Tau questions

[Wildeybeast]

Just follow what the book says: 2 = twin-linked.
Personally, I think Twin-Linked Burst Cannons and a Flamer is a good choice for inexpensive defensive suits.

That's 126 points for 12 TL-Burst Cannons shots and 3 Flamers.

This. Why is this still a discussion point? The book very clearly says, in plain English, if you buy two of the same weapon they become twin-linked. You can then add a third of the same weapon type, meaning you effectively have 1 twin-linked and 1 non-twin-linked weapon. If you buy 4 of the same weapon on your commander then you have 2 twin-linked weapons. It doesn't need FAQing because it's very clearly written in the book. They have put out a day zero FAQ and didn't mention it, so clearly it wasn't an issue they felt needed addressing (because, and I can't emphasise this enough, the codex clearly explains how the process works).

[Warp dust]

I don't have the codex, but you can only fire one weapon unless you are a monstrous creature, walker or unless otherwise stated.

[Learn2Eel]

I don't have the codex, but you can only fire one weapon unless you are a monstrous creature, walker or unless otherwise stated.

Any model that is in a Battlesuit (excluding Shadowsun as she has her own special form of multi-tracker) has a multi-tracker, allowing them to fire one more weapon than normal. Though it doesn't make a difference to the Riptide, it allows Broadsides, Crisis Suits and Stealth Suits to fire two weapons if they have them, though from memory Stealth Suits only ever have one weapon.

To the already addressed issue at hand, it is cool to note that a Commander can take two twin-linked weapon systems, though I feel that is probably a waste as the support systems are pretty important for them.

[DrBored]

It says 'Where a weapon has two point costs, the first is for a standard, single version, and the second is for two weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type). A twin-linked weapon counts as two choices from this list.'

It doesn't say you are unable to take two single weapons, only that the second COST is for a weapon to be twin-linked, and that twin-linked weapons take up two slots.

I don't really see where the problem is, because taking two separate weapons costs a pretty penny more in points, so it's not like we're talking about something unbalanced.

Let's take something else as a precedent. In order to buy two Lightning Claws for a Chaos Lord, you have to buy the single weapon twice, there is no entry for 'pair of lightning claws' any more. You simply pay the cost for each lightning claw separately, and then get the bonus for having both (+1 attack in this instance).

It may be FAQ'd, but there is nothing that explicitely limits your options in this matter.

[ElectricPaladin]

It may be FAQ'd, but there is nothing that explicitely limits your options in this matter.

How about this as a "limit" to your opinion: the old codex was phrased almost exactly the same way, and the FAQd that to make it clear that if you had two of the same weapons, they were twin-linked.

[DrBored]

How about this as a "limit" to your opinion: the old codex was phrased almost exactly the same way, and the FAQd that to make it clear that if you had two of the same weapons, they were twin-linked.

But they haven't yet, even though they released a FAQ the same day as codex release. My thinking is that they're opening up the options for Tau players, instead of sticking to the same old rules. New day, new Tau.

[gcsmith]

But they haven't yet, even though they released a FAQ the same day as codex release. My thinking is that they're opening up the options for Tau players, instead of sticking to the same old rules. New day, new Tau.

The wording is the same, intention is the same. Sigh, I love how people think this is ambiguous. If you learned English you would know that it says take two before twinlinked, in other words, if you take two of the same weapon it then becomes twin linked. No choice.

Besides, options have been opened up, they removed the "no three of same type" rule.

[DrBored]

The wording is the same, intention is the same. Sigh, I love how people think this is ambiguous. If you learned English you would know that it says take two before twinlinked, in other words, if you take two of the same weapon it then becomes twin linked. No choice.

Besides, options have been opened up, they removed the "no three of same type" rule.

I'd still like to see an explicit explanation, "No, you cannot take two of the same weapon without counting them as twin-linked." would be all that you would have to post in a FAQ, but they didn't do that, did they? They made it nice and ambiguous.

Either way, if you really don't want to do it that way, or if they do FAQ it, there still isn't a huge problem. If you want long range, you take a missile pod and plasma rifle, if you want lots of shots, you take a burst cannon and plasma rifle, if you want high str you take missile pod and fusion blaster, and you just get as many shots as you can. If you want reliability, then just take the twin-linked stuff. So really, it's not like I have a lot of investment into the argument, but explicit clarification would be nice.

PS: I don't like how you implied that I don't know English. That was kind of rude.

[gcsmith]

I'd still like to see an explicit explanation, "No, you cannot take two of the same weapon without counting them as twin-linked." would be all that you would have to post in a FAQ, but they didn't do that, did they? They made it nice and ambiguous.

Either way, if you really don't want to do it that way, or if they do FAQ it, there still isn't a huge problem. If you want long range, you take a missile pod and plasma rifle, if you want lots of shots, you take a burst cannon and plasma rifle, if you want high str you take missile pod and fusion blaster, and you just get as many shots as you can. If you want reliability, then just take the twin-linked stuff. So really, it's not like I have a lot of investment into the argument, but explicit clarification would be nice.

PS: I don't like how you implied that I don't know English. That was kind of rude.

Seeing as how you think the bit in brackets allows you to take two single ones. You don't know English. Not about being rude, and didn't intend to, but you're trying to argue a non point and get your cake and eat it too.

[DrBored]

Seeing as how you think the bit in brackets allows you to take two single ones. You don't know English. Not about being rude, and didn't intend to, but you're trying to argue a non point and get your cake and eat it too.

Whoever it was that decided that having cake and eating your cake was excessive needs to be pulled out of the grave and shot again. I do not understand that phrase. If someone gives me a cake, why can't I eat it? Am I supposed to eat other people's cakes, thereby eating a cake that I didn't have? Am I supposed to just keep the cakes that I have and store them until they rot?

And the phrase, *parenthesis* or not, is still ambiguous enough to warrant debate until otherwise specified.

At the very least, despite whatever you say to me, this argument is going to come up again and again until there is a definitive FAQ, and until then all we have are community debates and house rules.