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.

The point made by classifying the Hammerhead as a vehicle is that the title ?Hammerhead Gunship? has nothing to do with its classification. Likewise the title "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" has nothing to do with classifying the fish as a vehicle or a dedicated transport vehicle or a vehicle squadron.

Rather, as you say, a unit is classified one way or the other because it follows the rules for units in its classification.

In the case of a HH, it has a type IE. Tank,Skimmer, it has characteristics common to vehicles IE. Armor. So it is a vehicle and follows the rules for all vehicles.

So when would a vehicle fall into the classification of vehicle squadron?

The point made by classifying the Hammerhead as a vehicle is that the title ?Hammerhead Gunship? has nothing to do with its classification. Likewise the title "TRANSPORT: DEVILFISH TROOP CARRIER" has nothing to do with classifying the fish as a vehicle or a dedicated transport vehicle or a vehicle squadron.

Err, no. The transport part of the name is not the actual name of the tank, it's a description of its place in the army outside the force organisation chart. You're trying to extend the absence of unnecessary information (i.e. Non-transport: Hammerhead) to say that the presence of any extra information (transport) is irrelevant, which is faulty logic.

So when would a vehicle fall into the classification of vehicle squadron?

A vehicle can't. Only when two+ vehicles from the same unit (e.g. two vypers, piranhas) and the same slot are purchased are they a squadron. Even then a squadron of vehicles is a collection of units, rather than a specific unit catergorisation.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that for a legal army you need only field 2 D/fish and then fill the Org chart with elites/fast and heavy etc. So a Tau army with no kroot or FW's would be a legal army in your opinion - I cannot serious believe you are arguing this positions.

If so, this argument is even more pointless than before. Like I have said, this is why many people I know no longer play 40k becomes of dumb arguments like this - because we all know some-one is going to do it.

Actually you must have at least 1 squad of firewarriors so what kilkrazy is saying is that you must have 1 squad of FW and one Dfish.

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.

If memory serves correctly it was listed in the fast attack section in the last codex. It had a small grey box arround it that clearly differientated it from other entries and a text field saying...something. Dont have previous codex with me.

No, my intention is to point out that a HammerHead is not a heavy support choice or a tank or anything else because of its title ?HammerHead Gunship? Rather it is a Tank because that is what its profile states, and it is a heavy support choice because it is in the heavy support section of the codex.

They could have labeled the DevilFish as a ?Frog star Mk IV Transmogrifier? But it would still be a skimmer, tank available as a troops choice. Because that is what its profile states, and because it is in the troops section of the codex.

It seems like quite a stretch to pull the entry out of its place in the FOC based on its title starting with the word Transport: Especially given that so many other aspects of the entry match the other troop entries.

If they had at least boxed it off and written a little blurb about dedicated transports, as in the SM dex, your position would be spot on, but I don't see it in the Tau codex.

If memory serves correctly it was listed in the fast attack section in the last codex. It had a small grey box arround it that clearly differientated it from other entries and a text field saying...something. Dont have previous codex with me.

Nope, it was below fire warriors like it is now - In a slightly greyed area (Doesn't get much more appropriate than that...).

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.

Yes, exactly -- the Chaos Rhino is an entry in the Elites section of the Chaos codex, hence an empty Rhino can be taken as an Elites choice in a Chaos army.

In looking for rules on how to determine whether or not something occupies a FOC slot (and what slot it occupies), I was unable to find anything in the BTB (it's teal, damnit). Both the Chaos and Tau Empire codices have an Army List page which contains the rules for picking FOC slots, and both specify that the player can take anything in the appropriate section as a unit occupying a FOC slot. Transport: Chaos Rhino is an army list entry in the Elites section of the Chaos codex, Transport: Devilfish Troop Carrier is an army list entry in the Troops section.

The interesting thing is that nowhere is there any designation for what can or cannot occupy a FOC slot in either codex beyond which section of the army list the army list entry resides in. The "Transport:" text and the vertical text on the Tau entries don't have any rules to back them up, regardless of any perceived pattern designating them as something else.

Now, I'm not arguing the reasonableness of this, just that both vehicles can be taken individually as non-dedicated transports. Curiously, the Chaos Rhino entry gives specifics as to what it can and cannot carry, mentioning models that have no option for transports -- it does have rules in place which allow it to function as a non-dedicated transport.

The challenge, then, to those who would claim Devilfish (and Chaos Rhinos, for that matter) cannot be taken as non-dedicated transports appears to be: How can one objectively determine when an army list entry cannot be taken as a FOC slot using only instructions from the printed rules?

The relevant text for the Devilfish is in the Tau Empire codex, page 24: "Each box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list" (emphasis mine)

Posted By bluespruce on 07/05/2006 2:06 PM

They could have labeled the DevilFish as a ?Frog star Mk IV Transmogrifier? But it would still be a skimmer, tank available as a troops choice. Because that is what its profile states, and because it is in the troops section of the codex.

Have you actually looked in the Codex?

<?  

Right under the much ballyhooed symbol, in a LARGE FONT, it says TRANSPORT, not troops.  Under the symbol for every other unit in the codex it states what FOC choice it represents.   They have explicitly written what FOC choice it represents.

 

Seriously, how much more clear does it need to be?

 

Posted By fullheadofhair on 07/05/2006 1:27 PM

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/05/2006 10:07 AM

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that for a legal army you need only field 2 D/fish and then fill the Org chart with elites/fast and heavy etc. So a Tau army with no kroot or FW's would be a legal army in your opinion - I cannot serious believe you are arguing this positions.

I'm not arguing that position. The Tau Codex lists FCW squads as 1+. You have to have at least 6 FCW to make a legal army. Aside from that, yes, if the D'fish is a legal Troop choice (which is what we are supposedly debating here) then you could make a legal army consisting of an FCW squad, a D'fish and a Crisis suit commander. You could get that army for about 230 points. It wouldn't be any use for real games. It would be good if people could manage to address the actual arguments presented based on the rules, instead of concerning themselves with ad hominem arguments and attribution errors.

Tua-Cent, The direction of most recent arguments here has been that the title ?Transport: DF troop carrier? is inadequate reference to pull the listing out of its place in the troops section of the FOC.

One line of thought has been that the title "Transport: DF TC" separates the DF entry from the other entries in troops section. To this point there has been no real president for this idea. A similar situation exists in the SM dex, where the transports are separated from the other troops choices by heading and by the blurb directly following the heading. The unit title by itself does not give us enough leverage to separate the fish from its place on the FOC, namely as a troops selection.

Also there is Lowinor?s excellent presentation of the CSM Rhino, which also backs up the idea that some transports can be chosen as dedicated or as FOC selections.

If it is difficult for you to follow the lines of thought up to this point perhaps you should print the thread out and use the hard copy as an outline. Sometimes I do this when they get really long and convoluted.

This why it is pretty clear to me that a lot of people who are arguing for devilfish being a troop choice haven't actually look at the codex.<?

On the side bar (not the title) of each entry of the Tau Empire codex it states in, where on the FOC that particular unit fits.  This is explicit text and every unit in the codex has its FOC designation stated explicitly next to it?s entry in this same format.

The Devilfish does not.

Unless you can prove why this is irrelevant or why at the very least it doesn?t cast doubt on the issue of the Devilfish being a valid troop choice than you don?t really have a valid argument.

If you agree that at the very least it casts doubt on the Devilfish being a valid troop choice, then as a Tau player you are ethically obligated to play using the less advantageous and more restrictive interpretation.

Personally, I believe it is crystal clear that the Devilfish is not a valid troop choice.

 

Unless you can prove why this is irrelevant or why at the very least it doesn?t cast doubt on the issue of the Devilfish being a valid troop choice than you don?t really have a valid argument.

As the proof of a negative is... difficult, it is standard practice for the one making a positive claim (in this case, that the text on the side bar means something) to provide proof for their assertion.

So, please do. Show us where in the rules that side bar text in unit entries means something. The only thing I can find in the actual text is that the section an army list entry is in is relevant, and the Devilfish is in the Troops section.

One line of thought has been that the title "Transport: DF TC" separates the DF entry from the other entries in troops section. To this point there has been no real president for this idea. The only similar situation is in the SM dex, where the transports are separated from the other troops choices by heading and by the blurb directly following the heading. The unit title by itself does not give us enough leverage to separate the fish from its place on the FOC, namely as a troops selection.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that some armies (and may I just say "Oh god, including Imperial Guard") would "technically" get transports occupying a slot while other armies don't get that? Codex: Witch Hunters also has transports listed separately (as does DH, IIRC). So now we have a situation where a transport isn't actually a transport for some, or a transport that can only ever be a transport - seems that some armies get exactly the same vehicle operating in different ways.

So are all transports created equal? Or does one vehicle need a page all to itself to keep people from saying "It's a troops/elites/whatever choice!"

"Transport: x" is a method of expediency so neither us or GW is paying for another page. There is nothing to support the statement that a transport unit is selectable in any other way than as a unit transport. I don't see how arguing page layout has ever been a good enough reason.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that some armies (and may I just say "Oh god, including Imperial Guard") would "technically" get transports occupying a slot while other armies don't get that?

The argument isn't what the designers intended.
The argument isn't what version is reasonable to play with.
The argument is what the rules say. Odd has nothing to do with it.

"Transport: x" is a method of expediency so neither us or GW is paying for another page.

That's an unprovable assertion that falls back on designer intent. "Transport:" as part of an army list entry's title is not defined in the rules.

here is nothing to support the statement that a transport unit is selectable in any other way than as a unit transport.

"USING A FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART" on page 24 of the Tau Empire codex. An entry in the Troops section can be chosen to be a Troops option. The Devilfish is in the Troops section. QED.

@lowinor

You want me to prove where in the rulebook it states that clearly written text next each unit entry that matches it?s FOC designation in all cases is actually that units FOC designation? 

 

So you are asking me to use the rulebook to prove the formating and layout of a codex. :S

<?  

Yet you seem to have little issue with a potentially erroneous graphic, and use it as proof positive that a Devilfish is a valid troop choice.

 

I give up on DakkaDakka.

 

 

page 36. see the grey sidebar that is vertical. in it is the info you need. read everything else is sais HQ/elite/troop etc..

 

what does the fish say? oh yeah Transport

 

so it isnt a valid Troop choice by itself. simple as that

Lowinor and killkrazy, take your heads out of your arses and look at the rules with a little common sense. The thing is a transport. It is meant to transport fire warriors. It has transport writen next to its name. You dont even know the rules yourselves, instead, you rant on about how a devilfish is a troops choice, when it clearly is not! You try to exploit every little loophole, when there is no loophole to be found!

At the end of the day, you are the types of people no one wants to play against- rule lawyering scum.

You want me to prove where in the rulebook it states that clearly written text next each unit entry that matches it?s FOC designation in all cases is actually that units FOC designation?

You're the one making the claim that it matters, so yes.

Yet you seem to have little issue with a potentially erroneous graphic, and use it as proof positive that a Devilfish is a valid troop choice.

I've never said anything of the like. I find that argument no less specious than the side bar text argument.

I've said the Devilfish is in the Troops section of the army list. I've said that the only rules I've been able to find that discuss what exactly constitutes the FOC designation of an army list entry (at least, that is relevant to Tau) is the text on page 24 that discusses location within the section of the army list as deciding factor.

I give up on DakkaDakka.

I don't know what you're looking for; YMTC is where people argue pedantically over the minutae of rules no one really expects anyone else to follow. No one (or, at least, not many -- and not I, definitely) is claiming that it is reasonable to expect to field an empty Devilfish without being grumbled at. What I'm claiming is that by the letter of the rules, it's allowed, nothing else.

Lowinor and killkrazy, take your heads out of your arses and look at the rules with a little common sense. The thing is a transport. It is meant to transport fire warriors. It has transport writen next to its name.

<common argument&gt=""><common" sense="" argument=""><common">*start common sense argument*
But, it has rules that it can't carry battlesuits, and no units that can take it have the option of being equipped with battlesuits, so it's obvious that it's intended to be able to be used as a non-dedicated transport. I mean, it's just common sense -- the text wouldn't be there if it wasn't meant to be used as a non-dedicated transport. I mean, if you looked at the entry with common sense, it doesn't make any sense that the no battlesuit rule is there if it could only be taken as a dedicated transport.
</common>*end common sense argument*

Note that common sense/designer intent arguments like the above aren't valid. But, even still, there's not just one approach to this as an intent argument.

You try to exploit every little loophole, when there is no loophole to be found!

I don't play Tau.

At the end of the day, you are the types of people no one wants to play against- rule lawyering scum.

If you've actually read what I've posted, I don't play by RAW, and I remain unconvinced that it's possible to play a game entirely by RAW. It is, however, certainly possible to look at a specific question and determine what the rules as written have to say about it. Of course, when one has nothing useful to say, it's quite easy to devolve to ad hominem attacks.

I don't see a problem with fielding an empty Devilfish any more than fielding an empty Landraider.

The second most pathetic thing about this whole argument (next to the unnecessary personal insults) is the conception that it makes any serious difference to the "fairness" of the game to be able to field a transport as dedicated or non-dedicated.

Look at the balance:

Dedicated transport = non-scoring, can only carry one squad, but does not occupy a slot.
Non-dedicated transport = scoring, can carry any squad, but occupies a slot.

Other armies have the opportunity to take dedicated and non-dedicated transports. Why shouldn't the Tau army?

@Tau-Cent, now you mention this "transport" graphic, I understand what you mean. I've had the codex since the day it came out and have never noticed that bit of text. As it's a sideways bar in light grey on a mottled grey background perhaps that's not surprising. Having considered it, though, I find it is of less significance than the bold black header at the top of the page.

Anyway, referring "transport" back to the BBB, we find that transports are vehicles that can carry other models and come in two flavours, and so on as I've pointed out before.

The onus is on the nay-sayers to prove that designating a vehicle as a transport means it may only be selected as a dedicated transport.

I have not read the tau codex and based on what i know of 40k my first inclination was to call BS on the people who insisted that the devilfish could be taken as a troops choice on its own.

However those same people have made very compelling arguments to support their points. Their opponents (and not all mind you but a few) in this discussion seem to resort to name calling and insults. that makes me and others disinclined to listen to what they have to say. You hurt your side of the discussion even when you have good points to make also.

I applaud those of you who have refrained from name calling, and used logical arguments to support your claims. Other than the unneeded name calling and insinuations i have enjoyed this thread immensely. Keep up the good work.

Trying to argue intent when something is clear is just foolish. The entry is said to have the force org chart symbol, which you don't disagree with, next to it and the game system uses those marks OR a force org chart name to designate what can be taken in a force org chart. As lowinar pointed out it has a rule to disallow transporting a certain type of unit which would imply that it can transport whoever it wants when taken as a troop choice. This isn't the forum for your approach unless you are just trying to start an argument, which is my guess.

Man, talk about missing the point. He was saying that common sence would say that if the vehicle was a dedicated transport and only an option for firewarriors then the line about crisis suits not being able to board the transport is extra and wouldnt have been written.
Seeing as how the line is there common sence would take this to mane the transport is a non-dedicated transport option

It's good, but it's not right. The line is included to prevent people attaching commanders to fire warrior units inside devilfish transports.

Thank you, Rork. exactly.

Rork hit it on the head with that one. Its right along the lines about not being able to put termies or jump packs into a rhino... it has nothing to do with how its purchased.
Tau cent also hit it on the head. When you read the entry for the fire warriors, the last line starts "TRANSPORT", then the next thing on the page below that is the DF. The listing on the side next to it says TRANSPORT,,, so what if there is the little icon there, it is so plain and obvious that it is right where it is so that you have the data for the transport available right there.
People have said that other dex's state that the transports are bought for a unit.. where this one does not. There are a lot of areas in the Tau dex that could have had further information put there. That was the big error from GW. Thinking that people would just read what was there and not try to dig into it (sort of along the lines with the sniper teams-I still cannot fathom how someone would have thought that more drones had to be bought). That and the arguments about the DF+PF and scouting. It is constatnly argued that GW's intent cannot be determined since none of us were the designers. I belive that is wrong. I think their intent was (at least 20 or so years ago) quite clear INTENT=PLAY GAME + HAVE FUN. So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game? I have seen plenty of people look for every loop hole to help them or hurt their opponent but that only destroys the fun of the game. I never play to win (hell Im so used to losing its not funny) but I do play to have fun, and in this day and age of rules laywers and "if it aint tourny legal" or "if its not a toureny or prep for one I dont wanna play" people, its becoming harder and harder to just have a fun game anymore.

It's good, but it's not right. The line is included to prevent people attaching commanders to fire warrior units inside devilfish transports.

And, that's the point. It's an intent argument, which is inherently invalid -- you can't say for sure whether that is solely there just to stop attached commanders from getting on, or for Stealth, Crisis, and Broadside teams.

Just like the "but it says transport" argument is invalid.
Just like the "but it has a troop icon" argument is invalid.

The authors didn't bother to attach rules to "Transport:" or Transport being written on the sidebar. The only applicable rules are on page 24, where it says you can take something in the Troops section as a Troops choice. Since we don't have official feedback from the designers, we are left with what the rules actually say.

t is constatnly argued that GW's intent cannot be determined since none of us were the designers. I belive that is wrong. I think their intent was (at least 20 or so years ago) quite clear INTENT=PLAY GAME + HAVE FUN. So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game?

Please pay attention to what people are saying in the thread before ranting about things that aren't even there.

No one is advocating actually doing this.

Hell, I don't even play Tau. And if I did, I wouldn't field an empty Devilfish because -- while it's perfectly fine via the rules -- it's counter to the conventions most people play with.

So why not just use the stuff in the way that it honestly appears to fit best and have a fun game?

That's what most of us do. It doesn't, however, change that by the rules as written, you can take an empty Devilfish as a Troops choice.

How is a "troop section" defined? I am sure you believe that the title on the top of the page defines the "troop section", I can argue that the text on side of the page defines the "troop section".

 

As far as I know, this thread wins in terms of having the most Dakka accounts created specifically due to this thread.  I mean, look at how many people are mad at the idea of non-dedicated devilfish with post numbers less than ten!

I can understand the anger... does any other army exist where vehicles can be taken as mandatory troops choices other than an armored company, which is banned at GTs?  But... according to the rules, it is legal.  Now, house rules that each gaming group takes are completely different, and I fully expect most groups to not allow this.

But that is the exact point of this forum, to be prepared for a stranger that we all may face at a regional tournament that may think this way.  And, as it stands, that person is right.

- Oaka