My argument:
1. Shaken, Stunned, and Hard to Hit (shooting at fliers) all force the shooting unit to make Snap Shots. (BRB)
2. Snap Shots are always fired at BS 1. (BRB)
3. Ordinarily, vehicles cannot fire Seeker Missiles on their own. (Tau Empire, pg 31)
4. When a Markerlight token is expended, it can allow a vehicle to fire a single Seeker Missile. (Tau Empire, pg 31)
5. The Tau Empire FAQ has this entry:
Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example), do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (p29)
A: Ballistic Skill 5.
note that Shaken and Stunned as states are given explicitly as examples, not as exclusive qualifiers. Any mechanic that reduces a vehicle to Ballistic Skill 1 will fall under the rules jurisdiction of the FAQ entry.
6. Thus, when a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 by firing Snap Shots at a flier, its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 5, as per the FAQ entry.
Thought i'd give this its own thread.
To continue the discussion from the Tau FAQ update thread, here was my response.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on September 09, 2012, 11:50:04 PM
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).
Quote from: Charistoph on September 09, 2012, 11:31:12 PMI 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.
Charistoph, can you provide a more concrete example to go with that logic?
With regards to the Flyer issue I am sure I read somewhere that the seeker would hit on a 4+. I cannot for the life of me think where though.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on September 10, 2012, 02:31:38 AM
With regards to the Flyer issue I am sure I read somewhere that the seeker would hit on a 4+. I cannot for the life of me think where though.
Those rules can be found in, if memory serves, Imperial Armour III: The Taros Campaign.
I'm not sure 3rd edition rules should be particularly relevant to the conversation.
Other FAQ answers seem to imply that, in the case of two conflicting absolute values, one should roll off every turn to see which applies.
Codex over-rides rule book, therefore, all seeker missiles are treated as BS5 as the markerlight token is expended to fire it at that value.
I think this is clever from GW. All those people who laughed at the sky ray as they glued down the hammerhead turret aren't going to be so happy now the sky ray is decent against flyers. :P
I think I agree with unusual suspect. I think it balances because you have to fire the markerlight as BS1 and therefore you still have to struggle to hit it originally. Whether that logic actually works I don't know, but I think it's kinda cool.
Evade would be so cinematic. :P
- Will
Just wait until the new Tau Dex and thr Sky Ray get's it's anti air abilities back. 8)
I think it works okay, it's not that bad because you still need to snap lazer tag it first. Besides, I was under the impression that sky rays were a variant of hammerhead that was used for defense and anti aircraft fire?
Quote from: Unusual Suspect on September 10, 2012, 02:27:31 AM
To continue the discussion from the Tau FAQ update thread, here was my response.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on September 09, 2012, 11:50:04 PM
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).
Quote from: Charistoph on September 09, 2012, 11:31:12 PMI 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.
Charistoph, can you provide a more concrete example to go with that logic?
Your sequencing is off, I think.
Sequence:
- Marker Light hits unit.
- Marker Light Token is applied.
- Marker Light Token is used by an appropriate user.
- Marker Light Token's use is called as Launching a Seeker Missile.
- Seeker Missile makes its attack from a properly equipped unit at BS 5.
That's the normal sequence.
Where we run in to trouble is that both the Seeker Missile Attack and the Snap Shot are both set values. While Shaking and Stunning both create the same set value as shooting a Flying unit, one is caused by a temporary condition on the launching platform (which is never considered for the Seeker Missile launch), while the other is caused by the condition of the target.
Since the launching platform's BS is never used, it's condition (other than not Wrecked) means little in this equation. The BS used is by the conditions of the Marker Light rule. Effectively, the Marker Light is the one "shooting" the Seeker. Therefore, the ruling about a vehicle's status is moo point, and the situation of competing set values stands.
Now, the correct argument is that the Seeker fires "...on
all occasions at Ballistic Skill 5." The phrase, "on all occasions", seems to indicate Snap Fire situations as well, but again, this is a situation of set value competitions with a codex written under a very different general ruleset.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 10, 2012, 04:32:41 PM
Your sequencing is off, I think.
Sequence:
- Marker Light hits unit.
- Marker Light Token is applied.
- Marker Light Token is used by an appropriate user.
- Marker Light Token's use is called as Launching a Seeker Missile.
- Seeker Missile makes its attack from a properly equipped unit at BS 5.
That's the normal sequence.
An interesting sequence, and a change of wording.
My own take, with language that matches that found in the Codex itself:
- Marker Light hits unit.
- Marker Light Token is applied.
- Marker Light Token is used by an appropriate user.
- Marker Light Token's use allows a vehicle to fire an equipped Seeker Missile.
- The vehicle fires the Seeker Missile at BS 5, with the exceptions regarding the normal shooting rules listed in the Seeker Missile entry.
The Markerlight entry says nothing about launching a missile, it explicitly mentions the vehicle is allowed to fire. Missile Launching is not a mechanic in WH40k, Firing is, and so is the firing unit. There are unusual qualities to that firing action, as listed in both the Seeker Missile and Markerlight entries. It always fires at a BS of 5, it ignores intervening cover, it is fired outside the normal restrictions on how many weapons can fire and at what Ballistic skill, and even outside the normal shooting order, etc. It is as stated by the text, however, a weapon fired by the vehicle, barring some so-far-unseen text contradicting that.
Quote
Where we run in to trouble is that both the Seeker Missile Attack and the Snap Shot are both set values. While Shaking and Stunning both create the same set value as shooting a Flying unit, one is caused by a temporary condition on the launching platform (which is never considered for the Seeker Missile launch), while the other is caused by the condition of the target.
Under my interpretation that the vehicle is firing the Seeker Missile, we do not run into that issue, as the FAQ's answer takes precedence over the normal methods of resolving two different set values (as explained in the FAQ entries regarding wargear/special rules that set initiatives at 1 and 10).
Again, the FAQ only uses the Shaken and Stunned qualifiers as examples of the condition "Firing at BS of 1". So long as the vehicle is firing the Seeker Missile (which the text states it is allowed to due on the expenditure of the Markerlight token) and the vehicle is reduced to BS 1 (Shooting at a flier without the Skyfire rule forcing Snap Shots qualifies), the FAQ entry stands as applicable. Nowhere in the text of the FAQ does it talk about what is causing the condition of "reduced to Ballistic Skill 1." The mere existence of that condition is sufficient to apply the FAQ entry.
Quote
Since the launching platform's BS is never used, it's condition (other than not Wrecked) means little in this equation. The BS used is by the conditions of the Marker Light rule. Effectively, the Marker Light is the one "shooting" the Seeker. Therefore, the ruling about a vehicle's status is moo point, and the situation of competing set values stands.
The Markerlight is not the entity firing the weapon. It is allowing the weapon to be fired, that is, it is removing an obstacle that until then prevented the weapon from being fired. Fired by what? By the vehicle. The text is explicit.
The launching platform's BS is similarly irrelevant to the cases of Shaken and Stunned, in that it is the Ballistic Skill being set to 1, not the qualities of being temporarily or otherwise unable to shoot at a normal BS, that forms the basis of the FAQ entry.
Quote
Now, the correct argument is that the Seeker fires "...on all occasions at Ballistic Skill 5." The phrase, "on all occasions", seems to indicate Snap Fire situations as well, but again, this is a situation of set value competitions with a codex written under a very different general ruleset.
I'm wary of that as well. I'd rather stick to my argument, in that it has the weight of text and FAQ behind it. ;)
An analogy to hopefully make my point a bit more clear.
Ordinarily, I cannot lick my elbow. A surgeon using Surgery would allow me to lick my elbow. How does this imply Surgery (or the surgeon) is licking my elbow, or that my elbow is licking itself? I'm still the one licking my elbow, even though I ordinarily cannot do so on my own. Surgery is the mechanism by which I am allowed to lick my elbow, and its still I who is doing the licking.
Ordinarily, a vehicle cannot fire its own seeker missiles. A Firing Unit expending a Markerlight counter allows a vehicle to fire a single Seeker Missile. How does this imply the Markerlight (or the Firing Unit) is firing the Seeker Missile, or that the Seeker Missile is firing itself? The vehicle is the one firing the seeker missile, even though it ordinarilly cannot do so on its own. Markerlight counters are the mechanism by which a vehicle is allowed to fire a seeker missile, and it still the seeker missile doing the firing.
Quote from: Unusual Suspect on September 11, 2012, 12:39:54 AM
Quote
Where we run in to trouble is that both the Seeker Missile Attack and the Snap Shot are both set values. While Shaking and Stunning both create the same set value as shooting a Flying unit, one is caused by a temporary condition on the launching platform (which is never considered for the Seeker Missile launch), while the other is caused by the condition of the target.
Under my interpretation that the vehicle is firing the Seeker Missile, we do not run into that issue, as the FAQ's answer takes precedence over the normal methods of resolving two different set values (as explained in the FAQ entries regarding wargear/special rules that set initiatives at 1 and 10).
Again, the FAQ only uses the Shaken and Stunned qualifiers as examples of the condition "Firing at BS of 1". So long as the vehicle is firing the Seeker Missile (which the text states it is allowed to due on the expenditure of the Markerlight token) and the vehicle is reduced to BS 1 (Shooting at a flier without the Skyfire rule forcing Snap Shots qualifies), the FAQ entry stands as applicable. Nowhere in the text of the FAQ does it talk about what is causing the condition of "reduced to Ballistic Skill 1." The mere existence of that condition is sufficient to apply the FAQ entry.
But the point is that the mounting vehicle's BS is never used and has never been used because it is not the model guiding the munition, so in cases where their BS is reduced or increased, for any reason, is also never applied.
Quote from: Unusual Suspect on September 11, 2012, 12:39:54 AMQuote
Since the launching platform's BS is never used, it's condition (other than not Wrecked) means little in this equation. The BS used is by the conditions of the Marker Light rule. Effectively, the Marker Light is the one "shooting" the Seeker. Therefore, the ruling about a vehicle's status is moo point, and the situation of competing set values stands.
The Markerlight is not the entity firing the weapon. It is allowing the weapon to be fired, that is, it is removing an obstacle that until then prevented the weapon from being fired. Fired by what? By the vehicle. The text is explicit.
The launching platform's BS is similarly irrelevant to the cases of Shaken and Stunned, in that it is the Ballistic Skill being set to 1, not the qualities of being temporarily or otherwise unable to shoot at a normal BS, that forms the basis of the FAQ entry.
The Markerlight IS the entity firing the weapon for the purposes of gameplay. Under what other condition can a Seeker be fired? Can a Sky Ray unload all 6 Missiles without a single Markerlight token being deployed? Can a model other than the launching platform be used to initiate the Seeker's 'firing'? Whose BS do you use to resolve the Seeker Missile's attack?
It is the Markerlight Token and only the Markerlight Token that allows the Seeker to be fired under any conditions. It is the Markerlight Token that is directing the munition, not the tank. It is only the BS listed under the Markerlight's rules that is used. This is why the vehicle's status is never and has never been considered for this. Therefore, this ruling is a cow's opinion when firing at Flyers, a moo point.
Quote from: Unusual Suspect on September 11, 2012, 12:39:54 AMQuote
Now, the correct argument is that the Seeker fires "...on all occasions at Ballistic Skill 5." The phrase, "on all occasions", seems to indicate Snap Fire situations as well, but again, this is a situation of set value competitions with a codex written under a very different general ruleset.
I'm wary of that as well. I'd rather stick to my argument, in that it has the weight of text and FAQ behind it. ;)
Of course you do, it's your argument. I just disagree in how far your interpretation of said FAQ goes.
Quote from: Unusual Suspect on September 11, 2012, 12:39:54 AM
An analogy to hopefully make my point a bit more clear.
Ordinarily, I cannot lick my elbow. A surgeon using Surgery would allow me to lick my elbow. How does this imply Surgery (or the surgeon) is licking my elbow, or that my elbow is licking itself? I'm still the one licking my elbow, even though I ordinarily cannot do so on my own. Surgery is the mechanism by which I am allowed to lick my elbow, and its still I who is doing the licking.
Ordinarily, a vehicle cannot fire its own seeker missiles. A Firing Unit expending a Markerlight counter allows a vehicle to fire a single Seeker Missile. How does this imply the Markerlight (or the Firing Unit) is firing the Seeker Missile, or that the Seeker Missile is firing itself? The vehicle is the one firing the seeker missile, even though it ordinarilly cannot do so on its own. Markerlight counters are the mechanism by which a vehicle is allowed to fire a seeker missile, and it still the seeker missile doing the firing.
The vehicle launches it, but it has little say in the guiding of it (unless it's declaring the use of the Token, of course). If it did, the Seeker would HAVE to shoot at the same target and at the same time as any other weapons on the vehicle. It does not. The Seeker can be in the second round of firing of the Shooting Phase with it's vehicle being the 5th, or the Seeker can be the last thing fired while its vehicle was the first thing to shoot. The Seeker can be just as much a part of a Broadside squad's Shooting Phase as a Sky Ray's. Since we can't Shake or Stun a Broadside, one must assume that they are the one's shooting it. Except, they actually aren't because it doesn't use their BS at all, either. The only BS being used is the one provided by the Markerlight rules, that of BS 5.
Therefore, it is the Markerlight Token that actually "shoots" the Seeker.
It may be an odd view, I know. But that is how I see it, and that won't change till the next codex or Amendment.
And, dude, licking your elbow?
You're both arguing with each other about the fact it's BS5. You have both said it's BS 5. The only thing you disagree on is wording and how you both got to the point it's BS5. You do realise how silly that is right?
It is worth pointing out that this can easily be solved by precedent.
The only time, in three editions the Seeker has ever been considered part of a vehicle's arsenal is for Weapon Destroyed results. That's it. For every other rule query, the answer has always been that as long as there is a Markerlight token, the Seeker can be launched, and if a Seeker is launched it is resolved at Bs 5.
It does not use the parent vehicle's Bs. It does not use the designator's Bs. It uses Bs 5. It always uses Bs 5. It is not resolved as Snap Fire because Snap Fire applies to units, and the Seeker Missile is not a unit. It is an independent weapon system that hitches a ride on a unit, but resolves its attack independently of said unit.
In short, Seekers don't give a crap whether you're a Flyer or not, or whether the parent vehicle is shaken or stunned. Once a Seeker is airborne, it hits on a 2+. Always. No exceptions. End of.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 07:32:56 AM
You're both arguing with each other about the fact it's BS5. You have both said it's BS 5. The only thing you disagree on is wording and how you both got to the point it's BS5. You do realise how silly that is right?
The reason why the origination of the BS 5 is important is because it determines how a specific FAQ ruling and the rule of absolute stat modifiers interact.
Unusual Suspect's position is that it is always at BS 5, no matter what, because the Snap Fire condition placed on a vehicle by Shaken and Stunned results is treated exactly the same as id it was shooting at a Flyer. Since it ignores that Snap Fire condition (which it always has ignored that cause), it ignores the Snap Fire condition of shooting at a Flyer.
My position is due to the fact that a vehicle's temporay status has never affected a Seeker's ability to fire, the ruling has no bearing because a vehicle's BS was never used to shoot the missile, so a Snap Fire condition on it placed by new circumstances due to the target's condition is a case of matching stat modifiers.
Quote from: Wargamer on September 11, 2012, 11:58:56 AM
It is worth pointing out that this can easily be solved by precedent.
The only time, in three editions the Seeker has ever been considered part of a vehicle's arsenal is for Weapon Destroyed results. That's it. For every other rule query, the answer has always been that as long as there is a Markerlight token, the Seeker can be launched, and if a Seeker is launched it is resolved at Bs 5.
It does not use the parent vehicle's Bs. It does not use the designator's Bs. It uses Bs 5. It always uses Bs 5. It is not resolved as Snap Fire because Snap Fire applies to units, and the Seeker Missile is not a unit. It is an independent weapon system that hitches a ride on a unit, but resolves its attack independently of said unit.
In short, Seekers don't give a klkn whether you're a Flyer or not, or whether the parent vehicle is shaken or stunned. Once a Seeker is airborne, it hits on a 2+. Always. No exceptions. End of.
Since we are bringing up precedent, Seekers fired from a non-Flyer against a Flyer before 6th Edition (in Apocalypse), specifically the Sky Ray, were resolved at BS 3, not at BS 5. In which case, the condition of being a Flyer CAN affect the ability for a Seeker to hit. Admittedly, rules and format have changed since then, and that's part of why we are having this discussion.
Yeah... I would give no credit to any source that requires Apocalypse, since Apocalypse is a "make your own rules up as you go" expansion.
Imperial Armour volume 3 has the same ruling, however: the Skyray's markerlights were effectively Skyfire weapons (if upgraded to an AA mount), and Seekers launched hit on a 4+, not 2+.
The hole in this argument, of course, is that there is nothing in the current rules to support that application, because that was a specific exemption from the normal Seeker Missile rules, not an application of the standard rules.
Before FW started using the 40K stamp, I considered anything Imperial Armor to be Apocalypse, so that's why I didn't specify.
It's just a good idea to be aware of the history of things, even if they have no real time benefit due to a massive rules/perspective change.
Just out of curiousity, does the IA:3 Sky Ray have the 40K stamp at all, or does the codex model have precedence? (Not a useless question, one has AA built in, while the other has it dropped due to know Flyer plans at codex writing).
Imperial Armour 3 predates Apocalypse by many, many years. Forgeworld, at this time, was still operating under the goals of producing collector's models, and just trying to produce rules that would allow you to field them on the tabletop. It was not produced for Apocalypse because nothing like Apocalypse was even close to existing at that point. As such, it was made for 40k. Oh, and I'm also pretty sure IAvol3 predates Codex: Tau Empires.
All of which was before my time. I think I was introduced to the hobby (well, at least enough to start learning about it) was right around or after the release of Codex: Tau Empire, I think. I remeber Eldar and Dark Angels came out soon after I started looking into it.
Not that any of that has any bearing on the discussion at hand.
Anyway, even though Apocalypse wasn't around, anything Forgeworld was still treated as if it was by the shop I was visiting. So that may color my perspective.
IA:3 predates Tau Empires by about 6 months if memory serves. Still irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 11, 2012, 03:53:57 PM
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 07:32:56 AM
You're both arguing with each other about the fact it's BS5. You have both said it's BS 5. The only thing you disagree on is wording and how you both got to the point it's BS5. You do realise how silly that is right?
The reason why the origination of the BS 5 is important is because it determines how a specific FAQ ruling and the rule of absolute stat modifiers interact.
Unusual Suspect's position is that it is always at BS 5, no matter what, because the Snap Fire condition placed on a vehicle by Shaken and Stunned results is treated exactly the same as id it was shooting at a Flyer. Since it ignores that Snap Fire condition (which it always has ignored that cause), it ignores the Snap Fire condition of shooting at a Flyer.
My position is due to the fact that a vehicle's temporay status has never affected a Seeker's ability to fire, the ruling has no bearing because a vehicle's BS was never used to shoot the missile, so a Snap Fire condition on it placed by new circumstances due to the target's condition is a case of matching stat modifiers.
Well unless GW has not put it in the current rule book, there is a rules hierchy, Codex over rides BRB, FAQ over Rides Codex. This would mean Seeker Missiles are always fired at BS5 as that is what it's rules state.
Half the time I think most of these 'Frequently' Asked Questions are submitted by but hurt power gamers who are just upset by the fact their favourite unit just got wiped off the board. In my opinoin, this was already clear in the codex.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 11:25:38 PM
IA:3 predates Tau Empires by about 6 months if memory serves. Still irrelevant to this discussion.
In terms of a final definitive answer, most definitely. The Rule changes caused by 6th Edition it allows it to be ignored for the purposes of a final ruling on this discussion. IA:3 is only brought up as presenting a past review of Seeker rules. Nothing more.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 11:25:38 PMQuote from: Charistoph on September 11, 2012, 03:53:57 PM
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 07:32:56 AM
You're both arguing with each other about the fact it's BS5. You have both said it's BS 5. The only thing you disagree on is wording and how you both got to the point it's BS5. You do realise how silly that is right?
The reason why the origination of the BS 5 is important is because it determines how a specific FAQ ruling and the rule of absolute stat modifiers interact.
Unusual Suspect's position is that it is always at BS 5, no matter what, because the Snap Fire condition placed on a vehicle by Shaken and Stunned results is treated exactly the same as id it was shooting at a Flyer. Since it ignores that Snap Fire condition (which it always has ignored that cause), it ignores the Snap Fire condition of shooting at a Flyer.
My position is due to the fact that a vehicle's temporay status has never affected a Seeker's ability to fire, the ruling has no bearing because a vehicle's BS was never used to shoot the missile, so a Snap Fire condition on it placed by new circumstances due to the target's condition is a case of matching stat modifiers.
Well unless GW has not put it in the current rule book, there is a rules hierchy, Codex over rides BRB, FAQ over Rides Codex. This would mean Seeker Missiles are always fired at BS5 as that is what it's rules state.
Interesting view on it. You're saying that because the Codex says, "...on all occasions", that's the final word on it because Codex rules trump the BRB rules, at least until an Amendment/FAQ says otherwise. A worthy argument.
Interestingly enough, I asked one of my LGS TOs about the basics of this discussion, and he said he would rule in favor of the BRB, due to the codex' age. I don't agree, personally, but he's a bit more generalist when it comes to Tau knowledge.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 11, 2012, 11:25:38 PMHalf the time I think most of these 'Frequently' Asked Questions are submitted by but hurt power gamers who are just upset by the fact their favourite unit just got wiped off the board. In my opinoin, this was already clear in the codex.
It may be sad in just how right you are.
Could I get an agreement, though, in saying that a new codex is most desired, even needed, due to its age and design format?
Sadly yes. While most things are perfectly servable. A few minor and a couple major changes have happened to the glossary of the BRB, and that was just the change from fourth to fifth. The change from fifth to sixth is incredible and means a simple FAQ isn't really enough. Especially as most of the FAQ entries are hold overs from fifth. But we will have to wait. DA, Warriors of Chaos (Look at the starter set, it doesn't look like CSM anymore) SM and then another Xeno's race is the likely order of release. Making us about one and a half, two years away unless the skip the normally Imp/xenos release cycle.
Why another Xeno?
Tau is rumored for early 2013, and is the oldest Xeno codex (second oldest over all). The only other Xeno race even mentioned in rumor is Eldar, and that's for Fall 2013.
But they are only rumors. Casket of salt, probably not true, tell everyone you know...
Look at what they have done to other Xeno races in the past. Both Crons and DE both took two editions to be updated. Must admit they have treated Imp armies worse, Sisters anyone?
So we all agree Seekers are BS5 against flyers, even if we can't fully agree on why. Still, I wish we had a proper AA weapon in our book.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 12, 2012, 10:27:05 PM
Look at what they have done to other Xeno races in the past. Both Crons and DE both took two editions to be updated. Must admit they have treated Imp armies worse, Sisters anyone?
Orks and Tau had a 3rd and 4th.
Eldar had a 3rd, an Expansion (Craftworld), and 4th.
Tyranids had a 3rd, 4th, AND 5th.
So, yeah, I don't follow that reasoning.
I though both Orks and Eldar both had 5th codex?
I thought the Eldar one was more of a 4.5 edition Codex.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on September 13, 2012, 11:15:35 PM
I though both Orks and Eldar both had 5th codex?
Nope, Eldar was the first Xeno codex after Tau, Orks was the last Xeno of 4th. Codex: Space Marines was the first of 5th.
Quote from: The Man They Call Jayne on September 14, 2012, 12:01:47 AM
I thought the Eldar one was more of a 4.5 edition Codex.
Well, yeah. That whole Blue Period can go to the Warp and stay there. Not even Nurgle wants it. I do like the smoothness of the layout that has continued to today, but the parseness of options can suck it.
Eldar were pretty squarely 4.0 with overtures of what would be 5th edition standard stylings.
Orks are generally regarded as the true first 4.5 codex though, since GW knew their new direction and were designing with the newer edition (less than a year down the road) in mind. Orks released in January of 2008, while 5th was released only a little later that year in July. Playtesting for both would have been nearly impossible to have been done independently due to GW's past codex/edition work examples.
Eldar though, were released years before this. Back in 2006. I sympathized with them for losing their Craftworlds, but I did relish not seeing Saim Hann spam for a little while (until Apoc returned some old school army examples).
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 14, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Eldar were pretty squarely 4.0 with overtures of what would be 5th edition standard stylings.
Orks are generally regarded as the true first 4.5 codex though, since GW knew their new direction and were designing with the newer edition (less than a year down the road) in mind. Orks released in January of 2008, while 5th was released only a little later that year in July. Playtesting for both would have been nearly impossible to have been done independently due to GW's past codex/edition work examples.
Eldar though, were released years before this. Back in 2006. I sympathized with them for losing their Craftworlds, but I did relish not seeing Saim Hann spam for a little while (until Apoc returned some old school army examples).
4.5 isn't anything official, so it can mean whatever you want. For me, it started with the first codex after Tau Empire that consilidated army list design and got rid of the ad hoc armoury, and when the codecies started being simplified with 'Less Is More'. So that puts Eldar and Dak Angels at the beginning, and Orks and Daemons at the end.
I'm not going to argue the finer points, but I do believe that considering 5/7 of the 4th edition codices as "4.5" is a bit short-sighted to the changes GW gradually brought around. Especially given the amount of rules changes that the design team cited as issues from 3rd solved in 4th, which were ignored going back to 5th in some ways. ::)
Your idea on what constitutes 4.5 codices would essentially leave just Black Templars as the only "true"/originally designed 4th edition codex in the entirety of 4th edition since the Tau 4th is merely a slightly updated 3rd edition codex. ;)
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 14, 2012, 10:51:23 PM
I'm not going to argue the finer points, but I do believe that considering 5/7 of the 4th edition codices as "4.5" is a bit short-sighted to the changes GW gradually brought around. Especially given the amount of rules changes that the design team cited as issues from 3rd solved in 4th, which were ignored going back to 5th in some ways. ::)
Your idea on what constitutes 4.5 codices would essentially leave just Black Templars as the only "true"/originally designed 4th edition codex in the entirety of 4th edition since the Tau 4th is merely a slightly updated 3rd edition codex. ;)
*shrug* As I said, it can mean whatever you want. If you want it to indicate the codices that were developed in the last days of the next Edition's development, you can. I just like to use it to reference the huge alteration of codex layout and design paradigm because of how notable a change it was.
And wasn't there are 4th Edition Space Marine and Tyranid codex, too (or were you referencing current codices)?
I only use what is considered the standard measurement in any game I play. In this case, I merely use the ".5" terms when discussing those old codices with players anyway, so a standard accepted opinion is just easier to work within. Even if said discussion is horridly out of date now that you guys are into 6th. :o
Though Tau are a special case in that they never got a true 4th codex vs. a 3.0++/just some extras and clarification.
I did forget about SM's getting theirs first (I really shouldn't have given the understandable trend for GW to push them), but Tyranids I remember as coming after Eldar. Mistakenly, anyways, since a quick google does show them getting a 4th edition pretty early as well, but even with those two it would still put the Eldar and later codices at a humongous count (6 including the Eldar vs. 4) to claim as 4.5er's so I don't think you could convince the larger portion of players with your view.
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.
One, their most successful expansion to date, Apocalypse, was being planned and released. Simplified rules were more likely meant to make those mass lists easier and then when it was useful they took the best of the codices as a prototype example to improve upon, since that was towards the early latter portion of 4th.
Two, they were in a financial crisis at the time of later-mid 4th edition. At the time they were announcing huge amounts of stores closing, essentially stopping SG support, and went through upper management changes. All of this led to lower numbers which Apoc thankfully saved for the stockholders. The stocks shot back up when Apoc pulled GW out of the fire.
And then they raised prices again, removed box sets, and went back to normal. XD
Three, GW has never (openly) indicated that they have the sort of foresight your list would suggest. Sad but true. :derp:
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.
I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history. Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar. Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.
Right now, we're looking at several design schemes in play:
1) Post-3rd: Expansions of the slap-dash affair that 3rd Edition "Band-Aid" codices left armies with. This includes Codex: Black Templar and Codex: Tau Empire.
2) 4.5: Restructuring of the codices to make it easier for armies to be built and not bounce all over for pricing, gear options, etc. This started with Codex: Eldar, and continues to this day with minor modifications with each subsequent one (page numbers for unit descriptions, for example).
We have even more design paradigms in play:
1) Post-3rd. Pretty much same as above.
2) 4.5: These codices were to calm down "over-powering" builds and bring other armies up to date. Most were hit with a serious nerf-bat. This comprises from Codex: Eldar through Codex: Chaos Daemons (though, this last is really hard to tell).
3) 5th: These codices fall under 2 groups: 1) Let the story determine the unit's rules, and 2) Let's make the units with new kits better so people buy more of them. Often, in the same codex. This comprises Codex: Space Marines up to Necrons (and probably Chaos Space Marines next, we'll see).
4) Band-Aid: These codices were updated in White Dwarf exclusive articles introduced when no one really wants to (or is allowed to) make the effort to design a full book, but the designer wants to do SOMETHING. This comprises of Sisters of Battle and part of Chaos Daemons. The first of this we saw was Blood Angels.
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
Three, GW has never (openly) indicated that they have the sort of foresight your list would suggest. Sad but true. :derp:
What foresight are you talking about?
Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.
I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history. Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar. Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
What foresight are you talking about?
What you alluded to with your following comment was what I have been talking about. If you paint that many as being 4.5 indicative then it implies GW was planning it in advance for Fifth vs. just being a 4th edition change that was further refined in 5th.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 14, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
For me, it started with the first codex after Tau Empire that consilidated army list design and got rid of the ad hoc armoury, and when the codecies started being simplified with 'Less Is More'.
Those changes, according to your original comments' broad 4.5 brush stroke hits six codices including Eldar. Comprising 60% of the total codex output for the entirety of 4th (ten codices).
A number of what you consider phases are just normal edition changes though so I'm not following some of those arguments to the same end as you.
I think it is best to examine time frame for this sort of edition talk given GW's past examples. Orks and Daemons are undoubtedly 4.5 codices aka designed for the current game with the next edition in mind. I remember the threads all crying about prices and abilities... Heh.
Anyway, I don't agree that Eldar were designed for 4th but made with 5th in mind and that belief is reflected in multiple other venues of the game's discussion online. Believing otherwise, if I read your post properly, is like arguing the 3rd edition Experimental CC rules, that became the basis for 4th/5th's CC and continued changing up until 6th edition today's incarnation are all just late 3rd edition ideas. However each edition has made CC different from that original version, so therefore I look each permutation merely like that it's edition, even if it shares blood in the future.
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 17, 2012, 02:00:44 AM
Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 16, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
GW was not in a position conducive to designing that many codices in advance. Three big reasons why.
I never said they designed them in advance any more than any other codex in history. Only that the design scheme (that of eliminating the pick and choose armoury was a part) and paradigm (less is more, minimizing army design choices outside of the army list) occurred after Codex: Tau Empire beginning with Codex: Eldar. Other codices were being developed during this time, but not all between Tau and Space Marines, but rather 2-3 depending on which point of time you're looking at.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 16, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
What foresight are you talking about?
What you alluded to with your following comment was what I have been talking about. If you paint that many as being 4.5 indicative then it implies GW was planning it in advance for Fifth vs. just being a 4th edition change that was further refined in 5th.
Quote from: Charistoph on September 14, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
For me, it started with the first codex after Tau Empire that consilidated army list design and got rid of the ad hoc armoury, and when the codecies started being simplified with 'Less Is More'.
Those changes, according to your original comments' broad 4.5 brush stroke hits six codices including Eldar. Comprising 60% of the total codex output for the entirety of 4th (ten codices).
A number of what you consider phases are just normal edition changes though so I'm not following some of those arguments to the same end as you.
I think it is best to examine time frame for this sort of edition talk given GW's past examples. Orks and Daemons are undoubtedly 4.5 codices aka designed for the current game with the next edition in mind. I remember the threads all crying about prices and abilities... Heh.
Anyway, I don't agree that Eldar were designed for 4th but made with 5th in mind and that belief is reflected in multiple other venues of the game's discussion online. Believing otherwise, if I read your post properly, is like arguing the 3rd edition Experimental CC rules, that became the basis for 4th/5th's CC and continued changing up until 6th edition today's incarnation are all just late 3rd edition ideas. However each edition has made CC different from that original version, so therefore I look each permutation merely like that it's edition, even if it shares blood in the future.
So let's get this straight, you're overlaying your interpretation on to my interpretation and that's why I'm wrong?
I'm simply referencing 4.5 as a complete change of codex design that happened to be in the middle of 4th Edition. Full Stop.
I am not saying, one way or the other, that these were simply test codices for 5th Edition, you are. I would welcome the thought that Daemons, Orks, and Space Marines were 4.9, since they were designed in the last phases of 5th Edition's development, and showed a marked improvement in design paradigm over Eldar, Dark Angels, and Chaos Marines.
No, you are wrong because your timeline is based on incorrect beliefs stemming from the baseline definition and timing.
The common standard for saying 3.5/4.5/5.5 (I'm sure, though I've not been around enough for the last one) is as I said before. A codex made in the edition, but designed with the rules in mind for the next edition.
You are free to believe what you want, but you do not get to label what is common as your own definition simply to work with your own views. You are working backwards from a 5th edition mindset here and looking for commonality brought around in earlier codices,which you claimed to have started with the Eldar codex, not me. The only mistake I have made so far has been forgetting two earlier codices, which I did not blame on your part at all. Past that I have merely responded to your posts.
There is no such thing as a 4.9 edition codex, you won't find that term being commonly understood or recognized. What you are seeing in codex layout etc. are purely design changes that were brought to a further form in a new edition based off of the older rules that preceded. Like my example with CC through 3rd shows as ongoing changes, which may share common roots but does not turn it into some overcomplicated number.
Ask some of the old-timers on here who predate me (like Wargamer or Rez), I doubt you will have found any term for a codex outside a whole number or half fraction.
Quote from: Enderwiggin on September 18, 2012, 01:57:38 AM
No, you are wrong because your timeline is based on incorrect beliefs stemming from the baseline definition and timing.
The common standard for saying 3.5/4.5/5.5 (I'm sure, though I've not been around enough for the last one) is as I said before. A codex made in the edition, but designed with the rules in mind for the next edition.
You are free to believe what you want, but you do not get to label what is common as your own definition simply to work with your own views. You are working backwards from a 5th edition mindset here and looking for commonality brought around in earlier codices,which you claimed to have started with the Eldar codex, not me. The only mistake I have made so far has been forgetting two earlier codices, which I did not blame on your part at all. Past that I have merely responded to your posts.
There is no such thing as a 4.9 edition codex, you won't find that term being commonly understood or recognized. What you are seeing in codex layout etc. are purely design changes that were brought to a further form in a new edition based off of the older rules that preceded. Like my example with CC through 3rd shows as ongoing changes, which may share common roots but does not turn it into some overcomplicated number.
Ask some of the old-timers on here who predate me (like Wargamer or Rez), I doubt you will have found any term for a codex outside a whole number or half fraction.
Considering this is the first time I heard of this concept, that the X.5 Edition codices were the last of the Edition (which makes little sense, since it's not halfway, but at the end), is why I do not agree with you. You are the only person who has told me that. That's out of the thousands of correcters on WhineSeer, here, Bolter & Chainsword, and my LGS.
The only time before now (from someone else) that I have heard a X.5 Edition codex was the second Chaos Marine codex to come out in 3rd Edition. That was more to do with it being the second codex more than it being near the tail end of the edition.
Which is why I detailed it as a personal thing. Considering that it's not in any lexicanum, codex, BRB, or site FAQ, there is nothing official and it's entirely up to the person in question to interpret.
If it will make you happy, I will refer them as 4.2 codices from now on. From a software version identification, that's probably a bit more accurate, at which point, there would be no 4.5 codices due to the fact that there were only 2 types of codices in that edition.
Alternatively, each codex produces a new version number, making Codex: Eldar 4.6, Dark Angels 4.7, Chaos Marines 4.8, Orks 4.9, and Daemons as 4.10, and Space Marines 4.1 & 5.1.
It all goes by your perspective, and you're trying to force your interpretation of my earlier statements in to your paradigm, accusing me of saying GW has considerable foresight (which is a laugh). This is why I explain the paradigm, to reduce confusion.
I would recommend looking about online a bit more then if you wanted to know more about it. While it's true that it is merely player terminology, it's not a new concept. I'm not sure of the current 2S ToS, but I can go find some other sites using it if you'd like.
Anyway, partial codex number like a software update system would indeed make much more sense, but gamers are a slang-slinging lot for the most part.
The point five was likely adopted for it's ease of use since going into detailed breakdowns is likely going to be imperfect since, as you noted there is some measure of personal opinion to it. That's why the most hybrid (though I loathe to use the word here) codex designs are what prompt the half descriptions. It's also not uncommon that these are usually the later ones, since they fit into neither edition perfectly.
Going back to Eldar for a moment, I think they were priced extremely fairly and designed well for 4th's intentions. Nothing incredibly under/overcosted (both of those opinions obviously), though some of the vehicles had protective upgrades that were quite advantageous in the edition. 5th brought many times more changes than just their layout and I do think Eldar influenced a bit of it in the testing days since the army was (iirc) one of the more popular ones in 4th.
Extremely useful thread guys :) - was just about to post a new thread asking how seekers were fired.
Can I ask a few questions though?
1) Where are you getting it from that seekers are fired at BS5?
2) Do they always fire at BS5 no matter what? (which would make sense if the target has been designated by a markerlight) at fliers, infantry, ground vehicles etc?
EDIT: It seems reading a few more posts that you guys are saying that they're fired at BS5 only at fiers. What BS then, are they fired at for ground targets? And again, where can I find both of these bits of info?
Thanks again.
3) If the way we determine which side of a vehicle has been hit is to draw a straight line from the firer to the target, but the missile doesn't need LoS - then what happens if there is a building in the way of the missile? Do we assume the missile goes in an ark over the top of the building, comes down, and proceeds in a straight line?
Thanks a bunch!
1) It's in the codex, under markerlight entry from memory.
2) Yep, always BS5 even against ground targets. The discussion was focusing on Flyers, otherwise you can't snap fire a Seeker missile.
3) Pretty much, just draw a straight line and ignore any terrain for that.
Hope I've helped clear it up for you.
Quote from: Tybalt Defet on October 06, 2012, 04:55:23 PM
1) It's in the codex, under markerlight entry from memory.
2) Yep, always BS5 even against ground targets. The discussion was focusing on Flyers, otherwise you can't snap fire a Seeker missile.
3) Pretty much, just draw a straight line and ignore any terrain for that.
Hope I've helped clear it up for you.
Thanks :) - all sorted!
Ok so I think this is already in concensus, but I just want to see if I undersand this correctly. Here is the conclusion I drew on my own from scouring the internet.
So I've been trying to find the answer to a question about the tau codex, and I want your opinions on this. I say yes, they can and Jared believes they cannot but is unsure. I'll try an lay out all the evidence and see what you guys think.
Can seeker missiles be fired at flyers at BS 5? All signs point to yes(in my opinion) and heres why:
So first off I know that the pathfinder unit has to originally hit the flyer with a markerlight. we're assuming here that out of the 4 or 6 marker lights being fired at it, at least 1 got a lucky 6. So now our target is lit up.
We'll go to the marker light entry in the tau codex next. The marker light entry says "To allow a vehicle to fire a single seeker missile at the marked unit. This shooting is resolved normally in all regards at an assumed ballistic skill of 5." Direct from the book.
Now, according to the hard to hit flyers rule, the unit shooting at the flyer will have to snap shoot if targetting it, therefore making it BS of 1. Onto the Tau FAQ.
Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (P29)
A: Ballistic Skill 5.
Direcly from the FAQ. Notice how the Stunned, shaken, is not exclusive, it is only an example, saying for any reason if it is reduced to BS of 1, which would include Snapfire.
So, we have the Ballistic skill of the unit being reduced to 1 due to hard to hit, so the Missile will then be resolved at BS of 5 at the Flyer. That is my reasoning to believe that it is a BS 5 shot at the flyer (albeit having to hit with the marker light first)
The only counter argument to this I can find is in the General WH40k rule book FAQ, which says
Q: Can the BS1 of a snap shot ever be modified by special rules that modify the BS of a model's shooting attack (such as Tau markerlights, Space marine Signums, or Sergeants Telion's Voice of Experience)?(P13)
A: No.
But, my counter argument to this is that the marker light can up a units Ballistic skill by 1 for each marker light expended. For example, my crisis suit team fires at a flyer and would need 6's, but if i used a marker light they'd be Bs2 instead needing 5's now. This cannot happen.
Also another argument I'd put against this is that the FAQ specifically says "Modified". The definition of a modifier in the big rule book for 40k is defined very early on as something that adds +1, -1, or doubles. Those are modifiers. The Tau FAQ does not "modify" the BS, it just sets it for BS 5 for a seeker missile whenever the unit has to snapfire.
I think your own evidence for it being BS5 just shows that you need 6's to hit. I think they FAQ's are pretty clear. Unless you have Skyfire you can only snap shot them. It means my Wolves can't hit them with Njals storm effects, despite autohits. It means Tau can't hit them with their seekers on a 2+. I think its just clutching at straws and no big tournament will be ruling them as hitting on anything other than a 6.
Tau have a nice answer for flyers anyway, just take more broadsides.
From what you're saying it sounds like the order you put it in is that it starts out at BS 5, and then because it snap shots it's BS1, which isn't the case.
It goes from having no profile, no BS to then being fired at a snap shot because it's coming from the vehicle, and then because it's snap shot it's FAQ'd to being BS5.
Quote from: Grunt90 on October 12, 2012, 01:31:45 PM
Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (P29)
A: Ballistic Skill 5.
Direcly from the FAQ. Notice how the Stunned, shaken, is not exclusive, it is only an example, saying for any reason if it is reduced to BS of 1, which would include Snapfire.
And I still say that this entry is pointless for this question because the Seekers have always ignored the status of the Firing Vehicle (except for Wrecked, of course). It's not the vehicle, usually, that is doing the actual firing of the weapon as it doesn't happen in it's turn of Shooting, so something that changes it's BS of 3 or 3(4) has no bearing on a Seeker hitting a Flyer, leaving any such rulings on it pointless.
It's not pointless though because directly from the marker light entry in the codex, it reads that it lets the vehicle fire the missile. That's where it is relevant.
To some, Grunt90, it is a matter of interpretation whether the vehicle is actually firing the missile (even though it is directly stated to be so in the Markerlight entry), due to a combination of the fluff (detailing the lack of control over the firing mechanisms on the vehicle itself and the role of the "Markerlight User" in that process) and the mechanics by which Seekers are fired (as ably stated by Charistoph).
To me, the Seeker Missile is a weapon fired by the vehicle (because, hey, that's what the rules say) with a metric shtlk ton of exceptions regarding if, how, and when it is fired, and the peculiarities of its targetting. As those exceptions are not explicitly relevant to the snap fire rule caused by shooting at a flier (I'll edit in the exact rule later), and the FAQ entry you and I have quoted can apply due to the application of Snap Fire rules that doesn't mechanically distinguish itself from the same application based on the Shaken and Stunned conditions noted in the FAQ, it stands to reason that the FAQ answer is applicable to firing Seekers at fliers - it is done at BS 5.
I can understand the viewpoints of others that the exceptions and apparent intentions of the writers overwhelm that supposedly tenuous rule connection, even though I don't agree with it. :P
I agree, and I can see the other side of argument easily. I guess it'll just have to be one of those things that are mentioned in tournament rules and, I guess during a friendly game you just better hope for a friendly opponent :P
I never really used seekers, so I haven't looked into this.
But is it not Codex beats Rule Book?
So with an FAQ involved, a codex would still beat a rulebook FAQ.
Which means the Tau Codex FAQ beats them all and has the Q&A already presented that clearly states:
Q: If a vehicle is reduced to Ballistic Skill 1 (because it is Shaken, Stunned, for example) do its seeker missiles fire at Ballistic Skill 1 or Ballistic Skill 5? (P29)
A: Ballistic Skill 5.
Now if you really wanted to nit pick you can say the rule book says the BS is 'counted' as BS 1, it doesn't say 'reduced' to BS 1 like it does in the Tau FAQ Q&A.
And now having just checked the rule book for the damage chart. (as i haven't once had a shaken or stunned result yet :D) The exact wording for shaken and stunned is not the BS is reduced to 1. It is the vehicle can only fire snap shots.
Tau Q&A says seekers missiles fire at BS 5 when shaken and stunned are used as examples.
Firing while stunned/shaken or when shooting at fliers are done as snap shots. The same thing.
So I would say seekers fire at BS5, but you still need that markerlight to hit on a BS of 1.
RB
I played an Apocalypse game today with 5000pts of Tau on one side and we all agreed that once a markerlight token is attached to the flyer, you just need to roll a 2+ for the seeker to hit. Although the number of times a 1 was scored on that second roll was disproportionately high.
If you think about it logically, its a homing missile, it doesn't really matter if you're on the ground stationary or going very quickly through the air, Its probably going to hit you regardless.
A better description would be a guided, ground following cruise missile, as it needs the marker to guide it. Smart Missile would be homing as they don't need a marker. But that's beside the point.
I wish FAQ writers would back check what has/is in to other FAQs. Then we wouldn't get situations like this. Has anyone checked to see if the rules hierarchy still actually exists? It existed because of special rules in the codii, but now most if not all are listed in the rulebook.
Quote from: Raving Bonkers on October 13, 2012, 09:11:59 PM
And now having just checked the rule book for the damage chart. (as i haven't once had a shaken or stunned result yet :D) The exact wording for shaken and stunned is not the BS is reduced to 1. It is the vehicle can only fire snap shots.
Tau Q&A says seekers missiles fire at BS 5 when shaken and stunned are used as examples.
Firing while stunned/shaken or when shooting at fliers are done as snap shots. The same thing.
So I would say seekers fire at BS5, but you still need that markerlight to hit on a BS of 1.
Now, they are used as examples, but my point earlier on ignoring this for relevance in shooting at a Flyer is that the Vehicle's Condition (which is what it is referring to) has never been of issue in firing a Seeker (unless the vehicle itself was calling the Marker Light's use of course), but the question is on the TARGET's status, not the vehicle's.
BTW, I agree it should hit as BS 5, or at the worst, a roll off.
Quote from: Charistoph on October 15, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
Quote from: Raving Bonkers on October 13, 2012, 09:11:59 PM
And now having just checked the rule book for the damage chart. (as i haven't once had a shaken or stunned result yet :D) The exact wording for shaken and stunned is not the BS is reduced to 1. It is the vehicle can only fire snap shots.
Tau Q&A says seekers missiles fire at BS 5 when shaken and stunned are used as examples.
Firing while stunned/shaken or when shooting at fliers are done as snap shots. The same thing.
So I would say seekers fire at BS5, but you still need that markerlight to hit on a BS of 1.
Now, they are used as examples, but my point earlier on ignoring this for relevance in shooting at a Flyer is that the Vehicle's Condition (which is what it is referring to) has never been of issue in firing a Seeker (unless the vehicle itself was calling the Marker Light's use of course), but the question is on the TARGET's status, not the vehicle's.
BTW, I agree it should hit as BS 5, or at the worst, a roll off.
From a fluff point of view BS 1 makes no sense. Seeker missiles are the Tau
Quote from: Pottsey on October 21, 2012, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: Charistoph on October 15, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
Quote from: Raving Bonkers on October 13, 2012, 09:11:59 PM
And now having just checked the rule book for the damage chart. (as i haven't once had a shaken or stunned result yet :D) The exact wording for shaken and stunned is not the BS is reduced to 1. It is the vehicle can only fire snap shots.
Tau Q&A says seekers missiles fire at BS 5 when shaken and stunned are used as examples.
Firing while stunned/shaken or when shooting at fliers are done as snap shots. The same thing.
So I would say seekers fire at BS5, but you still need that markerlight to hit on a BS of 1.
Now, they are used as examples, but my point earlier on ignoring this for relevance in shooting at a Flyer is that the Vehicle's Condition (which is what it is referring to) has never been of issue in firing a Seeker (unless the vehicle itself was calling the Marker Light's use of course), but the question is on the TARGET's status, not the vehicle's.
BTW, I agree it should hit as BS 5, or at the worst, a roll off.
From a fluff point of view BS 1 makes no sense. Seeker missiles are the Tau
It hit aircraft on 4s when first introduced by forgeworld in the Taros Campgain.