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.

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?

With regard the bonus, the way I've seen it played (and I believe is accepted on here) is that yes the dedicated transport will abide by the normal rules as until the units disembark (or get out 1 by 1) there is no change to the unit interaction.

You have to think of the Kill Team rules as sort of "applying once the game starts". They say in the rules that you choose units to fit in the force org (or your formation) as you would normally.

That means you include units, upgrades, picking a dedicated transport, starting IN said dedicated transport, etc.

However, once the game begins, you play as though each model was it's own unit.

For example, if you have 10 Boyz in a Trukk, they can all start in that trukk, and the unit can have a nob, who is upgraded. Once the game begins the trukk can move around and one-by-one, models can get out. Upon doing so, each model acts as a unit of size 1, just themselves.

In your scout bike example, you buy the mines for the unit, at the time if army building. Nothing changes here. Upon deploying, you move each of your models individually and then each of them (if they had mines) can use them.

In the Tau example, yes... they all "have it" because this upgrade was purchased for the unit, as you normally would in a big game... think about it, it says "one model" can deploy it... so in a normal game of 40k, you pick a model, they deploy it, and you're done. You can't do it again if that model dies. You just can put one turret on the table if that upgrade is in your army list. done... They each just go about doing their thing and if 1 of them (whomever you pick to do it, whenever, as long as one hasn't been put on the table yet by the models in that unit, as constructed during army list construction time) deploys it, that's it. You still have to adhere to the rules of the unit's construction.

Another example... space marine command squad. You can't upgrade 2 with bikes, then take 3 on foot. It doesn't work that way.

Now for the RAW:
On page 12 of the killteam rules (Titled "Kill team Missions") there are several important "bolded words" defined here which apply when playing "kill team missions". Kill team missions are outlined in the rules on the next pages (6 examples) but there are also references in the back for how to "make your own". Ok, under "Every Man for Himself:"... I can't post the rules verbatem, but go look here. I'll summarize in quotes:
"Models...selected as part of a squad" <-- this is part of the army construction part which is in the BRB, but also referred to on page 6 of the killteam rules ("Choosing your killteam"
"However... each model is treated as a separate unit."

There is nothing in there saying that you would then re-configure the load-out, or adjust rules of, or change the make-up of a model's functional abilities... their rules are defined by the unit during construction time... how they carry out their phases of the game, mean you treat them as a unit of 1 model (themselves)

Just try to remember that you build a list like "normal", using the killteam force-org /a valid formation from a book somewhere + restrictions.. then once the game starts, each model acts as a unit of size 1.

@ xTHExCLINCHERx, half of your post is you teaching me about how to build a KT list. I don't know where in my original post I gave the impression that I have doubts about that part. I know you build a list just like you normally would (with the KT FOC). My question is, what happens once the game starts, and you have upgrades that were legally bought for a unit (not for the individual models that are part of that unit), which affect the entire unit, but which work differently once it's every man for himself (like cluster mines or Tau turrets).

I agree with you regarding cluster mines, but unfortunately the case you make for Tau turrets is quite weak and based on false premises. You are mistaken about the rules for turrets: you said that in a normal game you can't re-deploy a turret once the model "manning it" dies. First, there is no model using the turret: the entire unit creates it by not moving, it just has to be within 2" of any model from the unit (you don't pick one model specifically), and it disappears once there is an enemy within 2" of it or there are no more models from the unit that deployed it within 2". Second, it is specified that if the turret is removed for any reason, it CAN be re-deployed using the exact same rules (anyhere within 2" of a model, and they do not need to be the same models of the first time). This shows pretty unequivocally that the turret is not tied to a single model, it's an upgrade to the whole unit, you have only the limitation of one turret per unit. But in KT, EVERY fire warrior is a unit, and every one has that upgrade (since you bought it for the unit they were a part of), so every one should be able to deploy a turret. Yes, it's very, very RAW, but I can't see a flaw in this (and I WANT to find one, since I don't play Tau, and I am sure someone else will think about that combo and use it against me... as I said, in my meta this could happen).

Thanks for quoting the rules, but unfortunately they do not support your case. I am not re-configuring the load-out in any way*, I am applying an upgrade I bought for THE UNIT (not the models) to every model that was selected as part of that unit. Is this unreasonable? It definitely is not, otherwise a SM Command Squad with bikes would NOT have 5 bikes (the equip entry says "the whole unit", not "every model in the unit", and the cost is fixed, not on a per-model basis, so this IS a unit upgrade, not a model one). If the command squad gets bikes (and they most certainly do), then scouts all get cluster mines, and unfortunately fire warriors all get a turret. This is exactly why they banned Brotherhood of Psykers, because once you split up a unit, rules or equip that work once per unit become a lot more powerful. PLEASE find a flaw in my reasoning... and it's a request, not a challenge

* to avoid confusion: I am NOT saying that when you select the list you can buy one turret per model. I am saying that you can buy it ONCE, but since it is an upgrade to the whole unit, once the models are individual units, ALL OF THEM get one. It's much worse, because with 118 points you get 12 fire warriors AND 12 turrets.

@Teschio

The only reason I talked about how to build the army was to give readers a complete view of where I was coming from.

Ok, I don't know any of the Tau rules, i was just guessing at the way I interpreted what you had worded, so I guess discount that example.

Seems RAW then it's a pretty simple answer.. yeah, you "get your turret" for every model (since every model is a unit). I'm not really sure why that's even in question then, seeing as you answered it many times yourself and also pointed out many examples that seem to imply the same thing (mines, bikes, etc.)

Once the game starts, if you are playing one of the missions (which you probably are, or loosely are) then do what page 12 says "...each model is treated as a separate unit." So when you do whatever you have to do to deploy a turret, you ask "does this model -- this unit -- have the turret? If yest, then put it down." Not really sure what the confusion is. I suppose the same would apply to a unit that has bought krak grenades or something... I guess they each get them, whereas in a Space Marine squad, if a sgt. bought a melta bomb or something, only he does.

RAW - yeah, every model can put a turret.
I'm sure if anyone ever asks them for clarification, and they construct an FAQ (akin to the way they've been doing it on facebook I guess) maybe it will get reconciled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your Bonus question is interesting... I suppose yes, what you have listed is correct. I don't think that this is a huge deal, if you play the missions in the book, as they are designed. Some missions allow a bunch of units to outflank/infiltrate, some require spreading out lots of troops, etc.

I think it's correct and also not broken, written as-is, FWIW.

 xTHExCLINCHERx wrote:

I'm not really sure why that's even in question then, seeing as you answered it many times yourself and also pointed out many examples that seem to imply the same thing (mines, bikes, etc.)

Because I NEED to be wrong

Knowing my meta, this could come up, and this list is absolutely invincible: 20 SMS turrets, which can target units out of sight, with 4 S5 AP5 Ignore Cover hits at BS 3 each. That's total carnage, there isn't a single list that can withstand more than 2 rounds of shooting. Who cares about the mission, this list will win by wipe-out every single game! I know it will be FAQed, but until then, I really, REALLY do not want to face that list without a solid argument to counteract it. In casual games that's not a problem, I can just avoid playing against it, but tournaments are a different matter...

This case is admittedly much more border-line than bikes or mines: the Fire Wariors entry says "the unit may take a DS8 tactical support turret", suggesting that is, in fact, ONE turret. I am writing here hoping that someone can make a case for this that is strictly RAW.

Hmm well, the only thing I could say then is that if the unit (in non-killteam games) can only have 1 turret "active" at a time, then just because the unit is split up and interacted-with as individual units (think Combat Squads rule for space marines.. maybe as a precedent?) then it doesn't grant you additional rules which would allow the "unit" to put multiple down at once... may be a decent argument, I dunno.

So dude A and B were "included in the army as part of Unit 1".. dude A, puts it down, then it goes away at some point... dude A can put it down again, or a dude B could instead, but at no point can dude A and dude B both have a turret out at the same time (nor can C, D, E,...n).
That sort of thing. I could see that as a reasonable argument.

I'll check my Tau codex later, but your examples of bikes and cluster mines are specifically called out as plural forms. The command squad "may take bikes," the scout bikers "may take cluster mines."

The significance is this: IIRC the Tau codex says (the equivalent of) "The fire warriors squad may take A DS8 turret."

A. One. Uno. Kill Teams are purchased in the same way traditional units are, with upgrades available to the squad being purchased. The fire warriors don't get to buy turrets, they get to buy *one* turret. The scout bikers get to buy cluster mines. The command squad gets to buy bikes.

I realize the crux of the argument then becomes "Did this unit buy a turret" at deployment when every model becomes becomes its own unit, with each fire warrior answering "yes," but I still believe you could make an argument out of what I said. Hopefully. Best of luck, maybe someone can think of something better.

I thought about this, but it will open a whole lot of problems, namely it would require that models be not independent units, just parts of the same unit that can ACT as independent units... but this doesn't fit well with the rules for KT. Since in normal games the entire unit must be stationary to deploy the turret, does this mean that I can't move ANY model from the original unit, even models on the other side of the table? This sounds absurd... also, once the list is selected, any information on which unit a model comes from is lost: I could have 2 fire warriors teams, all painted exactly the same, but only one with a turret: how can I decide where I can deploy the turret?

The "one turret per unit" thing makes little sense, unfortunately, because in KT every model is a unit! The SM Combat Squad is not a good precedent, exactly because once they split up they explicitly count as separate units in every possible way, losing all "memory" of the unit they come from... this will SUPPORT the "20 turrets" interpretation, not counter it!

I guess my only hope remains a FAQ... any idea how can I make the GW guys aware of this problem, in order to speed the process up?

 xTHExCLINCHERx wrote:
Hmm well, the only thing I could say then is that if the unit (in non-killteam games) can only have 1 turret "active" at a time, then just because the unit is split up and interacted-with as individual units (think Combat Squads rule for space marines.. maybe as a precedent?) then it doesn't grant you additional rules which would allow the "unit" to put multiple down at once... may be a decent argument, I dunno.

So dude A and B were "included in the army as part of Unit 1".. dude A, puts it down, then it goes away at some point... dude A can put it down again, or a dude B could instead, but at no point can dude A and dude B both have a turret out at the same time (nor can C, D, E,...n).
That sort of thing. I could see that as a reasonable argument.

Generally this is what I'm seeing people seem to believe when they want to game the system. That the one turret they purchased can be set up near any model and gets to jump around the battlefield. I haven't yet seen the argument for 12 turrets, but I figured it would come up at some point, just because.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:


I guess my only hope remains a FAQ... any idea how can I make the GW guys aware of this problem, in order to speed the process up?

Email them, message the facebook, write a letter to white dwarf or gw.

BossJakadakk wrote:
I'll check my Tau codex later, but your examples of bikes and cluster mines are specifically called out as plural forms. The command squad "may take bikes," the scout bikers "may take cluster mines."

The significance is this: IIRC the Tau codex says (the equivalent of) "The fire warriors squad may take A DS8 turret."

A. One. Uno. Kill Teams are purchased in the same way traditional units are, with upgrades available to the squad being purchased. The fire warriors don't get to buy turrets, they get to buy *one* turret. The scout bikers get to buy cluster mines. The command squad gets to buy bikes.

I realize the crux of the argument then becomes "Did this unit buy a turret" at deployment when every model becomes becomes its own unit, with each fire warrior answering "yes," but I still believe you could make an argument out of what I said. Hopefully. Best of luck, maybe someone can think of something better.

No need to check the codex, I just did and what you quoted is correct. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem, because the turret is a unit upgrade, therefore formally every model of the unit has it. And even if you can only deploy one per unit, things change when it's every man for himself... Also, as I said earlier, allowing only one turret per unit opens other massive problems: since in normal games the whole unit needs to be stationary to deploy it, does this mean that I can't move ANY Fire Warrior? This will conflict with the Every Man for Himself rule... or, suppose I have 2 units of Fire Warriors with 2 turrets: can a turret only be deployed within 2" of a member of the ORIGINAL unit it comes from? That's a problem as well, since there is no "memory" of the unit you purchased once the KT list is selected...

Well, if they were to argue that every model could deploy its own turret, then you could argue that every model would have to remain stationary.

In the case of one turret total (per purchased squad), I would say it's fair that it can be deployed by any model that remains stationary (they're all "whole" units). Of course, this means doing the "it gets to jump around the board" thing. If this is your group's ruling, though, I'm not sure there's grounds to argue that every independent unit has to remain stationary for it to get deployed, but maybe it could be fleshed out!

For your last example, I would ask "If you somehow had 2 squads of scout bikers (ignoring the force org chart but there may be other examples), but only 1 purchased cluster mines, does every model get to count as having mines after deployment?" After all, there's no memory of the unit you purchased once KT starts. This is a situation I would absolutely 100% say the turret has to go with a model from the unit that purchased it every time. That would be a brand new low of rules-bending to the point where I think it's way past bending.

If only ONE turret per unit is allowed, then it natually follows that no model from that unit can move. But this conflicts with the Every Man for Himself rule, simply because those models are not part of the same unit, they are completely independent, just like SM Combat Squads. I am afraid the only RAW interpretation is the "20 turrets" one, and that only a FAQ could save me (that, and the hope that nobody in my local meta realizes that this can be done).

Your example for cluster mines is meaningless, though: yes, there are 2 units, but only models from ONE unit have that upgrade. Since it's not something that requires you to distinguish models in-game, that's not an issue: if there are 3 bikes in the unit you purchased (regardless of how you field them), then there are 3 models with the "cluster mines" upgrade, and you get to booby-trap 3 pieces of terrain. Pretty straightforward. This, however, does not apply to the turret case, since in this instance you need to choose a model for the turret to deploy close to it... and this would require the ability to distinguish models from different units, something that is meaningless in KT because there ARE no different units, every model is a unit by itself.

Actually, you may be right on the no unit can move thing. Good fuel to have for the argument. I still don't believe that the "20 turret" argument has much water. You're only purchasing a singular turret, no matter what amount of units the squad splits into. At the very least, it (again) is an argument to be made if someone tries it.

Good call on the mines being a bad example, but you may be able to find a better one. Still, it partially works in that while you're booby trapping 3 pieces of terrain, all 3 pieces of terrain are being trapped because of one purchased unit. If there was a restriction that said the piece of terrain had to be within 6" of the unit, you couldn't choose a piece of terrain that was only within 6" of one of the models that didn't purchase mines.

Either way, the fact that two units would have purchased turrets is not meaningless in KT (if your group goes the 1 turret per squad route) because if you were to have 2 models from the same original squad with turrets set up, then you'd be breaking the rules by having more than one turret per squad, regardless of KT making them separate units. This follows the kind of 1 heavy weapon per squad restrictions of other units. It's different in that it comes into play after the purchase and deployment, but it stands imo. For example, would you allow literally any fire warrior to set up a turret if you have two squads fielded but only one which purchased the turret? I would say no, only the warriors from the original squad could set it up. This doesn't apply if your group's RAW interpretation is "20 turrets," but there's still just no way that could be RAW. You buy one turret, only, ever. You're still purchasing the squad like in the codex, the only question is how that one turret is interacted with in the Kill Team format.

Query - what happens if there are no Fire Warriors in the same unit as a deployed Turret? Does it get removed? If so, as soon as it is deployed, would it not be a unit by itself (per the Every Man for Himself rule)? Meaning, that there are no Tau in the same unit as the Turret.

Yes, you are purchasing a single turret. But it's not a MODEL upgrade, it's a unit upgrade, therefore every single model of the unit has it. Therefore, once they are separated into independent units, every single model gets to put down one turret. It's still only ONE turret per unit, but in KT this means up to 12 different turrets, because every model IS a unit. It is obviously absurd, but RAW this seems to be the correct interpretation. And as I said, I am ONLY interested in RAW.

The problem with your past paraghraph is that you are still considering the models as part of the unit they were purchased from, that just act independently from each other. Unfortunately, RAW this is not the case: a KT list follows the rules for unit selection, but once the list is selected, there is no more memory of which unit a model comes from, because individual models are all independent units.

>"would you allow literally any fire warrior to set up a turret if you have two squads fielded but only one which purchased the turret? I would say no, only the warriors from the original squad could set it up." Of course. But this is because one unit HAS the upgrade, while the other does not. In this case, since the equipment is different, I need to distinguish different models. It would be like "passing" a special weapons between models purchased as part of the same unit: this does not make sense, because a weapon is an upgrade for that specific model. The turret is an upgrade for the unit, so for EVERY member of the unit, but that doesn't mean that members of other units have it too. The problem is exactly this, if a unit buys a turret, then EVERY model in that unit can set up a turret. Because it's an equip they ALL have, and the only limitation is that one unit can set up one turret (and models ARE separate units!).

YES, it's one turret per unit. How many units do you have? One for each Fire Warrior. Unfortunately, until a better case is made (and it seems to me that, RAW, this is quite hard to do) or a FAQ comes out, you COULD find yoursel facing 20 Fire Warriors with 20 SMS turrets. This is the unbeatable list, and as far as I can tell, it's totally legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Query - what happens if there are no Fire Warriors in the same unit as a deployed Turret? Does it get removed? If so, as soon as it is deployed, would it not be a unit by itself (per the Every Man for Himself rule)? Meaning, that there are no Tau in the same unit as the Turret.

Wow, THIS is promising! The turret itself is a weird thing, I am not sure if it's a model, since it has no profile and can't be attacked or interacted with in any way. But if it IS, then as soon as it is deployed, there is no FW IN ITS UNIT within 2" because it IS a independent unit, and therefore immediately disappears... now, you could be on the right track here! The question then becomes, is the turret a model? Or is more like a cherub, which has no profile and does not interact with anything? The very first sentence of the "rules" part of the rulebook suggests that every miniature is a model, but it ALSO says that every model has its own characteristics profile, and this is not the case for the turret... it doesn't even have a BS value, its rules say which value is to be used... this is a conundrum. What do you guys think? Can we find some objective ruling that says the turret is itself a model?

The rules don't work well in general, they certainly dont work in this case. As much as you want to stick strictly to RAW (very respectable), for individual cases that aren't even covered by the rules you'll be far better off actually discussing it with your group. Relationships like this probably weren't considered when the Kill Teams rules were written and we can confirm from the recent FAQs that GW themselves don't really realise certain actions happen on a model-by-model basis and other actions happen to units. The contradictions that arise from these relationships seem to be beyond the writers' understanding. See the YMDC topic about ICs joining a unit with Bounding Lope for a bit more on that.

The Tau codex says that a turret is removed "if there are no OTHER models from its unit", and this suggests that it is, in fact, a model. But the lack of a profile of any kind makes this dubious. In addition to not having a profile, the BRB also says that every model has a unit type, and the turret does not (it is not specified as Infantry, and it cannot even move). Also the Tau codex never uses the form "unit coherency", specifying the 2" distance instead, ever single time. Could this be because unit coherency is just for models, and the turret is not? I can see valid arguments for both interpretations... my personal one, after having read all relevant entries, is that the turret is not, in fact, a model itself, since it has none of the characteristics of models. But this is highly debatable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xlDuke wrote:
The rules don't work well in general, they certainly dont work in this case. As much as you want to stick strictly to RAW (very respectable), for individual cases that aren't even covered by the rules you'll be far better off actually discussing it with your group. Relationships like this probably weren't considered when the Kill Teams rules were written and we can confirm from the recent FAQs that GW themselves don't really realise certain actions happen on a model-by-model basis and other actions happen to units. The contradictions that arise from these relationships seem to be beyond the writers' understanding. See the YMDC topic about ICs joining a unit with Bounding Lope for a bit more on that.

As I said, this is not a problem in casual games, but it becomes one in tournaments. You don't even know your opponent beforehand, you certainly can't agree on the rule interpretations: the only possible way to play in such an environment is RAW, since everything else is subjective. Of course in casual games me and my group will never allow that, but in tournaments things are different. Once you go out of your local gaming group, especially in a competitive setting, then RAW becomes the only possible interpretation. Even when the results are absurd, they are objective, and objectivity is needed as soon as this stops being a game and becomes a competition (like in tournaments).

I actually think that Happyjew is on the right track here, we just need to figure out whether a turret is a model or not...

Kinda sorta. You never *deploy* the turret. I had to check the wording before, because I'm houseruling it for events I'm going to run. It's only ever "set up" near a stationary unit (speaking in normal 40k terms). So it never goes through the deployment phase whereupon it would count as its own separate unit and immediately die. It gets set up after the fact.

I mean, you could make an argument that when it's set up it becomes its own unit and summarily dies.

There's a lot of arguments in here you could use.

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.

Where is "memory" mentioned in the KT book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:

As I said, this is not a problem in casual games, but it becomes one in tournaments. You don't even know your opponent beforehand, you certainly can't agree on the rule interpretations: the only possible way to play in such an environment is RAW, since everything else is subjective.

We don't have RAW, the only RAW we have deals with normal 40k. Anything regarding this issue before an official FAQ is a houserule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm emailing GW, might be we could get some kind of coherent response. If nothing else it can contribute to letting them know that an FAQ is needed for Kill Team.

BossJakadakk wrote:
Kinda sorta. You never *deploy* the turret. I had to check the wording before, because I'm houseruling it for events I'm going to run. It's only ever "set up" near a stationary unit (speaking in normal 40k terms). So it never goes through the deployment phase whereupon it would count as its own separate unit and immediately die. It gets set up after the fact.

The Every Man for Himself rule says that "each model is treated as a separate unit when deploying your Kill Team, AND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE GAME". So you can "set it up" instead of deploying it, but it will immediately become a separate unit and die. This, of course, IF it is considered a model, and there are valid reasons to support both interpretations on this very important point. The easiest way if you are running an event is to state that it IS a model, and therefore will die. Much easier this way, then bending the rules allowing models that were bought as part of a unit but are now completely independent to "share" the turret as if they still were in the same unit. Ban it altogether, and this decision can also be supported by a literal interpretations of the rules (some rules, at east... on what is a model exactly, those rules are quite contradictory).

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.

I'm emailing GW, might be we could get some kind of coherent response. If nothing else it can contribute to letting them know that an FAQ is needed for Kill Team.

Please do. I already emailed them, but the more the better, hopefully they realize this is a huge bug and proceed to FAQ it. I just hope this happens before I have to face such a montruosity!

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.

 Charistoph 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.

The unit no longer exists, but the models composing it do. And since the turret was an upgrade for the unit, every single model originally from that unit has it. Otherwise, a command squad for which you purchase the bikes upgrade do not actually get those bikes. Unit upgrades are available to every single member of that unit.

And yes, in casual games I would play like that as well. But I specifically asked for RAW, because I might find this list in tournaments, and in a competitive setting only RAW count.

Happyjew was the one who actually came closer to a solution, all we need to determine now is whether the turret is a model or not.

Teschio wrote:
The unit no longer exists, but the models composing it do. And since the turret was an upgrade for the unit, every single model originally from that unit has it. Otherwise, a command squad for which you purchase the bikes upgrade do not actually get those bikes. Unit upgrades are available to every single member of that unit.

Not quite. The Command Squad reference is a little off, it mentions the entire squad getting the multiple upgrades. It is closer to the Eldar Guardian Weapons Platform, but not quite. The Weapon Platform actually has a profile, and if I remember the turret right, it does not, but it has been a long while since I've seen it. Unless the new Kill Team rules specifically address it, there is nothing in the Tau codex that does.

Teschio wrote:
And yes, in casual games I would play like that as well. But I specifically asked for RAW, because I might find this list in tournaments, and in a competitive setting only RAW count.

Still in a case where it is not properly defined, House Rules and mentioning it as HIWPI (which I did) are worth mentioning.

The Eldar platform is completely different, it's a separate model you add to the unit, much like adding an attack bike to a bike squad. It is deployed with the unit, and is in every aspect part of the unit. The Tau turret, however, is very different: you don't deploy it, you create it by remaining stationary; it does not have a profile, nor a unit type; it is not part of the unit, it just disappears if there are no models from the unit that created it within 2"; and can be recreated if it is removed (I didn't say "if it is destroyed" because it can't be destroyed...). The closest things to the Tau turret are actually upgrades that affect the whole unit, like cluster mines or command squad bikes.

And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.

Teschio wrote:
The Eldar platform is completely different, it's a separate model you add to the unit, much like adding an attack bike to a bike squad. It is deployed with the unit, and is in every aspect part of the unit. The Tau turret, however, is very different: you don't deploy it, you create it by remaining stationary; it does not have a profile, nor a unit type; it is not part of the unit, it just disappears if there are no models from the unit that created it within 2"; and can be recreated if it is removed (I didn't say "if it is destroyed" because it can't be destroyed...). The closest things to the Tau turret are actually upgrades that affect the whole unit, like cluster mines or command squad bikes.

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.

Teschio wrote:
And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

Teschio wrote:
And yes, you can talk about House Rules as much as you want, I just asked you not to do it, because I feel house rules never address a problem, they just circumvent it. Any discussion about the rules, imho, NEEDS to be only about RAW, because this is the only way you can get a universal interpretation. After that, each gaming group can reject that interpretation and come out with its own, but I want (and need, being a tournament player) objective interpretations only. Which means RAW.

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.

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

 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.

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.

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.

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.

An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.

 doctortom wrote:
An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.

They are. Even though an eldar platform has special rules (the need for another model to operate it IS a special rule of the model), they are still additional models with their own profile and unit type. The fact that it has different rules than an attack bike is like saying that they are not the same because one is Infantry and the other is Bike.

Teschio wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
An attack bike doesn't need a separate infantry figure to operate it. The Eldar platform does. Doesn't sound like they're JUST like an attack bike.

They are. Even though an eldar platform has special rules (the need for another model to operate it IS a special rule of the model), they are still additional models with their own profile and unit type. The fact that it has different rules than an attack bike is like saying that they are not the same because one is Infantry and the other is Bike.

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.