Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 260

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#19 » Jan 22 2018 10:08

Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
You're misreading that, a unit shot at by a devilfish with a recon drone embarked can't take cover saves FROM THOSE SHOTS it doesn't remove the cover also the recon drone is embarked and can't fire it's weapon either...


I understand what it is probably intended to be. I even put that in my original post, but that's not what the rule says. The pathfinder rule specifically says it only applies to pathfinders; however, the Devilfish rule does not have any specific mention of what units it applies to. That was the whole point of the post. I'm not misreading it...I'm reading it exactly as written...I'm just not applying implied intent to it.


Ok well let me know if you find anyone who will let you do that because I certainly wouldn't.


RAW

Precedence for ignoring benefits for cover for only the weapons or shots from a single unit almost always state..."this unit/weapon" or "hits from this unit/weapon" or "wounds from this unit/weapon"

The rule for devilfish specifically states that units ATTACKED don't get ANY benefits from cover. Why would the rule say "attacked" when there are 2 more steps in the shooting phase (resolving hits and resolving wounds) before you even get to take an armor save? Now...did GW intend for it to only apply to pathfinders or the Devilfish...possibly, but the legal and intelligence communities will tell you intent is nearly impossible to prove with certainty. Did GW write the rule in such a way to only apply to Pathfinders or the Devilfish....definitively NO!
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 509
Contact:

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#20 » Jan 22 2018 11:52

CDR_Farsight wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
I understand what it is probably intended to be. I even put that in my original post, but that's not what the rule says. The pathfinder rule specifically says it only applies to pathfinders; however, the Devilfish rule does not have any specific mention of what units it applies to. That was the whole point of the post. I'm not misreading it...I'm reading it exactly as written...I'm just not applying implied intent to it.


Ok well let me know if you find anyone who will let you do that because I certainly wouldn't.


RAW

Precedence for ignoring benefits for cover for only the weapons or shots from a single unit almost always state..."this unit/weapon" or "hits from this unit/weapon" or "wounds from this unit/weapon"

The rule for devilfish specifically states that units ATTACKED don't get ANY benefits from cover. Why would the rule say "attacked" when there are 2 more steps in the shooting phase (resolving hits and resolving wounds) before you even get to take an armor save? Now...did GW intend for it to only apply to pathfinders or the Devilfish...possibly, but the legal and intelligence communities will tell you intent is nearly impossible to prove with certainty. Did GW write the rule in such a way to only apply to Pathfinders or the Devilfish....definitively NO!


Ok so by your reasoning gun drones can't shoot if there's a friendly unit closer to them than the enemy because their rules state can only target closest unit in shooting phase misses out the word enemy?

You know RAI is meant to be the devilfish attacks ignore cover whilst the recon drone is embarked, I would let you argue that if a unit has a negative to hit modifier due to being in cover via a special rule that would also be ignored but anything else no.

Like I said come back to me when you find someone who'll let you do that, if you tried that in my gaming circle and we're overbearing and tried to insist on shenanigans like that you wouldn't be invited to game with us again...

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 260

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#21 » Jan 22 2018 12:10

Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Ok well let me know if you find anyone who will let you do that because I certainly wouldn't.


RAW

Precedence for ignoring benefits for cover for only the weapons or shots from a single unit almost always state..."this unit/weapon" or "hits from this unit/weapon" or "wounds from this unit/weapon"

The rule for devilfish specifically states that units ATTACKED don't get ANY benefits from cover. Why would the rule say "attacked" when there are 2 more steps in the shooting phase (resolving hits and resolving wounds) before you even get to take an armor save? Now...did GW intend for it to only apply to pathfinders or the Devilfish...possibly, but the legal and intelligence communities will tell you intent is nearly impossible to prove with certainty. Did GW write the rule in such a way to only apply to Pathfinders or the Devilfish....definitively NO!


Ok so by your reasoning gun drones can't shoot if there's a friendly unit closer to them than the enemy because their rules state can only target closest unit in shooting phase misses out the word enemy?

You know RAI is meant to be the devilfish attacks ignore cover whilst the recon drone is embarked, I would let you argue that if a unit has a negative to hit modifier due to being in cover via a special rule that would also be ignored but anything else no.

Like I said come back to me when you find someone who'll let you do that, if you tried that in my gaming circle and we're overbearing and tried to insist on shenanigans like that you wouldn't be invited to game with us again...


Why would it stop applying to the pathfinder squad then? They used "attack" instead of hits or wounds for a reason. It makes no sense to use "attack" for just a single model/unit. Embarked drones are already counted as part of the Devilfish via the rules, so they would have said "this unit" if it was truly only for the devilfish. It would be a huge nerf if they only applied the benefits to a couple gun drones/SMS and a burst cannon. I don't think ignoring a +1 to save is shenanigans and thus far, I haven't seen any argument with rules precedent that negates the RAW.

Let's try not to get personal here. This is a rules discussion...I'd appreciate a bit more civility in your future posts.

Also, the entry I'm looking at for Threat Identification Protocols clearly states "nearest visible enemy unit" so I'm not sure where you're getting that example from...
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 509
Contact:

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#22 » Jan 22 2018 12:23

CDR_Farsight wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
RAW

Precedence for ignoring benefits for cover for only the weapons or shots from a single unit almost always state..."this unit/weapon" or "hits from this unit/weapon" or "wounds from this unit/weapon"

The rule for devilfish specifically states that units ATTACKED don't get ANY benefits from cover. Why would the rule say "attacked" when there are 2 more steps in the shooting phase (resolving hits and resolving wounds) before you even get to take an armor save? Now...did GW intend for it to only apply to pathfinders or the Devilfish...possibly, but the legal and intelligence communities will tell you intent is nearly impossible to prove with certainty. Did GW write the rule in such a way to only apply to Pathfinders or the Devilfish....definitively NO!


Ok so by your reasoning gun drones can't shoot if there's a friendly unit closer to them than the enemy because their rules state can only target closest unit in shooting phase misses out the word enemy?

You know RAI is meant to be the devilfish attacks ignore cover whilst the recon drone is embarked, I would let you argue that if a unit has a negative to hit modifier due to being in cover via a special rule that would also be ignored but anything else no.

Like I said come back to me when you find someone who'll let you do that, if you tried that in my gaming circle and we're overbearing and tried to insist on shenanigans like that you wouldn't be invited to game with us again...


Why would it stop applying to the pathfinder squad then? They used "attack" instead of hits or wounds for a reason. It makes no sense to use "attack" for just a single model/unit. Embarked drones are already counted as part of the Devilfish via the rules, so they would have said "this unit" if it was truly only for the devilfish. It would be a huge nerf if they only applied the benefits to a couple gun drones/SMS and a burst cannon. I don't think ignoring a +1 to save is shenanigans and thus far, I haven't seen any argument with rules precedent that negates the RAW.

Let's try not to get personal here. This is a rules discussion...I'd appreciate a bit more civility in your future posts.

Also, the entry I'm looking at for Threat Identification Protocols clearly states "nearest visible enemy unit" so I'm not sure where you're getting that example from...


Ok so let's start from the top the rules I have state.

A unit attacked by a devilfish with a MB3 recon drone embarked gain no benefit to their saving throws from being in cover.

You're saying that RAW if I shoot at a unit with 1 gun of said devilfish at a unit they can no longer claim any cover save what so ever?

Is that til the end of the phase? Battle round? The game? If I shoot at a unit this week when I play someone next year can I still claim the effects of that shot against the same unit? Because there's no timescales on that rule and you can't argue common sense because your argument is based on RAW not RAI why can 1 devilfish do the same as the 4th effect of our markerlight table?

GW are terrible at writing rules they put points into the dark angel codex for a model without rules!

To me this is clearly an oversight from GW and if there's a recon drone embarked on a devilfish the devilfish attacks ignore cover saves.

Also you mentioned nerf I am genuinely confused how ignoring cover even from just 12 str5 shots is a nerf?

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 260

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#23 » Jan 22 2018 12:37

Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Ok so by your reasoning gun drones can't shoot if there's a friendly unit closer to them than the enemy because their rules state can only target closest unit in shooting phase misses out the word enemy?

You know RAI is meant to be the devilfish attacks ignore cover whilst the recon drone is embarked, I would let you argue that if a unit has a negative to hit modifier due to being in cover via a special rule that would also be ignored but anything else no.

Like I said come back to me when you find someone who'll let you do that, if you tried that in my gaming circle and we're overbearing and tried to insist on shenanigans like that you wouldn't be invited to game with us again...


Why would it stop applying to the pathfinder squad then? They used "attack" instead of hits or wounds for a reason. It makes no sense to use "attack" for just a single model/unit. Embarked drones are already counted as part of the Devilfish via the rules, so they would have said "this unit" if it was truly only for the devilfish. It would be a huge nerf if they only applied the benefits to a couple gun drones/SMS and a burst cannon. I don't think ignoring a +1 to save is shenanigans and thus far, I haven't seen any argument with rules precedent that negates the RAW.

Let's try not to get personal here. This is a rules discussion...I'd appreciate a bit more civility in your future posts.

Also, the entry I'm looking at for Threat Identification Protocols clearly states "nearest visible enemy unit" so I'm not sure where you're getting that example from...


Ok so let's start from the top the rules I have state.

A unit attacked by a devilfish with a MB3 recon drone embarked gain no benefit to their saving throws from being in cover.

You're saying that RAW if I shoot at a unit with 1 gun of said devilfish at a unit they can no longer claim any cover save what so ever?

Is that til the end of the phase? Battle round? The game? If I shoot at a unit this week when I play someone next year can I still claim the effects of that shot against the same unit? Because there's no timescales on that rule and you can't argue common sense because your argument is based on RAW not RAI why can 1 devilfish do the same as the 4th effect of our markerlight table?

GW are terrible at writing rules they put points into the dark angel codex for a model without rules!

To me this is clearly an oversight from GW and if there's a recon drone embarked on a devilfish the devilfish attacks ignore cover saves.

Also you mentioned nerf I am genuinely confused how ignoring cover even from just 12 str5 shots is a nerf?


I agree it's a poorly written rule. We would not be having this discussion if it were not. I am simply pointing out that there is a precedence for the rule going the other way.

It is a nerf because the Recon drone has the ability to ignore cover for a 10man Pathfinder squad (or however many pathfinder squads you have) with Ion or Rail rifles (potentially 20 S5 shots or 14 S5 Shots and 3-9 more powerful shots instead of just 12 S5 shots max), and it would lose this benefit if it is embarked in a Devilfish. It's still a buff to the Devilfish; however, it is a nerf to the max usefulness of the drone itself. In all likely hood, the buff to the pathfinders is probably still supposed to be there which is why they used the verbiage they did. I'm not arguing intent; however, I'm arguing rules as written.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 509
Contact:

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#24 » Jan 22 2018 12:49

CDR_Farsight wrote:
I agree it's a poorly written rule. We would not be having this discussion if it were not. I am simply pointing out that there is a precedence for the rule going the other way.

It is a nerf because the Recon drone has the ability to ignore cover for a 10man Pathfinder squad (or however many pathfinder squads you have) with Ion or Rail rifles (potentially 20 S5 shots or 14 S5 Shots and 3-9 more powerful shots instead of just 12 S5 shots max), and it would lose this benefit if it is embarked in a Devilfish. It's still a buff to the Devilfish; however, it is a nerf to the max usefulness of the drone itself. In all likely hood, the buff to the pathfinders is probably still supposed to be there which is why they used the verbiage they did. I'm not arguing intent; however, I'm arguing rules as written.


Well no it's not going to buff the Pathfinders whilst embarked there's not a unit in the game that does that, that like saying putting a fireblade in the devilfish is a nerf to nearby gun drones

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 260

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#25 » Jan 22 2018 01:03

Nymphomanius wrote:
CDR_Farsight wrote:
I agree it's a poorly written rule. We would not be having this discussion if it were not. I am simply pointing out that there is a precedence for the rule going the other way.

It is a nerf because the Recon drone has the ability to ignore cover for a 10man Pathfinder squad (or however many pathfinder squads you have) with Ion or Rail rifles (potentially 20 S5 shots or 14 S5 Shots and 3-9 more powerful shots instead of just 12 S5 shots max), and it would lose this benefit if it is embarked in a Devilfish. It's still a buff to the Devilfish; however, it is a nerf to the max usefulness of the drone itself. In all likely hood, the buff to the pathfinders is probably still supposed to be there which is why they used the verbiage they did. I'm not arguing intent; however, I'm arguing rules as written.


Well no it's not going to buff the Pathfinders whilst embarked there's not a unit in the game that does that, that like saying putting a fireblade in the devilfish is a nerf to nearby gun drones


There are also no other units in the game that I know of that gain a buff from embarked units so there really isn't any precedence, making it all the more important for clear rules in this case.

There are; however, examples of embarked and footslogging variants that get the same buffs. The Overlord in a command barge retains the ability to buff a friendly Necron unit just as it does on foot but under a different rule name, but I wouldn't necessarily use that as precedence since it is two separate index entries.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3123

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#26 » Jan 22 2018 07:05

What an odd rule, I can see where both of you are coming from.

If the effect persisted beyond the attack made by the Devilfish though, it would read "Units that have been attacked by a Devilfish..."

User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 162

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#27 » Jan 23 2018 05:14

Wow. My brain hurts after reading and re-reading this conversation about the Recon drone. I really can't see what is the problem, the rule is super clear. Shoot with the Fish embarked by a Recon drone? Great, enemy don't get cover. Done. What is not clear?

Nitrogue
Shas
Posts: 88

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#28 » Jan 23 2018 08:22

Man this has gone off topic a bit, i don't have a devilfish so all this is a moot point for me.

Unless ive missed something, the recon drone's deny cover only affects nearby pathfinders, so my understanding would be the fish doesnt get the bonus

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3123

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#29 » Jan 23 2018 08:34

Nitrogue wrote:Man this has gone off topic a bit, i don't have a devilfish so all this is a moot point for me.

Unless ive missed something, the recon drone's deny cover only affects nearby pathfinders, so my understanding would be the fish doesnt get the bonus

Here's the summary:

1. Pathfinders near a Recon Drone ignore cover when shooting.

2. When a Recon Drone is embarked in a Devilfish, the Devilfish's weapons ignore cover when shooting.

3. A Recon Drone cannot shoot when embarked in a Devilfish.

4. A Recon Drone does not buff any units other than the Devilfish when embarked in a Devilfish.

Nitrogue
Shas
Posts: 88

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#30 » Jan 23 2018 09:36

[quote="Arka0415]
Here's the summary:

1. Pathfinders near a Recon Drone ignore cover when shooting.

2. When a Recon Drone is embarked in a Devilfish, the Devilfish's weapons ignore cover when shooting.

3. A Recon Drone cannot shoot when embarked in a Devilfish.

4. A Recon Drone does not buff any units other than the Devilfish when embarked in a Devilfish.[/quote]

Ok, hadnt looked at the devilfish datasheet (due to not having one and not looking at having one for the forseeable future). Thanks for clearing that mess up Arka.

Lore
Shas
Posts: 46

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#31 » Jan 23 2018 02:45

I like rail-rifles so I would field 5 pathfinders 3RR, Shas'ui + Recon drone & 4 markerlight drones. That way my 3RR can shoot ignoring cover & re-rolling 1s'. Further I can shed markerlight drones to protect my rifles.
But that's just me and I like RRs, try it and you may like them too.

User avatar
Krospgnasker
Shas
Posts: 44

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#32 » Jan 23 2018 02:58

Lore wrote:I like rail-rifles so I would field 5 pathfinders 3RR, Shas'ui + Recon drone & 4 markerlight drones. That way my 3RR can shoot ignoring cover & re-rolling 1s'. Further I can shed markerlight drones to protect my rifles.
But that's just me and I like RRs, try it and you may like them too.


How are you getting 5 drones on a single pathfinder squad?

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 557

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#33 » Jan 23 2018 03:13

Krospgnasker wrote:
Lore wrote:I like rail-rifles so I would field 5 pathfinders 3RR, Shas'ui + Recon drone & 4 markerlight drones. That way my 3RR can shoot ignoring cover & re-rolling 1s'. Further I can shed markerlight drones to protect my rifles.
But that's just me and I like RRs, try it and you may like them too.


How are you getting 5 drones on a single pathfinder squad?


What he stated is cheating but you can get a recon drone, grav drone, pulse accelerator drone and then 2 more from the tactical drones category for a total of 5.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3123

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#34 » Jan 23 2018 06:46

Yojimbob wrote:What he stated is cheating but you can get a recon drone, grav drone, pulse accelerator drone and then 2 more from the tactical drones category for a total of 5.

I don't think he's cheating :D but yeah, that would be the correct loadout.

For a Rail Rifle squad, I think I'd just run 2x Shield Drones and 1x Recon Drone though. Grav-Inhibitor might also be useful if you want your squad to aggressively get into rapid-fire range.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 509
Contact:

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#35 » Jan 24 2018 12:56

Arka0415 wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:What he stated is cheating but you can get a recon drone, grav drone, pulse accelerator drone and then 2 more from the tactical drones category for a total of 5.

I don't think he's cheating :D but yeah, that would be the correct loadout.

For a Rail Rifle squad, I think I'd just run 2x Shield Drones and 1x Recon Drone though. Grav-Inhibitor might also be useful if you want your squad to aggressively get into rapid-fire range.


Well legally you can't take 4 marker drones with a pathfinders team so yeah that would be illegal though if he meant instead that he takes a drone squad for markerlight support and uses them along side the pathfinder squad that would be fine, though without a drone controller for 4 marker drones you can get 5 Pathfinders who are more accurate so why take the 4 drones?

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3123

Re: Pathfinders' alternative weapons

Post#36 » Jan 24 2018 02:34

Nymphomanius wrote:Well legally you can't take 4 marker drones with a pathfinders team so yeah that would be illegal though if he meant instead that he takes a drone squad for markerlight support and uses them along side the pathfinder squad that would be fine, though without a drone controller for 4 marker drones you can get 5 Pathfinders who are more accurate so why take the 4 drones?

It's just that "cheating" implies malice or deceit, when I'm pretty sure this is an honest mistake.

At any rate, yeah, you could just buy more Pathfinders which would be more effective.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Finghain, LordValandil, Osocruel, Wes and 7 guests