Reactive Countermeasures - T'au - Argument resolved?
By - Jimmynomates83
When arguing one way or the other, it's important to keep in mind:
(a) not all models in a Crisis Suit unit necessarily have an AFP, so the rule has to be worded in such a way that the special rule only applies to models that do have an AFP.
(b) prototype systems apply to the unit as a whole.
(c) while the first line says "battlesuit model only", the wording of the system then goes on to talk about ignoring AP when resolving attacks against **a model** - not **the model** - with RCM. If the first line is meant to limit RCM to one specific model, it should refer to making saves with that specific model. IMO this is an important distinction because in relation to another Prototype Weapon - Annihilation Warheads - GW did specify the that benefit applies to one specific model via the use of "this model" wording, so clearly could (and should) have used that same wording for RCM if that was actually the intention.
(d) hits and wounds are resolved one by one. Arguably you only need to make the check for RCM on the model at the time you go to make the save for that model - does the model taking the save have an AFP and the unit it's in have RCM? If yes then ignore -1/-2.
Unlike most other prototype weapons, AFP isn't written as a "replace weapon X with weapon Y" (since none of the underlying stats of the weapon change), so we can't really look to the wording of those other prototypes for help.
It's not clear either way, and is definitely in need of an FAQ
"If a T’au Empire CHARACTER is your Warlord, rather than giving one of your T’au Empire CHARACTER models a Signature System from Codex: T’au Empire, you can instead select a Prototype Weapons System for one T’au Empire unit from your army." 100% the unit giant the ability but the models weapons determine if you can use it
I've argued it this way from the very beginning. It is actually impossible to select a single model when selecting a prototype system. You have to select entire units. Reactive countermeasures absolutely affects any model in a unit that has an AFP, there's no question.
That's what I picked up on as well (not sure why I hadn't before), but yeah, you don't actually apply the system to any particular model. So if you have three Crisis Suits with an AFP, which one is it on? The answer seems to be - all of them.
Except each PWS explains how its applied. Most go out of their way to explain that that it applies to the entire datasheet, like the burst cannon upgrade. They specify the plural. Reactive Countermeasures states Battlesuit Model, not Models.
For example, Cross Linked Stabilizer Jets refers to the whole unit. It refers to both single model Commander units, Bodyguards, and regular Crisis Suits and covers every model in that unit. There's no plural in Reactive Countermeasures. It applies to the unit, as per the rules at the start of the section, but only one model in that unit benefits from the effect per the relic itself, and no one else. There's in-section examples of how each relic is applied to multiple model-datasheets, and Reactive Countermeasures indicates it is a singular upgrade.
To go back to Gatling Burst Cannons (and similarly, Networked Markerlights) they specifically replace every weapon in the relic description. Further High Powered Incinerators specifically applies to the whole unit, and if Reactive Countermeasures was supposed to be for every model in a unit, it would have the same language.
I would prefer GW FAQ this, either way. It's silly that they haven't taken the time to answer the question.
RCM is totally different from the other systems though - its not a replacement for the weapon (like gatling BC) and it only applies when you're being shot at, not when you are shooting, and hits have to be allocated 1 by 1 to specific models.
Regardless of whether it affects a whole unit or just a model, at the time it actually matters - when you are modifying a save roll via AP - you're only talking about one model, since only one mode is making the save.
So you only need to make the check for RCM on the model at the time you go to make the save for that model - does the model taking the save have an AFP and the unit it's in have RCM? If yes then it's a "Battlesuit Model" (not models) in a unit that benefits from RCM, so it ignores AP -1/-2.
Also, while the first line says "battlesuit model only", the wording of the system then goes on to talk about ignoring AP when resolving attacks against **a model** - not **the model** - with RCM. If the first line is meant to limit RCM to one specific model, it should refer to making saves with that specific model.
It's not clear either way, and is definitely in need of an FAQ
>the wording of the system then goes on to talk about ignoring AP when resolving attacks against a model - not the model - with RCM.
Except, again, we look at other PWS's: Cross Linked Stabilizer jets goes out of its way to specify models in the unit when its effects occur. We're still getting a reference to a singular model here, and not a model as part of a unit.
That goes both ways though - just like RCM isn't the same as CLS, it also isn't the same as Annihilation Warheads:
> KV128 STORMSURGE model only. When resolving an attack made with a destroyer missile **by this model**
You're right that, if RCM was meant to work like CLS, GW should have used the same wording. But similarly if it was meant to only affect one model they should have used wording like AW. But they didn't do either.
Which goes back to my initial point - if the reference to "Battlesuit model only" is meant to limit RCM to one model, then the reference to making saves by *a model* should say *this model*, like it does with AW.
RAW RCM makes perfect sense without too much thought.
First you select a unit. You select the crisis suit unit. Then the blanket rule that affects the *entire unit* is "model with X gets X". A crisis suit model in the unit with an AFP is a crisis suit model with an AFP so it gets the benefit.
RCM needed to be worded the way it did so people didn't think one crisis suit model with a single AFP can protect it's entire unit. Also modifying saves on a per model basis is far more complicated than a simple blanket buff to a unit or a weapon profile change. RCM is highly unique and cannot be compared to other prototype systems.
Just read the rules, one step at a time, and it will make sense.
>First you select a unit. You select the crisis suit unit. Then the blanket rule that affects the entire unit is "model with X gets X". A crisis suit model in the unit with an AFP is a crisis suit model with an AFP so it gets the benefit.
You're creating wording that is not there. The wording from the page is
>The Prototype Weapon System applies to the selected unit until the end of the battle.
There's no mention in the rule that the upgrade is automatically applied to every model. Each upgrade individually tells you how to apply itself. For example, Cross Linked Stabilizer Jets mentions the units it applies to, and then further states "by a model in this unit", making it clear it applies to the whole unit. The other weapon upgrades that can be applied to Crisis Teams and Crisis Bodyguards explicitly replaces every version of the weapon. Again, if we go by strict RAW, Reactive Countermeasures says Battlesuit model, unique of all of them. Only one model gets it, because the strict RAW is that the Relics tells us how to apply themt. Looking at Gatling Burst Cannons, it explicitly mentions models.
Ultimately, it's what your opponent (or Tournament Organizer) decides. I just explain to them both sides of the debate and see how they want to play. This debate isn't going to get resolved until GW specifically and clearly says one way or another, which probably won't happen.
Hi mate, personally i am of the opinion that only a single model with an AFP gets the benefits of this prototype system
That's certainly the attitude I've had for most of the time it's been available. I was just hoping to resolve the current debate!
Ironically, this thread has made me less certain of which interpretation is correct. Like the Mont'ka debate before it was clarified, there's good points on both sides, and it definitely needs an FAQ.
This is only an issue if you are trying to "fast dice" the saves. Because different models in the unit have different defensive profiles, you CANNOT use fast dice.
Instead, after the wound roll, you have to revert to single save rolls. Allocate the wound, roll the save, resolve the damage. Doing it this way would be that if you allocated the wound to a model with the AFP, it would get the benefit of RCW.
It is by this method that a single AFP in a unit can protect 9 crisis suits. Of course, if a save is failed, the model with the AFP must take the damage, after which all subsequent wounds must be taken on that model until it dies.
Once all models with an AFP have died, then the benefit goes away.
Pre-amble: I do not play Tau and this is just a literalist reading of the Prototype Weapon System rules, if there is anything in an FAQ that trumps this lmk and I'll edit it but I don't know enough about Tau to read through their FAQ's and check.
The Prototype Weapon systems say that instead of taking a relic "you can instead select a Prototype Weapons System for one T’au Empire **unit** from your army." This means you are by definition selecting the **unit** for the system. It then also says "Note that some Prototype Weapons Systems are weapons that replace one or more existing weapons. Where this is the case, you must, if you are using points values, still pay the cost of the weapon that is being replaced."
We then look at Reactive Countermeasures and it says the following. "**BATTLESUIT model with airbursting fragmentation projector only.** Ranged weapons with an Armour Penetration characteristic of -1 or -2 are treated as having an Armour Penetration characteristic of 0 when resolving attacks against a model with this Weapon System." This wording seems to directly go against the wording of the Prototype Weapon Systems rules, as the PWS rules don't let you select a **model**, they only let you select a **unit**. This would imply to me that the limiter "Battlesuit model with AFP only" cannot apply to the selection rules otherwise the Reactive Countermeasures wouldn't be able to be taken at all, as the rules provide for you no way to select a **model** to get the system. (Excluding taking it on individual characters, if that's possible.)
However we then also have to look at the Gatling Burst Cannon PWS because it would, presumably, work the exact same as Reactive Countermeasures. It is written as follows, however "COMMANDER, XV8 CRISIS BATTLESUITS, XV8 CRISIS BODYGUARDS or XV95 GHOSTKEEL BATTLESUIT unit only. This Weapon System **replaces each burst cannon** that models in this unit are equipped with and has the following profile..." It's the highlighted text there that matters. This is the functional text that the Reactive Countermeasures would need to have in order to work the way we'd expect it to, providing the benefit to each model with an AFP. The fact that GW used this wording previously in the document unfortunately points to the Reactive Countermeasures not being intended to work on each AFP in the squad.
My conclusion would be that RAW you cannot use Reactive Countermeasures at all (or it doesn't do anything) because nothing allows you to actually select a single model (again excluding using it on single characters if that's even an option I don't know). That's very obviously not what the rule was meant to be though, so I feel that the conservative ruling that it is usable but only affects one model is the correct one to play by until we get a clarification from GW.
Please note; we likely will never get a clarification from GW.
I think the reason Gatling Burst and the Incinerator mention it replaces each instance of X is because those Prototype systems are modifying the characteristics of *each* equipped Burst Cannon/Flamer.
Reactive Countermeasures does not affect the Airburster, it does not replace the Airburster, and it does not care if the model has 1, 2, or more Airbursters. It only cares that a model has at least one Airburster and then that model gains the AP ignoring affect.
You've misunderstood why I brought up the wording on the Gatling. The reason I brought it up is because if we use the verbiage for the Gatling verbatim for the Reactive Countermeasures it would then work exactly like OP said. We don't typically get comparisons that are this direct, but it shows that
1. GW was aware of the verbiage that would have made it work that way.
2. GW used that verbiage on other upgrades
So it follows that 3. If GW had intended the rule to work that way, it would have been written that way.
Also, real interesting that my post is being downvoted to hell despite literally agreeing with what appears to be the majority consensus and just... explaining why lol. Not sure what that's about.
Perhaps we are speaking past each other, but I am saying that Gatling and Reactive have different wording for a reason and that reason has nothing to do with how many models are affected by the Prototype Weapon System.
Gatling is \*replacing\* an existing weapon (Burst Cannon) with a \*different\* weapon. Thus it is important to note which Burst Cannons are being replaced (all of them).
Reactive does not interact with the AFP at all other than to do a check of "does at least one AFP exist". Thus, there is no need to say that Reactive Countermeasures "replaces each AFP with..." because there is nothing being replaced nor does saying "each" matter because the only thing that matters is if at least one AFP exists. Thus, the fact the GW used that verbiage on other rules is kind of a moot point because those rules are doing something completely different from Reactive.
Personally, I am torn on how to read this rule. I think both sides have valid arguments. My opinion, from a game play perspective, is that Reactive Countermeasures only makes sense if it works for every model with an AFP. However, what I think the RAI does not really matter. It bothers me that GW has consistently refused to rule on this \*especially\* because different large tournaments have ruled it differently. I guess they were too busy knocking a single point off of Riptides to address this, eh?
Lastly, no downvotes for you from me mate. In fact, take an upvote.
Oh my goodness, you are right we were and I am so sorry it was entirely my fault. Like I said, I don't play Tau, and I stupidly just assumed that the AFP's were a piece of wargear that had an effect similar to the Reactive Countermeasures and was like "Well yeah they obviously would have just said to replace it then..." sorry that's entirely my bad. I do still stand by the fact that they could have done it via a replacement effect as all it would have required was a reposting of the weapon profile, but with an added ability stating models equipped with it gain the Reactive Countermeasures effect, but I can both understand why what I was saying made absolutely no sense and also where all those downvotes were coming from lmao.
Thanks for the patience and the explanation, I'm just gunna let this be a lesson to not comment on rules for armies I don't play from here on out lol.
Still think it's a single model here... why write "Battlesuit **model** with airbursting fragmentation projector only" and not "Battlesuit **models**" if it's not singular?
Why write "when resolving attacks against **a** model with this Weapon System" instead of "when resolving attacks against **the** model with this Weapon System" if it can't affect multiple models?
Especially since the wording for RCM ("resolving attacks against **a model** with this Weapons System") is more like Cross-linked ("attacks by **a model** in this unit") - which definitely applies to all models in the unit, just like RCM should apply to all models with an AFP - than it is to Annihilation Warheads ("attacks made...by **this model**") - which only applies to one model.
GW clearly knows how to use "the/this model" if that's what it wants to mean.
As a Tau player I'm going to use the disadvantaged interpretation until a FAQ says otherwise to be honest. Just safer. Not that I even use AFPs.
Safer? What might happen?
The better reading might be wrong, and I'd prefer to not have any games I won because I picked the read that suited me better. It's not the end of the world or anything, just don't want to look back at games and feel I might have lost them if the rule had turned out to be the lesser of two ambiguous reads.
Its ambiguous, neither reading is wrong. If a FAQ comes out it only stands from that point on, it doesn't mean people using the "wrong" reading in the past were cheating or anything like that. I don't think that's a good way of looking at ambiguous rules, even if its unimportant in this case.
It might not be but it's my preference, I always take the disadvantaged where there's ambiguity and then the advantage read can be a happy bonus if it turns out to have been correct.
I can see why people rule it as the whole unit, though there are some tournaments that rule it the other way which is why there is confusion. FLG, the people who run the ITC have their own FAQ for these sorts of things released before they run their own events. You can look up their rulings for the ACO in the player-pack for instance.
One of the rulings was that RCM applied to only one model in the unit. There are a few FAQ rulings they did that go against strict RAW, for instance Riptides cannot Nova charge if they are in combat, and named C'tan cannot swap out their unique power using Strange Echoes (Though RAW, nothing stops either of these).
Why would you not be able to nova charge while in combat??? That makes absolutely no sense.