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.

 pretre wrote:

Tetsubo wrote:
Codex over rides BrB then I would say it is worthy of a FaQ.

Codex does not override BRB. This is a misconception based on previous editions. Advanced overrides basic.

As I quoted earlier:

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they
always override any contradicting basic rules. Forexample,
the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check
under certain situations.If, however,that model has a special
rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not
take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

Perhaps you should read on then to the next paragraph after that one...

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule written in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. When this occurs the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

BrB pg 7. Immediately following the rule you quoted.

Tetsubo wrote:
Perhaps you should read on then to the next paragraph after that one...

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule written in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. When this occurs the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

BrB pg 7. Immediately following the rule you quoted.

Was I waiting for dinner? Cause I got served.

lol

Point ceded.

At work and I don't have the rule book but I think you can't charge on the 1st round unless you go 2nd.

 Mythra wrote:
At work and I don't have the rule book but I think you can't charge on the 1st round unless you go 2nd.

That's only for scouts and infiltrate. They had an odd board setup which allowed it.

 Mythra wrote:
At work and I don't have the rule book but I think you can't charge on the 1st round unless you go 2nd.

No rule exists in general
If you use scout or infiltrate then you cannot charge on the first player turn

 Mythra wrote:
At work and I don't have the rule book but I think you can't charge on the 1st round unless you go 2nd.

There's no inherent restriction on that in the rules.
It's just that it's generally impossible to cross the 24" no mans land without scouting or infiltrating - and both of those have restrictions on assaulting the first turn.

If no man's land is shrunk, he can assault just fine.

I've read the tau codex, the brb, played tau. Even if you have only a 7th grade reading Level it's near impossible to misinterpret the rules for marker lights and how these with leadership interact.

However skim reading (skreading) is how alot of these types of boils are produced. The best defense for this is a sharp knife. What sharp knife you ask, get and read all codex's and know thyne enemy. Can't afford all codecs then sit in your flgs and read away.

Conclusion a skreading cheet.

Lungpickle wrote:
can't afford all codecs then sit in your flgs and read away.

Conclusion a skreading cheet.

HEY! this aint no library.

Careful some FLGS and especially GW stores hate people that do that.

For clarity for the OP, a marker light is a heavy 1 weapon with no Str or AP. For each hit generated by a marker light a marker is placed on the targeted unit which must be spent that shooting phase. Markers can be spent to : fire a seeker missile, raise the BS of a unit firing at the targeted unit by 1 (stack able to a max of 5 BS), allow a unit to ignore night fighting when firing at the targeted unit, impose a -1 to leadership for a pinning test (cumulative, FAQ states can be lowered to the point of automatic failure), or impose a -1 on any cover saves from the firing unit's shooting (cumulative, FAQ states can be lowered to the point of cover removal).

To be able to do what you stated happened we're talking about a phenomenal amount of marker light hits. Did he have tetras? (forgeworld models that have heavy marker lights which can generate 4 hits per shot). Even if he did he doesn't get to lower your leadership for anything other than a single pinning test. Also note that he spends a counter for any ONE of those effects. As has been stated pathfinders get marker lights standard (and they can be up to 6 man squads), a firewarrior sergeant can purchase one, a stealth suit leader may purchase one, and marker drones come with one and they may be purchased by any squad with a drone controller (up to 2 drones per controller*).

To answer your question I find that pathfinders have a high target priority (they're not very durable or mobile) so you face it by killing his pathfinders asap. How things will work after the new tau codex releases, who knows.

* = edited from squad to controller.

Our store rule is you have to buy your codex for the army you field but can read the others in the store to know what your up against. That policy seems progressive. I'll bet it isn't that way everywhere.

Lungpickle wrote:
I've read the tau codex, the brb, played tau. Even if you have only a 7th grade reading Level it's near impossible to misinterpret the rules for marker lights and how these with leadership interact.

However skim reading (skreading) is how alot of these types of boils are produced. The best defense for this is a sharp knife. What sharp knife you ask, get and read all codex's and know thyne enemy. Can't afford all codecs then sit in your flgs and read away.

Conclusion a skreading cheet.

Sorry to get the rules THAT wrong on MLs is cheating. He was saying every hit with his pulse carbines gave him a markerlight token if the unit contained one markerlight. That is just plain BS the leadership thing could have been a mistake, though claiming it lasted for regroup tests is again just too much of a stretch sorry but that is just cheating.

um wow. holy cheaters batman...

first of all, a marker light is its own weapon. and generally onbly has 1 per squad (the squad leader) maybe marker drones if he has them. pathfinders also have 1 each.

second, if you fire a markerlight you cant fire another weapon. its a heavy weapon with no str or AP. shooting his firewarriors, doing wounds then saying those wounds equal markerlight hits is ....i dont know how he even GOT to that idea. its absurd

edit: fire warriors (troops) can purchase a markerlight for its squad leader, and that leader can take 2 drones. those drones can also be markerlights) pathfinders, anre a (fast?) slot, and have a markerlight with thier default gun. swapping that gun removes the markerlight, and they cant use both. sniper drone teams also have a single markerlight per team, and are a heavy slot)

they also fire like nornal weapons. so: "my firewarriors, have 10 men. i fire 9 of them at your unit. (hit/wound/save) now i fire my markerlights (hit - cover save / place marker) now another squad can use that marker to increase its BS, lower your cover save or your LD. generally youll only see about 5-6 at most per turn, and thats if the pathfinders are using them or he is spamming firewarriors)


third, crisis suits can only have 2 weapons. or rather, they can only FIRE 2 weapons a turn. however they can have missiles, plasma, melta or other assortments, including twin linked versions.

fourth: get ahold of the tau book and read up. if something seems odd... ask to see it in his book, and check his army list. if something dosent mesh, call the TO to sort it out. but you allowed it in game, so if he had beaten you , it sucks - but dont be so easy to push around verbally. sounds like this guy was giving you the verbal "nuh uh!! this is how it works!!" treatment wich you just took.

He cheated you, next time you see him, walk up and explain the situation and if for a moment he hesitates in his apology, take one of this models as payment.

Stormbreed wrote:
He cheated you, next time you see him, walk up and explain the situation and if for a moment he hesitates in his apology, take one of this models as payment.

That being said, theft is generally frowned upon (if not downright illegal). I do not suggest you take someones models.

well just take it for a moment... do something... then give it back.

making use of someones plumber crack springs to mind.

@DarthSpader/Stormbreed: I see you guys are from Canada; I'm not sure what your hand gun laws are but I'm in Texas and you probably don't want to do that here.

edit:
For posterity and to confirm Mannahnin's later evaluation of my post without needlessly adding another full post to this thread: yes, this was meant as a tongue in cheek response to the idea of abducting or torturing a toy for any reason; with full knowledge that the original posts suggesting such things were also tongue in cheek. In this post I'm making fun of not only that idea but also the stereotype that Texans are a bunch of trigger happy cowboys. It seemed a funnier path than suggesting pouring maple syrup on them in retribution as I prefer to make fun of my own nationality instead of others. Sometimes my humour is a bit dry and often obtuse. You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.

clively wrote:
@DarthSpader/Stormbreed: I see you guys are from Canada; I'm not sure what your hand gun laws are but I'm in Texas and you probably don't want to do that here.

Wow. What a way to reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans!

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

clively wrote:
@DarthSpader/Stormbreed: I see you guys are from Canada; I'm not sure what your hand gun laws are but I'm in Texas and you probably don't want to do that here.

Wow. What a way to reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans!

That is not a negative stereotype.

Having guns is a good thing not a bad thing.

You don't think "Gun-obsessed Cowboy" is a negative stereotype?

Nope ... Property Protection is a priority here.

Edit: Before anyone says something silly. Guns do not kill people ......... Husbands who come home early kill people.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Nope ... Property Protections is a priority here.

Edit: Before anyone says something silly. Guns do not kill people ......... Husbands who come home early kill people.

As is our constitutional right to bear arms.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

clively wrote:
@DarthSpader/Stormbreed: I see you guys are from Canada; I'm not sure what your hand gun laws are but I'm in Texas and you probably don't want to do that here.

Wow. What a way to reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans!

That is not a negative stereotype.

Having guns is a good thing not a bad thing.

My point is that the idea of threatening lethal violence because someone took your toy soldier would not be seen as a reasonable response outside of the US.

Again not negative. he was just saying that crime is lower in areas where everyone has guns.

that is not a bad thing.

The point is valid; no matter how one feels about guns in general, a dispute over a toy soldier, even an implication of one being stolen, is not something any sane gun owner or advocate would argue is something to respond to with a firearm.

Of course, clively probably meant his comment in humor.

And now, let's get back on topic.

----------------------

Did want to note also that it's not all that rare for scarabs to have a chance of a turn 1 charge, if they also have spyders in play. The new scarabs generated by spyders at the start of the turn just have to be placed within 2" of an existing member of the squad, so you can put them 2" forward from the scarabs, gaining 2"+40mm in distance from the front of the DZ. If you're going first, and your opponent was silly enough to deploy right up against his DZ line directly opposite he scarabs, you can get there with a 12" move and 9" charge after adding a model from spyders.

Right - wasn't saying it was impossible, I just asked how. He didn't mention spiders so I didn't think that's what happened.

 pretre wrote:

Tetsubo wrote:
Perhaps you should read on then to the next paragraph after that one...

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule written in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. When this occurs the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

BrB pg 7. Immediately following the rule you quoted.

Was I waiting for dinner? Cause I got served.

lol

Point ceded.

I goof on rules all the time, so no worries there.

As far as the overall point goes I think we are still in agreement, there were definitely some misunderstanding of rules going in that game.

As a side note...Gun control/advocacy? Really? This thread got derailed and it went there?

Any minute now, somebody will be compared to historic characters and the thread will end!

It seems like he cheated you. Feel sorry for you bud, but these things happen. Often, its best that you point it out to him over a light discussion rather than do anything too offensive. Me and my friend form way back had many disputes about rules and while he was often in the wrong, , I enjoyed playing with him no the less. It's often wiser to not get too aggravated about it and tell him politely before you next play. that gives him time to come up with a new strategy and you more time to rally your own forces.

Nothing to see.

I noticed that a Mod had stopped the rampant flame-baiting, but had already posted.

This doesn't make since to me. So if the codex trumps brb and your codex says I auto fail but my codex says I auto pass isn't it just a wash? Plus I thought there was no such thing as auto fail. I was under the impression that snake eyes always success?

 wowsmash wrote:
Plus I thought there was no such thing as auto fail. I was under the impression that snake eyes always success?

Page 7, right before Leadership tests (Automatic Pass and Fail) says if a model has a 0 or - for a characteristic they automatically fail tests. This is why the Spore Mine has a Leadership of 1, even though they never go to ground, or fall back.