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.

@Gonefishing-Please to use the little flame icons or the soapbox icons when attempting to flame or preach. It lets us know your intent.

Now, in reference to what you posted. Please to read the whole thread and you'll understand that I could argue either side of this debate.

My intial contention, in the thread where this debate started, was that the codex and especially the battlesuit wargear section is so poorly worded that when you begin to try and examine it the meanings only become more muddled and murky as opposed to clearer. I've warned of this several times but there was a serious desire by the OP to get to the bottom of this.

Whitedragon wanted clarification on the A.S.S. debate as much as I do. Heck, probably more so becuase he started the this thread.
I had already been down this rabbit hole far enough to know that every entry dealing with the Battlesuits would have to be looked at in order to discuss this. It's why I commented on this and expanded the scope of the debate.

I seriously feel, that if Whitedragon thought my initial argument had no merit, he is wise enough to not have wasted the band-width to discuss the topic in the first place.

Now my friends Maj Tom and sychronicity understand that this was only a debate.

The OP also understands this and if he felt that I was being unreasonable he'd call me out on it. And if Whitegragon did so I'd listen very closely. I'd listen because even though he and I often have different veiwpoints I respect his opinions and experience.



Now to reply to the very long list of assumptions you gave.

Please to think about what is RAW. There is never an "exclusive" type modifier on any of the wargear.

They could have typed that,"Only the team leader may take these items". But they didn't. Which in itself is odd because so many of GW's other books do say things like that.

Now your character argument from the Hard-wired section is a very good one. There is a big hole that I can see in it though.

First, is by wording the book conveys this ability upon any suit coosing from the list. Codex overides BRB if it is given as an ability.

All in all though it is a good reference point and I would concede except that Codex trumps BRB in this case.

Same goes for the drone controllers. It is never written that in order to take drones you have to take the drone controller. You make an assumption about the controllers but don't have the wording in the rules to back it up.
Flame all you want but just because you say so doesn't alleviate the glaring lack of wording to back up your postion. This is RAW not Rules as you Wish them to be.

Next(New point of contention Alert) By RAW no one could take drones if they had to buy a drone controller because their cost is zero. You can't buy something if it has no cost. Without the exchange of points for item there is no transaction that would constitute a purchase.

You've accused me of twisting the meaning and to that I say, No sir. GW twisted the meaning with poor wording and a rushed codex.

This codex makes me wonder if it was the cause for GWs move to abandon the Wargear style lists.


You also make or allude to a false assumption about my character. I remember the most important rule. Debating in interweb land or metagaming with a friend is completely different than when its time to play.

If my opponent has a problem with something. I'm usually willing to work with them. I still win the majority of my games and do my best to make sure it is a good time no matter who wins or loses.

And Maj Tom, you called it. Just enjoying the debate. Gotta go, things to do IRL.

Nowhere in the codex nor in the rulebook does it say you can't use the easter bunny with A.S.S. and 6 Drones and two railguns and 3 burst cannons

focusedfire wrote:
Now your character argument from the Hard-wired section is a very good one. There is a big hole that I can see in it though.

First, is by wording the book conveys this ability upon any suit coosing from the list. Codex overides BRB if it is given as an ability.

All in all though it is a good reference point and I would concede except that Codex trumps BRB in this case.

Actually no it doesent. Codex overwrites BRB only when there are rules in direct contention - an example of this would be Sensor Spines - The BRB says that if a Skimmer Ends its move in Difficult Terrain etc, it must make a DT test. The Codex entry for Sensor Spines however tells us if you take Sensor Spines you don't need to take the test - Codex has overwritten the BRB.

In this case there is no rule in contention for the codex to overwrite. The only reference to the BRB is that Team Leaders etc count as "Upgrade Characters" within the unit they are attached to. - There is nothing in the Tau Codex that overwrites or cancels this out, so Codex cannot trump BRB on this issue.

The actual part that precludes normal troops buying Hard Wired items is in the armoury section of the Codex, the TAU CODEX itself is specifically saying that only characters can buy Hard Wired Items. If we then look at the BRB it gives us a definition of what a character is, and therefore who that rule applies to, but the BRB itself places no restrictions on the Wargear or the Tau Codex - so the Codex has nothing to overwrite, except itself!.

So under RAW - Gained from the TAU CODEX, normal suits can not buy Hard Wired systems or Special Issue items. If we agree with your argument (which to be clear I dont) that anyone can buy things from the Wargear Section than the only Item they would be able to buy would be the Bonding Knife.

The Bonding Knife entry however, while not explicit in its wording clearly shows the RAI of the situation, its in the Wargear section which only Team Leaders, 'Vres, Characters etc can buy from, and the listing itself states - ...."Carried by the Leader". In this case it does not state this explicitly as a rule (RAW), but it is yet another example of the RAI. The one item that you could theoretically buy under the terms of your argument is also a fairly explict guide to the RAI against it!

focusedfire wrote:

Same goes for the drone controllers. It is never written that in order to take drones you have to take the drone controller. You make an assumption about the controllers but don't have the wording in the rules to back it up.
Flame all you want but just because you say so doesn't alleviate the glaring lack of wording to back up your postion. This is RAW not Rules as you Wish them to be.

The Drone Controller is clearly there for this purpose, in fact it states in the DC entry of the Codex, - "a model with a Drone Controller must take one, or two Gun, Marker and Shield Drones, in any combination from the battlesuit wargear list". - So by taking the Drone Controller as a Item it entitles you to buy Drones (upto a maximum of two) from the Wargear List (even if you would normally have no access to that list). Infact look at it another way, a normal suit (without a Drone Controller) would be unable to buy any drones without taking the controller, because they have no access to the Battlesuit Wargear section. Every other rule listing about Battlesuit/Infantry Drones in the Codex refers to the Drone Controller, the Model with the Drone Controller etc - the RAI is very very clear and it is backed up by the RAW readings from many different sections - the only section which does not clarify with an exact RAW reading is the Drone Controller entry - but the RAW reading it does specify is when models are entitled to buy drones.

focusedfire wrote:
Next(New point of contention Alert) By RAW no one could take drones if they had to buy a drone controller because their cost is zero. You can't buy something if it has no cost. Without the exchange of points for item there is no transaction that would constitute a purchase.

This is not RAW - this is an assumption of RAW based on the principles of economics lol. The RAW does not state, anywhere in the CODEX or the BRB that you cannot buy an item that has a cost of Zero, nor does the Codex state you have to buy an item, it says "...These may be in any combination, up to any points cost within the normal limits". There is absolutely no RAW case for this anywhere in the Codex.

I apologise if you think I am preaching or casting aspersions on your character, this is not my intention. But as far as I can see from reading this whole thread you are claiming a case that you are adamant is listed under RAW - it isnt. The exact rules as written do not support your case at all, and the RAI blows it out of the water in all situations. - It simply is an illegal way to play, and I would rather point this out now then go into my local shop and have an argument with a fellow Tau Player who has a completely illegal list because he read on a forum that he could manipulate the rules under a RAW reading that does not exist!

Gonefishing wrote:
The Drone Controller is clearly there for this purpose, in fact it states in the DC entry of the Codex, - "a model with a Drone Controller must take one, or two Gun, Marker and Shield Drones, in any combination from the battlesuit wargear list". - So by taking the Drone Controller as a Item it entitles you to buy Drones (upto a maximum of two) from the Wargear List (even if you would normally have no access to that list).

Wrong. RAW does not entitle a model with a DC to drones, It says they must take 1-2, it is mandatory, not optional. For example, if i tell you you must eat a McMuffin for breakfast on tuesdays (assuming you would listen), that does not give you exclusive access to the McMuffin selection once a week, others may still order it to make a pitiful attempt at deriving nutritive value from rubber eggs, all it does is take away your option of not eating a McMuffin on tuesdays.

Gonefishing wrote:
Infact look at it another way, a normal suit (without a Drone Controller) would be unable to buy any drones without taking the controller, because they have no access to the Battlesuit Wargear section.

This is taking an assumption that is not given by your earlier Wargear argument. Drones are neither hard-wired nor are they intended/restricted to Team leaders/characters.

Gonefishing wrote:
Every other rule listing about Battlesuit/Infantry Drones in the Codex refers to the Drone Controller, the Model with the Drone Controller etc - the RAI is very very clear and it is backed up by the RAW readings from many different sections - the only section which does not clarify with an exact RAW reading is the Drone Controller entry - but the RAW reading it does specify is when models are entitled to buy drones.

Again, must ≠ entitled, so no, RAW does not support this, and yes, RAI is fairly obvious, but obvious or not it is not RAW, and unfortunately Common Sense is a misnomer.

Gonefishing wrote:

I apologise if you think I am preaching or casting aspersions on your character, this is not my intention. But as far as I can see from reading this whole thread you are claiming a case that you are adamant is listed under RAW - it isnt. The exact rules as written do not support your case at all, and the RAI blows it out of the water in all situations. - It simply is an illegal way to play, and I would rather point this out now then go into my local shop and have an argument with a fellow Tau Player who has a completely illegal list because he read on a forum that he could manipulate the rules under a RAW reading that does not exist!

Both focusedfire and i have both stated clearly that these are not the views we hold, and should we be proven wrong, then you will not have to fight illegal lists made by those who hold naturally the visage that the two of us hold as a masquerade. If not, and the thread goes long enough, then yakface(whose name is on the official GW FAQ) Might list corrections in the errata to elimminate the possibility of these rule-benders Focused and I caricature-ize so accurately.

Ditto


Maj Tom has replied so well that I find almost nothing else to add. Also, Maj Tom thank you for your post previous to the last. I always appriciate it when someone makes me chuckle.


@Gonefishing-What do you use for definition when a word isn't covered in the Codex or BRB?

I use the dictionary. This is the fundamental basis of RAW. Now, if you look up the definition of the words purchase and buy, you'll then see the problem of 0 pt wargear.

focusedfire wrote:Ditto

@Gonefishing-What do you use for definition when a word isn't covered in the Codex or BRB?

I use the dictionary. This is the fundamental basis of RAW. Now, if you look up the definition of the words purchase and buy, you'll then see the problem of 0 pt wargear.

Well dictionary definitions aside, the Codex and BRB make no mention that you cant buy things that cost nothing, its not written down so its not RAW - its an assumption based on a dictionary definition.

That being said its also a totally irrelevant assumption, if you look closely at the Tau Codex you will see that at no point (anywhere) does it use the words purchase or buy in relation to Wargear - it uses the words choose and take. There is nothing therefore within RAW that stops me choosing or taking a Drone Controller for zero points. (Unless you can read me the exact passage I am missing in the wargear section that uses the words buy and purchase?.....or are you just making another assumption?).

Maj. Tom wrote:

This is taking an assumption that is not given by your earlier Wargear argument. Drones are neither hard-wired nor are they intended/restricted to Team leaders/characters.

Well i see you are now accepting Hard Wired systems are off limits to normal suits. - Under the terms of your argument Drones are restriceted to team leaders. - You are claiming that you dont need to buy a Drone |Controller to take a Drone right? - Well a normal suit can only take a Drone if he buys a drone controller, because the Drone Controller is the only thing that gives him access to the drones in the Battlesuit Wargear list - a section he would have no access to without the specifc wording in the Drone Controller entry that says he can. Whereas - any unit that can take/choose a Drone Controller can take Drones so there is no restriction.

Now I know what section we are going to move into now - someone is going to come back at me and say "Yes, but your wrong, because the codex gives everyone access to the Wargear list".........So lets look at this argument in a little more detail.

As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong by all means - your argument for this is the line in the Codex that states:

"A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armouery may also choose upto 100 pts from the battlesuit wargear list."|
Now ill start with the obvious RAI and then move on to the RAW. First the RAI is obvious that this section is only tor Team Leaders and above - you can see this in the listing for the Team Leaders themselves, they cost 5Pts more, have exactly the same stats and there entry gives the specific permission to use the Wargear (this is what you pay the 5 points for). - If you look at the sentence you will see it does not say "Any Model in a Battlesuit may choose etc." - It states any model with access to the armoury - I think again the RAI intent is clear here. That being said that moves us onto the RAW, because I dont think you are denying the Rules as intended, you accept what the ruling should be, but you claim by RAW it could be done the other way because of the exact wording of the Codex Section.

So your argument becomes -
1. the Codex says a Model with access to the Armoury can buy upto 100 points of wargear.
2. Everyone has access to the Armoury.
3. Therefore everyone can buy from the Wargear list under RAW.

Well no - I am afraid not - Now we have shown under RAW that Hard Wired and Special Issue items can obly be used by Team Leaders and above. So at this point your argument becomes that the normal suits would still have access to the Battlesuit Wargear list to buy Drones (without a controller) and the Bonding Knife (as the only items they could take from the Wargear list).

Now this argument is clearly against the RAI - but is it against the specific Raw? - Yes it is.

The top of page 25 is entitled "ARMOURY" and it goes on to tell us the armoury is split into 3 sections - Battle Suit, Infantry and Vehicle.

The Section that the line: "A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armouery may also choose upto 100 pts from the battlesuit wargear list."| is below this in the BATTLESUIT ARMOURY section.

Lets look at the line carefully however, it does not say that a ...Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the BATTLESUIT ARMOURY - it just uses the word Armoury. Well the section above in the Codex point out that the Armoury (not the Battlesuit Armoury) consists of 3 parts - so by the RAW reading of this line a model that had access to the Battle Suit Armoury, the infantry armoury and the Vehicle Armoury would be entitled to buy 100 points worth of Wargear. - No Model in the Codex has access to all 3 sections therefore no model can take items from the Battlesuit Wargear.

...but wait a second! It seems some still can!! Because Team Leaders and above all have a seperate entry in there listing stating that they "May Select Items from the Battlesuit Wargear list".

In order for you argument to work under RAW the entry would have to specifically state the model had access to the BATTLESUIT armoury, it doesent, it says "Armoury"- and no model has access to the armoury as a whole. So under a Strict RAW reading, it doesent work.

The RAW is there.
The RAI is specifically against you with every example.
The Argument does not work under either guideline.

The RAW and RAI is extremely clearcut and this is clearly just going to degenerate into argument for arguments sake.

@ Gonefishing: Well done excellent cath on the Armoury v. Battlesuit Armoury. Except for one thing... Your argument states that i can put Battlesuit wargear on my Spotter, not the other way around. Also, it doesn't work (your argument that is).


It says "A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Thus it is contained to our original point, but broadened to include pretty much 'any battlesuit that takes any equipment whatsoever can access the Battlesuit wargear'

And yes i do concede the H/W-special issue-bonding knife argument, well played sir.

But nevertheless that leaves the problem of taking drones without controllers.
(ironically, look at my rank)

Gonefishing wrote:
The RAW and RAI is extremely clearcut and this is clearly just going to degenerate into argument for arguments sake.

Oh good sir, it did that long ago, and only when you win, or when Yakface FAQ-ificates these points, will the matter be laid to rest.
And note, winning does not mean proving your point beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond doubt altogether.

Maj. Tom wrote:@ Gonefishing: Well done excellent cath on the Armoury v. Battlesuit Armoury. Except for one thing... Your argument states that i can put Battlesuit wargear on my Spotter, not the other way around. Also, it doesn't work (your argument that is).


It says "A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list."

Thus it is contained to our original point, but broadened to include pretty much 'any battlesuit that takes any equipment whatsoever can access the Battlesuit wargear'

No - I am afraid it does not - Look at the whole sentence. -"A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." .

What that sentence basically says is - "a model WEARING a Battlesuit and that has access to the Armoury". So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

In order for you argument to actually work under a RAW basis the entry would have to say either -"A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Battlesuit Armoury [b] may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." Or - -"A model in a battlesuit [b] OR ONE that has access to the Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." It does not - So your argument (Which you were basing on this one line) does not actually have any basis in RAW at all.

Gonefishing wrote: That being said its also a totally irrelevant assumption, if you look closely at the Tau Codex you will see that at no point (anywhere) does it use the words purchase or buy in relation to Wargear - it uses the words choose and take. There is nothing therefore within RAW that stops me choosing or taking a Drone Controller for zero points. (Unless you can read me the exact passage I am missing in the wargear section that uses the words buy and purchase?.....or are you just making another assumption?).

Very good catch sir, I salute you.

Gonefishing wrote:Well i see you are now accepting Hard Wired systems are off limits to normal suits. - Under the terms of your argument Drones are restriceted to team leaders. - You are claiming that you dont need to buy a Drone |Controller to take a Drone right? - Well a normal suit can only take a Drone if he buys a drone controller, because the Drone Controller is the only thing that gives him access to the drones in the Battlesuit Wargear list - a section he would have no access to without the specifc wording in the Drone Controller entry that says he can. Whereas - any unit that can take/choose a Drone Controller can take Drones so there is no restriction.

Now I know what section we are going to move into now - someone is going to come back at me and say "Yes, but your wrong, because the codex gives everyone access to the Wargear list".........So lets look at this argument in a little more detail.

....................(And a whole bunch of stuff that is overly complex for the assumption that is made.)

Actually it boils down to these three points.

1)A Model in a Battlesuit that has access to the armoury may also choose up to 100 pts from the Battlesuit Wargear list.
2)Drones are located in the wargear list
3)The codex "Fails" To establish a mandatory connection between Drones and drone controller.

This is why any battlesuit could by RAW "Take or Choose"(Again I salute you) Drones.


With RAW you have to take the sentence at face value unless there is something written in a subsequent sentence or rule that specifically states the modification to the rule.

I will state that due to the points made by others in this thread that I will limit my ASS equipped suits to 2 drones. Not because of anything in the Tau Codex but because of the most improtant rule(To have fun). By the wording in the Codex I could take up to 100pts worth of drones per Battlesuit but unless I have a friend that thinks playtesting something like this would be fun I'll leave the contentious wording arguments to the forums and play my pick up and tourney games without the ASS if running drones.

And this doesn't alleiviate the basic problem of poor wording. The wording in the first point is an invite to some smart ass to make the point that unless you actually model the Battlesuit to show a model inside you wouldn't be able to take wargear. Thus making the argument moot until we all re-worked our Crisis suits. This may seem bizzare and over the Top but I have run into this individual more than once. Each time this guy had a different name and face but he was still the same person.

Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Gonefishing wrote:
So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

Ah, but riddle me this; how can a suit without access to the armoury equip itself with the mandatory weapons and support systems therein? II never said unrestricted access, because as you pointed out there are some obvious restrictions. But to get anything IN the armoury, you must access it. For example, say you have your pet rock in a safety deposit box at the bank, and you said you wanted to see it, they would not deny you entry into the bank vault by saying "No, because the Faberge Egg in the box above you does not belong to you." but they also wouldn't say, "Yeah, here are a bunch of keys, dun know which one's urs so figure it out. And uh... Oh yeah, dont steal nuffin." Now what GW has done is instead of installing locks in some of the boxes, they have written on sticky notes affixed to each one "Hey, uhh.. You probably shouldn't look in this box. -management-"

Black-sun filter (i think we can agree that any suit can take this), is in the Battlesuit support system list, which is in the Battlesuit Armoury, Which is in the Armoury. Therefore, If no

Gwar! wrote:Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Bah-ZIIiinngg!!!

"All battle suits take X Weapon systems and Y support systems... A model in a battle suit with access to the armoury may also choose up to 100pts of war-gear from battle suit war-gear list" In this case RAI is clear even if it is badly worded

I would also like to point out this technically correct reading (which is why you can't always play RAW)...

Drone Controller "...must take one or two gun, marker or shield drones in any combination ..."
...so each drone controller lets you take 1-2 drones

you can also take drone controllers as support systems & hardwired

now technically you may also take one (of each type) as war gear on characters. Drones are listed as war gear

... sooo you could have on a commander and bodyguards with 21 drones (a marker, a gun and a shield drone + any other 4 others)
er... commander Farsight+ 7 bodyguards would let you take 56 drones (i can imagine the panic this could cause deep striking in ... well if it can find enough space)

.... but this just looks wrong ...

Maj. Tom wrote:

Gonefishing wrote:
So nothing changes, a model can be wearing a Battlesuit but it still does not match the second clarifying statement that it has access to the Armoury - no model CAN have access to the whole armoury, Battlesuits can not take vehicle upgrades and vice versa. Therefore the only people that can take items from the Batlesuit Wargear section are ones that have it specifically mentioned in there Codex Entries.

Ah, but riddle me this; how can a suit without access to the armoury equip itself with the mandatory weapons and support systems therein? II never said unrestricted access, because as you pointed out there are some obvious restrictions. But to get anything IN the armoury, you must access it. For example, say you have your pet rock in a safety deposit box at the bank, and you said you wanted to see it, they would not deny you entry into the bank vault by saying "No, because the Faberge Egg in the box above you does not belong to you." but they also wouldn't say, "Yeah, here are a bunch of keys, dun know which one's urs so figure it out. And uh... Oh yeah, dont steal nuffin." Now what GW has done is instead of installing locks in some of the boxes, they have written on sticky notes affixed to each one "Hey, uhh.. You probably shouldn't look in this box. -management-"

Black-sun filter (i think we can agree that any suit can take this), is in the Battlesuit support system list, which is in the Battlesuit Armoury, Which is in the Armoury. Therefore, If no

Lol nice try - but no - utterly irrelevant - the Battlesuit Armoury says that - "All Models with Battlesuits must take a number of battlesuit weapons and/or support systems as detailed in there Army Entry list" - the line we are arguing about is later in the passage and refers purely to Battlesuit Wargear options. It does not in any way deny access to the mandatory Weapon and Support systems, both the Battlesuit Armoury section and the individiual codex entries tell you that you can take them, and when you have access to them.

The RAI intent of the line we are discussing ("A model in a battlesuit that has access to the Battlesuit Armoury may also choose up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear list." ) cannot be denied, however if we insist on a strict RAW reading of the line (which you are) it denies access to the Wargear to anymodels that do not have it specifically stated in there Codex entries. - However the Line does NOT deny access to Weapon and Support systems because this is covered earlier in the same section and in the individual codex entries by a RAW basis. They are given access specifically to the Weapon and Support systems - they are not given access to the the Battlesuit Wargear - which is the point we are discussing.

No, because as you said yourself, The Armoury includes battlesuit, infantry, and vehicle systems/upgrades. Therefore, any model, in a battlesuit, that has a selection from any segment of the armoury, BSF/PR/FC/w/e, and this includes ALL battlesuits [since even stealths can get a support system), may then get up to 100 points in the battlesuit Wargear. As you have stated, special issue items can only be used when explicitly stated, and HW systems can only go on characters (though i noiced in the codex it is not capitalized). This still leaves the matter of drones. And nowhere does it explicitly prohibit the use of drones as wargear without a controller.

Gwar! wrote:Off topic: You sure it wasn't Michael Jackson you were running into?

Ba-Dum-Tish!

Nah, I'm about the same age as he is. This means that I play in gaming groups that are in the 40+ age bracket so I never get to see him.




@Gonefishing and Maj Tom- We have now hit the Round Robin portion of the debate. Both sides have now established there positions and cited their the portions of the rulebook that supports their stance. All parties have now formed their opinions and are dug in. The debate will go circular for a couple of pages until someone gets upset or flames or ect...

Would anyone care to switch their stance and argue the point from the other side?
Would either of you like to debate one of the other points brought forth?

Certainly

I concede your point about the bananas.

I started writing that I was the farthest thing from dug in but when i tried to play devils advocate against myself i lost the monargument.

So maybe i did dig a little, but its only cause i thought there was pirate treasure at the bottom!

Maj Tom- This will sound biased but I believe that you had the edge in the debate up to this point. It has to do with the last offer I made and the reponses recived.

Now, the debate had definitely nudged up to the round robin portion. That was the primary reason for my offer to reverse stances or move to a different point. The other reason is its an old debate trick to avoid emotional attachment to one side of the debate and to get people out of their entrenched thought processes.

Also, there is a tendency where if someone is growing emotionally invested in one side of the debate and they subconciously(or conciously) feel that their position is weaker they will refuse the offer to switch. In order to prevent derailing the thread I won't go into the pychology behind this tendency. Instead, I'll just state, IMHO, that your willingness to make the attempt and to be candid with both yourself and the rest of us speaks very well of your skills in debate, ability to think critically/logically, and personality as an individual.

Now, back to the offer. I'll be gaming today but if you'd like to switch or debate a different point/facet then please let me know. You can pick what point I'll be arguing. Then we'll start either late today or sometime tomorrow.


@Gonefishing- Some excellent points made. Please to continue with the input. I feel that both sides were getting to the point of becoming emotionally invested in the debate. This, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a negative thing. Being passionate about the subject is a great motivator. Letting such ardour get to the point that it clouds the ability to see where the other side is coming from is counter-productive.

Again I wish to compliment you upon your keen intellect and really do hope that you will stick around for this exploration of the Tau codex wording.

Im not sure how eloquent ill b today since i was up all night with a friend playing Left4Dead (great game highly recommended), but i did come up with something, The codex, to my knowledge doesn't explicitly prohibit the buying of drones sans controller, but it also doesn't expressly give permission either, which is the point i believe Gonefishing is taking.

A similar example is that in the bible it says "A man shall not lay with another man for it is an abomination towards God"(not my view btw) ... Nothing about a woman laying with another woman. However, i can't picture the pope watching the Elen degenres show.


food for thought,...thousands....

Off-Topic- I noticed that line myself years ago and came to the conclusion that it was an intentional omission.

Go ahead. Try to convince a man with multiple wives that a god that forbids him to enjoy the one pleasurable benefit of having multiple spouses is the one he needs to follow.

And naw, The Popes watching the Telly Tubbies at that time slot.



On-Topic-Now, to this point of "if" there is no express permission to take the drones. "If" this were so then by the same logic no one could take the Drone Controller or any wargear for that matter.

Fortunately the line in question at the top of Battlesuit wargear does give us that permision. By being in the wargear section we know that we can take the drones

But only one. By reading the rules at face value all the drone controller does is allow you to violate the no model may pick the same item twice rule. Maybe thats why it is considered worth 0 pts, becuase it only allows you to double up on a type of drone.(I know this isn't RAI but by the reading it "Looks" that way.)



Food for thought, women living in close proximity have a tendency to sychronize biologically. Hhmmm,.......a monthly apoc game that lasts a week.....Nah it'd never fly, I'd end up ripped to shreds and dumped in a river.

Sorry* Darned double posting interwebs

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

I think this is a fun, lively debate, and I'm glad to see that those pushing the envelope of rules interpretations say they wouldn't ever actually use them this way

In computer games these kinds of things are called "exploits" rather than "bugs". Bugs are a technical error. Exploits are things that were left open to abuse... and were subsequently abused

I can agree that RAW may leave open the possibility of all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean you should try to get away with them. That's an exploit, and not in the spirit of the game (according to one of the first pages of the rulebook!)

But an interesting debate nonetheless... especially the part about drones not having ASS (you could take that all sorts of ways )

Cheers all

Another interesting tidbit from the book. I can usually grasp the meaning of the written word pretty easily. This one made my head hurt for a second.

Pg 24 Tau Codex, Page says TAU ARMY LIST at the top.

By the rule entry titled:

Character: Some entries may include an option to upgrade one team member to a character. If the team is allowed models with upgrades then these must be given to ordinary team members not the character.


This as written has far reaching consequences. This could be used to directly change how we equip our models.

So does this have any bearing upon the primary discussion of drones on broadsides with A.S.S. ?

How does it affect upgrades in general? Remeber that the character is a model that was up graded in the unit. Also the wargear he takes would be considered upgrades.

Now I'm pretty sure this rule was written for the Pathfinders but the wording is just plain problematic. Who wants to go first and which side do you want to take?

I'm still twitching from the brain aneurism that sentence caused.
Until i figure out what it is trying to mean, i will argue the bowl of RAI, once i figure that out i will probably start to argue at the sieve of RAW


The thing that popped into my head was the options of rocket launcher and flamer not being viable to a sm commander (dont know if this is true! its just how i played my starter set.)

The next was not being able to give the upgraded FW a carbine.

Then i looked at it in context and i decided that i will take the position of the following
::If a model is upgraded to a character, then all the equipment options of the team cease to apply, and that any options must be stated in it's Character entry::

*Then goes to read all the option v character entries.*

XV8 Crisis Battlesuit Team wrote:
Equipment: Each team member is equipped with an XV8 Crisis Battlesuit, and must select three battlesuit weapons systems or support systems.

Options: NA

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 the Special Issue Wargear.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealth Team wrote:
Equipment: Each team member is equipped with a burst 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.

Options: One in three models (including the team leader or Shas'vre) may replace their burst cannon with a fusion blaster at a cost of 2 pts per model.

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. The team leader or Shas'vre may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1+ Fire Warrior Team wrote:
Equipment: Pulse rifle.

Options: Any number of Fire Warriors in the team may exchange their pulse rifle for a pulse carbine at no extra points cost. The team may carry photon grenades at an additional cost of +1 point per model and EMP grenades at an additional cost of +3 points per model.

Character: One Fire Warrior Shas'la may be upgraded to a Shas'ui team leader at +10 points, and may select items from the Infantry Wargear list. A Shas'ui team leader may also purchase a markerlight at an additional 10 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kroot Carnivore Squad wrote:
Equipment: Kroot are armed with a Kroot rifle, Krootox Riders with a Kroot gun, and Kroot Hounds with their ferocious fangs.

Options: If a Shaper is included in a Carnivore Squad, its members may acquire a 6+ Armour Save at a cost of 1 point per model.

Some Shapers carry weaponry gifted from the Tau. For an additional cost of 5 points, the Shaper's Kroot rifle can be replaced with either a pulse rifle or a pulse carbine.

Character: One Kroot may be upgraded to a Shaper at an additional cost of 21 points.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pathfinder Team wrote:
Equipment: Pulse carbine with markerlight target designator.

Options: Pathfinders may carry photon grenades at an additional cost of 1 point per model and EMP grenades at an additional cost of 3 points per model. Up to three Pathfinders in a team (but not the team leader or Shas'ui) may replace their pulse carbine and markerlight with a rail rifle and target lock at a cost of 10 points each.

Character: One Pathfinder Shas'la may be upgraded to a Shas'ui team leader for an additional 10 points, and may select items from the Infantry Wargear list.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

XV88 Broadside Battlesuit Team wrote:
Equipment: Each model is equipped with an XV88 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 team leader may be upgraded to a Shas'vre for an additional 5 points.

Maj Tom-My apologies for having cuased the brain twitching mini aneurism.


I am actually struggling with how to debate this. Its like trying to play soccer on oil coverd ice while wearing dress shoes. There is no solid footing in any direction.

I could say that it means wargear selected by the upgraded character goes on to the team members as opposed to the character.

Ordoes it mean a never ending circle of one suit giving the character option to the next?

Off-topic-In my gaming group the majority turn to me for quick answers to rules questions. They joke that I'm a living rule book. It was never my intention to be so well versed, Just had to spend so much time in the books trying to make sense of sentences like this last one that a lot of the info just stuck.

This wording has gotten to me to the point that I'm now attempting to write a fan-dex just to see if I can both update and introduce concise rules that make sense. The idea for this started on the, "How would you fix the Tau for 5th ed?" thread.

May I ask to use you as a sounding board at some point? That is if you don't mind.

sound away friend

I think it means that the "Options: xyz" section only applies to unupgraded models, and that the Character models have thier own options listed under the "Character: abc" section. except the shaper in which he is mentioned specificly in the options

Which is maybe why it specifies the TL/Shas'vre in the stealth options