Its a vehicle thats a troop choice!

[stereynolds]

Right essentially becuase the argument has come up at my club. I KNOW a devilfish isn't a troops choice but someone is desperately trying to claim it is becuase it isn't specifically listed as a dedicated transport. ANyone able to point me at the rule that says it is/he can't use it as a troop choice?

[yabbadabba]

I think you have the burden of proof wrong mate. Your colleague needs to prove where it does say that a devilfish is a troop choice. That's how the rules work.

[stereynolds]

His argument was its in the troops section as the Tau book is a 4th edition codex it doesn't have its own greyed out Dedicated Transport area.

[Sami]

I already posted the solution on our forums .

If you look at the sideways text next to the entry it is listed as "Transport" and not "Troops" like the Firewarriors and Kroot. So while it is listed under the Troops section, it can not be taken as a standalone unit as there is no "Transport" FOC slot.

[Tethylis]

Which slot a transport belongs to depends on which unit the transport was bought for. A devilfish will count as troops if purchased for firewarriors but if bought for pathfinders then it will count as a fast attack choice. See BRB pg 87 'Dedicated Transports'

[Sami]

This is very much about the layout of the Tau codex, and whether the Devilfish could be misinterpreted as being available as both a standalone unit (in Troops) or as a dedicated transport. Much like the Land Raider can be standalone or dedicated for some units. It's not about the wording of the rules but the formatting of the codex.

To be honest, had I not have seen the very faint "Transport" designation down the left-hand side, I would've said the original query was very valid. Spotting that though and comparing it to the rest of the formatting in the Tau book cleared up the issue (IMO anyway).

[Nurgling Chieftain]

I'm having some difficulty imagining why anybody would want to take a Devilfish as such. It still wouldn't be scoring!

[Fraf]

I'm having some difficulty imagining why anybody would want to take a Devilfish as such. It still wouldn't be scoring!

Tau troops are both bad and expensive, and often considered as a tax you want to keep as low as possible. Taking a Devilfish as your second mandatory troop choice (if it was legal) would be cutting that tax by 60-70 points, while still fulfilling the concept of "take one objective with a min squad of firewarriors sheltered in a Devilfish, contest/kill everything else".

[stereynolds]

Its month 1 of a tale of x gamers style thing we're running. Although 6th will hit by the time we get round to playing our 1st game so may well shake things up a little anyway.

[don_mondo]

I already posted the solution on our forums .

And he (and we) know your answer is right because....................? No, the Devilfish is not a Troops choice on it's own, it is a dedicated transport and can only be bought for a unit.

[Sami]

As I said, you need to physically look at the Tau codex. The Devilfish is explicitly listed in the "Troops" section, not a "Dedicated Transport" section. The question asked was completely legit when looking at the layout of the Tau codex, as it could easily be misintepreted as a Land Raider situation (can be taken as dedicated transport for a unit or taken in a FOC slot) as it has no additional text saying that it can only be taken as a Dedicated Transport unit.

[don_mondo]

Yes, I have the Tau codex and have looked at it. Somehow, I never got the idea that it could be taken as a Troop Force Org slot on it's own. But I guess I can see how a newer player might get confused or be mislead by others. So I'll repeat the correct answer. No, the Devilfish is not a Troops choice on it's own, it is a dedicated transport and can only be bought for a unit.

[Sons of Lorgar]

The chimera in the previous guard codex and the rhino in SM/CSM codexes was written in the same way, a darker box in the troops section, and nobody ever confused those as anything else than dedicated transports AFAIK.

[Sami]

The chimera in the previous guard codex and the rhino in SM/CSM codexes was written in the same way, a darker box in the troops section, and nobody ever confused those as anything else than dedicated transports AFAIK.

The Tau one isn't in a different coloured box, and doesn't have the extra wording explaining it can only be taken as a dedicated transport like the SM and CSM codexes have

[Tethylis]

No, but it does have 'Transport' stenciled along side it whereas the firewarriors and kroot have 'Troops' at their side.

[Sami]

No, but it does have 'Transport' stenciled along side it whereas the firewarriors and kroot have 'Troops' at their side.

Yes, which was the answer I gave in post #4

[Tethylis]

Apparently yes you did, not quite sure how i missed that somehow.

[don_mondo]

Apparently yes you did, not quite sure how i missed that somehow.

Cause he just pointed out that it said transport but didn't actually say yes or no to the question, maybe........................................? Said it 'cleared it up' but didn't say in which direction.

[Sami]

Cause he just pointed out that it said transport but didn't actually say yes or no to the question, maybe........................................? Said it 'cleared it up' but didn't say in which direction.

Erm

"So while it is listed under the Troops section, it can not be taken as a standalone unit as there is no "Transport" FOC slot. "

[don_mondo]

Erm

"So while it is listed under the Troops section, it can not be taken as a standalone unit as there is no "Transport" FOC slot. "

My apologies. I missed that, probably thought it was a sig or some such and glossed over it. This is the post I was referring to:

This is very much about the layout of the Tau codex, and whether the Devilfish could be misinterpreted as being available as both a standalone unit (in Troops) or as a dedicated transport. Much like the Land Raider can be standalone or dedicated for some units. It's not about the wording of the rules but the formatting of the codex.

To be honest, had I not have seen the very faint "Transport" designation down the left-hand side, I would've said the original query was very valid. Spotting that though and comparing it to the rest of the formatting in the Tau book cleared up the issue (IMO anyway).