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.

Teschio wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

Which they don't. So anything in this thread is and has always been RAI.

Absolutely not. I NEVER talked about how rules are intended to be, and I have always asked to stay away from RAI (also because, personally, I think RAI are an abomination, a game needs OBJECTIVE rules, and the only possible objective interpretation is RAW). In this thread I tried very hard to provide RAW interpretations, even when the result was blatantly absurd (like 20 SMS turrets, which, if turrets are not models, IS the correct interpretation). Happyjew gave the only possible reason, according to RAW, why turrets may not work, and all we have to do now is determine whether a turret is a model or not. Further proof, if ever was needed, that this topic is NOT about RAI, and has never been. I find the entire concept of RAI so meaningless that it's almost infuriating to think that there are people playing like that... why have rules at all, if someone does not follow them, and instead prefers to use his personal interpretation of how the games designers wanted the rule to be? Objectivity is key, and RAI should not even exist as a concept.

Except even your 20 turret answer is an interpretation. I did realize I made a mistake when I refuted Happyjew's idea by stating that the turret is never deployed, because Every Man for Himself does continue on to say "throughout the game." So yes, the question is, is the turret a model? If so, it immediately dies every time it is set up. Even if there's 20 of them.

However, each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret. You did not anywhere purchase a turret for each model. At list selection, you paid 10 points for one turret for the unit. Ergo, RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around.

Do you see though, how both of these (20 turrets solution, and jumping around) are interpretations? They're both objective, also.

Also, nowhere is "memory" mentioned in the Kill Team rules, so having to keep track of which model belonged to which unit originally is valid in instances where two identical units purchased a same wargear option.

The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.

 doctortom wrote:

Can an attack bike operate without another model in the unit being present? Yes. Can an Eldar Platform operate without another model in the unit being present? No. Therefore, they're not just the same. That "special rule of the model" ARE an important factor. Otherwise, you could try claiming that an attack bike is the same as a Fortress of Redemption because they're both models.

You example makes NO SENSE, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. Just because 2 models have different rules, that doesn't mean that they are different in EVERY way. Are a Space Marine Scout and a Space Marine Bike different models with different rules? Sure, but are they purchased in the exact same way, are deployed according to the same rules, have both a profile and a unit type? Yes, they do. The Tau turret has NONE of those characteristics. Your objection that an Eldar Platform is radically different than an Attack Bike because it has a rule requiring another model to fire it, is like saying that a Scout is radically different than a bike because it can't move 12". They are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. The Tau turret is NOTHING like them, or an Eldar Platform. It is not deployed during the deployment phase of the game (EVERY other unit must be deployed or declared in reserve), it is not a model with a profile or a unit type, it cannot be targeted or damaged in any way, it can be reconstructed once removed. It's something absolutely UNIQUE in the game. The only way you can compare it to an Eldar Platform is for fluff reasons, but rule-wise, the attack bike and the fortress of redemption have MORE IN COMMON than the Tau turret and ANY OTHER unit in the game. For f**k's sake, we haven't even established with certainty that IT IS A MODEL, since it has none of the characteristics that according to the BRB all models have!

BossJakadakk wrote:

Except even your 20 turret answer is an interpretation. I did realize I made a mistake when I refuted Happyjew's idea by stating that the turret is never deployed, because Every Man for Himself does continue on to say "throughout the game." So yes, the question is, is the turret a model? If so, it immediately dies every time it is set up. Even if there's 20 of them.

However, each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret. You did not anywhere purchase a turret for each model. At list selection, you paid 10 points for one turret for the unit. Ergo, RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around.

Do you see though, how both of these (20 turrets solution, and jumping around) are interpretations? They're both objective, also.

Also, nowhere is "memory" mentioned in the Kill Team rules, so having to keep track of which model belonged to which unit originally is valid in instances where two identical units purchased a same wargear option.

It's NOT an interpretation. It's what naturally follows IF you take the rules literally. If you can't understand the difference between appling the rules, even with absurd results, and MAKING UP the rules, then this conversation is pointless (unfortunately, your multiple posts suggest you are incapable of seeing this difference...). Not everything is subjective, the RULES are not, and this is why RAI makes no sense and RAW is the only sensible way to play. My interpretation is pure RAW.

Now, we still haven't established whether the turret can be considered "model". Here we have valid arguments to support both ideas, and we should discuss this. One thing is sure, though: if it's NOT a model, then the 20 turret interpretation is THE correct one, because it's the only one that follows the rules to the letter.

You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.

This is the ONLY possible interpretation. Is it absurd? Yes, it is. But it's a direct consequence of the rules for the turret and the rules for KT. An unexpected interaction for sure, but RAW interpretations do not CARE about that, and neither do I. If you don't agree, PLEASE tell me which rules I have misinterpreted (saying "but it's only one turret per unit" is not a valid objection, because I already explained how the Every Man for Himself rule makes this objection pointless: there are NOT 2 units on the field, there are 20 units, EACH with that upgrade). I clearly stated all my premises, while you are just IGNORING the rules: when you say "RAW is that the one turret belongs to every model from that unit, and may jump around", you ignore the Every Man for Himself rule, that CLEARLY states that all models are independent units. So, a Fire Warrior is NOT a model from a UNIT of FW that you purchased during list selection, he is an INDEPENDENT unit. When I talked about "memory loss" I didn't mean a literal rule using the word "memory", it was just an easy way to explain this concept: in KT, EVERY model is by itself, it does NOT operate like it is part of the unit you purchased. Your (wrong) interpretation sees all models as part of the unit they come from, they just ACT like individual models. But the rules DO NOT say that. You said it yourself, "each model is PART of the unit that purchased ONE turret". And THIS, my friend, is where you are mistaken. Read the KT rules again, you will see that a model is not PART of anything, any single model is a completely independent unit. You clearly have trouble with that rule, you are seeing KT as a normal 40k game with models that don't need cohesion and can shoot at different things, but this is NOt what the rules say. You sould consider KT as a totally different game, with totally different rules. The ONLY time when multiple models units are considered is during the creation of the list, once you PLAY the game every single model is its own separate one-model unit with NO relations with the unit you purchased.

 Happyjew wrote:
The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.

It's what I have been trying to say the past 10 posts or so, but some people still have trouble understanding it, and they view the models as PART of the unit they come from, which is against the KT rules.

Seeing that you were the only one so far that found a reason why you can't have 20 turrets using strictly RAW (well, you CAN have 20 turrets, they just die the instant they are created...), would you care to discuss whether the turret is a model or not? Because I feel this is the question we need to answer, if we want to determine whether this absurd list is possible or not... I'll start:

FOR (its status as a model):
- the BRB says that every miniature is a model
- the turret description says it is removed if there is no OTHER model from its unit within 2"

AGAINST:
- the BRB say that EVERY model has a profile, and a unit type, while the turret has none. The only other "things" in the game with no profile are things like the Armorium Cherub, that can hardly be considered models, they are more reminders of a one-use-only equip...
- in the description, the phrase "unit coherency" is never used, and it's instead written "within 2"" every time. Formally they mean the exact same thing, but seeing that in every other rule the phrase "unit coherency" is used, one may wonder why here they didn't use that. Could it be because unit coherency is only among models, and the turret is not one?

Teschio wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Can an attack bike operate without another model in the unit being present? Yes. Can an Eldar Platform operate without another model in the unit being present? No. Therefore, they're not just the same. That "special rule of the model" ARE an important factor. Otherwise, you could try claiming that an attack bike is the same as a Fortress of Redemption because they're both models.

You example makes NO SENSE, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. Just because 2 models have different rules, that doesn't mean that they are different in EVERY way. Are a Space Marine Scout and a Space Marine Bike different models with different rules? Sure, but are they purchased in the exact same way, are deployed according to the same rules, have both a profile and a unit type? Yes, they do. The Tau turret has NONE of those characteristics. Your objection that an Eldar Platform is radically different than an Attack Bike because it has a rule requiring another model to fire it, is like saying that a Scout is radically different than a bike because it can't move 12". They are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules.

An attack bike and a Fortress of Redemption are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. Quite frankly, I find your argument that the Eldar Platform and the Attack Bike are the same to be just as absurd as trying to say an Attack Bike and a Fortress of Redemption are the same.

 doctortom wrote:

An attack bike and a Fortress of Redemption are BOTH normal models, each with its own special rules. Quite frankly, I find your argument that the Eldar Platform and the Attack Bike are the same to be just as absurd as trying to say an Attack Bike and a Fortress of Redemption are the same.

That's exactly the point! The attack bike and the fortress ARE both normal models. WITH DIFFERENT RULES, but they are (the capitalization here is important. I won't use a bike as a fortress, because they don't have THE SAME RULES, but they both are normal models). The Tau turret is NOT. It's a completely unique "thing" (we haven't even established if it's a model!). It is a unit upgrade, it is not deployed but "created", it does not have a profile or a unit type, it can be reconstructed after being removed from play. It has NOTHING to do with any other model in the game, certainly it's not even close to an Eldar Platform except in fluff (which is meaningless). The Platform itself is MUCH closer to a Fortress of Redemption than it is to a Tau turret. Every time you think you are undermining my point, you are actually supporting it, so thanks...

Teschio wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Not true. I referenced the Platform because it is a single gunnery system added to the unit, and I still noted the probably differences there. Bikes for a Command Squad and Mines for the Scout Bikes are still a different concept in which they are instances of upgrades happening in multiple instances for multiple models instead of a single upgrade which is not used for all models in the unit like the turret.

Eldar platforms are COMPLETELY different. They are just like an attack bike for a bike squad, an additonal model with its own profile that is integral part of the unit from the very beginning. They are an additional model, NOT a unit upgrade. The Tau turret IS a unit upgrade, not an additional model. Despite looking similar at a first glance, they are VASTLY different. The eldar platform is no different than adding a normal model to a unit, while I mantain that the Tau turret is EXACTLY like cluster mines. Despite the plural, in fact, cluster mines are a UNIT upgrade, not an upgrade for models in the unit. Take for example Scout Camo Cloaks: the codex says "the entire squad may take...", and the cost is on a per-model basis. This is clearly a MODEL upgrade, although you are required to get it for every model in the unit. But cluster mines are quite different: "the UNIT can take cluster mines", and the cost is fixed. Do you think that they are a model upgrade ONLY because they are described with a plural? Nowhere in the entry there is anyreference to the members of a squad, only to the entire unit, you are being misled by the fluff here. What if the upgrade was called "booby trap kit", or "automatic mines delivery system", with the exact same effect, will THIS be an upgrade to all models? There is absolutely no question that mines are a unit upgrade, and the turret is one too.

Actually, I am not being mislead by the fluff. I am following what it does and how it works, and have noted those exceptions while doing so. DoctorTom already addressed this, but you chose to just dismiss it. The Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform is halfway between the Attack Bike and the new Fire Warrior turret. It is a model like the Attack Bike, but just like the Fire Warrior turret, it cannot operate as an independent model. If there are no more Guardians left in its unit, the Platform is lost as a casualty, just like the Fire Warrior Turret is lost (but not as a casualty). An Attack bike does not care if it is the last model in its unit (and can be even purchased as a unit of one, too). So, aside from the model profile, the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform shares more in common with the Fire Warrior turret than the Attack Bike.

Teschio wrote:

Then you need to review the tenets of YMDC. Yes, it is important to stick to RAW where possible. However this is not a situation that is explicitly covered in RAW, unless the new Kill Team rules miraculously address it.

A good rule would be to stick to RAW if the conversation is specifically about RAW. And this one is, since I explicitly requested it (and I am the original poster...). If you are asking for an interpretation according to the existing rules, it doens't help to be flooded by home rules. In this case, if you read the entire conversation you will find that there IS a possible RAW interpretation, Happyjew came up with it, we just need to clarify exactly what is considered a model. Derailing the conversation speaking about HYWPI does not help. One should stick to the topic, and since the topic was EXPLICITLY about RAW interpretations, anything else is off-topic here.

That's your opinion, but not the tenets of this forum. And again, there is nothing RAW on this issue, one way or the other. And with nothing RAW, all that is left is RAI/HYWPI/etc. If you think there is something literally RAW there, please provide it. I know you asked the question, but you seem to believe there is something RAW. When told there isn't, you double down and insist on it being there. Sadly, that is not of then the case with GW rules interactions involving multiple expansions of the game.

There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.

Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.

Teschio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The other issue is that the unit that purchased the turret (Fire Warriors) does not exist as an entity in Kill Team games after the game starts.

It's what I have been trying to say the past 10 posts or so, but some people still have trouble understanding it, and they view the models as PART of the unit they come from, which is against the KT rules.

Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out.

Charistoph wrote:

Teschio wrote:

Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.

This would work if the turret was an upgrade for a model. But it's an upgrade for the whole unit, and therefore you can't "assign" it to a model, they all have it, like all scout bikes have cluster mines. And once they become separate, they can all deploy the turret, since the only limitation is "one turret PER unit". There are 12 units, completely independent from each other, with that upgrade.

Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.

HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.

You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.

 Charistoph wrote:

Actually, I am not being mislead by the fluff. I am following what it does and how it works, and have noted those exceptions while doing so. DoctorTom already addressed this, but you chose to just dismiss it. The Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform is halfway between the Attack Bike and the new Fire Warrior turret. It is a model like the Attack Bike, but just like the Fire Warrior turret, it cannot operate as an independent model. If there are no more Guardians left in its unit, the Platform is lost as a casualty, just like the Fire Warrior Turret is lost (but not as a casualty). An Attack bike does not care if it is the last model in its unit (and can be even purchased as a unit of one, too). So, aside from the model profile, the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform shares more in common with the Fire Warrior turret than the Attack Bike.

The Tau turret is not "half-way". It is COMPLETELY different. Name ONE thing they have in common. And don't say that they need another model to fire, because even in THIS they are different: the Tau turret needs only to have a model within 2", while the Eldar Platform needs to be operated by a model that can't shoot its own weapon while doing so. And while the Eldar Platform is removed as a casualty when its ENTIRE unit is destroyed, the Tau turret is removed as soon as there are no more members of its unit within 2" (which could mean that they moved, for example, they don't even need to be killed). The Eldar Platform is a model LIKE ANY OTHER, with special rules regarding how it fires. If it's close to something, it's artillery, definitely NOT the Tau turret which shares NONE of his characteristic. Seriously, you need to stop considering common sense or fluff and look at the RULES. We are not even sure if it's a MODEL, and you are compairing it to the Eldar Platform?

That's your opinion, but not the tenets of this forum. And again, there is nothing RAW on this issue, one way or the other. And with nothing RAW, all that is left is RAI/HYWPI/etc. If you think there is something literally RAW there, please provide it. I know you asked the question, but you seem to believe there is something RAW. When told there isn't, you double down and insist on it being there. Sadly, that is not of then the case with GW rules interactions involving multiple expansions of the game.

YOU say there is "nothing RAW", but EVERYTHING I WROTE was RAW. And so was Happyjew's idea. The fact that you seem to be incapable of applying the rules as they are written (exemplified by your absurd and completely fluff-driven comparison to the Eldar Platform) does not mean that others share your limitations. The fact that you say I have not provided anything RAW means you really have not read what I wrote earlier. Let me quote myself:

Teschio wrote:You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.

See? Everything I just wrote is a literal interpretation of the rules. If you don't agree, please tell me exactly which of my premises is wrong (maybe check the rest of the topic before doing that, because there's a very high chance that I already responded to your objections). It just dawned upon me that maybe you really don't know what "RAW" is... you seem to confuse it with "there is a rule or FAQ detailing this exact situation". But this is not RAW. RAW means that you take the existing rules, consider their interaction, and come up with an objective interpretation of said rules regarding the matter at hand. I stated all my premises and my conclusions, all are a literal interpretation of the rules and I am able to defend them individually if needed, now YOU have to tell me which of the 5 points above is incorrect and, more importantly, WHY. Quoting only existing rules, not YOUR interpretation of them.

There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.

Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.

No, there are not several RAW interpretations. What you suggested was NOT RAW since I already highlighted the fact that it explicitly conflicts with existing rules. My interpretation, which until a better one comes out IS the correct one, may seem absurd, it may conflict with common sense, but it does NOT conflict with the rules, and this is the exact meaning of RAW. BTW, Happyjew's interpretation is no different from my own, he just pointed out an interaction which I didn't consider, that will make the turrets be removed as soon as they are placed, But you STILL can place 20 of them. Oh, and if his idea is correct (we STILL hve not addressed the issue, which is "is the turret a model or not?"), you can't use Tau turrets PERIOD. Not even one of them.

Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out.

Charistoph wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.

And once again you feel the need to point out that you don't really understand the rules... those 12 FWs become 12 separate units, ALL OF WHICH purchased a turret since a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a MODEL upgrade, and is therefore shared among all models of the original unit. Yes, they purchased ONE turret. PER UNIT. How many unit are there? 12. Not 1 composed of 12 models ACTING AS units. 12 units, totally independent from each other, which ALL have an upgrade you purchased for their parent unit. If FWs don't each get a turret, then Scout Bikes don't each get mines. This is the EXACT same situation.

Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.

HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.

Yes, the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. It is split up in 12 different unit, ALL OF WHICH share EVERY upgrade the unit had. Which means they each get a turret, because the only limitation for a turret is "one PER unit", and you have 12 units.
And as I said multiple times, HYWPI is worthless. If you want to ignore or make up the rules, be my guest. Just don't intervene in a discussion about the RULES, since you are not trying to support your position with actual rules. Since this topic is EXCLUSIVELY about RAW, and has been from the very beginning, everything else is necessarily off-topic.

You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.

Because the situation is the same. Here we have an upgrade to the whole unit, with a cost that is fixed and not unit-based, and that gets applied to every member of the unit. Once this unit is split up according to the Every Man for Himself rule, each of the members of the original unit get that upgrade. The same works with IG veterans upgrades, with cluster mines, and with every UNIT upgrade that is applied automatically to ALL its members once they split up. Including Tau turrets for FWs.

Just inform the TO before the event of any unusual rule issues like this and have them ban it before the event begins. It's in their power and interest to prevent this kind of thing going on at their event

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Just inform the TO before the event of any unusual rule issues like this and have them ban it before the event begins. It's in their power and interest to prevent this kind of thing going on at their event

This is a very reasonable suggestion, and I was planning on doing that, but then I realized this doesn't solve the problem: generally, once a tournament infopack is released it is not modified later, because you have no guarantee that all participants will see the amended version. And even if it's in the TO's power to ban or change a rule, this has to be done with the previous knowledge of all players. You can't bring this list to a tournament (a list that was legal when the infopack was released), and learn the same morning that it's not legal anymore. I can inform of this problem TOs I personally know around where I live, but not every other TO. Therefore, I need a foolproof argument that is based on the existing rules, so it can't be disputed. Happyjew was on the right track, imho, we just need to figure out whether the turret is a model... which is itself not an easy task, but should be possible even though the rules in this matter are contradictory.

Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.

The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.

From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.

 Kriswall wrote:
Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.

The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.

From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.

I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret.

Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness.

Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine).

Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.

 Kriswall wrote:
Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.

The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.

From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.

My gaming group isn't awful at all. Yes, we play competitively, but none of us will ever do such a thing. Wen you go to tournaments, though, things change. Casual games are much different than competitive games.

You argument makes perfect sense... but it's wrong. Rules are not required to make sense. They are to be followed, period. This is the essence of RAW, following the rules even when the result is absurd and completely unintended. I detailed in the previous posts my premises and my conclusions, all based on a literal interpretation of existing rules, if you disagree please tell me exactly WHICH of my premise is wrong, and why. Yes, I do purchase ONE turret, but since this is a UNIT upgrade, it is shared by all members of that unit. And once those members split up due to a unique rule of Kill Team, THEN each one of them carries this upgrade, and you can have one turret EACH. I know, it's awful, it does not make any sense, but the rules are pretty clear on that. A UNIT upgrade benefits every model of that unit.

Yours is not a RAW interpretation, it's HYWPI. You make the exact same mistake many other people do, which is to consider that FWs are part of the unit that purchased the turret. They are not. That unit does not exist anymore. FWs are completely independent units, EACH with its own upgrade (because a unit upgrade benefits all models, once again). Yes, it does not make any sense. Yes, it's an obvious mistake. Yes, the game designers clearly didn't even think of this problem (as far as I can tell, I am the first one to come out with this idea). Yes, it's dirty as hell, and if you try something like this in a casual game I will never play with you again. Yes, it is so blatantly disgusting and absurd that it can't be right. But it is. Following the rules to the letter sometimes has unforeseeable consequences, and this is one of those cases. Until this gets FAQed, you CAN set up 20 turrets in a KT game. Now the question becomes if they SURVIVE. If they are models, you can set them up, but they will immediately be removed, and the only thing you achieve is losing a movement phase. Note that this will mean that NO turret can ever be used, not even a single one. Again, doens't make sense, but the rules are clear (IF it's a model).

Since I think this interpretation is established, given that nobody was able to tell me which of my premises is wrong and why (nobody even tried, to be honest...), the discussion should shift to "is the turret a model"? Because if the answer to that is "yes", then this list is not viable, and we have solved the problem.

nekooni wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.

The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.

From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.

I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret.

Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness.

Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine).

Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.

You have in no way, shape or form purchased the ability to deploy a turret. What you've actually taken for the unit is "A", as in singular, Turret. The Turret's rules then go on to explain how you go about using and setting up the single Turret that you've purchased. If an opponent attempts to set up a second Turret, I would stop them and ask them to point out on their army list where this second Turret came from.

I really think you're all overthinking this. The fact that the rules are worded so that you could potentially deploy a Turret next to each Fire Warrior means nothing when you consider that you only purchased one Turret in the list building step of the game. Arguing about how many hot dogs you can eat is meaningless if you only bought one. The most hot dogs you can eat in one sitting when you only bought one is ONE hot dog. The number of Turrets you can deploy when you bought ONE Turret is ONE.

No rocket science. Well... missile science?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wow... your gaming group sounds awful. The Army List Entry gives you permission to purchase ONE Turrent. During the list building phase, you've purchased 12 Fire Warriors and ONE Turret. Regardless of whether or not it's a model, it's a SOMETHING... and you've purchased exactly ONE of that something.

The rules don't say that you can spend 10 points for a "Call in a Turret" special rule. The rules say you can spend 10 points for ONE Turret. If your opponent deploys more than one, kindly ask them to point out where the second, third, fourth, etc appears on their army list. They don't get magical extra markers/models when they've only paid for one.

From a RaW standpoint, I'd say that every Fire Warrior can potentially call in a Turret, but after the first does so, you've run out of Turrets to place. You only bought one, after all. Better decide which Fire Warrior places a Turret first. The rest will find that the Turret Store is out of stock.

My gaming group isn't awful at all. Yes, we play competitively, but none of us will ever do such a thing. Wen you go to tournaments, though, things change. Casual games are much different than competitive games.

You argument makes perfect sense... but it's wrong. Rules are not required to make sense. They are to be followed, period. This is the essence of RAW, following the rules even when the result is absurd and completely unintended. I detailed in the previous posts my premises and my conclusions, all based on a literal interpretation of existing rules, if you disagree please tell me exactly WHICH of my premise is wrong, and why. Yes, I do purchase ONE turret, but since this is a UNIT upgrade, it is shared by all members of that unit. And once those members split up due to a unique rule of Kill Team, THEN each one of them carries this upgrade, and you can have one turret EACH. I know, it's awful, it does not make any sense, but the rules are pretty clear on that. A UNIT upgrade benefits every model of that unit.

Yours is not a RAW interpretation, it's HYWPI. You make the exact same mistake many other people do, which is to consider that FWs are part of the unit that purchased the turret. They are not. That unit does not exist anymore. FWs are completely independent units, EACH with its own upgrade (because a unit upgrade benefits all models, once again). Yes, it does not make any sense. Yes, it's an obvious mistake. Yes, the game designers clearly didn't even think of this problem (as far as I can tell, I am the first one to come out with this idea). Yes, it's dirty as hell, and if you try something like this in a casual game I will never play with you again. Yes, it is so blatantly disgusting and absurd that it can't be right. But it is. Following the rules to the letter sometimes has unforeseeable consequences, and this is one of those cases. Until this gets FAQed, you CAN set up 20 turrets in a KT game. Now the question becomes if they SURVIVE. If they are models, you can set them up, but they will immediately be removed, and the only thing you achieve is losing a movement phase. Note that this will mean that NO turret can ever be used, not even a single one. Again, doens't make sense, but the rules are clear (IF it's a model).

Since I think this interpretation is established, given that nobody was able to tell me which of my premises is wrong and why (nobody even tried, to be honest...), the discussion should shift to "is the turret a model"? Because if the answer to that is "yes", then this list is not viable, and we have solved the problem.

It's not an intangible unit upgrade. It's a thing. You can point at it. It is, by definition, a Citadel Model insomuch as it comes on a Citadel model sprue and you assemble it. I think your best argument is that it's a model and therefore would immediately disappear when deployed. That's your best argument. Your best course of action is to simply call over the TO and pack up your models and leave if he allows 20 Turrets on the field. That's disruptive enough that the TO will reconsider allowing obvious non-intentional rules interactions in a competitive environment in the future. I'm not sure why anyone would want to play in an event where RaW shenanigans are allowed when "everyone knows" they're not what the author intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just feel like you're arguing for the sake of argument. I can't see any reasonable person ever allowing this in a real world situation.

nekooni wrote:
I'd never play it like that, but technically you've purchased the ability to deploy a turret. Just like IG Veterans can purchase the ability to use snare mines when charged. When you apply the KT rules to it, all Veterans still have snare mines, camo cloaks and any other upgrade that applies to the unit as a whole. Same for the ability to deploy a turret.

Technically camo cloaks are different since they are an upgrade to the models, not the unit, but snare mines are a good example. Like cluster mines for scout bikes. I don't know why it's o hard to understand for many people, an upgrade to the unit still benefits all of its members when they split up according to KT rules.

Same would apply to Brotherhood of Psykers - every model would be it's own Brotherhood, IG Wyrdvane Psykers would each work as an independent "psionic entity", contributing a warp charge each and able to manifest one power per turn per model(=unit!). That is why they explicitly banned this rule from KT - it's way stronger than it should be. Same for the rule at hand - it'd work the same, multiplying it's effectiveness.

Exactly. There are rules that are "normal" in 40k games, but become MUCH stronger once you split a unit up. Basically anything that is "once per unit" becomes incredibly strong when each model IS a unit. If DS was allowed in KT, Eldar Swooping Hawks would be another example, with EACH one of them able to use the blast attack when they DS. The Tau turret is just the most extreme of these examples (only because they banned Blood for the Blood God for KDK: you could have filled the table with cultists, and every 5 dead cultists gain 8 bloodletters... or a bloodthirster, with 8 blood tithes!)

Either you strip it out of the game or you play it basically "as if it was 40k" if you want to keep it: Only one turret, deploy it next to one of the units that came from the originally purchased unit that has the upgrade. It's STILL better than it is in 40k since you can redeploy it across the map simply by having a guy in the north and one in the south, but I'd say that's acceptable (and I've played against it already, it's fine).

Yes, that would be my home rule as well. But it IS a home rule (so, worthless in tournaments), since it conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule because it considers Fire Warriors as part of the unit they were purchased from, and the rules pretty clearly contradict this interpretation.

Sometimes what GW wrote is idiotic and clearly not what they had intended, and you deal with it. I simply wouldn't play against the literal rule as it's clearly bs in terms of balance and intention of the authors, but that's - as you've pointed out - just HIWPI.

I wouldn't play against that BS interpretation either. But since it IS the correct one, if I find it in ournaments and I don't want to play against it I would have to forfeit the game (not that it would make much difference, since that list is completely unbeatable...)

Why don't you do what everyone else in the world does and simply contact the tournament organizer for any given tournament before you decide to attend? The TO may simply be unaware of this interaction, but would almost certainly ban it ahead of time.

Discussing theoretical situations... what to do for A tournament... is one thing. In the real world, we're always dealing with THIS tournament and a 30 second conversation resolves these sort of things. "This nonsense isn't allowed, right?" Boom. Done.

I really, really think you're over thinking this. This Turret issue is simply NEVER going to be a problem in the real world if you perform even 30 seconds of due diligence when signing up for a tournament.

 Kriswall wrote:
You have in no way, shape or form purchased the ability to deploy a turret. What you've actually taken for the unit is "A", as in singular, Turret. The Turret's rules then go on to explain how you go about using and setting up the single Turret that you've purchased. If an opponent attempts to set up a second Turret, I would stop them and ask them to point out on their army list where this second Turret came from.

And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.

You interpretation is flawed, as each possible scenario contradicts the rules in some way. First, let's look at the case in which you only have one FW unit, and you buy that upgrade. There are only 2 possible options (if you discard my interpretation, that is the only literal one):
A) you specify a FW who "has" the turret. This contradicts the fact that it is not an upgrade for the model
B) you can set up only one turret, next to a FW of your choice. This contradicts the Every Man for Himself rule, since it requires that Fire Warriors are in effect a single unit who just ACTS like independent models, while they are in reality completely separate units, each with its own upgrades (and remember, the turret IS a unit upgrade!).

This gets even worse once there are TWO units, each with a turret. Here we have, once again, only 2 options (plus the correct one...):
A) you pick one FW per unit to have the turret. Same as the previous case, you can't.
B) you get to deploy 2 turrets. But since there is NO relation between a FW and the unit he comes from in this scenario (again, EMfH rule), given that you do not consider the turret to be an upgrade for the entire unit, you could legally have two turrets on a single model (there is no restriction of a single turret per model, if your interpretation is that you can set up only the number of turrets you purchased).

I really think you're all overthinking this. The fact that the rules are worded so that you could potentially deploy a Turret next to each Fire Warrior means nothing when you consider that you only purchased one Turret in the list building step of the game. Arguing about how many hot dogs you can eat is meaningless if you only bought one. The most hot dogs you can eat in one sitting when you only bought one is ONE hot dog. The number of Turrets you can deploy when you bought ONE Turret is ONE.

I think you are UNDERthinking it. You go with the most immediate and sensible interpretation, neglecting to consider the implications of the actual rules. As I said before, I don't really care how you would play it, I care about what the rules say. And the rules are clear about this, if you only agree to stop using common sense and just read the literally, drawing your conclusions from them. You did NOT purchase one turret. You purchased the ability to set up one turret. To go with your extremely irrelevant example, I, Teschio, have the ability to create a hot dog out of thin air (I paid for that ability). Only I, Teschio, have this ability, and I can only make one. But then I clone myself, and each of my copy has the same power that I have. How many hot dogs can we create? I already detailed how every possible scenario involving your interpretation conflicts with some rule, you have not done the same for mine.

It's not an intangible unit upgrade. It's a thing. You can point at it. It is, by definition, a Citadel Model insomuch as it comes on a Citadel model sprue and you assemble it. I think your best argument is that it's a model and therefore would immediately disappear when deployed. That's your best argument. Your best course of action is to simply call over the TO and pack up your models and leave if he allows 20 Turrets on the field. That's disruptive enough that the TO will reconsider allowing obvious non-intentional rules interactions in a competitive environment in the future. I'm not sure why anyone would want to play in an event where RaW shenanigans are allowed when "everyone knows" they're not what the author intended.

No it's not a "thing". You are being misled by the fluff. You can represent Cluster Mines on bikes if you want, are those "a thing", or just a unit upgrade? Stop thinking like it's an Eldar Platform, you REALLY need to think like Cluster Mines. And don't be misled by the fact that one is singular and the other plural, you can change the names as much as you want, only the RULES count.

And YES, of course I would pack my stuff if I find this in a tournament, but this is NOT the point! The point is, "is this LEGAL?". Obviously TOs will not allow this, but this would be a home rule, I want an answer to that very simple question. And TOs can ban this, sure, but NOT once the tournament starts. If someone uses that list before the TOs are aware of this situation, he would just win.

I just feel like you're arguing for the sake of argument. I can't see any reasonable person ever allowing this in a real world situation.

Of course not! Am I supporting such a list? I don't even play Tau, the entire point of this post is so that I can have VALID arguments, RULE-BASED arguments, to avoid facing it in tournaments.

Why don't you do what everyone else in the world does and simply contact the tournament organizer for any given tournament before you decide to attend? The TO may simply be unaware of this interaction, but would almost certainly ban it ahead of time.

Discussing theoretical situations... what to do for A tournament... is one thing. In the real world, we're always dealing with THIS tournament and a 30 second conversation resolves these sort of things. "This nonsense isn't allowed, right?" Boom. Done.

I really, really think you're over thinking this. This Turret issue is simply NEVER going to be a problem in the real world if you perform even 30 seconds of due diligence when signing up for a tournament.

It doens't work this way. Yes, I can contact a TO, and if he is not aware of such a problem and I have the risk of running into this list I can avoid the tournament. But even if he decides to ban it, he CAN'T, at least not for the next tournament: people may already have signed up for the tournament, and unless you personally contact each one of them ahead of time (something that is not always possible) to inform them that this rule has changed, you can't ban something that is allowed by the rules (and therefore was legal when you signed up) unless you are absolutely sure that each of the participants is aware of it. What would you think if you signed up for a tournament, travelled to the location, only to find out the moment you arrive that the TOs decided that "WK and SS are too strong, no Gargantuan Creatures this tournament". Maybe you had a list with a WK, and you weren't informed ahead of time of this changes... you can't change the rules unless everyone is aware of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, that's not the point. I asked for a rule interpretation, saying "it will never come up" is a cop out. If you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, just don't reply. Saying "you are overthinking this" does not help.

Your best argument continues to be that each unit did not in fact purchase a turret because a unit of 12 purchased 1 turret. You say it's going to come up in tournaments like TO's are just gonna be like "Oh yeah sure 10 points for 20 SMS turrets is totally legit." Stop asserting this will be the case or else show that it already has been.

You say you need RAW reasoning but refuse to see that everything being discussed here is an interpretation. That unit of 1 fire warrior did not purchase a turret. The original unit of 12 fire warriors purchased 1 turret. Your interpretation that you cite as absolute RAW is still simply your interpretation of RAW. Every other example of a unit upgrade presented thus far is mentioned in multiples because each model in those units gets the upgrade. That is not the case with the DS8 turret or the Eldar guardian turret, and thus house rules are required in order to deal with these situations.

Plus, even if you have rules-based arguments against facing it in tournaments, your whole point hinges on the fact that the TO is already allowing it. You say they can't update the rules because people already signed up, so what's the point of having an argument ready for why your opponent can't use 20 turrets when you're already playing in the tournament? Surely it can't be that you want rules to cite to the TO beforehand, because they can't change it, right? I guess what I'm saying is, you give us reasons you want your interpretation refuted, while telling us it doesn't matter if you try to refute it to a TO anyway.

Edited to say I like Kriswall's "The Turret Store is out of stock" statement

Teschio wrote:

And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.

No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.

Teschio wrote:
The Tau turret is not "half-way". It is COMPLETELY different. Name ONE thing they have in common. And don't say that they need another model to fire, because even in THIS they are different: the Tau turret needs only to have a model within 2", while the Eldar Platform needs to be operated by a model that can't shoot its own weapon while doing so. And while the Eldar Platform is removed as a casualty when its ENTIRE unit is destroyed, the Tau turret is removed as soon as there are no more members of its unit within 2" (which could mean that they moved, for example, they don't even need to be killed). The Eldar Platform is a model LIKE ANY OTHER, with special rules regarding how it fires. If it's close to something, it's artillery, definitely NOT the Tau turret which shares NONE of his characteristic. Seriously, you need to stop considering common sense or fluff and look at the RULES. We are not even sure if it's a MODEL, and you are compairing it to the Eldar Platform?

You are stuck on the classification of the turret as a model or not. I am not looking at fluff. I am taking a comprehensive and common sense look at the rules. You want one thing they have in common, how about two?

Both are useless and lost if an original model from the unit is not on the board. Yes, one counts as a casualty, but aside from how Kill Team operates with models, the unit is usually gone anyway, making the Platform just as useless as the FW turret.

Both require models from the unit to be nearby in order to be used. Yes, one can move independently on its own and the other gets "packed up" if the rest of the unit's models get moved away, but they still both require an active member of the unit they were purchased with nearby in order to work.

This when compared to an Attack Bike which is always an independent model, requires no other models of its unit to be near to work (aside from Out of Coherency), and can even be taken as its own unit outside of Kill Team, makes the Heavy Weapon Platform closer in use and processing IN THE RULES to the FW turret than an Attack Bike. The only relationships that a Heavy Weapons Platform shares with an Attack Bike is having a Model Profile and a Heavy Type Weapon.

Teschio wrote:
YOU say there is "nothing RAW", but EVERYTHING I WROTE was RAW. And so was Happyjew's idea. The fact that you seem to be incapable of applying the rules as they are written (exemplified by your absurd and completely fluff-driven comparison to the Eldar Platform) does not mean that others share your limitations. The fact that you say I have not provided anything RAW means you really have not read what I wrote earlier. Let me quote myself:

Teschio wrote:You still have trouble understading why the "20 turrets" interpretation is correct, apparently. Let me summarize.
1) a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a model upgrade
2) all models in a unit benefit from a unit upgrade (this is undisputable, or a lot of things in this game will make no sense)
3) in KT, every model is a separate unit, but they retain ALL the rules and upgrade they had as a unit (except for special exceptions like Brotherhood of Psykers, but cases like this are always clearly specified in the KT rulebook)
4) therefore, every Fire Warrios "has" the turret upgrade
5) since the ONLY limitation of the turret is that you can only have one PER UNIT, you can legally set up 20 turrets because you DO have 20 units with that upgrade. You DON'T have 2 units split into 20 models, they are 20 separate units! The Every Man for Himself rule is quite clear in this regard.

See? Everything I just wrote is a literal interpretation of the rules. If you don't agree, please tell me exactly which of my premises is wrong (maybe check the rest of the topic before doing that, because there's a very high chance that I already responded to your objections). It just dawned upon me that maybe you really don't know what "RAW" is... you seem to confuse it with "there is a rule or FAQ detailing this exact situation". But this is not RAW. RAW means that you take the existing rules, consider their interaction, and come up with an objective interpretation of said rules regarding the matter at hand. I stated all my premises and my conclusions, all are a literal interpretation of the rules and I am able to defend them individually if needed, now YOU have to tell me which of the 5 points above is incorrect and, more importantly, WHY. Quoting only existing rules, not YOUR interpretation of them.

And the simple fact that you cannot provide anything that happens with these singular unit upgrades, unlike the unit upgrades that affect all models, which are unit upgrades that are lost when the other models are removed (like the Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform), demonstrates where the RAW is lacking.

You have the road of RAW to the river and from the river. You are lacking the proper bridge to make the connections between the two across the river.

Teschio wrote:

There are several potential RAW interpretations. I gave two options when I posted my HIWPI. HappyJew gave another. You are trying to push one to be accepted without actually providing much actual RAW to support it, just guesses and extrapolations, the same as the rest of us.

Also, consider YOU are the one continuing to go off on how we need to avoid HYWPI, so if you don't want to talk about it, don't respond to it.

No, there are not several RAW interpretations. What you suggested was NOT RAW since I already highlighted the fact that it explicitly conflicts with existing rules. My interpretation, which until a better one comes out IS the correct one, may seem absurd, it may conflict with common sense, but it does NOT conflict with the rules, and this is the exact meaning of RAW. BTW, Happyjew's interpretation is no different from my own, he just pointed out an interaction which I didn't consider, that will make the turrets be removed as soon as they are placed, But you STILL can place 20 of them. Oh, and if his idea is correct (we STILL hve not addressed the issue, which is "is the turret a model or not?"), you can't use Tau turrets PERIOD. Not even one of them.

The ability to make one purchase of one thing affect multiple units IS absurd and not actually addressed in the rules, as has already been asserted by someone else.

Notice I said that I presented two, the first was that the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. The Fire Warrior units that are deployed on to the table is not the Fire Warrior unit which purchased the upgrade, making it lost and unusable.

My suggestion allows for the purchase to continue to be used and not extend the purchase to affect more units than it was purchased for. If you cannot see the RAW behind that concept, then take a chill pill, ponder it, and come back when you can address it without going off the handle.

Teschio wrote:

Umm... You seemed to have forgotten that I said that, actually, and I was one of the first to point that out.

Charistoph wrote:Another note on my "You only purchase one for the unit" argument. You say "Okay but the unit that purchased it becomes 12 units that purchased it." So between those 12 units is 1 purchased turret. Not 12 purchased turrets.

And once again you feel the need to point out that you don't really understand the rules... those 12 FWs become 12 separate units, ALL OF WHICH purchased a turret since a turret is a UNIT upgrade, not a MODEL upgrade, and is therefore shared among all models of the original unit. Yes, they purchased ONE turret. PER UNIT. How many unit are there? 12. Not 1 composed of 12 models ACTING AS units. 12 units, totally independent from each other, which ALL have an upgrade you purchased for their parent unit. If FWs don't each get a turret, then Scout Bikes don't each get mines. This is the EXACT same situation.

Where does it state that all 12 units purchased the turret? I see a unit which purchased one turret no longer exists and was separated in to 12 new units, per the rules on how Kill Team operates.

Teschio wrote:

Actually, the unit that purchased the turret technically no longer exists as it was separated out in to 12 new units that did not exist at the time of list building.

HIWPI: Pick one member of the purchased unit and he gets to use it for the game, or just don't mess with it at all.

Yes, the unit that purchased the upgrade no longer exists. It is split up in 12 different unit, ALL OF WHICH share EVERY upgrade the unit had. Which means they each get a turret, because the only limitation for a turret is "one PER unit", and you have 12 units.
And as I said multiple times, HYWPI is worthless. If you want to ignore or make up the rules, be my guest. Just don't intervene in a discussion about the RULES, since you are not trying to support your position with actual rules. Since this topic is EXCLUSIVELY about RAW, and has been from the very beginning, everything else is necessarily off-topic.

Yes, the limit is one per unit, but that doesn't mean a purchase of one by a unit becomes twelve when its purchasing unit is separated in to twelve. The turret is like a Banner that is purchased by a unit (with the exception that it is assigned to the model from the word go (that would have made things so much easier and more practical for the Turret, Kill Team or not)). You purchase one Wargear, not the ability to deploy the Wargear, nor a set of the Wargear, just one. That is the bridge your RAW is missing. You get one for those twelve, not one to become twelve.

Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:
1) The turret is lost because the purchasing unit no longer exists to deploy the turret, as all other models have become new units, and we are not told who gets that one piece of Wargear.
2) The singular purchased turret can be used by one of models of the unit which purchased it, even though the model is now a separate unit. In other words, one of the unit keeps the singular upgrade as they go on their way, but cannot share it since they are no longer in the same unit.
3) The singular purchased turret can be placed by any of the models of the unit which purchased it, even though they are now separate units. Only one turret may be placed across the original models at a time and it must be packed up before another model may deploy it.

Option 1, makes the turret pointless, but it is the strictest RAW interpretation. Admittedly, that happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 3 is far too powerful for most people to accept. Admittedly, that also happens a lot with upgrades in Kill Team. Option 2 is the only one that can take in to consideration all factors from the rules that are written as well as all players finding an acceptable balance between useless and overpowered.

Sadly, when it comes to RAW, there is nothing that actually defines any of these three scenarios as being the literally correct one.

Teschio wrote:

You responded to it being like the Bike upgrades for the Command Squad.

Because the situation is the same. Here we have an upgrade to the whole unit, with a cost that is fixed and not unit-based, and that gets applied to every member of the unit. Once this unit is split up according to the Every Man for Himself rule, each of the members of the original unit get that upgrade. The same works with IG veterans upgrades, with cluster mines, and with every UNIT upgrade that is applied automatically to ALL its members once they split up. Including Tau turrets for FWs.

It is not the same. The turret is a single item of Wargear. Bikes and Mines are not. Their purchase involves a plural of the term purchased, not the singular. When you purchase the Bikes, you are purchasing 5 Bikes. When you purchase the Cluster Mines, you are purchasing a group of Mines. Again, it is closer to the Banner than the Bikes in this respect, because it is a singular purchase buy the unit. The Banner just has the advantage of being assigned to a model in the options while the turret is not.

But the final point is, the turret operates in a fuzzy space that is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and unnecessary outside of them. Since it is not addressed by the Kill Team rules and the general rules do not NEED to consider them in this way, all we have left is to use our own methods of interpreting the rules, i.e. HYWPI. Whine and rage about it all you want, but unless you can actually reference a rule which defines what happens to a single piece of Wargear purchased by a unit but not assigned to a model with a profile, that is what we are left with. Do not get angry with me, I did not write these rules. If you must get angry, direct your anger towards those who are so shoddy and incomplete with their rules writing.

Teschio wrote:
Hi everyone, I just got the Kill Team rulebook a few days ago, and I have been working on some ideas... but while doing so, I came across some difficult rule interpretations.

Most unit can have their models buy upgrades, and that is not a problem in Kill Team. The problems arise when there is an upgrade that is available to the whole unit, not to individual models. A prominent example of that would be SM Scout Bikes' cluster mines. How would that work? Technically, it's an upgrade that affects the whole unit, but in KT every single model counts as a separate unit: so, do I get to booby-trap one piece of terrain, or one for each bike? The rules just say "each unit with cluster mines in your army can...", which in KT would support the second hypothesis (one booby-trapped piece of terrain per bike), since a unit upgrade is available to all the models in the unit.

There's worse, however. Specifically, Tau's Tactical Support Turrets. Here we have an option that can be bought by a unit, and deployed by any one model of said unit. But what will happen in KT? Since that is not a model upgrade but a UNIT upgrade, each model in the original unit gets it, and since they are all different units, and the only limitation is that the turret can be deployed by one and only one model of a unit, it seems to me that RAW allow for EACH fire warrior to deploy a turret. Which is crazy, because 20 SMS turrets mean auto-win in every scenario against every conceivable army. There is also no alternative interpretation that makes sense, for this specific case: if only one model can deploy the turret, WHICH ONE can do so? Any one of my choosing? This makes no sense, given that all information about the unit a model comes from is lost in KT... models ARE individual units, not just parts of the same unit that can operate as individuals.

The fact that universal upgrades or rules affect a squad differently when all its members are individual units has been recognized by the developers, and this is exactly why Brotherhood of Psykers is banned: an effect that is supposed to work once per unit is very, very different when all models are distinct units. While BoP was the most obvious case, however, it's not the only one, as the previous examples showed. What is your interpretation?

IMPORTANT: I am not interested in RAI, or in how your gaming group house-rules this. I am interested in pure RAW. My local meta is extremely competitive, and I need to be able to defend my case, not just appeal to interpretations or common sense. Here, ANYTHING that is allowed by the rules is fair game. You may not like it, but it's how it is, and therefore I will ask you to stick to RAW.

Bonus question: not something that has to do with unit upgrades, but an intersting question nonetheless: what will happen to a Specialist with Infiltrate/Scout that is embarked in a Dedicated Transport with the rest of his unit? Technically, the rules say "if a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the special rule to the Transport", and my model IS a unit embarked in his DT, although he is embarked together with other units without that rule (something that in a normal game can never happen). It seems to me that the entire transport gets Scout/Infiltrate, and therefore this is a very effective way to add mobility to a whole bunch of models... thoughts?

Awesome changes

 doctortom wrote:

Teschio wrote:

And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.

No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.

I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.

As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."

Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?

This is important for the discussion at hand.

Well if you can't get the TO to make a house rule in time just go along, play games, enjoy the event, and if (in the unlikely scenario) some prick tries this just say "GG" and pack up your models. So what if he wins the event? Are you playing for life changing money? Even in a perfect rules system bad things can happen. Your opponent could drop some of your models on the floor and stamp on them. They could pull out a knife and stab you because they lost. You could be hit by an overturning lorry on the way to the event. Winning games of Warhammer 40k isn't the be all and end all, and somebody pulling a dick move like this to feel good about themselves probably has quite a miserable existence and should be pitied

 Happyjew wrote:
Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?

This is important for the discussion at hand.

Every Man for Himself, "... each model is treated as a separate unit." so 5-10.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
5-10 After we reach the deployment phase. during army building they will be built as if they are 1 unit (so no 5 heavy weapons on 5 separate men)

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Question. If I take a Tactical Squad for Kill Teams, at the start of the game the 5-10 Marines become their own units. So how many Tactical Squads do I have? 0, or 5-10?

This is important for the discussion at hand.

Every Man for Himself, "... each model is treated as a separate unit." so 5-10.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
5-10 After we reach the deployment phase. during army building they will be built as if they are 1 unit (so no 5 heavy weapons on 5 separate men)

Each model is a separate unit, but is each model a "Tactical Squad" unit? Or is each unit a "Space Marine" (with 1 Space Marine (Veteran) Sergeant))? The real question is what is the name of the unit for each model?

Each unit would become a Tactical Squad of space marines of 1. featuring ATSKNF, frag grenades, ccw, bolt pistol (?) etc, and 1 tactical squad could be equipped with a heavy weapon. Because each model of the Tactical Squad is treated as a seperates unit of Tactical Squads

I am now heavy into HIWPI/RAI over a unquestionable RAW, but that is the most literal in my mind.

 Kriswall wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Teschio wrote:

And this is why you are wrong. I DID purchase the ability to set up one turret (PER UNIT). Since the turret is NOT an additional model like an Eldar Platform would be, but is instead a unit upgrade, EVERY model in my original unit has that upgrade. If it works for snare mines or cluster mines, it works for this too. You are being misled by the name of the upgrade, the fact that there is a miniature for that, the fluff and even the logic, but all those things mean nothing when there are RULES.

No, you purchased the ability to set up one turret. Period. One turret for the unit before it is split up into separate units for Kill Team. It does not say each model gets a turret, or the unit is equipped with turrets (plural, the way you get grenades and other options for each model in the unit). Saying you can get 20 turrets for splitting up a 20 man unit is not RAW in the slightest; it is you making a gross misinterpretation. The only question is whether the ONE turret gets split off as a model and disappears or not. More than one turret for the kill team is not a legal option.

I like Teschio's math. ONE Turret shared between 10 Fire Warriors somehow becomes 10 Turrets. I guess that Turret somehow reads the rules and then splits itself apart? In the list building "phase", you are clearly purchasing ONE Turret for the unit. I realize that each model is treated as a separate unit per the Kill Team rules, but the T man has yet to demonstrate permission to field MORE THAN ONE Turret when ONLY ONE was purchased.

Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.

 pumaman1 wrote:
As far as I read it, a unit equipped with the DS8 tactical support turret can deploy the turret if they remain stationary. That turret stays deployed even if the original unit moves, as long as some friendly model is within 2", and no enemy is within 2". Should the turret ever be removed as a causality, it can be redeployed as before.
So we aren't buying 1 turret, because you could deploy 1 every turn if you just lose a small number of FW per turn to make that 2" of space.
Further, as wargear, not a weapon platform, it is generally applied equally to all models in the unit, or just to the leader. This one isn't specific to just the leader, so like combat drugs or other unit-wide upgrades, every model has it as standard wargear.
So RAW, each of the 5 FW in the min squad would get a turret, that cannot be targeted, fired at etc (like a devastator cherub that is another model). That said, its such a TFG move that TFG would say, "Whoa, that's pretty S***ty bro."

And how many can the unit purchase in the Options? One, I believe, and it is purchased as a piece of Wargear, not as an option to deploy the Wargear. That option comes from purchasing the Wargear.

Following that, are all the Fire Warriors in the separate units the same unit that purchased the Turret? No, they are all separate units, not the same original unit.

Teschio wrote:

Going by his logic, if the unit of 10 fire warriors bought a dedicated transport, when you split them up into individual units you would end up with 10 dedicated transports.

I've been thinking the same thing. But at least now a Tac squad can bring 10 Rhinos with Hunter Killer missiles for 45 pts, to deal with all the turret bearers. So, now we have the same excess found in normal 40k for KT.