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.

Ceaser wrote:

Naw wrote:
There was a thread on that in YMDC. No one could provide support that "unit at full strength" did not mean that the number of piranhas was also included. So again it would not be a FAQ or a rule clarification but a complete rule change.

If they again put that under a popularity vote we know what will happen :(

Can you quote the rule that specifies it's full strength, to include already destroyed vehicles? Specification please, not just the rule that states the units come back at full strength, which rai is obvious they mean what is leaving the table, not things that have been destroyed. When you provide that rule, it will show if the itc does a rules clarification, cause that's what it is, that it'd be a change. But it isn't, I agree the other thing was, this wouldn't be. Don't flatter the tau to much, we are all lucky to have people like Reece who know how to nerf them competitively since gw messed up their wording and the players feel a need to shove their interpretations as fact down our throats

A unit that was 5 and is now 3 is not at full strength.

Full strength is just that. missing parts is not full strength.

Ceaser wrote:

Naw wrote:
There was a thread on that in YMDC. No one could provide support that "unit at full strength" did not mean that the number of piranhas was also included. So again it would not be a FAQ or a rule clarification but a complete rule change.

If they again put that under a popularity vote we know what will happen :(

Can you quote the rule that specifies it's full strength

This is what Mont'ka says about the rule: Rearm and Refuel: If all of the surviving models from a unit in this Formation are within 6" of a table edge at the end of their Movement phase, the unit can enter Ongoing Reserves. When it returns to play, it does so at full strength with any damage repaired and Drones and seeker missiles replaced.

"surviving models from a unit", "the unit can enter Ongoing", "it returns to play", "it does so at full strength". That all point to the unit, not an individual model. So what constitutes of a unit? I have 1 unit of 5 Piranhas. How many did I have at the beginning of the game? Q: When is my unit at full strength? A: When it has the original number of models.

, to include already destroyed vehicles? Specification please, not just the rule that states the units come back at full strength, which rai is obvious they mean what is leaving the table, not things that have been destroyed.

The requirement for being able to leave to Ongoing reserves is that all surviving models from the unit are within 6" of the table. When the unit returns to play, it does so at full strength. The state of the unit is there in the rule, at full strength.

When you provide that rule, it will show if the itc does a rules clarification, cause that's what it is, that it'd be a change. But it isn't, I agree the other thing was, this wouldn't be.

Um no, there's nothing ambiguous in that rule. Care to tell us what your definition for a unit being at full strength means?

Don't flatter the tau to much, we are all lucky to have people like Reece who know how to nerf them competitively since gw messed up their wording and the players feel a need to shove their interpretations as fact down our throats

You are one of the reasons why anything ITC decides should not be a popularity vote.

 Nilok wrote:

Ceaser wrote:

Naw wrote:
There was a thread on that in YMDC. No one could provide support that "unit at full strength" did not mean that the number of piranhas was also included. So again it would not be a FAQ or a rule clarification but a complete rule change.

If they again put that under a popularity vote we know what will happen :(

Can you quote the rule that specifies it's full strength, to include already destroyed vehicles? Specification please, not just the rule that states the units come back at full strength, which rai is obvious they mean what is leaving the table, not things that have been destroyed. When you provide that rule, it will show if the itc does a rules clarification, cause that's what it is, that it'd be a change. But it isn't, I agree the other thing was, this wouldn't be. Don't flatter the tau to much, we are all lucky to have people like Reece who know how to nerf them competitively since gw messed up their wording and the players feel a need to shove their interpretations as fact down our throats

In an IG/AM formation (not an IG player, so I don't have the book in front of me) with the exact same wording, it specifically states in parenthesis that the vehicles in the unit that were lost come back as well. The rational is that identical wording has an identical effect on the rules. This will most likely have influence on the ITC group voting on it.

Herpa freaking-derp. It wasn't IG it was the 6e Apocalypse Tau Firestream formation.

The rule was copy and pasted from the original formation which included the note that lost vehicles were also returned in parenthesis.
Its not like GW has removed clarifying rules for things that they think everyone knows *cough*Gargantuan Creatures firing multiple weapons and Earth Caste Pilot Arrays for Riptides*cough*.