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.

Mughi3: Unfortunatly, the pre-game move doens't fufill the requirements of the skimmer glancing rule so your tactic is illegal.

Posted By Legacy40k on 04/19/2006 10:20 AM
So,  why does the new codex invalidate that?

Because the new codex completely replaces the old one. There is none of this "pick and choose from the new or old codex as you see fit" mumbo-jumbo that you are talking about.

The old codex no longer exists.

so ther rule is broken....

what are its implications?

If a squad(which has a special rule) must always take a transport (which doesn't have the special rule), how does this get implicated into an actual game. I mean, you do play the game right - lets fix it.

Posted By droidman on 04/20/2006 12:02 AM

Mughi3: Unfortunatly, the pre-game move doens't fufill the requirements of the skimmer glancing rule so your tactic is illegal.

 

well nix that idea then.......i'll just stick to my diruption pods

 

 

 

Posted By Harkainos on 04/20/2006 6:49 PM
so ther rule is broken....

what are its implications?

If a squad(which has a special rule) must always take a transport (which doesn't have the special rule), how does this get implicated into an actual game. I mean, you do play the game right - lets fix it.

 

 

it isn't broken-the new codex does not change the pathfinder team organization in anyway, since there is no conflict-pathfinders have the scout ability listed in thier entry. thier entry also says pathfinders consist of a team of 4-8 and a devilfish. this does not conflict in any way with the 3rd edition FAQ that specifies this scout abilty includes the fish...the downside it is really only an issue in escalation games which almost never get played at least where i am at.

 

.

One more time: Pathinders have scout.

Devilfish do not.

Neither does the "team".

Keep saying it, Ed, maybe one day soon it will sink in.

And for the love of God, mughi3, read the damn Codex.

mughi3 said:
the new codex does not change the pathfinder team organization in anyway,

Yes, it does. Or why else do you think this thread even exists?

mughi3 said:
pathfinders have the scout ability listed in thier entry

Correct.

mughi3 said:
thier entry also says pathfinders consist of a team of 4-8 and a devilfish.

Incorrect.

mughi3 said:
this does not conflict in any way with the 3rd edition FAQ that specifies this scout abilty includes the fish...

Incorrect and irrelevant.

mughi3 said:
the downside it is really only an issue in escalation games which almost never get played at least where i am at.

Whoop-de-do for you. Escalation is now 50% of standard GTs and (I think) 33% of RTT missions. But if you claim there is no conflict, why are you also claiming it is an issue? Try to get your argument straight before posting.

I wonder if you only play Alpha? And Marines, perhaps...

Yes, I also find it very frustrating to try to have a rules discussion with someone like mughi that doesn't seem to be familiar with the word "precise". His stance seems to be that if it almost says what I need to support my argument that's good enough.

He's attempting to apply GW's own low quality standards of rules writing to his own arguments. Sadly that won't work here. Perhaps he can persuade some of the less educated posters over at Warseer or the EoT that he's right.

Who said shield drones do nothing? They work rather well.

Don't make the mistake of reading someone's flawed argument and assuming it's correct.

I'm not sure what Shield Drones have to do with the topic at hand, Ed, but basically Shield Drones are only effective against low AP weapons if you take Shield Generators on the suits too. Otherwise, according strictly to the RAW, the suits get pulled first. Is that what you're talking about?

New sheild drone rules give them the same save as the suits they are protecting, so if a broadside has drones they have 2+/4+ INV.

I believe that they are refering to the "No Save" rule, where it can be argued that the Broadsides have to removed first because they get "No Save" from a low AP weapon. But I have never seen people play it that way and if I was the Tau player, I might actually consider stopping the game if my opponent was being an *donkey*about it.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 04/21/2006 10:38 AM
I'm not sure what Shield Drones have to do with the topic at hand, Ed, but basically Shield Drones are only effective against low AP weapons if you take Shield Generators on the suits too. Otherwise, according strictly to the RAW, the suits get pulled first. Is that what you're talking about?

Except the RAW doesn't support any of that. But whatever. That's a different thread. Feel free to open it if you like and I'll explain.

Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 9:43 AM

Yes, I also find it very frustrating to try to have a rules discussion with someone like mughi that doesn't seem to be familiar with the word "precise". His stance seems to be that if it almost says what I need to support my argument that's good enough.

He's attempting to apply GW's own low quality standards of rules writing to his own arguments. Sadly that won't work here. Perhaps he can persuade some of the less educated posters over at Warseer or the EoT that he's right.

 

going in circles-

stop being a damn rules lawyer. if we went by your "precise" interpritation then we could not use pathfinders at all since pathfinders (tau shas'la) are the same damn thing as firewarriors (also tau shas'la). in fact in the fulff entry it refers to pathfinders helping other firewarrior teams...thus indicating pathfinders are in fact firewarriors with a special mission.....yet they are not troops in the FOC like a firewarrior team and thus as stated before there is no individual model called a pathfinder......there is however a "pathfinder team" designated  in the overall FOC entry.  and saying the devilfish as a mandatory part of the team does't get special abilities like scout because it is a vehicle is assinine since the pathfinders which consist of 4-8 shas'la and a devilfish are under the same FOC entry that states they get it. the devilfish is also specifically stated to have aditional special comms that allow for special deepstrike rules it doesn't cost more points it is simple a special model issued as part of pathfinder teams.  

GW already cleared this up in the 3rd edition FAQ, looks like they will have to do it again for people like you. and yes i am usings GW's "low quality standard of  rules writing" because those are the only ones that matter.

the only 2 options

as you read it-pathfinders cannot function because the explanation is not "precise"

or

as GW wrote it...since they obviouly are not telling us about a unit we cannot possibly use-

pathfinders are a scout team of 4-8 shas'la with a mandatory transport that is capable of special mission roles not usable by other shas'la firewarrior teams.

if you play me or those who agree with me,  my devilfish is going to have the ability to scout, i may never use it, but if i do and you go "rules lawyer" on me you can just pack up your army and go play somebody else. i can find somebody who is more fun to play.

and to the other poster

yes i do play marines(dark angels) and i also play tau

mughi3 said:
stop being a damn rules lawyer

Contrary to what you might think, a 'rules lawyer' is not someone who plays by the rules (no matter how strictly).

Definition of a rules lawyer: a player who uses loopholes in the rules to their own advantage.

Side A (the 'no-Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We won't use the Scout rule for the Devilfish, because that's what the rules clearly say, and it puts us at a disadvantage, which is the honourable thing to do."

Side B (the 'Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We'll ignore the rules and/or use old and out-of-date rules to get the Scout rule for the Devilfish just so we can have an advantage."

So who's the rules lawyer, mughi3? I suggest you stop throwing insults and start thinking.

mughi3 said:
if we went by your "precise" interpritation then we could not use pathfinders at all since pathfinders (tau shas'la) are the same damn thing as firewarriors (also tau shas'la).

No, we wouldn't. Shas'la is the rank. Pathfinder is the unit name. Two completely different things. The term Pathfinder is applied to the unit but not its transport. Therefore, Shas'la or Shas'ui, if the Tau are in a Pathfinder Team they are Pathfinders. Simple, really.

And to use such a stupid and extreme argument in return, if we went by your interpretation we would not be able to field a Tau army at all, because every 'Pathfinder' Devilfish would have to have a Devilfish transport ad nauseum.


You still don't get it, do you? Let me point out your errors in logic:

mughi3 said:
there is however a "pathfinder team" designated in the overall FOC entry. Correct. ... since the pathfinders which consist of 4-8 shas'la and a devilfish Incorrect. are under the same FOC entry that states they get it. Incorrect.

There, does that help you understand?

mughi3 said:
GW already cleared this up in the 3rd edition FAQ,

For the last time, this is irrelevant!

mughi3 said:
the only 2 options

as you read it-pathfinders cannot function because the explanation is not "precise"

or

as GW wrote it...since they obviouly are not telling us about a unit we cannot possibly use-

No, the three options are as follows:

1. Follow the rules and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish without, and have no problems;

2. Ask your opponent's permission to break the rules and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish with Scout, and see what he says. Most players will agree, I'm sure; or

3. Cheat and play as Pathfinders with Scout, Devilfish with Scout.

mughi3 said:
pathfinders are a scout team of 4-8 shas'la with a mandatory transport that is capable of special mission roles not usable by other shas'la firewarrior teams.

Nope. Completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the new Tau Empire Codex yet?

Side B (the 'Scout-for-the-Devilfish' side) has always said: "We'll ignore the rules and/or use old and out-of-date rules to get the Scout rule for the Devilfish just so we can have an advantage."

actualy that is "we will use the rules as they have consistantly been used and even clarified by GW"

So who's the rules lawyer, mughi3? I suggest you stop throwing insults and start thinking.

the person ignoring GW rules and intent of the "fairly abstract rules, with a theoretical ground scale" to deny an opponant an option in his army I.E. the NO-scout camp

 

The term Pathfinder is applied to the unit but not its transport.

kindly show me wear it says that. what it does say is that a pathfinder team(unit or other descriptor of your choice) consists of 4-8 pathfinders and a transport-hence the transport is part of the team/unit and the term pathfinder team in the FOC chart applies to it

 

For the last time, this is irrelevant!

actualy no it isn't it shows intent and consistancy

Nope. Completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the new Tau Empire Codex yet?

yes, but obviosly you have not..so i will quote it for you

"the devilfish transports issued to pathfinder teams are equipped with enhanced optical processors and long range communication systems."

 

do any of the fire warrior team optional devilfish have this option?  is it anywhere in the fire warrior entry? hell do any other vehicles in the tau army have this option? can any other unit in the game alter a deepstrike scatter by simply being in LOS of the deepstriking unit?

the answer to all of those questions is of course no because the pathfinder team devilfish is outfited for a special mission role and nobody else has access to it or it's abilities.

pathfinders are fast advanced scouts...except if you continue to ignore the GW rules, intent and consistancy they are suddenly a fast scout unit that isn't fast.

 

 

 

Hey guys,

Thought I might share with you that I saw the raw FAQs that GW is giong to be releasing in the next two weeks (by raw I mean just plain text before it is put into the pdf documents) Mind you I briefly only looked at the Tau and Tyranid one, the Space Marine one was also availiable but I didnt see it except for the fact I was told that Fury of the ancients dont need LOS

For what its worth this is what I recall from the Tau one;

Pathfinder devilfishes dont get scout as they arent part of the unit (crappy I know)
Shadowsun cannot join other units until her drones get killed
O'Shava does not count as the compulsary commander (Im like wtf! on that one)

But the really crazy thing is that Tau Etherals in a honour guard are essentially upgrade characters. Havent looked at the wording but I got the impression that ICs that take a retinue suddenly become invisible in combat and count as a veteran sergeants until after there units are killed (crazy huh?)

Thought I might share with you that I saw the raw FAQs that GW is giong to be releasing in the next two weeks

Where can we find these "raw" FAQs? And how reliable is your source that says that they will be released in the next two weeks?

I can't believe that GW could have collected all the questions about the Tau Empire codex to answer them. It's only been out for four weeks.

I can't believe they didn't fix the language for the bloody Pathfinder rule; 4th ed. has only been out a year+.

Where can we find these "raw" FAQs? And how reliable is your source that says that they will be released in the next two weeks?

Well I saw the printouts, I have asked for them to be emailed to me (the guy and myself just spent a w/e at a tournament so I should expect it today or tomorrow.)

The guy in question works for GW (unsure of his actual role, but he had the Fall of the Necromancer already suggesting that he is not a store boy) and as for being released in two weeks, thats what I was told, thou I dont think that he would know when the timeframe for release dates is; so 2 weeks is just a guess.

Ill try to post them up as soon as I get them (as long as the guy doesnt get in trouble for leaking them too me; dont want to get tapped next time I face him in a tourny.)

Pass me your email address, I can send you some very official looking FAQ pdf's that note that pathfinder fish can not only scout but can scout 24"

Posted By syr8766 on 04/22/2006 4:58 PM
I can't believe they didn't fix the language for the bloody Pathfinder rule; 4th ed. has only been out a year+.

I was just looking at that. Morons. I thought for sure that would be the one thing they made sure not to mess up on. How hard would it be to add a line of type that said that the Devilfish shared the scout rule.
Annoying to say the least.

Posted By Zubbiefish on 04/23/2006 10:50 PM
How hard would it be to add a line of type that said that the Devilfish shared the scout rule.
Annoying to say the least.

Ha Ha! But this is only annoying if they did indeed intend for the Devilfish to receive "Scout". If in fact they did not, then why would the text read any different than it currently does?

 

Yes yes, previous edition precedent and all that. Blah Blah Blah.

4th edition Tau is different from 3rd edition Tau. Embrace it.

Evolve or be left behind.

Huh. I think I've been doing this wrong then (as a Tau player), though only for the pregame move. (I haven't used the ability to be on the field in omega/escalation at this point, so I only feel a little bad).

I agree on one thing though. GW knew that this was something that had to be errated on the last codex. Why did they not explicitly spell it out either way? Either say "The pathfinders, but not the mandatory devilfish, gain the scout special rule..." or "Both the pathfinders and the mandatory devilfish gain the scout special rule... etc etc etc" There really is no good excuse for this *sigh*

*waiting for the actual new FAQ*

They didn't spell it out because they just copy-and-pasted the old codex text forwards into the new codex. There wasn't an editor on the project (according to the credits) so there was no-one organising the inclusion of any necessary updates from the FAQ, or tidying the loose ends. Hence the cockup with the CIB, and numerous other problems with the book.

What kills me is that if they are going to half @$$ it that much why not just release codices more often, not like they put much work in to them

I think GW think people like us, always complaining about the badly-edited rules, are just natural moaners. After all, we still buy their products however much we whinge about them.

That's fine, if my pathfinder's Devilfish doesn't get a Scout move then your Terminators have to wear Power Armor.

Actually, technically they don't wear any armour at all. Their thick skin gives a 2+ armour save all by itself Just not any invulnerable save.