They're Back! New Tau FAQ Is Up

[Carrelio]

Rejoice friends! Target locks are back, and Tau are even more powerful now that our disruption pods grant us shrouded! Suck it every other race!
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=2&_requestid=1835309

It was actually a really well done FAQ, clearly GW was listening as it addresses many of our questions directly, and brought Tau vehicles back into their place of power (which is surviving forever for some reason).
So the big changes...
We got target locks back
The iridium armour now clarifies the jump is reduced by 1d6
Drones can no longer be made characters (aww... my power abuse).

The only question I think that is still missing is the question of the double force org. Can you take Farsight in one and then an ethereal in the other? Who knows! We'll have to wait for the next one I guess Also broadsides still don't have a character FAQed onto them, so its Shas'vre or nothing but only if you abuse the rules a bit.

[The Man They Call Jayne]

Woohoo Target locks. And shrouded is an awesome bonus.

[knightperson]

So a Tau vehicle with disruption pod would get a 5+ Jink up close, 4+ if turboboosting, and a 3+ at range or a 2+ if turboboosting? WOW! The Warfish and the Piranha Seeker Missile Sneak might just be back.

I'm impressed that they got the update out so quickly. Did everybody else get one too, or just us because of how badly the first one screwed us?

To: Games Workshop
From: The Tau players
Text of message: Apology Accepted.

[Pottsey]

So a Tau vehicle with disruption pod would get a 5+ Jink up close, 4+ if turboboosting, and a 3+ at range or a 2+ if turboboosting? WOW! The Warfish and the Piranha Seeker Missile Sneak might just be back.
I'm impressed that they got the update out so quickly. Did everybody else get one too, or just us because of how badly the first one screwed us?

Everyone got one, alone with a rulebook FAQ.

[Matt1785]

Woo - Hooo!!!!!!!!!  Target Locks are back, that makes things boss.. and THANK you for not ditching Disruption Pods.  Gosh, this is just rocking things up awesome.  Go Tau!

[salamut2202]

Q: Do hits by Tau markerlights, or other items of wargear that cause
hits but do not inflict damage, require a swooping FMC
to take a grounded test . (p49)
A: Yes.

BWAHAHAHA! You mean  that if an psychic ally enfeebles a harpy and I shine a marker light at it it could die? Hilarious.

[Charistoph]

I'm still curious about situations where two or more contradicting absolutes come in to play.

Right now, for Seekers to hit Flyers, it's a Marker Light on 6, than a 4+ to determine if the Seeker is attacking with BS 1 or 5, and then as the roll directs.

Irritating.

[Pottsey]

Q: Do hits by Tau markerlights, or other items of wargear that cause
hits but do not inflict damage, require a swooping FMC
to take a grounded test . (p49)
A: Yes.

BWAHAHAHA! You mean  that if an psychic ally enfeebles a harpy and I shine a marker light at it it could die? Hilarious.

I was joking with some friends about shining laser pointers in the eye. But on a more serious note it

[Carrelio]

I'm still curious about situations where two or more contradicting absolutes come in to play.

Right now, for Seekers to hit Flyers, it's a Marker Light on 6, than a 4+ to determine if the Seeker is attacking with BS 1 or 5, and then as the roll directs.

Irritating.

This is addressed. It was addressed in the original 6th edition FAQ.  The vehicle is considered the firer.  Firing at flyers the firer is BS1, so the markerlight is BS1.  The vehicle is also BS1, however, the FAQ states that even though the vehicle is reduced to BS1, the seeker still fires at BS5.  This can be confusing because the wording of the FAQ gives examples including shaken/stunned results, but the wording states that this reduction is for any reason and the shaken/stunned are just examples.

[Charistoph]

I'm still curious about situations where two or more contradicting absolutes come in to play.

Right now, for Seekers to hit Flyers, it's a Marker Light on 6, than a 4+ to determine if the Seeker is attacking with BS 1 or 5, and then as the roll directs.

Irritating.

This is addressed. It was addressed in the original 6th edition FAQ.  The vehicle is considered the firer.  Firing at flyers the firer is BS1, so the markerlight is BS1.  The vehicle is also BS1, however, the FAQ states that even though the vehicle is reduced to BS1, the seeker still fires at BS5.  This can be confusing because the wording of the FAQ gives examples including shaken/stunned results, but the wording states that this reduction is for any reason and the shaken/stunned are just examples.

Okay, I must be missing the part where the vehicle fires the Seeker, because that is only considered for determining on which side a vehicle is hit.  The Seeker can be fired both before and after a vehicle's part of the Shooting Phase and at a completely separate target without the benefits of a target lock.  All a Seeker requires to fire is an unused Marker Light Hit/Token and a model that can use the Token.  For all intents and purposes, the mounting vehicle is not involved directly (unless they are the model that can use the Token, obviously).  The FAQ said nothing about Snap Fire, just the mounted vehicle's temporary condition, which never mattered anyway.

Therefore, the ruling about competing absolute values still exists.

[Unusual Suspect]

I'm still curious about situations where two or more contradicting absolutes come in to play.

Right now, for Seekers to hit Flyers, it's a Marker Light on 6, than a 4+ to determine if the Seeker is attacking with BS 1 or 5, and then as the roll directs.

Irritating.

This is addressed. It was addressed in the original 6th edition FAQ.  The vehicle is considered the firer.  Firing at flyers the firer is BS1, so the markerlight is BS1.  The vehicle is also BS1, however, the FAQ states that even though the vehicle is reduced to BS1, the seeker still fires at BS5.  This can be confusing because the wording of the FAQ gives examples including shaken/stunned results, but the wording states that this reduction is for any reason and the shaken/stunned are just examples.

Okay, I must be missing the part where the vehicle fires the Seeker, because that is only considered for determining on which side a vehicle is hit.  The Seeker can be fired both before and after a vehicle's part of the Shooting Phase and at a completely separate target without the benefits of a target lock.  All a Seeker requires to fire is an unused Marker Light Hit/Token and a model that can use the Token.  For all intents and purposes, the mounting vehicle is not involved directly (unless they are the model that can use the Token, obviously).  The FAQ said nothing about Snap Fire, just the mounted vehicle's temporary condition, which never mattered anyway.

Therefore, the ruling about competing absolute values still exists.

See that bolded part?  I see in the rules where it says that the vehicle the seeker launches from determines which facing the missile hits, but I cannot for the life of me see where the text states explicitly, or even implies, the "ONLY" aspect.

Combine that with the wording in the Markerlight section that "allows a vehicle to fire" a Seeker, and we're left with explicit wording stating the vehicle fires the missile, and inexplicit and implied at best wording stating that someone else fires the missile (I've seen interpretations that the seeker is considered to fire itself and that the unit utilizing the markerlight to fire the missile is firing seeker, not the vehicle.  The first is never stated, and the second is directly contradicted in the Markerlight section, not to mention the idiocy that a vehicle using that Markerlight Token would then benefit from the extant FAQ entry where a non-vehicle using the same token to fire the same missile would not.)

...Does this have a dedicated discussion on this forum?

[Charistoph]

I see in the rules where it says that the vehicle the seeker launches from determines which facing the missile hits, but I cannot for the life of me see where the text states explicitly, or even implies, the "ONLY" aspect.

Combine that with the wording in the Markerlight section that "allows a vehicle to fire" a Seeker, and we're left with explicit wording stating the vehicle fires the missile, and inexplicit and implied at best wording stating that someone else fires the missile (I've seen interpretations that the seeker is considered to fire itself and that the unit utilizing the markerlight to fire the missile is firing seeker, not the vehicle.  The first is never stated, and the second is directly contradicted in the Markerlight section, not to mention the idiocy that a vehicle using that Markerlight Token would then benefit from the extant FAQ entry where a non-vehicle using the same token to fire the same missile would not.)

...Does this have a dedicated discussion on this forum?

I don't know if it does have a dedicated discussion.  All I can say is that you are inferring that because Cause A & B produces Effect C, and because Cause D also causes Effect C, Ruling E regarding Cause A & B also affects Cause D?

This is not RAW, but an intelligent viewing of RAI (and not one I necessarily disagree with on a RAI basis).    We have seen numerous cases where just because 2 similar causes have the affect, GW has not ruled them to be affected the same.

[The Man They Call Jayne]

It does say in the tau codex that the vehicle does not count as firing the seeker, that it is lauched by an automated system on request by the Marking unit. This why seekers do not count towards the number of weapons fired, and why seekers can be launched even if the vehicle its stunned or shaken.

[Unusual Suspect]

It does say in the tau codex that the vehicle does not count as firing the seeker, that it is lauched by an automated system on request by the Marking unit. This why seekers do not count towards the number of weapons fired, and why seekers can be launched even if the vehicle its stunned or shaken.

It says in the Tau codex the vehicle is Ordinarily not allowed to fire the seeker on its own, and yes, that it is launched by an automated system on request by a Markerlight user.  Turning to the Markerlight section, we see a markerlight can allow the vehicle to fire the Seeker - in fact, its the only method that a seeker missile can be fired.

1. Ordinarily, X cannot perform Y.
2.  Z allows X to perform Y.

Z in 2 is providing an event (out of the set of ordinary events) where the restrictions on X no longer apply.

X = The vehicle
Y = Firing a seeker missile
Z = Expending a Markerlight Token

Again, there's a possible interpretation (that contradicts the Markerlight entry, but still) that the Markerlight user is considered the firer of the Seeker Missile.

This leads to a particularly odd situation in which a vehicle will have BS 5 firing Snap Shots if it is the user in question (As per the FAQ entry) but at a BS 1 if someone else expends the Marker (Or, depending on who you interpret the Markerlight user to be, as being BS 1 unless the Markerlight is provided by a Skyray).



Charistoph, can you provide a more concrete example to go with that logic?



This discussion now has a thread!  See here.

[knightperson]

Woo - Hooo!!!!!!!!!  Target Locks are back, that makes things boss.. and THANK you for not ditching Disruption Pods.  Gosh, this is just rocking things up awesome.  Go Tau!

Interaction between disruptions pods and Tyranid hive guard impaler cannons is interesting. What do you think of this?

Q: Can a model take a cover save from wargear such as smoke
launchers or an Ork Mekboy