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!
Speaking of tossers, GW really tossed everyone's salad when they wrote that new FAQ eh?
I mean come one, not only did they nerf pathfinders for no good reason(wasn't even a seldomly asked question or SAQ as far as I know), but somehow commander farsight, one of the greatest fire caste commanders of all time does not count as th 1+ fire caste commander.
Guess they go by a different version of "read as written" than do the rest of us. Another beef I have with the new FAQ is the little rule that says markerlights cannot benefit drones and their vehicles while they are still attached. I know they are treated as passengers if the vehicle is damaged, but it also says they fire as part of the vehicle, but using their own BS. Why then can they not use the same ML hit as the vehicle they are supposedly part of?
I'll tell you why, it's because GW found out that the Tau actually have a fighting chance against marine cheese lists like DPod Fotd, and Asscan lists.
Their all like "oooh we need to nerf the Tau because they stand a chance at tourneys and we can't have a filthy xenos army win any of our tournaments, quick nerf the pathfinders into oblivion and the vehicle drones and farsight in the new FAQ". "But sir, none of those are even questions we've received from players, so how can we put it in an FAQ?". "We don't have to explain our mystifying actions to our customers, we're GW and we're better than they are, besides, why are you asking me questions, shouldn't you be at the bannana farm picking our lunch?"
Hehe....SAQ...just sounds bad.
Not much of the FAQ bothers me, mainly because I never use pathfinders, or Farsight.
As for why Farsight needs another commander in the battle, (this is me grasping at straws here), but maybe they expect him to die at any moment (because of his aggressiveness) that they want another commander there to replace him.
Kinda a dumb rule if you ask me, but I'm sure that the guys at GW in all their "wisdom" saw a reason for it to be in the game.
I play my 40k with friendly fire.
Finally fixed the link!
Yeah we pretty much told the FAQ rules to ###k off... They are stupid... They are scouts... they get scout rule including the transport they are forced to buy... Commander Farsight can be fielded by himself... GW can go suck an egg... house rules say so!
Nerf my army will you? No methinks not... Unfortunately everywhere else I have to suffer the consequences... if my opponent knows about the FAQ... if not... I let it slide by :ninja:
The FAQ kinda feels like it was written using a Magic 8-ball, no ryme or reason to it at all.
Among the inane ruling:
*Pathfinders. This DID need a ruling, many people wondered. But they ruled the exact opposit way than the way most people called it. It also doesn't make much logical sense. they are forced to take a transport they also don't use, buyt design?
*Drones now count the same as the IC in CC. Beneficial in a lot of ways, but unexpected.
*Farsight needs a baby sitter. WHy? He ain't man enough to lead his own armies? He's too aloof to lead his own armies? Neither makes much sense. The most fluffy reason is the Dawn Blade has taken him over, and he's really just a bezerker in a crisis suit, but I think we all know that's not the case.
*Shadowsun can't join a squad, cuz of her drones. Effectively her drones are her retinue. Again, why? Other ICs with drones can join squads just fine. And why was this even a problem that had to be addressed? Was her joining a squad of stealths somehow abusive? It seemed just logical to me.
Just a lot of rulings that counterinutiive, assinine, or just plain silly.
Basically this means that the IC has to be in BTB to fight but the drones can fight as normal I/E fight in BTB or contribute attacks if it is within 2" of the other drone if the other drone is in BTB (two drones max can be taken by the commander) but the IC cannot contribute to the drones CC if he is within two inches and the drones CC wounds cannot be carried over to the IC.
So if a Shas'El with two drones and two bodyguards got in to a CC, the BG would fight there own CC, the Shas'EL would fight his and the drones would fight there own seperate CC, so effectively you would have three seperate CC's on the Tau side, any enemy model can choose to allocate its attacks to any model as long as its within 2" of them (i/e engaged in CC)
Yes, yes they do. The quote to watch is "The Commander and his drones count as one unit in CC" Which is the exact same phrase which they use in BGB to describe how IC's are seperate int he first place.
I've already argued this with you for pages and pages, I don't intend to again.
It does not say one unit it says seperate unit, and the rules for IC's in units are very clearly laid out in the BGB, the IC and drones form a SEPERATE unit and that seperate unit is just as obliged to follow the rules for IC's in assaults as any other unit the IC joins.
The way your painting it, makes the drones sound as if they are IC's they arent and the drones cannot take wounds for the commander, dont debate it thats fine, but you are not correct on this and its a very important point, because your basically saying the commander gets two extra wounds in CC and that is just not correct
A character can never have wounds suffered by a unit carried over onto him, this includes the drones, so the drones act as seperate unit for the purposes of CC, the only thing the FAQ is doing is claryfying that the controlled drones are not a part of the BG unit, they go with the commander as a unit, but that unit is still obliged to follow the rules for characters in CC because the rules apply to any unit with an IC, and the FAQ only states they form a seperate unit.
Please tell me where it says the drone/Commander unit is excluded from the rules on page 51 for assaults including units with characters, if you do not answer anything else answer that because your arguing a massive advantage for the commander and to do that you have to back it up.
I said I wasn't argue it with you again, and I'm not. All the salient point are to be had already on another thread.
You get in a mood sometimes, Riki, more often than not actually, though certainly not always, where you become entrenched in an opinion, and no amount of logic or pertinent points will move you, no matter how persuasive.
You're just wrong, and I'll leave it at that.
Riki is just confused.
Normally, drones don't count as IC's in combat, ie they don't have a seperate kill zone and can only attack in base to base.
Drones attached to IC's however are part of the IC's unit. Thus drones don't have to be in base contact to attack, but their IC controller does, also if a drone is in base contact and the IC controller isn't, but within 2", he can attack.
And yes pathfinders have been royally screwed. Pathfinders were never good in the first place, the FAQ has not made Tau less competitive. Yes the pathfinder devilfish was helpful against pod marines. I can see where you're coming from israfel420, but I disagree.
The Tau FAQ makes very little sense but don't let it get to you. The only use I ever had for the PF Devilfish's scout move was to get it moving fast for turn 1 and the drone ruling is strange but doesn't really change anything.
Commander Farsight not counting as a commander is going to be a classic blooper in the annals of GW rulemaking. :shifty:
"My tanks have names, my men have numbers." -Col. Edmund Grahvess, 23rd Kronecker Prison Guard