Markerlights versus the Plasma Syphon

[Gentlemanloser]

Do Makerlights work to counter the effects of the Ulumethan Plasma Syphon?

 

At first thought, I would have said yes.  They increase the BS1 of Snap Shots, and the UPS makes you BS1.

 

But then order of modifiers popped into my head.  A Markerlight is an Addition, the UPS is a Set.  As Sets come last, it sould over ride any BS increases from Markerlights, shouldn't it?

 

Just like Snap Fire sould do as well, being a Set.  Except the Tau Codex specifically states the Markerlights can increase the BS of Snap Fire.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Since they increase the BS of shapshots, overwatch etc I'd say yes. There will be several issues on the order of operations though.

However if the work against zooming flyers we can assume they act after their BS has been reduced to 1.

Actually first the BS is reduced to 1, then it is increased by the marklights. If two events took place simultaneously the acting player chooses the order of operations. In this case the acting player would be the one controlling the Tau.

[dswanick]

You are correct - the EPS BS set comes after the +1s applied by Marker Lights, so they should have no effect. But then again, the BS set of SnapnShots comes after the +1s from Marker Lights and GW FAQd Signums as not working on Snap Shots even though a Codex BS set should override a BRB BS set (per BRB, pg7). So i think its safe to say GW has no idea how its rules actually act and interact, therefore it's anyone's guess which way they'll FAQ this one. (Actually, they'll probably FAQ it in the manner which drives the most sales, which they did with the Signum, the Helldrake, and Wolf Scouts, IMO).

[Gentlemanloser]

Markerlights are actually still FAQed to *not* effect Snap Shots.

 

But it's in the BRB FAQ, which, shouldn't, effect the printed rules in the Codex.

 

Or should it?

 

/sigh

[dswanick]

Markerlights are actually still FAQed to *not* effect Snap Shots.

 

But it's in the BRB FAQ, which, shouldn't, effect the printed rules in the Codex.

 

Or should it?

 

/sigh

Because I'm in the middle of moving to a new house, I haven't had the opportunity to really dissect the new Tau codex. Can you quote the new Markerlight rule because I was under the impression it was states that it can modify Snap Shot BS.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Markerlights are actually still FAQed to *not* effect Snap Shots.

 

But it's in the BRB FAQ, which, shouldn't, effect the printed rules in the Codex.

 

Or should it?

 

/sigh

 

New Codex rule says they modify the snapshots BS....it's the old "Codex versus Rulebook" quarrel ;)

 

Anyway just a note: I believe the signum mechanics differ from markerlights. The first gives you a predetermined value, namely BS5, and it does not modify snapshots. Even if you have BS10 you still snapshot at BS1. The second gives you a bonus to whatever BS you are using, in that case BS1.

In other words the sigum gives you new value wich get modified by snapshot rule, the second add a modifier which takes place with the usual order of operations.

 

It's one of the many unclear rules mechanics GW gave to us. We'll have to wait for a FAQ even though we know how FAQs act. ;)

Do you remember, for example GK Nemsesis Force halberd effect on reduced to I1 models?

 

Q: If a model with a Nemsesis Force halberd has had his Initiative

reduced to a fixed number by an ability/special rule , do they still

get the +2 Initiative from the Halberd? (p54)

 1st Asnwer NO

2nd FAQ YES

3rd FAQ NO.

 

Just for the records, though ;)

[dswanick]

@Cmdr Shepard - I'm not going to quote, as I'm on my tablet. But here goes:

Yes, I remember the GK faq you refer to. :lol:

 

As for the Signum/Snap Fire debate. After a multi-page thread, I don't think anyone showed how Snap Shot sets the firer's BS for those shots without setting the BS for those shots. As such, a Codex BS set value must override the BRB BS set value. None the less, GW saw fit to FAQ it that "BS is counted as being 1 for those purposes" became the holy writ of Snap Shots.

Enter Markerlights. Assuming my understanding of the text of the rule is accurate, Markerlights apply a +1 to a firing models BS. Snap Shots still set a model's BS to 1 for those shots and the BRB says that multipliers are applied first, then additions/subtractions (such as the Markerlight), and finally any set values are applied (such as Snap Shot BS1).

If the Codex Signum can't override the BRB Snap Shots rule, then Markerlights shouldn't either. If Markerlights can override BRB Snap Shots (even in the face of multiply<add/subtract<set, then Signums should surely override BRB Snap Shots. Yet GW seems to see it as reasonable, and will probably FAQ it as exactly opposite of their FAQ on Signums.

 

As for it being an "unclear game mechanic", i disagree. The rules involved are very clear, it's just that GW has no clue how their own rules work and interact. As such they have instituted a GW house rule which is directly counter to their RAW.

[Gentlemanloser]

Sorry ds, can't quote, don't currently have the tau dex, and I'm out at a farm with my kids. :)

 

The thing is, as far as i know, the marker light rule in the tau codex mentions that they can increase the bs of snap shots.

 

So it should be easy, codex greater than brb.

 

Yet the brb faq sill specifically states that marker lights cannot effect snap shots.

[Cmdr Shepard]

@Cmdr Shepard - I'm not going to quote, as I'm on my tablet. But here goes:

Yes, I remember the GK faq you refer to.

As for the Signum/Snap Fire debate. After a multi-page thread, I don't think anyone showed how Snap Shot sets the firer's BS for those shots without setting the BS for those shots. As such, a Codex BS set value must override the BRB BS set value. None the less, GW saw fit to FAQ it that "BS is counted as being 1 for those purposes" became the holy writ of Snap Shots.

Enter Markerlights. Assuming my understanding of the text of the rule is accurate, Markerlights apply a +1 to a firing models BS. Snap Shots still set a model's BS to 1 for those shots and the BRB says that multipliers are applied first, then additions/subtractions (such as the Markerlight), and finally any set values are applied (such as Snap Shot BS1).

If the Codex Signum can't override the BRB Snap Shots rule, then Markerlights shouldn't either. If Markerlights can override BRB Snap Shots (even in the face of multiply<add/subtract<set, then Signums should surely override BRB Snap Shots. Yet GW seems to see it as reasonable, and will probably FAQ it as exactly opposite of their FAQ on Signums.

As for it being an "unclear game mechanic", i disagree. The rules involved are very clear, it's just that GW has no clue how their own rules work and interact. As such they have instituted a GW house rule which is directly counter to their RAW.

Well the fact GW has no clue on how their own rules work and interact and thus insituted a house rule etc... shows the rule mechanics are perceived by the players as unclear, namely with no certainty on how they work... but I think we are going into semantics ;)

In my experience I discovered FAQs are not an interpretation but just a game balance so they will emend the rule in order to achieve what they cosnider balance.

In other words they could solve the matter in either way... we just have to await and rely on "gentlemen agreements" for the moment.

[dswanick]

 

In my experience I discovered FAQs are not an interpretation but just a game balance so they will emend the rule in order to achieve what they cosnider balance.

In other words they could solve the matter in either way... we just have to await and rely on "gentlemen agreements" for the moment.

Agreed, it's funny, though, that even in the FAQ, GW doesn't understand their own rules. Their FAQs are supposed to be clarifications of a properly written rule, while Erratas are supposed to be changes to incorrect or incomplete rules, and Amendments are supposed to be changes to bring outdated rules into compliance. If GW considered Signums modifying Snap Shots to be unbalanced they needed to Amend the rule in C:SM FAQ or Errata Snap Shots or Order of Operations in the BRB FAQ.

Oh well - shoulda, woulda,coulda. :lol:

[Gentlemanloser]

Just for completeness, the BRB FAQ;

 

 

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 Marines Signums or Sergeant Telions's Voice of Experience)? (p13)

A: No

 

Except all of these are 'Codex' rules.  All of them.

 

So as Markerlights now ignore this FAQ, then Signums and Voice of Experience should as well.

 

In which case, why even bother with a BRB FAQ?  These types of questions really need to be addressed in each individual Codex FAQ.

[cielaq]

The main difference here is the fact that Markerlights have this little sentence in the rule "Pinpoint [the +1BS rule of markerlights] can increase the Ballistic Skill of Snap Shots and Overwatch." The other rules have no such exclusion.

[Gentlemanloser]

They don't need them.

 

There's no distinction in the rules for specific or global over rides.

 

If VoE lets you make any shot at Telions BS, it lets you make any shot.  It doesn't need to specify.

 

(And VoE lets you make any shot, as it's a permission, without restriction.  VoE would have to state something like "Can use Telions BS on any shooting attack that isn't an Overwatch Attack", or some such)

 

For clarity, Page 7's uber powerful over ride isn't about specifics.  Page 7 doesn't state that Codex over rides BRB when specifically mentioned.  In any and all rule conflicts, specific or not, Codexes over ride the BRB.

 

To be honest, Page 7 *should* be changed to only over ride when specifically mentioned.

[cielaq]

If they don't need them, then why markerlight has it?

The reason is that markerlights are exception to the general rule, that is given in FAQ. And as FAQ is clear in this case, there is no Codex>Rulebook conflict here.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

 

The arguement is this.

 

We have a number of examples where a Codex rule over rides the BRB (VoE, Signum).  These have been FAQed in the BRB FAQ to not work as they should.  The BRB FAQ suspends Page 7 for these instances.

 

However, this FAQ does the same for Markerlights.

 

But now the arguement is, well, Markerlights are a Codex rule, so a BRB FAQ has no effect on them.

 

In that case, the BRB FAQ for Sigums and VoE has no effect on them *either*.  At which point we have to question why we even have a BRB FAQ for Codex rule quieries.

 

Or, we can accept that GW need to update the BRB FAQ an amend that FAQ answer to actually allow Markerlights to work.  And until they do, Markerlights actually can't effect Snap Shots.

 

Or Signums, VoE and any other Codex based BS set does as well.

 

(In actual fact, the Codex specification for Markerlights is required to break the BRB order of operation.  As without, Markerlights being an addition can *never* increase a snap shot, due to it being a set.  Which is seperate to the global "nothing effects a Snap Shots BS, ever!" as presented in the BRB FAQ).

[cielaq]

"We have a number of examples where a Codex rule over rides the BRB (VoE, Signum)" - here is the issue, in my opinion. There is no conflict between VoE and Snanp Shot - VoE changes the BS of model, fine, but Snap shot does not change/modify BS, it simply makes you shoot as your BS was 1. So your BS is 5? Fine, it still is during Snap shot, but you just roll to hit as it was 1, not 5.

Now Markerlights is different - thanks to this little sentence there is a conflict, and so Codex>Rulebook rule will apply.

[Gentlemanloser]

My Marines BS is 4.  VoE is a modifier that makes me shoot at Telions BS (I'll say 5, can't remember if he's 5 or 6.)

 

How does it do this?  It's not a multiplication, nor addition.  It 'sets' my Marines BS to a fixed amount.  My BS is still 4, but I roll as if it's actually 5.

 

 

My Marines BS is 4.  Snap Shot is a modifier that makes me shoot at BS1.

 

How does it do this?  It's not a multiplication, nor addition. It 'sets' my Marines BS to a fixed amount.  My BS is still 4, but I roll as if it's actually 1.

 

 

The *only* difference between the two, is one is a BRB rule (Snap Fire), the other is a Codex rule.

[cielaq]

The thing is, Snap shot does not modify your BS, just as Unwieldy does not modify your I - it just make you to act at I1 step. Otherwise, Unwieldy would not work, as I4 for my sarge is Coex rule, and Unwieldy a Rulebook rule, and page 7 says...

Both of the rules looks like modifying a characteristic on a model, but in fact, none is. They only make you work in one particular situation like it was different from the one that it actually is at the moment. That's why I think there is no conflict, so page 7 rule does not apply.

GW really should have learned to write consistent rules after all this years...

[dswanick]

"We have a number of examples where a Codex rule over rides the BRB (VoE, Signum)" - here is the issue, in my opinion. There is no conflict between VoE and Snanp Shot - VoE changes the BS of model, fine, but Snap shot does not change/modify BS, it simply makes you shoot as your BS was 1. So your BS is 5? Fine, it still is during Snap shot, but you just roll to hit as it was 1, not 5.
Now Markerlights is different - thanks to this little sentence there is a conflict, and so Codex>Rulebook rule will apply.

And in addition to gentlemanloser's above post, follow the chain of modifiers for a Tau firing Snap Shots w/ benefit of a Markerlight:
- Tau BS3
- multiplications? - none
- Additions? - Markerlight +1
- Set values? - Snap Shot BS = 1
Result? Final BS 1, because set values occur after additions. For it to work the way GW wants it to it would have to be:
Set < Multiplication < Addition/Subtraction
-or-
Multiplication < Set < Addition/Subtraction
And even then you still run into the problem that Signum set is greater than Snap Shot set because Codex > BRB (pg.7).

The thing is, Snap shot does not modify your BS, just as Unwieldy does not modify your I - it just make you to act at I1 step. Otherwise, Unwieldy would not work, as I4 for my sarge is Coex rule, and Unwieldy a Rulebook rule, and page 7 says...
Both of the rules looks like modifying a characteristic on a model, but in fact, none is. They only make you work in one particular situation like it was different from the one that it actually is at the moment. That's why I think there is no conflict, so page 7 rule does not apply.

GW really should have learned to write consistent rules after all this years...

Exactly the point. Because they give no indication of what a "set" is if it is different from a "counts as but isn't", or how to discern one from another.

It would have been far better for them to state that Snap Shots only hit on a 6+, regardless of BS and then make those modifiers they want to work with Snap Shots give a +1 to the die roll. Instead, they've royally mucked up their whole shooting phase with illogical double exceptions.

[Cmdr Shepard]

In my experience I discovered FAQs are not an interpretation but just a game balance so they will emend the rule in order to achieve what they cosnider balance.

In other words they could solve the matter in either way... we just have to await and rely on "gentlemen agreements" for the moment.

Agreed, it's funny, though, that even in the FAQ, GW doesn't understand their own rules. Their FAQs are supposed to be clarifications of a properly written rule, while Erratas are supposed to be changes to incorrect or incomplete rules, and Amendments are supposed to be changes to bring outdated rules into compliance. If GW considered Signums modifying Snap Shots to be unbalanced they needed to Amend the rule in C:SM FAQ or Errata Snap Shots or Order of Operations in the BRB FAQ.

Oh well - shoulda, woulda,coulda.

I'm under the impression, as I mentioned above, GW consider its FAQs/Erratas a way to achieve balance. Mindshackle scarabs are an example. Now the model only inflict d3 attacks on itself. So Abaddon and Mephitston, for example, no longer bring all of their attacks to themselves... this is more balance (and a needed one) than interpretation...

Until they decide to amend their own rules we should solve issue like the one of this topic with a "gentlemen agreement". The problem is not always you have to chance to do.. especially if you attent tournaments...but they should have a game master of some sort...

[Gentlemanloser]

Otherwise, Unwieldy would not work, as I4 for my sarge is Coex rule, and Unwieldy a Rulebook rule, and page 7 says...

An easy mistake. What 'rule' in the Codex is coming into conflict with the BRB unwieldy? I4 is a Characteristic, and isn't in conflict with Unwieldy. You might claim that I4 from the Codex conflicts as I attack at I4.

That's actually a BRB rule (attacking in a step equal to your I statistic), which is being modified by another BRB rule (unwieldy).

Both of the rules looks like modifying a characteristic on a model, but in fact, none is. They only make you work in one particular situation like it was different from the one that it actually is at the moment.

That's exactly what modifying a characteristic is though. If you work differently to normal, you've been modified. Whether it's by Addition/Subtraction, Multiplication or being Set to a value.

And even then you still run into the problem that Signum set is greater than Snap Shot set because Codex > BRB (pg.7).

I think one thing that's come to light is the validity of whether the BRB FAQ can actually 'over ride' a Codex rule or not.

If the BRB FAQ can over ride a Codex rule, then Markerlight currently do not work on Snap Shots.

If the BRB FAQ has no impact what so ever on any printed Codex rule.

Well, that opens a massive can of worms. The least of which are Signums and VoE effecting Snap Shots...

[Hlakir]

Technically speaking... any mention of Tau equipment or rules in the BRB FAQ should be ignored, as the current BRB FAQ are older than the current Tau codex. 

[cielaq]

And BS5 is not characteristic? ;-)

I know that Snap shot works basically the same way as "set" modifier, but formally the BS of a model is not modified, it simply takes the shot as if was different that it really is.

Formally, without VoE the procedure is as follows:

1. Your BS is 3

2. You make Snap shot, as if it was 1 (but for all other purposes it's still 3)

With VoE, it's like this:

 

1. Your BS is 3

2. VoE makes it 5 ("set" modifier)

3. You make Snap shot, as if it was 1 (but for all other purposes it's still 5)

 

At no point Snap shot formally modifies BS of a shooting model, hence no conflict.

[Morollan]

To be honest, I think we're overthinking here. Does anyone seriously think that GW specifically wrote "Pinpoint can increase the Ballistic Skill of Snap Shots and Overwatch" in the Tau Codex whilst secretly laughing and saying "But that don't matter cos when they snap shot or overwatch it gets reduced back down to BS1 anyway!"? Of course not. We all know that GW doesn't pay as much attention to their rules as the internet does. This is yet another example and it's abundantly clear what the intent is for this specific rule. I make no comment on Signums etc.

[dswanick]

To be honest, I think we're overthinking here. Does anyone seriously think that GW specifically wrote "Pinpoint can increase the Ballistic Skill of Snap Shots and Overwatch" in the Tau Codex whilst secretly laughing and saying "But that don't matter cos when they snap shot or overwatch it gets reduced back down to BS1 anyway!"? Of course not. We all know that GW doesn't pay as much attention to their rules as the internet does. This is yet another example and it's abundantly clear what the intent is for this specific rule. I make no comment on Signums etc.

No, but I have come to the belief that GW wrote the Snap Shot, Signum, and Markerlight rules whilst secretly laughing and saying:

"Hahaha, no, all the Dev models you have had for years will not threaten our shinny, new, expensive Flyer models which you will now want to buy because you can't otherwise threaten your opponent's Flyer.  Well except for our shinny, expensive, new-release army.  Their rules will allow them to threaten Flyers because we want you to buy an Allied contingent which will lead to a whole army.  PROFIT!!!". ;)

That line of thinking explains the whole Flakk missile situation, as well as several others.