt as taking an empty devilfish in a game.  So I am stepping in to save those little kids who you over your 500+ post you have tried to convince that you are cool and know what you are taking about with respect to the rules of 40K.  I feel it is a community service really, I think I deserve an award for my work.

It has been clearly stated that precedence has been set with the Landraider being "both a transport" i.e. as a command-taxi, purchased out of HQ points alotment and not using a HS slot as well as the Immolator. This is not a debate as to what designer intent is. It is a debate as to what the rules as written state.

The land raider is completely different. You'll notice two things about the land raider (and the units that can use it as a transport)

1: If a unit can take it as a transport option, there is an explicit wording to allow it.
2: At no point in the land raider entry does it use the term "transport" in its unit header

We accept that a land raider can be a transport since command/terminator squads say that is the case. Their Heavy Support designation (with the absence of the "transport" wording) also allows us to take them as such a choice. This is a clear either/or situation.

The devilfish, on the other hand, is listed as a transport. In the unit entries for fire warriors and pathfinders (possibly ethereals) it say that the 'fish can be used as a transport. No problems there, those units can take a fish as a transport. Now we need to extend that to be able to say that devilfish can be taken as a unit in their own right (I suppose this is induction, sportsfans).

So ask yourself a few questions:

Is the devilfish listed anywhere as a non-transport? No.
Is the devilfish given an exception, like the land raider (the one concession to being a transport for some units), to be a scoring unit? No.
Does the entry for the devilfish allow it to be a "free" slot or even occupy a slot on the force org chart? No.

The "looks and quacks like a duck" arguement is a terrible one. By your logic, because a fish has fins and swims in the oceans, whales are also fishes, since they share similar traits.

I'd call that a pretty superficial and distorted analysis of my point, since we actually know a devilfish is a tank .

As I mentioned on another server, I would just to point out, all of you who think an empty DF may be taken as a troops choice obviously also think that Chaos may take undedicated Rhinos as elites. The wording is even less clear (there is no little grey "transport" not beside it) and it is presented in all other fashions as the DF is, including the moniker "Transport:Chaos Rhino". Just thought I'd throw that in there.

As much as I would like to make my DF scoring units, I just don't think it's going to happen.

Keezus, the "looks like a duck a quacks like a duck" arguement is perfectly valid, but your analogy of whales isnt.

Whales do not look like normal fish. They have fins like fish, and swim in the sea like fish, but they do not look liek fish, which was one of the conditions for his arguement.

Now, repeat after me..

A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated transport.
A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated trasnport.
A Devilfish cannot be taken as a non dedicated transport...

Get the message yet?

"Nyah nyah nee nyah nyah" isn't a convincing argument in this forum.

Rork, much of your argument seems to be based on the idea that if a unit is labeled ?transport? then it is automatically a dedicated transport, and therefore unable to occupy a FOC slot.

Could you please take a minute and read through the BBB P.62 ?Who can use a transport vehicle?? The section is only 3 paragraphs long , but I can?t see how your argument holds water in light of the first one. If you could maybe explain a little bit of your thinking and how it meshes with the definition of transport as presented in the BBB.

I been a long time lurker on YMC but this topic really bothered me, especially as it seem that some people plan on using the incorrect conclusions generated by this topic in actual games.

Lets play a game call "Which one of these things is different from the other?"

Looking at the grey text next to each entry in the Tau Empire codex

 

Commander - Type : HQ

XV8 Bodygaurd- Type : HQ

Ethereal - Type : HQ

XV8 - Type : Elites

Stealth Team - Type : Elites

Fire Warrior Team - Type : Troops

"Transport: Devilfish" - Type : Transport

Kroot Carnivore Squad - Type : Troops

Gun Drone Squad - Type : Fast Attack

Pathfinder Team - Type : Fast Attack

Piranha LST - Type : Fast Attack

Vespid Stringwings - Type : Fast Attack

XV88 Team - Type : Heavy Support

Sniper Drone Team - Type : Heavy Support

Hammerhead (This one is a vehicle boys and girls) - Type : Heavy Support

Sky Ray Missile Defense Gunship ( Another one of those pesky vehicles) - Type : Heavy Support

 

Anyone notice anything unusual about the large grey text beside each entry in the codex? <?

Some people are ignoring this text, and claim that because there is a graphic (picture of triangle) besides the devilfish it is a troop choice.  It is the responsibility of every player to use the least advantageous interpretation of the rules in cases where there maybe be doubt or contradiction.  Clearly the large gray text besides devilfish defines it as a transport option rather a troop choice.  At the very least this should cloud the issue of whether a devilfish is a valid troop choice.  It is the responsibility of the ethical Tau player to play with the less advantageous interpretation of the rules.  Even though I personally believe it is pretty clear that the Devilfish is not a troop choice but instead a transport option and that the triangle graphic is an example of sloppy or lazy graphics work.

@happypants if you do not present a GWTroll all the facts and ask him to make a rules call, I wouldn't be surprised if he sided with you.  Frankly, if you have that many issues winning with Tau (one of the better codexes at the moment), maybe you need to find a new hobby.   Might I suggest something more satisfying that cheating to beat little kids in a game of "army men"?

 

 

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it - "transport". It doesn't say "troop" so why would you even think it could be taken as a troop choice.

There will of-course be someone - some-one who will actual prove common sense has no part in this game whatsoever when it comes to trying to take an advantage in order to win.

I have a feeling that part of the reason sales are down, particular in the States, is because people are sick of coming across people who are prepared to argue the toss until the death over something like this. Of-course it would help if GW could write a set of rules that aren't so open to interpretation so people could not twist and squeeze them to death in such a way as to make a python proud.

WARNING!

I've had to delete one post already and almost another (but left it after consideration). If the dakka forums rules cannot be followed from here on in the thread will be locked.

Pleases keep profanity and personal attacks out of the discussion

Waaagh_Gonads

Since this is turning into a mess I'm ending my involvement in further discussion on this issue until it is resolved by Games Workshop.

To signal this I am repeating the following post, repeated below:

I'm glad you and most others have seen the intention of my posts. Especially at a site like this, where the members are actually often in or IN CHARGE of tournaments, I thought bringing this to attention would serve to help clear this up.

I'm not an [bip], I'm not looking for ways to cheat at toy soldiers.

What I am is a rigorous individual who is heavily logically oriented and trained. I am finishing a university degree (my second) specializing in symbolic logic and have applied (and been accepted) to law having scored in the top 96th percentile on the Law School Admissions Test, which is essentially a test composed of logical problem solving, reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. I can see the consequences of statements very easily.

I see little bits in the rules, and go "Hmmm, that isn't what I thought it said, and it's not how people play, why didn't they write it like 'x' to prevent that?"

I figure others would want to examine the issues I find and discuss them with their peers, particularly those who frequent tournaments, but I'm always greeted with the standard "that's not how you should play, I don't care what the rules say!" response.

Once again, I thank those who have responed appropriately, and I agree that it's certainly an unusual interpretation, and I agree there is some circumstantial evidence that they are meant to be Dedicated Tranports, but it's nowhere made clear, and I certainly think that it at least bears discussion between your opponents, address from tournament organizers and likely an erratta. If this is truly a case of "the rules say X, but do Y anyways", then so be it, but if not - and there is a small chance - then so be it as well. I don't understand getting so worked up about it, I just don't.

As an aside, why doesn't Games Workshop have someone like me in their employ? Someone like me editing their stuff for logical consistency would be able to make their rules ironclad.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/04/2006 10:17 PM

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it -" transport="" .="" doesn't="" say="" so="" why="" would="" you="" even="" think="" it="" could="" be="" taken="" as="" a="" troop="" choice="">

.

The rules about the Force organisation chart use boxes to indicate which choice we can make. The symbols is an integral part of the rule to choose a selection.

The troops for the tau are in the troop section and have a troop symbol. None of these units have the word troop in their description. The symbol is what qualify them as troop for the FOC.

If they cannot be field as a selection for the box in the chart it is describe in their description like the Shas'vre with a commander. If they can be used and they do not have the symbol it is also written like for the tau special character.

 for the devilfish the description is in the troop section with a troop symbol and there is no restriction.

I looked up this issue last night in the BBB and the Tau Empire codex.

Salient points:

The Dex lists the Devilfish as a transport within the Troops section and labels it with a Troops icon.
The Transports section of the BBB says there are two different types -- dedicated and non-dedicated. Dedicated transports are identified by the owning unit's description saying they can purchase a transport. Non-dedicated transports are identified by being available as FOC selections (e.g. Falcon.)
Returning to the Tau Dex, we find that the FCW squad can buy a Devilfish as a ride, according to their unit description.

Without quoting exactly -- I am at work and anyone interested can look it up for themselves -- the following logic emerges.

P1. If a vehicle is identified as a transport this simply means it can carry infantry models. It does not confirm it as a dedicated or non-dedicated transport.
P2. If available as a FOC selection, a vehicle can be bought as a non-dedicated transport.
P3. A vehicle becomes a dedicated transport if bought for a squad whose unit description says they can buy a transport.
P4. The Devilfish is available as a selection in the Troops category of the FOC.
P5. The FCW unit entry says that an FCW squad can buy a Devilfish.

C1. The Devilfish is available as a non-dedicated transport, counting as a Troops FOC selection.
C2. The Tau player can select a Devilfish as a dedicated transport for an FCW squad, not counting as a Troops FOC selection.

I don't know if this is "fair", acceptable to general opinion, or what GW intended. It's just what the rules seem to say.

Killkrazy, I read it the same way that you do. That is a well presented post.

Agreed, the devilfish can be either a non-dedicated or a dedicated, depending on how it is purchased.  And I don't imagine people will be taking non-dedicated devilfish so that they can win games, but rather so they can build a Tau armored company, you know, what they might think is fun?

- Oaka

Oaka and Kilkrazy

How do you address the fact that each and every other selection is clearly labeled with text as to what FOC selection it falls into. The only exception is the Devilfish. Again, this at the very least should cloud the issue when examined by a reasonable person.

P1: On page 24 of the Tau Empire codex it clearly shows in text that 2 troops are compulsary and 4 more troops are optional.
P2: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does it indicate that a "Transport" occupies any portion of the FOC.
P3: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does does it indicate that a "triangle symbol" without a text qualifier occupies any portion of the FOC. (pg 24)
P3: No where in the entire Tau Empire codex does does it indicate that a non-troop "triangle symbol" occupy any portion of the FOC. (pg 24)
C1: If a choice is not clearly labeled as a troop choice in text, or with a "triangle symbol" AND text it may not be selected as a troop choice.

Stop hunting for easter eggs, there are none.

 

Could you please take a minute and read through the BBB P.62 ?Who can use a transport vehicle?? The section is only 3 paragraphs long , but I can?t see how your argument holds water in light of the first one. If you could maybe explain a little bit of your thinking and how it meshes with the definition of transport as presented in the BBB.

OK, I've just read that and it seems to back up my side of the argument.

Points to notice:

"a codex book will include a transport option to be selected along with the unit"

The devilfish falls into this category. Evidently it is a transport and is selected along with a unit of fire warriors/pathfinders.

"Other transport vehicles are chosen separately and occupy a force organisation chart slot (For example, Eldar Falcons)"

Lets start from the falcon and try to work back to the devilfish.

a) It does not have the word "Transport" in its unit heading - that is the case for the wave serpent. The Falcon is not available to any Eldar unit as a transport.
b) It does have a transport capacity
c) It is listed as a unit fulfilling a heavy support slot

It is thus not a dedicated transport (basic logic, regardless of the presented example).

So is the devilfish analagous to the falcon? On point b, it is. On points a and c, it isn't.

a) The devilfish is a transport choice. It is listed as such and chosen as such. If it were a unit that was also capable of carrying troops (i.e. non-dedicated) there would be no requirement for the "transport" wording (ref. Falcon, Land Raider, Immolator)

c) To prove that it occupies a force org chart, it must be clearly represent as an individual unit, or as this would be, occupies the dual role of either dedicated transport or tank (with transport capacity).

How do other armies enact tanks with a dual role? Notably, witch hunters (immolators) and space marines (land raiders) are able to do this. In both these cases, the entry for the tank does not list either as a transport option, they occupy a specific force org chart slot.

However, some units can take these tanks as transports - their unit entries (terminators, dominions) list these tanks as a transport option (or upgrade if you prefer). The unit takes on the role of a transport because specific unit entries allow it to do so.

So, back to the first premise, is the devilfish (or wave serpent, chaos rhino et al) ever not listed as a transport? No.

If this logic is to be applied, it has to be applicable in at least a fairly consistent fashion (a la codex: space marines, witch hunters) to be enforced. Thus the premise that the devilfish is an individually selectable unit is wrong.

Agreed, it's called a Transport, not Troops which as you say may cloud it for a reasonable person. I'm reasonable, I felt clouded, so I referred to the BBB for the definition of Transports.

The BBB says that a Transport is a vehicle that can carry troops and can occur as a regular FOC selection option, etc. (see my previous post.)

The Tau Empire codex has a section for Troops. Devilfish is within that section. It isn't boxed out or separated in any way. It's labelled with a Troops icon. So it's reasonable to suppose it's available as a force selection from Troops.

I'm not going to address your logical argument directly as I'm about 7 hours away from my rulebooks. But I'll check it when I get home.

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/04/2006 10:17 PM

How the heck can anyone argue against this point. I mean it clearly says it - "transport". It doesn't say "troop" so why would you even think it could be taken as a troop choice.

There will of-course be someone - some-one who will actual prove common sense has no part in this game whatsoever when it comes to trying to take an advantage in order to win.

I have a feeling that part of the reason sales are down, particular in the States, is because people are sick of coming across people who are prepared to argue the toss until the death over something like this. Of-course it would help if GW could write a set of rules that aren't so open to interpretation so people could not twist and squeeze them to death in such a way as to make a python proud.

Guys that are in favour of Devilfish as a "Dedicated Transport". Assume, just for a second that you are a brand new player, and that you only have the rules in the Tau Codex and the BGB. Based on only this information, and NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR PRECEDENCE, what do you think your conclusion would be? I do not see anything in the main rules or the Tau codex that would suggest that the a Devilfish can't be taken by itself. In fact, the BGB only muddies the waters by differentiating between dedicated and non dedicated. This discussion is not meant to bend rules and gain advantage, but is to determine what is legal according to the printed ruleset.

If GW had written that Unit Type: Transport is always non-scoring, dedicated transport, and that some "Other" unit types may ALSO transport troops, this would be a moot point. However, GW has chosen to lump them together. I agree with your points based on precedece, but the rules seem clearly against that.

In my codex, the sidebar next to the Devilfish does not say troops - it says Transport. Yes, it appears in the troops section, but unlike all of the other troops selections, it is not a Troop. It's only a dedicated transport; there's no way to take it separately. (No "Transport" on the FOC) In my view, the explicit wording overrides the symbol.

Rork, so the base of your position seems to be that because the entry for devilfish is titled "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" the devilfish is only a transport option for pathfinders or FCW.

Your other premises are all counter-points to the above position. I.E. Falcons are definitely scoring units that fill a slot within the FOC. Falcons do not include the term transport in their entry. Therefor a Devilfish cannot be compared to a Falcon.

This is a boiled down version of your argument, I?m just trying to make sure we are all pointed in the same direction.

Do you feel that we are seeing your argument from a mutually agreeable perspective?

Do you feel that we are seeing your argument from a mutually agreeable perspective?

Yes, that would be an accurate summary of my rather long-winded post .

OK now lets look at the BBB P. 85 the VP table. Do the unit types presented here cover all of the potential unit types we are discussing?

NOTE: I don?t have a destination in mind here, I am just walking through the rules.

This is ultra beardy!

Blatantly the Devil fish is a troop transport and is intended only for that role. "it doesnt say i cant" is the weakest form of arguement and common sense dictates that its a transport. Lets all be sensible eh? No you cant mount a sniper team in one, it defeats the point. Why have a sniper controller who "relies" on stealth to keep his position secure ride around in a bloody great loud grav tank.... by the way did i mention it has huge JET engines!!!!

Tanks as troops choices? I wouldn't even bother to give my opponent the time of day nevermind a game! lol

So where does a Hammerhead fit within the VP chart on P.85 BBB?

What indication do we have that it goes there?

Note: now I have a destination in mind

My argument isn't "it doesn't say I can't" but "it does say I can."

"Common sense dictates it's a transport." But the rules say a transport is a vehicle which infantry can mount in -- there are dedicated and non-dedicated types.

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

So where does a Hammerhead fit within the VP chart on P.85 BBB?

Under vehicles, because it follows the rules for vehicles. Are you trying to suggest that because a 'fish is a vehicle it thus falls under that VP category (and is a scoring unit by extension)?

The Devilfish isn't a tank, it's a personnel carrier. It has the Tank attribute allowing it to Tank Shock enemies. It seems common sense that a personnel carrier would be listed in the Troops section of the codex.

Tank, squid, whatever . Just because it is listed in the troops section doesn't make it a troops choice, though. After all, mechanised infantry and armoured formations are quite specialised. So if we're applying common sense (hazardous with GW games) they certainly won't be accessible as a separate troops choice.

Killrazy

The only thing left to say is if you want to cheat, go ahead and cheat.  I thankfully will never be playing against you.  If my opponent tried this on me, I would simply not play against them.

<?  

 

Every Troop entry is clearly labeled with both a symbol and text indicating that it is troop choice.

 

The Devilfish is not.

 

Every other unit entry contains both a symbol and text indicating where it goes on the FOC.

 

Even the FOC chart is labeled with both a symbol and text.

 

If this does not convince you that selecting a Devilfish as troop choice is pretty fishy business, well, then go ahead and cheat.

 

I guess you have decided to play by RAD (Rules as Drawn) instead of RAW.  Good luck with that.