Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
It seems that everyone on this forum believes that gun drones carried on a Devil Fish or a Piranha yield kill points when killed. I understand the loose justification for this: i.e. they act as a separate unit and thus count as such when killed. But there are also some factors against it. One could easily argue that they are part of the Devil Fish. Yes, they act separately, but they are bought as part of the cost of the DF, they are part of the same unit entry. Much as it is quite clear that a Crisis suits drones are part of it's wargear, and not a retinue. It also makes no sense from a game design standpoint (and I understand that GW often does not follow logic, but still) that our transports should count for twice as much as everybody else's transports.
I have also failed to find a definitive ruling on this anywhere. It's not clearly delineated in either the BGB or the codex, and it's not addressed in either 5th edition errata or the codex for 5th errata or FAQs.
So why are you guys so sure they yield kill points? If you're looking at the same lines of text I am it doesn't seem very definitive at all. Where are you getting your information? Otherwise it seems very counter-intuitive to insist they count, like you are twisting the rules against yourself rather than for. I certainly would never make my opponent count them.
After they dismount from there DF or pran they become a gun drone squadron. That is where it is from.
I have to say that I have considered the same thing myself. The justification for this state of affairs is the entry in the Tau codex on page 30 which states that when they disembark from a vehicle they form an independent unit and function as a Drone squadron. Unfortunately the use of the word 'unit' has been construed to mean they do give up a kill point because the rules for kill point missions specifically state that each player is awarded a kill point for every destroyed 'unit'
The kill point rule is very broad in its definition, so basically it covers any 'unit'
I have had a similar problem with controlled Drones and target locks. The rules state that a target lock allows the bearer to fire at a different target from its unit, so an XV8 and its controlled Drones should be able to fire at a different target from its unit. Controlled Drones are wargear, So the XV8 and its Drones should be able to fire at a different target (I/E the XV8 and its Drones fire at a different target but the XV8 and Drone fire at the same target) . Errr no GW say that is not the case, so in this case a controlled Drone is not wargear but a part of the unit event though the rules say it is wargear. So is the Drone part of the unit or is it wargear
So my point is when is a unit a unit, if the codex explicitly states that an IC and controlled Drones form a unit then the XV8 should be able to use its target lock to fire at a different target to its Drone, but according to GW rulings I got via e-mail it cant its a unit but it isn't, makes complete sense doesn't it.
So is the unit of Drones formed after disembarkation a unit in the same way as say an infantry unit or is it like the IC Drone only a unit in certain circumstances but not others.
For instance it is not a Gun Drone squadron as defined in the codex because a GD squadron MUST be minimum 4 GD's strong. You cannot field a 2 strong Kroot squad for instance so you cannot field a 2 strong GD squadron, so what type of unit is it exactly. If it cannot be designated as an existing unit then it should not count for kill points. Functioning as is not the same as being.
There are many rules in the Tau codex that make no sense:
Stealth's so they provide a cover save to another unit when shot through?
Can you fire a twin linked weapon without a Multi tracker?
Do vehicle Drones count for kill points?
Do controlled Drones count as a unit when an IC uses a Target lock?
The rules can be specific but I have found that no matter how reasonable the argument you will just be knocking your haed against a brick wall. The Tau codex needs a serious update via a FAQ because as it stands it is simply unacceptable.
Monstien: they do not form a GD squadron, they function as one and that is a different thing.
Last edited by Rikimaru; July 6th, 2009 at 18:11. Reason: Edited for clarity regarding controlled Drones
Yeah, I get what you're saying both of you, it's just that on balance I can't come to the same decision, it's just too silly. I'm a big believer that when reading the rules so literally they become silly, well, stop.
As Riki said, it acts as a gun drone squadron, but it is not a gun drone squadron. So....
The thing is this really, really matters. I'm playing in the "'Ard boys" tournament this weekend. Scenario 2 has fast attack choices counting as 2 kill points. So my pathfinder and it's DF, 2 points each. Worse, if this works the way some here would have it, does that then mean that my one Pathfinder choice is now worth 6 pts if killed completely? The piranha would be worth 4? That's half the cost of some of the marine armies I will be playing! I just don't buy it, it doesn't pass the ridiculous test. Worse yet, if one were to buy Monstein's argument, that they "become a gun drone squad" Well, a gun drone squad is fast attack slot, so that would make even my troops' DF worth 3 pts each.
This would be a stunningly crippling thing for GW to do to Tau. Of course, they didn't do it on purpose, but GW has a habit of making very bad decisions by accident and then sticking with them.
That's why I was wondering if there was any official word on this subject. It sounds like there is not. And if there's not, then it's ambiguous. And if it's ambiguous, I choose to go with the less ridiculous option. I don't think that's unreasonable.
I actually agree that drones are wargear and that they can't fire separate from their owner. It's consistent, and for the best, in the end. Besides, this is rarely that important.
Riki, I saw your thread on twin-linking. I don't want to re-open that argument, but while I find your digging an literal interpretation of the rules interesting, I can't support it. Twin-linked weapons on a crisis count as one weapon, but use two slots. You don't need anything special to fire the one twin-linked weapon. I think everyone understands this pretty intuitively. If you need a fall back rule, the BGB makes clear that twin-linked are fired as one weapon, but I frankly wouldn't worry about it as no one is going to try to deny you this, ever. Leave it be and fight in "peace".
Like I said, when you're reading the rules so literally that they become silly, well, you should stop.
It's been some years, Riki.
I have not been able to find an official ruling from the 'Ard Boyz crew on the topic, so I've been testing on the assumption that the detatched drones will, in fact, give up 2 KPs. To be hones, my list has gotten better because of it.
I fight for the Greater Good. Too bad for you it's MY Greater Good.
Snow Forces of T'olku W/L/D : 3-4-2... I like to think I'm learning, though.
Are you doing that just as a precaution, in case a judge rules against you, or do you really feel that drones should cost kill points?
When things are ambiguous like this, I can't understand ruling against yourself, particularly when that seems the more "out there" interpretation.
Are you agreeing with me? I can't quite tell.
Yes, I thought about that, what if they are never attached due to being destroyed? Of course, on or the other of them usually will survive. But doesn't that just add to the silliness, that you should hope for their destruction?