Librarium Online Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Markerlight Drones a problem

2.3K views 29 replies 9 participants last post by  DavidWC09  
#1 ·
Over the last six or so months because of work and family commitments I have mainly been playing games in my small 40K group. These are usually friendly games and are quite easy going affairs; however just lately I have been playing more competitive games at my local GW and I am aiming to start tournie play again. The problem I have encountered is with this unit:

Stealth team
5 X Stealth suits with BC
1 X team leader with Target lock, HW Drone controller and Marker Drone

Now in my friendly games we use the rule that the team leader and Drone can fire at a separate target to the rest of the unit if required. However the team leader and Drone must fire at the same target. However a couple of opponents from outside my group have disputed this by saying that the Drone is a member of the unit and it should must fire at the same target as the rest of the Stealth team because the Target lock only allows the model equipped with it to fire at a separate target. My view is that the Drone is wargear of the controlling model and so must fire at the unit the 'controlling' model is firing at because they control it (I must point out that others outside my group agree with me)

Now I have re-read the rules concerning:

(1) Drones
(2) Drone controllers
(3) Target locks

While it seems straight forward the rules as written do throw up one inconsistency (discussed later). To start with let us look at a Stealth team leader, if he takes a HW controlled Marker Drone it is classed as wargear, this means:

(1) The Drone is removed if the controller dies
(2) It is counted when assessing for casualty moral tests (however it does not state it is a unit member 'important')
(3) The Drone must maintain coherency with the unit the controlling model is in

So let us take a situation where the team leader with his Drone is the only member of the team left. Could it fire at a different target to the Drone? I do not think it could because (and here is one of those inconsistencies) the only rules reference to Drones and a controlling model forming a unit is regarding independent characters (page 31 tau codex).

The IC rules state that an IC and controlled Drones form a 'unit' that can join other units.
So from this we can rightly infer that a non IC model with controlled Drones 'do not' form a unit.
If they do not form a unit then the Drone must (by virtue of being wargear) fire at the same target as its controlling model. If the model with the Drone has and uses a Target lock then it and the Drone must fire a the same target and the rest of the unit fires at the other target.

The rules for the Target lock state that the model with the Target lock can fire at a different target to the rest of 'its unit'' however controlled Drones are never stated as being classed as members of a unit, only that they must maintain coherency with the unit the model is in that is controlling them. This rule implies a status of being outside the unit because if the controlling model moved the Drones would have to stay in coherency with a different unit (hope that makes sense)

The oddity here is that the IC could in theory fire at a different target to that of its Drones but this throws up more confusion. I am of the mind that the Drone/IC forming a unit rule is there for assault purposes because the IC assault rules in the main rule book state that an IC is only ever a single model for assault purposes and the Tau codex rule is there to avoid any confusion (I/E the Shas'El/O would fight as a separate unit to its Drones and the other unit members). So I think the Drones would fire at the same target as the IC because they are wargear controlled by him and not (for shooting purposes) individual entities.

The rules on page 31 never state that the controlled Drone is a member of the unit, only that it is 'counted' when casualties are assessed, for contesting objectives and for victory points purposes. It quite clearly states and I quote " the unit they are with", this phrase and the 'counted' phrase seem to indicate that the Drones are not members of the unit because if they were then why the clarifying text above?

I think it makes more sense that a controlled Marker Drone would fire at the same target as the model who 'controls' it. This would mean that the controlling model and Drone would have to fire at the same target if a Target lock was utilised.
This has its ups and downs, basically the controlling model will in all likely hood have wasted its shots (ML on a vehicle for instance, or out or range especially in the Stealth's case with its BC) but on the plus side it does allow for some unit versatility in that the unit can still shoot one target while ML,ing another target.

So what are the feelings on this one? I feel that the way I play it makes more sense but I want to gauge the opinions on this before I get back into Tournie play because the Marker Drone is a big part of my list and I want to play it correctly.

On a side note can we please keep this discussion civil, if anyone wants to argue rather than discuss can you PLEASE PM me. I am not saying this is how 'it should' be played I am asking for opinions so I can make a decision. I am asking for help:act-up::act-up:
 
#2 ·
Myself, I've not seen any reason to treat the drone itself as "wargear". The item called the "Drone Controller" would be wargear, it just happens to add a model to the unit.

Also, you state yourself, only the model with the Target Lock may choose another target. As the drone fires with the "unit", and the Team Leader does not qualify as a unit unto himself (unless all the others are dead), the drone can't benefit from the leader's TL.

I think, mainly, your confusing yourself by defining the drone as gear, when it is clearly another model.
 
Save
#4 · (Edited)
The Drone is wargear, it is listed as an option in the wargear section of the armoury on page 25, it is pretty unambiguous and clear that a Marker light Drone selected for control by a Drone controller is indeed wargear.

Also where does it say a controlled Drone fires with the unit? if we had a lone XV8 the Drone would fire at the target the XV8 fires at, even if the XV8 had a Target lock because as far as non IC models go the controlling model and the Drones are not a unit but are in fact a model with wargear (you would not class a Multi tracker as a separate model and they are exactly the same thing in game definition 'wargear'). Just because the Drone is a separate model (in modelling terms) it does not mean that it is classed as separate from the model controlling it, so the Drones must fire at the same target the controlling model fires at.

A controlled Drone is not autonomous, it cannot make decisions for itself, it is controlled. This means that for it to fire with the other members of the unit it would have to be controlled by them or make decisions for itself. The codex states that Drones have to be networked with other Drones to make decisions (or be autonomous), controlled Drones are under the control of the model with the controller and thus they engage whatever he does. The only place this differs is in assault where Drones are programmed to protect the Tau.

Zen: Thanks for your reply. As far as the IC and unit thing goes; well I think (and I am only stating my assumption and am not saying I am correct etc on this) that it only makes the unit differentiation because of the IC assault rules and to avoid problems with the Drones being classed as a retinue (which they are not) which would prevent the Shas'El/O joining another unit. I agree with you that as far as shooting is concerned then the Drones are classed as wargear and would shoot at the same target as the El/O.
This problem with assault does not arise for normal XV8's because all the models fight together (note I did not say as a unit) and there is no precedence for the controlling XV8 to fight as a lone unit (as per IC's) and the normal XV8 does not leave or join other units.

Oh and do you really think that a new codex would answer all the problems? Or do you think it would just create a whole slew of new ones? (I know which I think would be the case)
 
#3 · (Edited)
Riki,

I agree with you that the way you are playing it (drone must fire at same target as controlling model) makes more sense and is likely correct.

However, I don't see any indisputable rules that convince me one way or the other, and I am not convinced that GW has ever considered this situation. Without definite rules, either way is technically "correct", so generally it should simply be agreed upon at the start of a game.

Just for the sake of trying to improve your argument, I do not agree with the statement quoted below.

The IC rules state that an IC and controlled Drones form a 'unit' that can join other units.
So from this we can rightly infer that a non IC model with controlled Drones 'do not' form a unit.
Reading that statement, I come to the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the fact that an IC and drone form a unit must mean that non-IC and drone must also form a unit even though it is not explicitly stated.

Of course, there are no rules for sub-units and so it is still ambiguous.

Regardless, I think it makes the most sense for the drone to have to fire at the same target that it's controlling model fires at. At the same time however I don't think there are any indisputable rules one way or the other, and this is just one of those things that will have to be agreed upon at the start of a battle until GW clarifies it, which will probably never happen before the next Tau codex comes out. Hopefully it will all be streamlined then.
 
Save
#5 ·
The way I usually play this set-up is to have the MDs fire at the same unit as the squad members while the guy with the Target Lock gets to fire at something else. My reasoning behind this is the wording in the Target Lock rules which says that the model with the TL gets to fire at a different enemy unit
to that engaged by the rest of its own unit
As I see it, adding drones under the command of a drone controller is the same as adding members to a unit, although they're only really now important when deciding if the unit has to take a Morale Check for 25% casualties. However, in this light they are considered as part of the unit. Going back to the Target Lock wording: the TL user gets to shoot at something other than that targeted by the rest, ie all the other models, of the unit. It doesn't say that his drones can.

Normally drones will require regular orders from a Tau
Who's to say that the T-Ldr isn't telling them to "ML that lot over there while I do this lot over here" :p

E.
 
Save
#7 · (Edited)
The way I usually play this set-up is to have the MDs fire at the same unit as the squad members while the guy with the Target Lock gets to fire at something else. My reasoning behind this is the wording in the Target Lock rules which says that the model with the TL gets to fire at a different enemy unit

As I see it, adding drones under the command of a drone controller is the same as adding members to a unit, although they're only really now important when deciding if the unit has to take a Morale Check for 25% casualties. However, in this light they are considered as part of the unit. Going back to the Target Lock wording: the TL user gets to shoot at something other than that targeted by the rest, ie all the other models, of the unit. It doesn't say that his drones can.



Who's to say that the T-Ldr isn't telling them to "ML that lot over there while I do this lot over here" :p

E.
Here's the relevant text from the codex.

The rule doesn't say anything about any other models at all. If it meant for controlled drones to fire at the same unit as the target lock-equipped model, the rule would say so. But because it doesn't, only the target lock-equipped model gets the benefit of the wargear. Drones do not also benefit. They are models helping to compose the rest of its (the model with the target lock) own unit.

Both the RAW, and Occam's Razor "the simplest solution". Any other interpretation requires more convoluted logic and arguments to support.
Excellent points from all involved.

However the wording of the rules for controlled Drones says they are 'counted when assessing if the unit they are with' for casualty, objective and kill point purposes. You have to consider why this wording is included in the rules, if the Drones are a part of the unit full stop then the rule would simply say that the Drones are treated as part of the unit in all instances.

The Drones are not added to the unit then they would be left as a part of the unit when the controlling model was killed (think about that carefully). Drones are war-gear and are a part of the controlling model, they are 'with' the unit because the model controlling them is a part of the unit (a subtle but important difference). This does not make them a 'part of the unit' and nowhere in the codex does it ever say that controlled Drones are a part of a unit with one exemption IC controlled Drones (which I alluded to in the earlier posts).
If a target lock was not taken then it is moot the ML Drone fires at the same target as the unit because the controlling model must do so as well.

Eigle your last comment is not rules based, it is wishful thinking (though very sensible wishful thinking and this is not a criticism). I am going solely by the rules and the rules state that the Target lock allows the bearer to fire at a different target to that of the other members of its unit. Controlled Drones are war-gear and not members of the unit so it should be firing at the same target the controlling model fires at (this goes for Gun Drones as well).

Look at it this way the Multi-tracker allows the firing of two battlesuit weapons, now we assume that because the Multi tracker is wargear that it can only be utilised by the model wearing it do we not?
The Multi-tracker cannot be used to by another XV8 in the bearers unit to fire two of its Battle-suit weapons, why? Because it is war-gear and is a part of the bearers equipment. Well the same applies to controlled Drones, they are a part of the Battle-suit that selected them and are not under control of the rest of the unit or a part of the unit because they are war-gear. I think the key here is the war-gear point and it is very clear that controlled Drones are war-gear.

To summarise this war-gear point:

Controlled Drones are 'Battle-suit war-gear' as per page 25 of the Tau codex.

The rules for Controlled Drones states that they are only ''counted when assessing if the unit they are with etc", it does not say they are a 'part' of the unit only 'with' the unit. As an illustration of this I will use a real world analogue to the rules. I can be 'with' an army unit but not 'part' of the unit (observer, photographer, advisor etc). If the army unit got attacked and I was injured I would be counted as a casualty but I would still not be part of the unit and my casualty status could affect the moral of the unit (the 25% test analogue) but I am still not a part of the unit. The Drone rules only state the Drone is with the unit not part of the unit.

Target lock allows the bearer to target a different unit to the rest of its unit. War-gear is not a part of a unit.
In an XV8 unit of three, the XV8 with the Target lock can fire at a different target to the other two XV8's, as they are members of its unit. A Multi tracker is war-gear but it is not a part of the unit and the same applies to controlled Drones, any items of war-gear are never part of a unit 'ever'.
 
#6 ·
Here's the relevant text from the codex.
BRB p. 28 said:
This specialized target acquisition system enables the model to target a separate enemy unit to that engaged by the rest of its own unit.
The rule doesn't say anything about any other models at all. If it meant for controlled drones to fire at the same unit as the target lock-equipped model, the rule would say so. But because it doesn't, only the target lock-equipped model gets the benefit of the wargear. Drones do not also benefit. They are models helping to compose the rest of its (the model with the target lock) own unit.

Both the RAW, and Occam's Razor "the simplest solution". Any other interpretation requires more convoluted logic and arguments to support.
 
Save
#10 ·
One problem I have with saying that the drones must fire at the same target as their owner is this: would that then not lose the advantage of having the MD *and* its owner ML'ing separate targets?

I just don't see this "MD must target same unit as owner" bit as being the correct interpretation. If all the MLs fire at the one target, using the owner's Target Lock facility, then what I would be using that for is to light up that target for *other* units rather than the Stealths. If you however wanted to use the NWMLs to boost the BS of the Stealths, then following the same argument that " T-Ldr and Drones must fire at the same target"the whole unit including the owner with the TL would be firing at the same target, which to me seems to make a mockery of taking the Target Lock in the first place.

E.
 
Save
#11 ·
Well the Marker light Drone has a networked Markerlight, This means that it can mark for its own unit or another unit. If like me you take a Stealth team with the team leader with a Marker Drone and TL it allows you to have the Stealth's attack one unit while the ML Drone(and controller) marks another unit.
This allows for versatility because often the ML token is best used elsewhere (to light up a unit that is getting close to a unit of FW's for instance). if the TL does not work as I think it does then the Drone is always firing at the same target as the Stealth's which really restricts its usefulness as Stealth's are pretty crap against armour etc.
The point for taking the TL is not to allow the Stealth's to benefit from the ML (they can anyway) but to allow another unit to benefit from it while the Stealth's still do their job.

If the controller took a Marker light and an ML Drone (controller with TL) then it would have to ML the same unit as the ML Drone. So it is not all pluses, the other downside is that often the team leader will not be able to fire its own weapon.
 
#12 ·
I was just looking through the Tau codex when I noticed something. Page 63 there is a Stealth unit that comprises of:

Three man Stealth team
Shas'Vre with burst cannon, bonding knife, drone controller, Marker Drone, hard-wired target lock.
2 X Shas'Ui with burst cannons.

Why has the Shas'Vre got a target lock I ask? It has the same Burst cannon as the other members of the unit, so nothing is really gained by the ability to split the fire of three Burst cannons.
I think it is so the Vre and the Drone can target a separate unit, I can see no other valid reason for the taking of the target lock. Also it is telling how the ML Drone comes in the Stealth kit and the Codex has the Stealth with a target lock and ML Drone.

Just an observation

(I double posted to prevent the previous post becoming even longer)
 
#13 ·
I wouldn't go reading *too* much into that, Riki.
1) what is the point of having the 'Vre upgrade anyway?
2) the Crisis team beside the Stealths has only one multitracker between the members, yet the unit has six weapons
3) the Skyray is misquoted in its points total and
4) one of the Broadsides doesn't have a 3rd hardpoint mentioned.

E.
 
Save
#14 · (Edited)
Oh I agree that GW are renowned for problems like the ones you mentioned. However I am simply saying that it is telling that the Stealth kit comes with a Marker Drone and the set up illustrated happens to include a target lock that has no other real use than to provide the ability for the Drone and its controller to mark other units.
While the other errors are indeed bad it does not change the fact that the target lock is there and as you said yourself why take a TL.
For instance even though it would make sense for the XV8 team to all have Multi's the fact is that the build with the Multi is correct and the multi is taken for a reason (to allow the suit to fire its two weapons). The same goes for the Stealth's though we may not agree with the set up (Vre, BK etv) the fact is the target lock is there, it is not an illegal build (and the other errors do not make it so) and you have to ask yourself why?
 
#15 ·
So anyone actually got in touch with the rules boys and just asked?

Really its a simple question.

"Drones are purchased as wargear, do they count as wargear or another model in the unit. And must they fire at the same target as the model that purchased them or the unit they belong to in the case of target locks."

Or to make it even simpler but might not get your actual question answered.

"Do drones count as wargear for the model with the drone controller or additional models in the unit"
 
#16 ·
Just try it, go contact the "rules gurus" at GW twice, talk to two different people and get two different answers. It also does not help when playing in tournies because unless it is FAQ'd the judges on the day will use their discretion and you saying that the rules boys at GW said so and so will not make a bit of difference.

Anyway to answer your question for you controlled Drones do count as war-gear, they are listed under the war-gear section of the codex and anything listed under that heading is classed as war-gear. If it was not war-gear it would not be included in said category.
 
#17 ·
Some things to think about:

5ed rulebook, models&units, characteristic profiles. Pages 3-6. Or what i want to point is that each drone is a model. With it's own base too. If it can exists on its own is something else.

The type of a model in a unit in the given above cases is as owner. (So jet-pack or infantry).

Is a single stealth suit with drone(s) a unit? Yes it is. Can you declare that the unit will fire at unit A. Yes you can. Then can you declare that the suit with TL fires at unit B. In this given case the drone is the rest of the unit or maybe it doesnt exist?

Lets follow your logic, if you ever consider taking a drone as a simple wargear and not a model which is part of the unit you should consider the following: This means you are taking more weapons, thus a xv with 2 gun drones can not fire any weapons if both drones fire even with multitracker. (and only one drone can fire if he doesnt have it ...). So it will not be bad to take the disadvantages of the tricky things you would like to use. It would also assume that this weapon will fire at controlling bs (xvs), will benefit from targeting array, target lock etc. The drone shouldnt be counted in cc at all too ... You wouldnt even be able to allocate a wound on a shield drone at all(because it is a wargear and not a model in your unit and you allocate wounds to the models in the target unit ...). Do you play it like this? Hell why the shield drones even exist???

Take also a look at the sniper drone team, each drone has a ta and lock, why wouldnt only the controller have them?
 
#18 · (Edited)
Some things to think about:

5ed rulebook, models&units, characteristic profiles. Pages 3-6. Or what i want to point is that each drone is a model. With it's own base too. If it can exists on its own is something else.
The argument here is nothing to do with is the Drone is physically a model in its own right, it is to do with the fact that the Drone is wargear and is under the control of another model.

The type of a model in a unit in the given above cases is as owner. (So jet-pack or infantry).
Yeah and your point is what? Nobody is disputing that the controlled Drone is the same unit type as its controller. What about when an XV8 Shas'El with controlled Drone joins a unit of Fire Warriors? does the Drone become the same unit type as the FW's? no it does not, it stays the same unit type as the Shas'El.

Is a single stealth suit with drone(s) a unit? Yes it is
Actually no it isn't. Please show me where it says that a controlled war-gear choice Drone and its controller form a unit? The only time a Controlled war-gear choice Drone and controlling model form a unit is if the controlling model is a Shas'El or Shas'O (page 31 codex). Please note I said war-gear choice controlled Drone.

Can you declare that the unit will fire at unit A. Yes you can. Then can you declare that the suit with TL fires at unit B. In this given case the drone is the rest of the unit or maybe it doesnt exist?
Err no you cannot, the Stealth and the wargear Drone are not a unit. So the Stealth cannot utilise its Target lock to fire at a different target to the rest of its non-existent unit. Of course it exists but it is a controlled piece of wargear, you know like the robots our military utilise to explode bombs etc (or are they fully paid up members of the unit with all the associated pay, medical, leave and pension benefits :act-up:)

Lets follow your logic, if you ever consider taking a drone as a simple wargear and not a model which is part of the unit you should consider the following: This means you are taking more weapons,
No it means I am taking a controlled Drone as wargear that is armed with weapons

thus a xv with 2 gun drones can not fire any weapons if both drones fire even with multitracker. (and only one drone can fire if he doesnt have it ...).
Some strange logic there. A mutli tracker allows the firing of "two battle-suit mounted weapon systems". Controlled Gun or Marker Drones are not battle-suit mounted weapon systems. Controlles Drones are controlled by the XV8 they are not mounted on the XV8, all it means is they do as the XV8 says and this means that they go and do as the XV8 does. The target lock allows the XV8 to fire at a different target to the rest of the unit (this means other XV8's or in the case of an IC any unit it joins) the Drones are controlled by the XV8 not the unit the XV8 is with therefore it makes sense that the Drones targets the unit the controlling XV8 does.
So it will not be bad to take the disadvantages of the tricky things you would like to use. It would also assume that this weapon will fire at controlling bs (xvs), will benefit from targeting array, target lock etc.
Dude on what exactly are you basing these massive assumptions. Why would a controlled Drone fire at the controlling models BS. The TA grants "the user" +1 BS. The target lock allows it to target a different unit to the one its unit is firing at. The Drone is not a member of the unit, it is WITH the unit its controller is in. If the other members of the squad were killed and the controlling model and its Drone survived then the Target lock would be of no use (unless the controlling model was an Independent character)

The drone shouldnt be counted in cc at all too ...
Errrr why? What does a target lock have to do with close combat?

You wouldnt even be able to allocate a wound on a shield drone at all(because it is a wargear and not a model in your unit and you allocate wounds to the models in the target unit ...). Do you play it like this? Hell why the shield drones even exist???
Who says war-gear cannot be a model? Controlled Drones are counted as WITH the unit their controller is in. They can be shot at, assaulted and are counted when resolving the casualties of the unit the Drone is with. The Drone is with the assaulted unit so it is perfectly legal to assault it and the Drone fights using its own WS etc. However if the controller dies the Drone is removed. Shield Drones exist because they are a handy example of wargear used to protect the model controlling them.

Take also a look at the sniper drone team, each drone has a ta and lock, why wouldnt only the controller have them?
Because a Sniper Drone is not wargear and they are a unit because their codex entry says they are (not a scoring unit but a unit none the less). This is why I have not included Sniper Drone teams, they are unique. They have their own rules which mean they can utilise the Target lock and ML because their Codex entry says they are a unit.

Like I said Sniper Drones are unique, they are not selected as war-gear and they are equipped with the TL. They are under the control of a Drone controller but have the added handy ability to target different targets to their controller because they have the equipment and their codex entry allows them to do so (in just the same way that Shadow-suns codex entry treats her and her controlled Drones uniquely, don't believe me check out the GW FAQ).

It should be noted that if the codex entry did not make it clear that the Sniper team was non scoring unit then the Drones would not have been able to benefit from the networked ML either.

Another example is the Gun Drone it can be selected as Wargear but it also has a codex entry that allows them to be selected as a unit. The Codex entry gives us the option to take a unit of Drones to which all unit rules apply.

Remember I am talking about controlled Drones taken from the war-gear list and Sniper Drones do not fall under that category
 
#19 ·
To be short:

Wound allocation goes only for the models in the unit (not the ones with the unit). Also if the drones are wargear than you have to follow the rule that you can fire only one weapon per model, even if it has 50 weapons (the multitracker overrides this rule but as you stated it is only for battlesuit weapons, so .....)

So using your interpretation:
a) you can not allocate wounds to drones, because they are not part of the unit (and there is no sentence in the tau codex which says they can take wounds although they are not part of the unit - casualties they can be because when the drone controller dies they die too).
b) when your markerdrone fires, it is actually your model firing with its wargear , so he(the drone controlling suit) cant use any other weapons.

What i say is if you want to play your way, you will have to take the bad sides too otherwise you are using a term known as cheating.
 
#21 ·
To be short:

Wound allocation goes only for the models in the unit (not the ones with the unit). Also if the drones are wargear than you have to follow the rule that you can fire only one weapon per model, even if it has 50 weapons (the multitracker overrides this rule but as you stated it is only for battlesuit weapons, so .....)
An XV8 can fire one of its battle-suit weapons per turn unless it has a Multi. I repeat the Drone is not a battle-suit weapon system, please go get your codex, look at the armoury and note the two distinct categories (1) Battle-suit weapon systems and (2) Battle-suit War-gear, please note which category the Drones are listed under. It is a Drone with weapons of its own. Sorry dude you are stretching here.

Wound allocation: As for your wound allocation point the codex addresses this by specifically stating that Drones are counted when determining casualties for moral purposes etc. This is telling you that Drones can be casualties, just the same as the Shield Drone entry says that it has the same TGH and SV as the individual it accompanies, thus confirming that for wounding purposes the Shield Drone has the same values as its controller and thus can be a target in either close combat or shooting.
Controlled Drones are accompanying a unit, they can be targeted and they count as casualties in the listed circumstances, this does not mean however that they are a part of the unit. Controlled Drones accompany the model they are with and they accompany the unit.
So using your interpretation:
No using the rules as written, with supporting evidence
a) you can not allocate wounds to drones, because they are not part of the unit (and there is no sentence in the tau codex which says they can take wounds although they are not part of the unit - casualties they can be because when the drone controller dies they die too).
Explained above.
b) when your markerdrone fires, it is actually your model firing with its war-gear , so he(the drone controlling suit) cant use any other weapons.
No it is the Drone firing its weapons while under the control of a model with a Drone controller (because it does not have a target lock so it must fire at the same target as its controller because it is its war-gear), it is firing at the same target as the controller but it is firing its weapons, just as it is using its own jetpack to move around where the controlling model moves.
Look at it this way a unit of FW's fire at the same target their commanding officer does, they are under the control of the FW commander but does that mean the FW commander is firing the FW's weapons? No of course it doesn't. Just because a Drone is under the control of the controller it does not meant he controller is firing its weapons. The same applies to the Shield Drone which would move to take a shot aimed at its controller, it does not need to be told to do so but it is still under the control of its controlling model.

What i say is if you want to play your way, you will have to take the bad sides too otherwise you are using a term known as cheating.
I will ignore the cheating remark. I am not playing "my way" I am playing the way the rules say. You have an erroneous notion that a controlled Drone is a battle-suit weapon system (which it plainly is not) and therefore must fall under the rules for firing battle-suit weapons, which is not the case and you also have the idea that the Tau codex does not state that Drones can be wounded, which again is wrong because it plainly states that Drones casualties must be taken into account when testing for moral etc (page 31 Tau codex).
If you wish to continue debating the points then please come up with some accurate relevant points, not being facetious here, I just do not want to bog the thread down arguing your clearly inaccurate points (for instance your idea that Drones are Battlesuit weapon systems).

A-Tau: No the unit is three XV8's with 2 controlled war-gear choice Drones. The rule simply states that the Drones "are counted" when casualties are worked out. Think of it this way if the unit is as you assume simply a unit, then why go to the trouble of stating that the Drones are counted.
The Drone rules would simply have stated that "Drones are members of the unit in all cases", however it does not state that, it states that they are simply counted with the units casualties. So for instance we have a unit of two XV8's with two Drones and lost two Drones and the unit needed to be assessed for victory point purposes. In this case if the Drones were not counted then the unit would be worth no VP points, because the Drones would not be counted as losses from the starting strength of the unit (war-gear) however the rule states that they have to be counted so the unit has lost more than 50% of its strength and would be worth 50% VP's.

If they simply were members of the unit then like I said it would have been much easier to say they form a unit just like it does in the independent character rules and Shadowsuns rules, but it doesn't does it? why? because controlled war-gear Drones are NOT members of the unit, they accompany a unit or individual, which is different
 
#20 ·
on page 31 second paragraph on the little drone deal "Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assessing if the unti they are with should take a moral check haven taken 25% caulalties" ergo the do count toward unit size. so a 3 man /crisis team with 2 drones is a 5 man unit
 
#22 ·
5ed rulebook. Page 3:
In warhammer 40k , we represent this by grouping models together into units.

page 16, Which models can fire
page 25, wound allocation.
 
#23 ·
5ed rulebook. Page 3:
In warhammer 40k , we represent this by grouping models together into units.
Aaaand your point is what?.
Tau codex page 31 "Drones under the command of a Drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit they are with". Note the distinction "unit they are with" not "their unit" or "if the unit takes casualties" but 'unit they are with'.

Page 31 Tau codex "unit types", note that the unit type is noted "as owner" not "as unit the controller is within" but simply as the owner. An XV8 commander is jump infantry, so is its controlled Drone. If the commander joins a Fire Warrior unit (which it can do) its Drone does not become unit type "Infantry" no it stays as the owner "jump infantry". When said commander leaves the unit the Drones go with him.

Unit is a catch all phrase but the point you keep missing is that the controlled Drone is war-gear and while it may physically be "in the unit" it is not a "member' of the unit" (subtle and obviously hard to grasp difference). It accompanies the unit solely because its controller is a part of the unit. If the controller dies the Drones are removed, why are the Drones removed? because they are not members of the unit they are controlled pieces of war-gear which count towards casualty calculations and the controlling model is no longer controlling them.
page 16, Which models can fire
The controlling model is within the unit, the Drones that the controlling model controls are 'with' the unit. They fire at the same target their controller does, which is usually the same target the other unit members are firing at. If the controlling model has a Target lock and fires at a different target the Drones fire at his target.
The Drones are with the unit by virtue of being controlled by the member of the unit with the controller, hence they are in the unit but like I said they are in but not members of the unit.
page 25, wound allocation.
I explained this earlier (cut and pasted below)

Wound allocation: As for your wound allocation point the codex addresses this by specifically stating that Drones are counted when determining casualties for moral purposes etc. This is telling you that Drones can be casualties, just the same as the Shield Drone entry says that it has the same TGH and SV as the individual it accompanies, thus confirming that for wounding purposes the Shield Drone has the same values as its controller and thus can be a target in either close combat or shooting.
Controlled Drones are accompanying a unit, they can be targeted and they count as casualties in the listed circumstances, this does not mean however that they are a part of the unit. Controlled Drones accompany the model they are with and they accompany the unit.


You need to remember that the game is split into two books for any army, the main 40K rule book for general rules and the armies Codex for "army specific" rules. Take for instance the 4th edition where Independent characters could not be singled out if they were members of a unit. Specific rule and very clear, no ambiguity at all, however guess what the Vindicare assassin could do? yep it could target independent characters irrespective of any targeting restrictions (still can actually) in direct contradiction to the rule in the 40K rule book. This is an example of Codex rules overriding BGB rules and the rules for controlled Drones are an example of this.
 
#26 ·
Yes you made a strong point for your misunderstanding of the core rules of the game.

Everything in the game is either a unit (of grouped models fighting together) or referred as a model, as already stated on page 3. Reffered concerns IC, monsters and vehiles.

In order to play the game you have movement,shooting and assault phase in several turns. In each of the turns and phases you operate your units by either moving shooting or assaulting them one by one. The key here is unit. You are not allowed to operate with anything other than a unit. If you really want try to count how many times the term unit is used in both the core rulebook and the tau codex.

This is the basics of the game.

Now the tau part - a drone is a model be it marker sniper shield or gun. It can be attached(attached is used in the stealth suits rule of infiltrate) to unit by the means of the device known as drone controller. The attached drones must always be with the model which has the device. They have their separate equipement. If he(the drone controller) is an IC - they are with him, if he is a part of the unit they must be with him, thus with the unit. In both cases we have grouped models fighting together - unit. NOWHERE IN THE CODEX THERE IS A SINGLE SENTENCE STATING THE DRONES ARE NOT A PART OF THE UNIT.

You didnt explain the term wargear because you cant. I will still let you search the books however.

Now lets discuss page 31, drones, which is your main way to try to cheat (and i will use this term for you from now one).

First we have a paragraph of fluff.

Second we have the famous paragraph "Drones under the control ....". We have "the unit they are with" (which does mean they are with a unit, and not that they are not part of the unit). The things stated in this paragraph are not in any case contradicting the 5ed rulebook concerning units. HOWEVER THE LAST SENTENCE IS "If THEIR UNIT suffers looses, drones are counted ... ". This expicitly states that the unit they are with is their unit.

Third paragraph. "Drones must maintain coherency with the unit their controller is in". This does not mean they are not part of the unit. This means they do not be in coherency with the controller, but with the unit. (So they can be more than 2'' from him if he is a part of unit as long as they are in coherency with the unit - thus they are still grouped and part of the unit as stated on page 3 of the rulebook). If the controller is an IC (referred as unit by raw), they form a unit with him - this is not exception, ",but he can still join other units (and here we got an exception to the rulebook, part ICs). The last sentence is defining a special rule that if the controller dies the drones need be removed.

Then we have the profiles of the models drones and their equipement.

We have a several other quotes too, namely page 29, Network markerlight. A fine example for marker drones: "For example, a marker drone is equiped with networked markerlight, meaning that the models in the SAME UNIT may benefit counters placed as result of its own shooting".

Of course i wont explain this, because you first have to clear your vision of the term unit for yourself, i will note you that here we have no differentiation for ic and non-ic. They are always a part of a unit.

Also the rule for the target lock with which you want to cheat explicitly states that the model can fire at different target, and drones are not the model, they are different models which are not equipped with a target lock except for sniper drones, and moreover if not a part of unit they are not allowed to move shoot assault or take wounds as all these rules apply for units.
 
#27 ·
Yes you made a strong point for your misunderstanding of the core rules of the game.
Dude I have played this game since space hulk days and I know the game inside out.

Everything in the game is either a unit (of grouped models fighting together) or referred as a model, as already stated on page 3. Reffered concerns IC, monsters and vehiles.

In order to play the game you have movement,shooting and assault phase in several turns. In each of the turns and phases you operate your units by either moving shooting or assaulting them one by one. The key here is unit. You are not allowed to operate with anything other than a unit. If you really want try to count how many times the term unit is used in both the core rulebook and the tau codex.

This is the basics of the game.
I have never said that Drones do not operate within a unit. What I have said is that the Drones are not members of the unit (a subtle but apparently for you hard to grasp difference).

Now the tau part - a drone is a model be it marker sniper shield or gun. It can be attached(attached is used in the stealth suits rule of infiltrate) to unit by the means of the device known as drone controller. The attached drones must always be with the model which has the device. They have their separate equipement. If he(the drone controller) is an IC - they are with him, if he is a part of the unit they must be with him, thus with the unit. In both cases we have grouped models fighting together - unit. NOWHERE IN THE CODEX THERE IS A SINGLE SENTENCE STATING THE DRONES ARE NOT A PART OF THE UNIT.
Ok the reference to Stealth actually states "the wearer (singular) and any attached Drones" which is referring to a model plural and not a unit, please read the rules with more care. The stealth field entry also goes on to say any Drones controlled by a model (singular) with a Drone controller. Yep you are correct the Drones do have their own equipment well spotted.

No fella you are incorrect, the IC and his Drones form a unit and they alone can join another unit.
If we read this to mean that all Drones and their controller form a unit but only IC and his Drones can join "another unit" then answer me a question. If all Drones and a controlling model form a unit then why point out that IC and controlled Drones form a unit?
If it is solely to say that all Drones and their controller form a unit but IC's can join other units then we have a real problem and one you cannot and will not be able to get around. Here is why:

(a) As a rule a non IC unit cannot join another unit (codex exceptions aside)
(b) You take a unit of three XV8's and one takes a Drone controller and two Drones
(c) The XV8 with the Drones forms a unit (please do not tell me that Drones are attached to the unit the controller is in because it does not say this anywhere)
(d) You cannot have a unit within a unit (unless you are an IC XV8 with Drones)
(e) Nowhere does it say that controlled Drones are a part of the unit the controller is in, It does however say that controlled Drones are war-gear
(f) So if controlled Drones and their controller form a unit it means we can never have a unit with any controlled Drones because a unit cannot operate within another unit .

What is the answer to this quandry? oh yeah Drones are not unit members they are war-gear. This means that they can operate with the(their) unit but are not members of said unit, are not a unit within a unit and can operate within the CORE RULES of the game.

Please tell me where it says that:
Controlled Drones are a member of the unit their controller is in
Drones and their controller form a unit (non IC)

If you can answer the above please then go on to explain how a unit can operate within another unit?

You didnt explain the term wargear because you cant. I will still let you search the books however.
Forgive me I did not realise you had asked me to explain the term. Ok war-gear is an item or items of specialised equipment purchased by a model from the codex armoury. War-gear has to be represented on or with the model unless it is hard wired. Controlled Drones are items of specialised equipment and are available for selection from the battle-suit wargear list and the infantry wargear list.

Now lets discuss page 31, drones, which is your main way to try to cheat (and i will use this term for you from now one).
I have PM'd you on this comment and I hope you will restrict further comments of this nature to PM also. I do not want to see this thread locked because I am enjoying the debate.

Second we have the famous paragraph "Drones under the control ....". We have "the unit they are with" (which does mean they are with a unit, and not that they are not part of the unit). The things stated in this paragraph are not in any case contradicting the 5ed rulebook concerning units. HOWEVER THE LAST SENTENCE IS "If THEIR UNIT suffers looses, drones are counted ... ". This expicitly states that the unit they are with is their unit.
Ok where does it say that a controlled Drone becomes "a member" of the unit the controller is in? it does not. The rules simply state that a model with a controller can "select" one or more Drones in any combination from the "war-gear" list. Note that war-gear referrence. Drones are war-gear and are thus a part of the controlling model and not a part of the unit the model is in. Show me the page ref, rule that says that an item of war-gear is a unit member?
If they do form a unit then we have the problem I described earlier.
The only exception to the unit rule is the IC rule and sniper Drone units

Third paragraph. "Drones must maintain coherency with the unit their controller is in". This does not mean they are not part of the unit. This means they do not be in coherency with the controller, but with the unit. (So they can be more than 2'' from him if he is a part of unit as long as they are in coherency with the unit - thus they are still grouped and part of the unit as stated on page 3 of the rulebook). If the controller is an IC (referred as unit by raw), they form a unit with him - this is not exception, ",but he can still join other units (and here we got an exception to the rulebook, part ICs). The last sentence is defining a special rule that if the controller dies the drones need be removed.
Ok grammar problems aside I will answer this. You are correct it does indeed mean that they can maintain coherence with the unit the controller is in. This still does not prove conclusively that the war-gear is a member of the unit (Drones are war-gear). All it means is that the Drones must remain near the unit their controller is in. This does not mean they have to be members of the unit only that they must be coherent with it.

Then we have the profiles of the models drones and their equipement.
No we have the profiles of the war-gear that the model is taking, you keep missing that little important point.

We have a several other quotes too, namely page 29, Network markerlight. A fine example for marker drones: "For example, a marker drone is equiped with networked markerlight, meaning that the models in the SAME UNIT may benefit counters placed as result of its own shooting".
Again this does not prove that the war-gear is a member of the unit. All it says is that the unit the Drone is with can benefit from its ML token. If the Drone is under the control of an IC it can leave a unit and join another and the unit it is then with can benefit from the ML token.

Of course i wont explain this, because you first have to clear your vision of the term unit for yourself, i will note you that here we have no differentiation for ic and non-ic. They are always a part of a unit.
Please tell me where in any rule book or codex it says that any item of war-gear is a member of a unit? I can tell you one instance Tau codex page 31 IC and controlled Drone rules


Also the rule for the target lock with which you want to cheat explicitly states that the model can fire at different target, and drones are not the model, they are different models which are not equipped with a target lock except for sniper drones, and moreover if not a part of unit they are not allowed to move shoot assault or take wounds as all these rules apply for units.
The rule says that a model can fire at a target different to the one members of its unit are targeting. Drones are war-gear and not a member of the unit (you have shown nothing to prove they are) so they must fire at the same target their controller is firing at because they are HIS war-gear. If the controller and the Drones are a unit then they can indeed fire at separate targets only they cannot be a member of another unit (remember units cannot exist within other units unless they are IC's). IC's and their Drones join other units thus the Drones are members of that unit until the IC leaves so they fire at the same target the unit does and the IC can fire at another.
And moreover,yes controlled Drones are allowed to take wounds because their codex entry allows it and overrides the core rules which you know is the case. The same goes for the sniper Drones their codex entry specifies that they are a unit.


You have the problem here fella. You cannot prove that controlled war-gear Drones are a member of a unit. I have shown that the rules allow for non IC controlled war-gear Drones to operate with a unit while not being a member of said unit.

The controlled Drone is a war-gear option and is thus war-gear not a member of any unit other than IC's

Tau codex Drone rules on page 31 are there to allow the item of war-gear to be counted along with the units casualties and hence by default also available to be selected as targets and take damage. This is to allow a unit with a member with controlled Drones to operate within the core rules (they would not be able to do so otherwise).

I have shown that non IC models with controlled war-gear Drones cannot form a unit or they will not be able to operate within another unit.

Unless you can show a controlled Drone is a member of a unit then I see no point in continuing the debate with you. If you want to post circular answers to the points above then I will not answer them.
I look forward to your answer to the unit quandary I posted but other than that I have answered all your points as fully as I can and so will not perpetuate another circular argument. If you want to PM me to continue then fine but expect no further input unless you come up with a beauty of an answer to the unit quandary.

Mods please do not lock the thread I promise that this particular debate between Garga and myself in regard to the points above is over on my part.
 
#28 ·
Specify the page on which you found the wargear quote either in the 5ed rulebook, tau codex or in the faq. I seem to be missing such rule in mine. If you put it out from memory try find it again, because it is important for the debate.

Also about drones not being members, look some of you previous posts and you will find that you were stating that is was nowhere written "their unit" i showed you where it is written, now you deny the fact that they are members. I have pointed enough pages and rules which they would violate if they are not part of the unit. A unit consists of models, thus its members are its models. Drones are models in the unit (with the unit attached to the unit whatever). It is their unit also (quote shown before). We also have "Same unit".

One more thing to check - if they are not members of the team then per RAW they are blocking LOS - this is 5ed rulebook page 22. I dont give this to you for comment, let the people decide for themselves, you can play houserules as long as you like and have fun.
 
#29 ·
Specify the page on which you found the wargear quote either in the 5ed rulebook, tau codex or in the faq. I seem to be missing such rule in mine. If you put it out from memory try find it again, because it is important for the debate.
Ok I will answer these because they are not circular. You asked me what war-gear is, not for a direct quote. War-gear is any equipment you select from the war-gear list in the armoury section of the Tau codex. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve or get at here so please enlighten me.

Also about drones not being members, look some of you previous posts and you will find that you were stating that is was nowhere written "their unit" i showed you where it is written, now you deny the fact that they are members. I have pointed enough pages and rules which they would violate if they are not part of the unit. A unit consists of models, thus its members are its models. Drones are models in the unit (with the unit attached to the unit whatever). It is their unit also (quote shown before). We also have "Same unit".
Oh come on that was in one post and you have to take it in the context of the paragraph it was included in. I take it you refer to this reference:

Tau codex page 31 "Drones under the command of a Drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit they are with". Note the distinction "unit they are with" not "their unit" or "if the unit takes casualties" but 'unit they are with'..

The paragraph on page 31 begins by stating the unit the Drones are with and then it simply goes on to say that if the unit they are with (their unit) suffers 50% casualties and they are part of the casualties then they are counted as well. Like I said nowhere does it say an item of war-gear is a member of a unit. Funnily enough it does state that in the Imperial guard codex that servitors (which are wargear choices) form a unit, it actually implicitly states it in their rules. The tau codex does the same but only for IC controlled Drones.
I have shown that the rules you detailed previously are not violated by Drones not being members of the unit because the Drone codex entry prevents most conflicts (unless you are reading them of course :act-up:)
One more thing to check - if they are not members of the team then per RAW they are blocking LOS - this is 5ed rulebook page 22. I dont give this to you for comment, let the people decide for themselves, you can play houserules as long as you like and have fun.
Quite true and well done on finding another rules problem with controlled Drones. This does not however disprove my point that war-gear Drones are not a member of the unit, all it does is show another problem associated with them because they are not a member of the unit.

I have answered these points because they were reasonable (especially the last one). However you ignored the point I made about units within units quite beautifully which is telling.

Anyway I am done with this thread. Nothing has really come to light to say definitively which way it should be played. I am going to create my competitive/tournie list without the Target lock and treat the Drones as members of the unit. Not because I think I am wrong but because it is simply going to be to much trouble to have to explain the rules to every single person who objects to my using the TL in a valid way.
I hope GW clarify this in the future but until then I will play it the way that I think is incorrect because it is easier that way and I would prefer to avoid any accusations of cheating. I do not play to gain advantages if there is even the slightest bit of doubt to the legality of a rule etc, I would rather be a sportsman and avoid any problems. :act-up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.