I honestly can't think of a counter-argument someone could use against the clear wording of the Tau Empire codex, Mabrothrax. And it's not as though pulse carbines are overpowered to begin with, so giving the drones on your Devilfish and Piranhas some meaningful utility is hardly going to put us in Grey Knights territory. Heck, given the pretty sharp disparity in usefulness between Fire Warriors with rifles and Fire Warriors with carbines, maybe the way Nevar has been reading it was the point all along, to encourage folks to take the otherwise-lackluster stubby gun!

Indeed. With the suitably high strength of the carbine wounds are easy to come by (even if the mediocre AP means they get saved). All of a sudden a single markerlight used to reduced Ld (explicated stated as for the purposes of pinning) becomes very attractive.

It seems obvious in retrospect that this 'superior pinning' was the carbines intended raison d'etre all along. Is it possible that the majority have overlooked his? Or are we simply reading too much into suspect wording? I prefer to think the former.

Hello Gentlemen

I'd just like to draw attention to the manner in which you have conducted yourselves throughout this discussion. Though you hold different points of view you have been able to amicably discuss this topic and back your respective cases. No personal attacks or circular arguments. This is surely some of the best discussion and decorum I have seen on ATT in quite some time. It is uplifting to see the turnaround in ATT compared to the state of our conversations only two months ago.
As a side note, I too have been forced to take a second look at my views of carbine pinning.

Keep up the good work.

Agreed, Crooked Bird.

Back on topic, Nan'sha, I'm just wondering if you gave the Relentless USR a thorough read-through. In case you didn't, I'll quote it for you.



Emphasis by me, page 76, like you said.

Absolutely, Ell'ran. It's not a matter of one or the other person here not knowing the rules, but of a difference in interpretation of how two different rulesets interact. For instance, you're dead right that Relentless models count as being stationary even if they move. This, of course, is why the Stealth Drone Team is a moderately viable concept; a trio of marker drones, and a markerlight on the team leader. The trick, however, is in the wording of the XV8 rules.

"The battlesuits are designed to compensate for the recoil of light weapons fire, so they do not count as moving when they fire Rapid Fire weapons. This ability does not extend to heavy weapons, however, and the user must be stationary to fire them." (p. 27)

It is my contention that the way this rule is worded draws a clear distinction between counting as moving and actually moving. There is precedent for this; transports that spin, for instance, will 'count-as' stationary in regards to how many weapons they can fire, but have actually moved, and therefore restrict the ability of models to disembark and assault. In the case of the XV8, I maintain that the author has established that XV8s, for whatever reason, can count-as stationary for rapid fire weapons, but must actually refrain from moving in order to fire heavy weapons. I also object to the idea that the Relentless USR was written to 'fix' this issue, for two reasons; one, codex-specific rules always overwrite general BRB rules, and two, if GW had actually recognized this as an issue to be resolved why not instruct the readers to ignore the section in an FAQ? They took out all references to Target Priority tests, they could certainly have updated the XV8 rules.

I wasn't implying that you didn't know the rules, I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. I simply think you're over thinking this a little too much, however.

XV8s can fire Rapid Fire weapons while moving, they must be stationary to fire Heavy weapons though. Relentless via Jetpacks means that models count as being stationary when firing Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons. There is no conflict within the way the rules are worded, and the two books aren't being exclusive in any way.

As for the vehicles counting as being stationary, and being actually stationary, was this clarified in an official Errata? I ask because there are multiple cases of things being "count-as", and if you are just house ruling this in then you are probably doing it wrong. For example, Ironclad Dreadnaughts "count-as" having assault and defensive grenades. However, since they don't actually have them are they not allowed to use them? Disruption Pods make our vehicles "count-as" being obscured, but they aren't actually obscured, so they get no cover. Twin-linked battlesuit systems "count-as" two weapon mounts, but they aren't actually two weapons so they actually count as one. See where I'm going with this? I'm sure if you looked through the books, you could find a whole array of things that are "count as". If you mess with one, then you're messing with the entire game, and the game breaks.

Alright, I'm not totally sure I understand what you're saying, Ell'ran. So, y'know, if I sound like I've just had a stroke and started going off on a complete tangent, that's why.

I'm not arguing against the idea of counts-as. What I'm saying is, there are distinctions within the game between 'counts-as' and 'actually is'. As I mentioned, the interaction between pivoting a transport, shooting, and disembarking. According to p. 57, "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary." Sounds straightforward, right? It's even reinforced on the next page, under the 'Vehicles Shooting' section, where the book states that "Vehicles that remained stationary may fire all of their weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving)." So then we come to disembarking. "If the vehicle has not yet moved, then the passengers may dismebark and move normally." (p. 67) So, obviously, pivoting isn't movement, because you can pivot and still count as stationary, meaning you could pivot, disembark troops, pivot again to bring your weapons back to bear, and still be able to fire them all. Right?

Well, no. You see, despite the fact that pivoting is noted as not counting as movement, and that a pivoting vehicle counts as being stationary, the vehicle rules draw a distinction between actually being stationary and just counting as stationary. For disembarkation, "If the vehicle has already moved (including pivoting on the spot), the passengers may disembark, but may not move any further in that Movement phase," (p. 67) and after those passengers have disembarked the vehicle, which was counts-as stationary but did move through pivoting, "may not move any further (including pivoting on the spot)." (p. 67) So, as you can see sometimes counts-as isn't actually enough to satisfy the conditions of the rules, and you have to actually perform (or not perform, as the case may be) the action in question itself.

What I'm trying to say about the blurb in the XV8 rules is something similar. Namely, that under the rules as I read them, XV8s count as being stationary for the purposes of firing rapid fire weapons, even if they moved; for heavy weapons, however, they actually have to be stationary. As a result, despite what the general Relentless rules say about the abilities of jet pack Jump Infantry, the specific rules of the XV8 require the models to meet the higher standard of not just counts-as, but 'actually-is', for want of a cleaner division of concepts.

The pivot rule provides its own exception.

With the relentless USR and the codex there is no conflict. The model must remain stationary as per the codex and as per the BRB it counts-as being stationary. Doombringer summed it up well.

I don't think arguing the legitimacy of 'counts-as' rules is really something you can do here outside of a philosophy class. In gaming, counts-as typically means 'is or has' without actually being.