No you do not need a ranking to vote. The ranking section is not a required field. Somewhere in the comment section of the podcast it was stated that ITC ranking is not required.
So vote for the sake of voting and representing what the community wants!
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Voted to have the firepower only benefit the actual unit buffmander is in, not joining units. Let's hope for our sakes it gets ruled this way
Even though the rules say that all contributing units "shoot as if the same unit"? Which clearly mean that rules are shared among all of them, like they normally do in a unit.
I voted to keep current Tank Shock, apply Buffmander bonus to only his unit for Coordinated Firepower, not allow Darkstrider to affect Coordinated Firepower, not allow the benefits of Coordinated Firepower to apply to units that select additional targets for shooting attacks, and not allow the super-cheap Stompa.
I knew playing in an ITC event would pay off! Just don't ask about my ranking or points score...
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Voted to have the firepower only benefit the actual unit buffmander is in, not joining units. Let's hope for our sakes it gets ruled this way
Even though the rules say that all contributing units "shoot as if the same unit"? Which clearly mean that rules are shared among all of them, like they normally do in a unit.
This is true, but brings up a whole new argument about "what is a unit?" That's more suited to a YMDC thread than a discussion about the ITC voting.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Voted to have the firepower only benefit the actual unit buffmander is in, not joining units. Let's hope for our sakes it gets ruled this way
Even though the rules say that all contributing units "shoot as if the same unit"? Which clearly mean that rules are shared among all of them, like they normally do in a unit.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Voted to have the firepower only benefit the actual unit buffmander is in, not joining units. Let's hope for our sakes it gets ruled this way
Even though the rules say that all contributing units "shoot as if the same unit"? Which clearly mean that rules are shared among all of them, like they normally do in a unit.
Nah, I like this ruling better.
Ahh. so you are one of those people that only votes to keep his own armies better. gotcha.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheNewBlood wrote: I voted to keep current Tank Shock, apply Buffmander bonus to only his unit for Coordinated Firepower, not allow Darkstrider to affect Coordinated Firepower, not allow the benefits of Coordinated Firepower to apply to units that select additional targets for shooting attacks, and not allow the super-cheap Stompa.
I knew playing in an ITC event would pay off! Just don't ask about my ranking or points score...
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Voted to have the firepower only benefit the actual unit buffmander is in, not joining units. Let's hope for our sakes it gets ruled this way
Even though the rules say that all contributing units "shoot as if the same unit"? Which clearly mean that rules are shared among all of them, like they normally do in a unit.
This is true, but brings up a whole new argument about "what is a unit?" That's more suited to a YMDC thread than a discussion about the ITC voting.
What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
No it does not. The shooting sequence is the only time they are "shooting as if one unit". The rules specifically say units do NOT have to be in coherency to shoot.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
No it does not. The shooting sequence is the only time they are "shooting as if one unit". The rules specifically say units do NOT have to be in coherency to shoot.
Page and paragraph please - I can only find rules that say you have to be in coherency as soon as possible, including Running if need be.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
No it does not. The shooting sequence is the only time they are "shooting as if one unit". The rules specifically say units do NOT have to be in coherency to shoot.
I bet you also think the stormsurge can move with the tide wall then anchor and fire twice huh?
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
No it does not. The shooting sequence is the only time they are "shooting as if one unit". The rules specifically say units do NOT have to be in coherency to shoot.
I bet you also think the stormsurge can move with the tide wall then anchor and fire twice huh?
Nope. Think the exact opposite. Its pretty clear the SS "cannot move under and condition", which includes if the wall moves.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
No it does not. The shooting sequence is the only time they are "shooting as if one unit". The rules specifically say units do NOT have to be in coherency to shoot.
Page and paragraph please - I can only find rules that say you have to be in coherency as soon as possible, including Running if need be.
I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
I got a feeling it will be units can gain benefits. If models somehow don't fire at the target of coordinated fire then no benefits to that model shooting at another target other than what it has itself obviously.
Then Darkstrider will be allowed to give -1 Toughness in a coordinated strike. Why wouldn't he?
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
Orock wrote: Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
I seriously don't understand the hate about the Gladius Strike Force. The tax units are fairly onerous for the detachment and in return you get a bunch of free transports. Sure, it's pretty cool and all but the vehicles you get for free sure as heck aren't "all that and a bag of chips."
I would say the Decurion detachment is better than that honestly.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Orock wrote: Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
Honestly, it's 90% of tau player attitudes that sets the entire army off for me. You all were so happy to get your cheese, see how cheese it was, try to break that cheese more with things like moving tidewall with anchored stormsurge, that I just wanna see the army get nerfed so bad during competitive play. The options they have chosen are honestly ones we make our tau player use. We don't allow him to do any shenanigans like that
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
No because they are no longer one unit. That was the point I was trying to make. Units do not have to be in coherency for the shooting phase. If you are not in coherency in the following movement phase then you have to move to get back into coherency, but they are no longer considered a unit anymore. They are only a unit during the shooting sequence.
If it turns out to be too powerful it can always be voted down. Which is why I would rather see it played just to see how powerful it is or not than not see it at all.
Voted for the crunchier tank shock, as I feel the other interpretation further neuters an ability that should be cooler than it is.
For the Tau vote I went yes to the unit wide buffs, no to the splitfire cheese (as the rule specifies the members of that 'unit' must fire at the same target and there really is only one way they might not do that, intent is clear) and no to Darkstrider and by extension any other guy from outside what the formation allows.
I still think it's a hasty decision. The codex has been out for like a month.
For the Ork one I voted no, but on reflection I don't think I knew enough about the question there. Could I have abstained?
Gamgee wrote: If it turns out to be too powerful it can always be voted down. Which is why I would rather see it played just to see how powerful it is or not than not see it at all.
This ^^^
The only question that should have been asked in regards with Coordinated Firepower was if USR was shared or not. The other 2 questions were unnecessary (more on the target lock because RAW is pretty clear about it) potential nerf when there is minimal data. Like what Gamgee said, if it was really too OP, with data to support it i.e. tournament results, then nerf it. Always easier to nerf something than the other way around.
Gamgee wrote: If it turns out to be too powerful it can always be voted down. Which is why I would rather see it played just to see how powerful it is or not than not see it at all.
It's actually SUBSTANTIALLY harder to take something out than it is to keep it from getting in. The scat packs were a hilariously close vote, and eldar are doin' great, constantly being represented at the top tables, with scat packs as far as the eyes can see. No variety whatsoever in eldar tournament troops. Always scat packs, because the eldar players know that they are far and away the best option for all situations. And despite this incredibly obvious turn of events, the thought of re-evaluating the scat bike issue has never even been touched on as far as I know.
What kind of performance do you think the tau would have to pull off to actually get a re-vote later on the issue? I'd bet they could straight up win 3 of every 4 events including giant ones like LVO, and there still wouldn't be support for nerfing them back down. People don't like nerfs. A lot of them hate the idea of nerfs so much that they won't accept them even when they are the right move. Even when it's not their army in question. They still hate nerfs. Also if you are a player of said army, building and painting a nice army just to have double jeopardy occur and nerf it after you thought it was safe would be infuriating.
Also allowing "turned up to 11" power in and then later taking it down after several events hurts legitimacy. How would you like to be a tau player that skillfully wins a tourney during that time, and then after a successful re-vote to nerf them, people say "oh well tau players that won during that time weren't actually skilled, they just benefitted from a vote where people clearly made a mistake. For evidence, see that they just went back and re-voted to have it removed."
So no, please don't take the "let's let it run wild and see what damage is caused before we fix anything" approach. Read up, playtest, write up some sample lists to abuse it, maybe vassal it, then make a vote on whether you think it is damaging to the game or not. The vote is up for like a week from now. You have time to try it out.
Gamgee wrote: If it turns out to be too powerful it can always be voted down. Which is why I would rather see it played just to see how powerful it is or not than not see it at all.
It's actually SUBSTANTIALLY harder to take something out than it is to keep it from getting in. The scat packs were a hilariously close vote, and eldar are doin' great, constantly being represented at the top tables, with scat packs as far as the eyes can see. No variety whatsoever in eldar tournament troops. Always scat packs, because the eldar players know that they are far and away the best option for all situations. And despite this incredibly obvious turn of events, the thought of re-evaluating the scat bike issue has never even been touched on as far as I know.
What kind of performance do you think the tau would have to pull off to actually get a re-vote later on the issue? I'd bet they could straight up win 3 of every 4 events including giant ones like LVO, and there still wouldn't be support for nerfing them back down. People don't like nerfs. A lot of them hate the idea of nerfs so much that they won't accept them even when they are the right move. Even when it's not their army in question. They still hate nerfs. Also if you are a player of said army, building and painting a nice army just to have double jeopardy occur and nerf it after you thought it was safe would be infuriating.
Also allowing "turned up to 11" power in and then later taking it down after several events hurts legitimacy. How would you like to be a tau player that skillfully wins a tourney during that time, and then after a successful re-vote to nerf them, people say "oh well tau players that won during that time weren't actually skilled, they just benefitted from a vote where people clearly made a mistake. For evidence, see that they just went back and re-voted to have it removed."
So no, please don't take the "let's let it run wild and see what damage is caused before we fix anything" approach. Read up, playtest, write up some sample lists to abuse it, maybe vassal it, then make a vote on whether you think it is damaging to the game or not. The vote is up for like a week from now. You have time to try it out.
Um there are countless things that were voted on being nerfed after being used in tournaments. Invisibility comes to mind off the top of my head. After seeing how broken it was in tournaments, they revoted and nerfed it.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
Orock wrote:Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
The ITC has made it very clear that they are willing to change rules if they feel it's for the good of the game. Preventing Tau from having a one-click counter to almost eveyr army in the game would seemingly qualify under that.
Sure, Gladius and Decurion Wraiths are overpowered. But they don't invalidate whole armies. Tau Coordinated Firepower is an anti-deathstar weapon that thanks to other wargear is a hard-counter to MSU as well. The ITC heavily favors MSU (Reecius believes that deathstars are bad for the game), which is why they had the second question of allowing units that used Coordinated Firepower to select other targets.
You can go ahead and dismiss this as the ramblings of an entitled Eldar player wanting to stay on the top of Mt. Cheese. But Coordinated Firepower, Split Fire, and Buff Sharing invalidates every Eldar army which isn't minimum Scatbikes maximum Wraithknights. Sure, Tau probably aren't as powerful as the top-tier Uber-armies that currently dominate the game, but they make every other army instantly obsolete. That hurts everyone, not just Eldar players.
The reason the poll asked for one's ITC number is probably a measure against vote-stuffing. People can weigh in all they want, but I bet in the final results the votes from ITC members will be weighted more. And I'm willing to be this is not the last time that the ITC bring up this topic for vote.
@notredame
As far as I'm aware, the first giant ITC internet vote involved centrally scat bikes and the D. I'd have to go back and find what other things were on it.
I honestly don't remember invis being up for widespread voting ever, and certainly not twice. Maybe exit polling one of the events or something, but not internet votes.
Any of these "countless" things happen between the "new eldar codex" vote and now to back that up?
Gamgee wrote: If it turns out to be too powerful it can always be voted down. Which is why I would rather see it played just to see how powerful it is or not than not see it at all.
It's actually SUBSTANTIALLY harder to take something out than it is to keep it from getting in. The scat packs were a hilariously close vote, and eldar are doin' great, constantly being represented at the top tables, with scat packs as far as the eyes can see. No variety whatsoever in eldar tournament troops. Always scat packs, because the eldar players know that they are far and away the best option for all situations. And despite this incredibly obvious turn of events, the thought of re-evaluating the scat bike issue has never even been touched on as far as I know.
What kind of performance do you think the tau would have to pull off to actually get a re-vote later on the issue? I'd bet they could straight up win 3 of every 4 events including giant ones like LVO, and there still wouldn't be support for nerfing them back down. People don't like nerfs. A lot of them hate the idea of nerfs so much that they won't accept them even when they are the right move. Even when it's not their army in question. They still hate nerfs. Also if you are a player of said army, building and painting a nice army just to have double jeopardy occur and nerf it after you thought it was safe would be infuriating.
Also allowing "turned up to 11" power in and then later taking it down after several events hurts legitimacy. How would you like to be a tau player that skillfully wins a tourney during that time, and then after a successful re-vote to nerf them, people say "oh well tau players that won during that time weren't actually skilled, they just benefitted from a vote where people clearly made a mistake. For evidence, see that they just went back and re-voted to have it removed."
So no, please don't take the "let's let it run wild and see what damage is caused before we fix anything" approach. Read up, playtest, write up some sample lists to abuse it, maybe vassal it, then make a vote on whether you think it is damaging to the game or not. The vote is up for like a week from now. You have time to try it out.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
um maybe you should try harder. As I have already said. There is NOTHING about unit coherency and shooting. Unit coherency does not take effect until the FOLLOWING movement phase, when the combined firing is already complete and they are no longer "firing as if one unit"
Unless you would like to say that a unit who looses 2 models due to dangerous terrain tests cannot fire at all because they are no longer in unit coherency?
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
um maybe you should try harder. As I have already said. There is NOTHING about unit coherency and shooting. Unit coherency does not take effect until the FOLLOWING movement phase, when the combined firing is already complete and they are no longer "firing as if one unit"
Unless you would like to say that a unit who looses 2 models due to dangerous terrain tests cannot fire at all because they are no longer in unit coherency?
Actually, yes, a unit that loses 2 models (in a chain, say) is out of coherency and must Run! in the shooting phase to restore coherency, per the rule quoted above.
If a unit must Run! to restore coherency (as a mandatory condition of the rule), then you must check for coherency in the shooting phase. Else, you're not able to find out if you must Run! or not and the game's logical progression comes to a screeching and irrevocable halt.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
um maybe you should try harder. As I have already said. There is NOTHING about unit coherency and shooting. Unit coherency does not take effect until the FOLLOWING movement phase, when the combined firing is already complete and they are no longer "firing as if one unit"
Unless you would like to say that a unit who looses 2 models due to dangerous terrain tests cannot fire at all because they are no longer in unit coherency?
Actually, yes, a unit that loses 2 models (in a chain, say) is out of coherency and must Run! in the shooting phase to restore coherency, per the rule quoted above.
If a unit must Run! to restore coherency (as a mandatory condition of the rule), then you must check for coherency in the shooting phase. Else, you're not able to find out if you must Run! or not and the game's logical progression comes to a screeching and irrevocable halt.
Nope. The running is in the FOLLOWING turn. It says so right above in the quote. If you lose coherency in your turn. the FOLLOWING turn you have to use your movement phase to get into coherency and if you can't, then you must run.
It doesn't matter if its in the curent turn or the next one.
Running is a alternative to a shooting attack. so when we use CF we already have a ongoing shooting attack! thus we dont have the option to run at all in this moment.
This is the deadthof that stupid unit coherency argument. stupid because its not based on rules.
There is also no rule that vorbits a unit that is not in unit coherency to shoot.! Such a unit hat to run if running is a option. So shooting is not forbidden at all. We only are forced to use that alternative action " running" if aviable at this moment.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
um maybe you should try harder. As I have already said. There is NOTHING about unit coherency and shooting. Unit coherency does not take effect until the FOLLOWING movement phase, when the combined firing is already complete and they are no longer "firing as if one unit"
Unless you would like to say that a unit who looses 2 models due to dangerous terrain tests cannot fire at all because they are no longer in unit coherency?
Actually, yes, a unit that loses 2 models (in a chain, say) is out of coherency and must Run! in the shooting phase to restore coherency, per the rule quoted above.
If a unit must Run! to restore coherency (as a mandatory condition of the rule), then you must check for coherency in the shooting phase. Else, you're not able to find out if you must Run! or not and the game's logical progression comes to a screeching and irrevocable halt.
That isn't supported at all by the text you're quoting. There's a clear* if/then statement there. IF the unit is unable to return to coherency in their next movement phase, THEN they must use all available means, including running. Acting as a single unit for one shooting phase does nothing to trigger that.
* clear by GW standards. They need to fire their entire rules team.
It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
I never thought of this. Our tau player will definitely be wasting his shooting phase running now. Thank you for the rules clarification
Unit coherency is not relevant to Tau's Coordinated Firepower, as coherency is not checked until the next turn. There are, however, problems with target selection that put the rule in a grey area.
In any case, it's best saved for a YMDC thread. There is a lot of disagreement on how Coordinated Firepower works, but I haven't seen people coming forward saying that it isn't completely broken in terms of power.
Also, deciding to Run! in the shooting phase happens before target selection. Since CF takes place after target selection, you cannot decide to Run! in that shooting phase.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
"unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" that means the CURRENT TURN. If you are unable to get back into coherency DURING THIS TURN. then the NEXT turn you have to move/run to get back into coherency.
1. you decide if you Run OR shoot.
2. you decide to shoot
3 you declare you are using CF
so how can running be a option there? there is no single loophole that would allow you to run. you simply dont have the option to do that in the moment you use CF.
1. you decide if you Run OR shoot.
2. you decide to shoot
3 you declare you are using CF
so how can running be a option there? there is no single loophole that would allow you to run. you simply dont have the option to do that in the moment you use CF.
It's as simple as voting for it that way or house ruling it
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
You do in the condition that a single turn's (i.e. next turn's) worth of movement would still fail to return you to coherency. Then you are obliged to try for it. It's such a rare situation that it almost never has come up, I understand that, but the English is actually quite clear. Let me lay out the Logic Path for you.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Begin shooting phase -> Select Unit To Shoot -> (IF) Unit is out of coherency (THEN) check to see if the unit can move next turn.
(IF NO) -> Run if able.
(IF YES) -> (THEN) check if a single turn's movement can restore coherency:
(IF YES) -> Shoot
(IF NO) -> Run!
When you select the Combined Tau Army "unit" to shoot, you must be able to ensure that the second (THEN) check passes - which means you're entire army must be within a single-turn's-movement of coherency with itself when that check is made.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
"unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" that means the CURRENT TURN. If you are unable to get back into coherency DURING THIS TURN. then the NEXT turn you have to move/run to get back into coherency.
Could you cite your reasoning for your final statement? It would seem to me that if <Condition> applies to Current Turn, then the attempt to get back into Coherency would also apply to Current Turn unless stated otherwise.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
You do in the condition that a single turn's (i.e. next turn's) worth of movement would still fail to return you to coherency. Then you are obliged to try for it. It's such a rare situation that it almost never has come up, I understand that, but the English is actually quite clear. Let me lay out the Logic Path for you.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Begin shooting phase -> Select Unit To Shoot -> (IF) Unit is out of coherency (THEN) check to see if the unit can move next turn.
(IF NO) -> Run if able.
(IF YES) -> (THEN) check if a single turn's movement can restore coherency:
(IF YES) -> Shoot
(IF NO) -> Run!
When you select the Combined Tau Army "unit" to shoot, you must be able to ensure that the second (THEN) check passes - which means you're entire army must be within a single-turn's-movement of coherency with itself when that check is made.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
"unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" that means the CURRENT TURN. If you are unable to get back into coherency DURING THIS TURN. then the NEXT turn you have to move/run to get back into coherency.
Could you cite your reasoning for your final statement? It would seem to me that if <Condition> applies to Current Turn, then the attempt to get back into Coherency would also apply to Current Turn unless stated otherwise.
Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
That is pretty clear cut and you are the only person not understanding it.
1.) You lose coherency in your turn
2.) You have to move IN THE NEXT TURN to get back into coherency
3.) If you still are not in coherency or could not move, THEN you have to run.
That is how the game has been played for all of 7th edition
1. you decide if you Run OR shoot.
2. you decide to shoot
3 you declare you are using CF
so how can running be a option there? there is no single loophole that would allow you to run. you simply dont have the option to do that in the moment you use CF.
The moment you declare you are using CF, the unit you already selected shoots (as it may no longer choose to run! violating the "ability" clause at the end of the rule). However, all the other units in your army that are outside of one-turn's-worth-of-movement from coherency with eachother would immediately have to Run! to seek to get coherency with the unit that fired (and that would override their normal option to choose between running and shooting).
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
You do in the condition that a single turn's (i.e. next turn's) worth of movement would still fail to return you to coherency. Then you are obliged to try for it. It's such a rare situation that it almost never has come up, I understand that, but the English is actually quite clear. Let me lay out the Logic Path for you.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Begin shooting phase -> Select Unit To Shoot -> (IF) Unit is out of coherency (THEN) check to see if the unit can move next turn.
(IF NO) -> Run if able.
(IF YES) -> (THEN) check if a single turn's movement can restore coherency:
(IF YES) -> Shoot
(IF NO) -> Run!
When you select the Combined Tau Army "unit" to shoot, you must be able to ensure that the second (THEN) check passes - which means you're entire army must be within a single-turn's-movement of coherency with itself when that check is made.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
*sigh* you are taking the rule out of context
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
Guess what? After the shooting phase is done they are no longer considered a unit and therefore do not need to be in coherency. A single turn has not passed yet.
Right, but the third part you underlined doesn't say any time needs to pass at all, whether it be turn, phase, decade, or century. You're given two conditions with an <or> clause between them, so both must be met.
Condition 1: The Unit cannot move.
Condition 2: The unit is unable to restore coherency in a single turn.
If either (not both) of those conditions cannot be met, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option.
A Tau army, spread out across the table, would be unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn because of how spread out it is. Therefore, as soon as it is declared to be a single unit, all units must Run! or Flat Out to attempt to be in coherency.
The alternative to that would be to bunch your army up so much that you can prove, beyond a doubt, that with only one turn worth of movement, they could restore coherency. That would be enough to satisfy Condition 2 without moving anything. But that's a pretty onerous burden of proof and a pretty restrictive tactical fact.
You are choosing to ignore everything multiple people are telling you.
I have played in enough tournaments to know. Losing unit coherency does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the current phase. You do not have to try and get unit coherency unit the following phase. thats it. done. there is no arguing that.
"unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" that means the CURRENT TURN. If you are unable to get back into coherency DURING THIS TURN. then the NEXT turn you have to move/run to get back into coherency.
Could you cite your reasoning for your final statement? It would seem to me that if <Condition> applies to Current Turn, then the attempt to get back into Coherency would also apply to Current Turn unless stated otherwise.
Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
See the above post. Someone else brought this up as well.
Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
That is pretty clear cut and you are the only person not understanding it.
1.) You lose coherency in your turn
2.) You have to move IN THE NEXT TURN to get back into coherency
3.) If you still are not in coherency or could not move, THEN you have to run.
That is how the game has been played for all of 7th edition
notredameguy10 wrote: Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
That is pretty clear cut and you are the only person not understanding it.
1.) You lose coherency in your turn
2.) You have to move IN THE NEXT TURN to get back into coherency
3.) If you still are not in coherency or could not move, THEN you have to run.
That is how the game has been played for all of 7th edition
Between steps 2 and 3 you're missing the entire -OR- clause, which says "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn". This is information available to you at any point during the game with enough measuring. This is also a timeless situation - it doesn't matter how many or how few turns you need to get back into coherency, so long as it is more than one. If it is the case that it will take more than one turn to move into coherency, then you must run in the CURRENT TURN, as well as, possibly, in the next (we will check the -OR- clause again when we come to it).
And frankly I don't care how it's "always been." How it has always been has little bearing on how it actually is.
1. you decide if you Run OR shoot.
2. you decide to shoot
3 you declare you are using CF
so how can running be a option there? there is no single loophole that would allow you to run. you simply dont have the option to do that in the moment you use CF.
The moment you declare you are using CF, the unit you already selected shoots (as it may no longer choose to run! violating the "ability" clause at the end of the rule). However, all the other units in your army that are outside of one-turn's-worth-of-movement from coherency with eachother would immediately have to Run! to seek to get coherency with the unit that fired (and that would override their normal option to choose between running and shooting).
Thats wrong.
the units that are added during CF have to shoot at the target of the first unit. so tey are also firing. (remember a shooting attack begins with unit choice and target selection) so the added units are also already shooting. Further. CF does clearly tell you that the already units treat theit shootings as if they were one unit. so no matter how you interprete this regarding rules sharing. Unit coherency i NO absolutly NO argumenat against CF.
notredameguy10 wrote: Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
That is pretty clear cut and you are the only person not understanding it.
1.) You lose coherency in your turn
2.) You have to move IN THE NEXT TURN to get back into coherency
3.) If you still are not in coherency or could not move, THEN you have to run.
That is how the game has been played for all of 7th edition
Between steps 2 and 3 you're missing the entire -OR- clause, which says "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn". This is information available to you at any point during the game with enough measuring. This is also a timeless situation - it doesn't matter how many or how few turns you need to get back into coherency, so long as it is more than one. If it is the case that it will take more than one turn to move into coherency, then you must run in the CURRENT TURN, as well as, possibly, in the next (we will check the -OR- clause again when we come to it).
And frankly I don't care how it's "always been." How it has always been has little bearing on how it actually is.
Seriously my god... please learn how to properly read and interpret rules. Anyone reading the rule knows exactly what it means but you. It is kind of funny. For example, If you loose coherency due to a failed dangerous terrain test YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RUN TO GET INTO COHERENCY ON THAT SAME TURN
Besides the fact I HAVE ALREADY DECLARED SHOOTING. that means i am not allowed to run even if i wanted to
1. you decide if you Run OR shoot.
2. you decide to shoot
3 you declare you are using CF
so how can running be a option there? there is no single loophole that would allow you to run. you simply dont have the option to do that in the moment you use CF.
The moment you declare you are using CF, the unit you already selected shoots (as it may no longer choose to run! violating the "ability" clause at the end of the rule). However, all the other units in your army that are outside of one-turn's-worth-of-movement from coherency with eachother would immediately have to Run! to seek to get coherency with the unit that fired (and that would override their normal option to choose between running and shooting).
Thats wrong.
the units that are added during CF have to shoot at the target of the first unit. so tey are also firing. (remember a shooting attack begins with unit choice and target selection) so the added units are also already shooting. Further. CF does clearly tell you that the already units treat theit shootings as if they were one unit. so no matter how you interprete this regarding rules sharing. Unit coherency i NO absolutly NO argumenat against CF.
Can you quote the CF rule for me? Unfortunately I do not have direct access to it, and have been arguing based on a logical parsing of the rule quoted here. If what you say is indeed the case, then yes, coherency would not matter, because the "unit" isn't actually a "unit" until after a target is selected.
However, that does have other ramifications for units which, for example, Split Fire, depending on how it is worded.
notredameguy10 wrote: Please read the rules. You have to decide to run or shoot FIRST. You do not become a unit unit you have already started the shooting process.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency. If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option".
That is pretty clear cut and you are the only person not understanding it.
1.) You lose coherency in your turn
2.) You have to move IN THE NEXT TURN to get back into coherency
3.) If you still are not in coherency or could not move, THEN you have to run.
That is how the game has been played for all of 7th edition
Between steps 2 and 3 you're missing the entire -OR- clause, which says "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn". This is information available to you at any point during the game with enough measuring. This is also a timeless situation - it doesn't matter how many or how few turns you need to get back into coherency, so long as it is more than one. If it is the case that it will take more than one turn to move into coherency, then you must run in the CURRENT TURN, as well as, possibly, in the next (we will check the -OR- clause again when we come to it).
And frankly I don't care how it's "always been." How it has always been has little bearing on how it actually is.
Seriously my god... please learn how to properly read and interpret rules. Anyone reading the rule knows exactly what it means but you. It is kind of funny. If you loose coherency due to a failed dangerous terrain test YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RUN TO GET INTO COHERENCY ON THAT SAME TURN
Right, because if you lose a model to a dangerous terrain test, it is likely that they will be able to "restore unit coherency in a single turn" as they are only 4" apart instead, of, say, 36.
How many turns would two infantry models 36" apart take to restore unit coherency?
notredameguy10 wrote: I have given all the information you need. You just are choosing not to see it.
I have already declared shooting. An opportunity to run is already done. You are not allowed to run anymore.
Read my earlier post. I asked for a quote of the CF rule because I don't have it on hand.
This is a different argument than the one I was arguing, however, which is that if a unit is out of coherency when it decides to shoot by more than one turn's worth of movement, it must run. That remains the case, -even if- CF interrupts the shooting process after that choice has already been made by the player.
It just means that CF was written to get around the coherency rules - but having not seen the rule yet I don't know.
"Whenever a unit from a hunter contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of maerklight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill"
I shoot with one unit, 2 other units also shoot. now in RESOLVING the shots, the resolve as if one unit. I have already chosen to shoot with all 3 units. None can run anymore. They shoot as if one unit. Its pretty simple
Ah, yes, that does in fact interrupt the shooting process, so the decision to shoot or run has already been made by the player, invalidating the coherency argument.
So it works!
Though I would reiterate that my original point stands; it's simply that CF avoids the problem entirely through order of operations.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, yes, that does in fact interrupt the shooting process, so the decision to shoot or run has already been made by the player, invalidating the coherency argument.
So it works!
Though I would reiterate that my original point stands; it's simply that CF avoids the problem entirely through order of operations.
Cool. I understand what you meant about the order of operations, I was just getting frustrated because I had the rules for CFP in front of me and it seemed to work fine and i wasn't understanding why you didn't see it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, yes, that does in fact interrupt the shooting process, so the decision to shoot or run has already been made by the player, invalidating the coherency argument.
So it works!
Though I would reiterate that my original point stands; it's simply that CF avoids the problem entirely through order of operations.
Cool. I understand what you meant about the order of operations, I was just getting frustrated because I had the rules for CFP in front of me and it seemed to work fine and i wasn't understanding why you didn't see it.
I am sorry - I jumped into the argument when it was already completely in the wrong court (you're right that coherency has literally no bearing on the CFP rule at all)!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, yes, that does in fact interrupt the shooting process, so the decision to shoot or run has already been made by the player, invalidating the coherency argument.
So it works!
Though I would reiterate that my original point stands; it's simply that CF avoids the problem entirely through order of operations.
Cool. I understand what you meant about the order of operations, I was just getting frustrated because I had the rules for CFP in front of me and it seemed to work fine and i wasn't understanding why you didn't see it.
I am sorry - I jumped into the argument when it was already completely in the wrong court (you're right that coherency has literally no bearing on the CFP rule at all)!
It is an interesting point of contention with the wording of unit coherency you brought up about the definition of "a single turn" just in general though.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Yes? How does anything written below have to do with Coordinated Firepower?
If the rule is unfamiliar to you: Whenever a unit from Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment... These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit
I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
Maybe I missed something and you are actually agreeing with me? Could you point out what unit coherency has got to do with the shooting steps? Maybe you are unfamiliar with the shooting phase?
As a reminder:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a Target (can trigger CF)
3. Select a Weapon
4. Roll To Hit
5. Roll To Wound
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
7. Select Another Weapon
So again, where in the shooting sequence are we checking unit coherency?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Though I would reiterate that my original point stands; it's simply that CF avoids the problem entirely through order of operations.
Would you care to reiterate what that point is outside of the big quote blocks?
Because it sounded like you were saying a squad that loses coherency because the plasma gunner blew himself up has to abandon the rest of its shooting to immediately run.
Orock wrote: Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
I seriously don't understand the hate about the Gladius Strike Force. The tax units are fairly onerous for the detachment and in return you get a bunch of free transports. Sure, it's pretty cool and all but the vehicles you get for free sure as heck aren't "all that and a bag of chips."
I would say the Decurion detachment is better than that honestly.
Its not the units that you get for free. I understand the actual value that you would get out of say using an optamized list is only 200 ish points probably in a 2k game. Because unit taxes are a thing. Its the fact that every single thing has ObSec. Do you know how hard it is to win a game with most armies against complete ObSec. Kill their 3 mabye 4 troop units and even a single space marine left near an objective can win you the game. you cannot dedicate resources to killing a single marine in a game where they are already up 200 points on you. And if he controls all the objectives you might as well concede. The reason its not as dominant in say england is because they play maelstrom in their tournaments, where multiple small units gets you gakked. If all the major tournaments ran maelstrom, you would rarely see them. But they dont, because we hate randomly losing because someone got the perfect card combon turn one and was up 12 points to zero.
And dont get me started on how utterly stupid it is that a drop pod can be objective secured. Especially if its had its weapon blown off. What does it do? Wait till you pass close enough and open and shut its doors on you till you die?
Orock wrote: Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
Honestly, it's 90% of tau player attitudes that sets the entire army off for me. You all were so happy to get your cheese, see how cheese it was, try to break that cheese more with things like moving tidewall with anchored stormsurge, that I just wanna see the army get nerfed so bad during competitive play. The options they have chosen are honestly ones we make our tau player use. We don't allow him to do any shenanigans like that
So you are admitting you are keeping someone down not because thats not how the rule works, but because you dont like how powerful the army is, or even worse, you play someone whos attitude you cant stand but play anyway. Gotcha.
notredameguy10 wrote: What is a unit? Well it literally says "Shoot as if one unit". If they are shooting "as if one unit" then rules that affect a unit affect anyone participating. I don't see how anyone can argue that.
There is more to it than that. "As if one unit" brings up a whole mess of issues relating to unit coherency, composition, and target selection, but again, quibbiling over this is best taken to the YMDC thread. Spoilers: you won't find me going there anytime soon.
Where in the shooting step after nominating the target are we told to check e.g. the coherency? Hint: Don't write garbage and then ask others to argue it elsewhere.
Embarrassingly enough, several posts before yours:
Trasvi wrote:
notredameguy10 wrote: I have the digital version, so pages won't be the same, but its 384 of digital.
"During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency"
Since "shoot as if one unit" only last for the shooting phase and once that is complete they are no longer a unit, coherency is a non factor.
The next sentence:
"If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option"
... so no coordinated firepower with an anchored Stormsurge or you have to run to be in coherency with it?
Going to have to try harder than that.
Orock wrote:Wow, there sure are alot of people that can ignore a very clear rule, if that means keeping their opponents down. If someone has monster hunters in the unit, he confers it to the rest. Since they "shoot as one unit" the other members of the combined fire gain it too. You may not like it, hell you may hate it. But that is how it works. I dont understand how people can throw a fit about this but be ok with gladius strike force, necron decursion for wraiths and +1 overall, or THE ENTIRE ELDAR CODEX.
The ITC has made it very clear that they are willing to change rules if they feel it's for the good of the game. Preventing Tau from having a one-click counter to almost eveyr army in the game would seemingly qualify under that.
Sure, Gladius and Decurion Wraiths are overpowered. But they don't invalidate whole armies. Tau Coordinated Firepower is an anti-deathstar weapon that thanks to other wargear is a hard-counter to MSU as well. The ITC heavily favors MSU (Reecius believes that deathstars are bad for the game), which is why they had the second question of allowing units that used Coordinated Firepower to select other targets.
You can go ahead and dismiss this as the ramblings of an entitled Eldar player wanting to stay on the top of Mt. Cheese. But Coordinated Firepower, Split Fire, and Buff Sharing invalidates every Eldar army which isn't minimum Scatbikes maximum Wraithknights. Sure, Tau probably aren't as powerful as the top-tier Uber-armies that currently dominate the game, but they make every other army instantly obsolete. That hurts everyone, not just Eldar players.
The reason the poll asked for one's ITC number is probably a measure against vote-stuffing. People can weigh in all they want, but I bet in the final results the votes from ITC members will be weighted more. And I'm willing to be this is not the last time that the ITC bring up this topic for vote.
I wouldnt dismiss what you said, it was well thought out and presented well. But you have to realize tau do in fact not invalidate whole other armies. If anything things like ravenguard, or other turn one assault shenanigans (skyhammer especially) can overload their interceptor and assault turn 1. THEN its over. Its a hard counter that works almost every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
You are trying SOOOOOOO hard. You need to go drink some tea or something. Dont blow a blood vessel. Mabye out there somewhere in the wide world is another person that would agree with your opinion. Don't give up hope!
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doesn't just say "next turn" it also says (second clause) "...or cannot restore coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by running if they have that option." (emphasis mine).
So, that means that unless you can prove your entire army can meet both the first "If the unit cannot move in its next turn" and second "or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn" clauses, they must run if able.
I sincerely doubt the entire Tau army could be in coherency with itself after only one turn of movement if it were treated as a single unit out of the blue.
Edit: Especially considering how many deepstrikers I usually see and how spread out the army tends to get to avoid being bottled into an area.
I never thought of this. Our tau player will definitely be wasting his shooting phase running now. Thank you for the rules clarification
HAHA that will show that dirty xenos! Ill make him use a rule wrong! Who cares if I am cheating as long as I win!
Oh no idc if it's strong, my grey Knights beat tau face easy enough tbh. I just don't like most tau players attitude on here. He is an ok guy, a little weird, but yes we nerf the army as we see the rules should be. Same with out eldar player.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Oh no idc if it's strong, my grey Knights beat tau face easy enough tbh. I just don't like most tau players attitude on here. He is an ok guy, a little weird, but yes we nerf the army as we see the rules should be. Same with out eldar player.
Then it's even worse. Because you are stereotyping. I started off playing dark elder, then orks, marines, tau, then admech. I have the most fun with orks even though it's near the bottom of that list in power. What if he move on to marines, or tyranids? How will you define him then? You can't stereotype off armies or all eldar players are powergamers, and everyone who plays Grey knights is a 5th edition cheezemonger too cheap to upgrade to the newest cheeze.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Oh no idc if it's strong, my grey Knights beat tau face easy enough tbh. I just don't like most tau players attitude on here. He is an ok guy, a little weird, but yes we nerf the army as we see the rules should be. Same with out eldar player.
folks, can we calm down for a moment here? Tau players, allow them to limit us with the coherency rules, and please read up on the following Rule: 'Ambushes and Feints'. If our models are in coherency, there is no problem, and if not, the presence of the commander (and\or fireblade) gives us a way around it and a linchpin that can be removed by our opponents to hobble our force.
carldooley wrote: folks, can we calm down for a moment here? Tau players, allow them to limit us with the coherency rules, and please read up on the following Rule: 'Ambushes and Feints'. If our models are in coherency, there is no problem, and if not, the presence of the commander gives us a way around it and a linchpin that can be removed by our opponents to hobble our force.
No need. I have already proven coherency has not effect anyway. The other guy already agreed.
I understand that this is not YMDC, but it might be useful to support one's position with actual rules rather than just repeating the same in every message.
My problem is with the attitude of let's nerf it just because I don't like it/them. In this case it is even worse as we have not seen the full effect of the CF rule, but people have already decided that it is completely broken. From the batreps I have seen this is not the case.
Another poster claimed it invalidates MSU. That's also not true. Take a Gladius Strike Force with its 20+ obsec units. 1 target unit requires 3 (three) Tau units to shoot with CF. Tau still can't handle MSU and even less so with CF rule.
If on the other hand the complaint was that it invalidates deathstars, that was already something Tau were good at doing. They however do not auto-win those fights as tournament records show, not even with CF.
It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.
Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.
I'm not convinced that's what was intended (GW have a habit of not fully thinking these things through) but it is what the rules say. I suspect that the middle ground option (buff sharing but not for models that shoot a different target) will be the outcome of the ITC vote.
_ghost_ wrote: Whole? So every fire warrior kroot, every vehicle and every stealth-suit every Drohne and every Flyer has a Target lock?
No and I didn't say that they did.
As many units as you like can contribute and get buffed (up to all them) and a decent chunk of the army can get target locks so that you can shoot (with buffs) at a whole bunch of different targets.
If you're sensible you're probably not going to want to put everything into the CF attack (unless you're very suit heavy) but it's still a lot of buffed attacks against a good number of targets.
_ghost_ wrote: Whole? So every fire warrior kroot, every vehicle and every stealth-suit every Drohne and every Flyer has a Target lock?
I'd like to think that Combined Fire is why vehicles didn't get Target Locks this time around. Unlikely, as it is the previous codex with formations (and no single weapons this time around (anyone with a pile of AFPs?(for trade or sale?))), as I was informed before I acquired the codex. If everyone seems to think that the buffmander was broken attached to the units it could join, how about those same buffs attached to Riptides, Stormsurges, and Vehicles? and it gives me a reason to include a single shielded missile drone in my lists, as it shoots at the combined fire target, giving its unit (the 1-3 riptides with target locks) +1BS as well as any other buffs that it could accrue.
Scott-S6 wrote:It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.
Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.
Scott-S6 wrote:
No and I didn't say that they did.
.
Well whole army seemd you are talking about the majority of unit choices you have in the codex
Well but you forget some points:
1. MH and TH are useles against many targets.
2. The Buffmander has to be alive.
3. U need line of sight for every unit that wants to participate at CF 4. Only a part of the arm is able to buy TL in sufficient numbers and they cost points.
Now Compare this to a Skyhammer Formation. or a Gladius... or to the Necron special stuff... or to the Mechanicum " i get so many special rules for free " stuff.
I'm not sure how you got "every unit in the codex" from "whole army"?
I didn't say that it was OP - I voted to stick with the RAW interpretation.
I don't think that GW fully considered the impact of the rule when they wrote it though.
1. Those aren't the only buffs. Consider every special rule that grants a bonus to the unit (e.g. darkstrider's structural analyser) - everyone that participates in CF gains all of those benefits.
2. You can have multiple sources of buffs
3. Yes. But if you're target lock heavy then it doesn't really matter what unit is selected as the target so you just pick the most visible one.
4. But most of the things that can get TLs are the good things. Remains to be seen if a suit-heavy army full of TLs gets sufficient benefit to make it worth heavily optimizing.
So what Buffs do we talk about? The cadre fireblade? well this bonus is crap becaus if you want to use this every model has to be unmoved in that turn.
What else? Darkstrider? its expensive to put him in a huntre detachment. you need a extra detachment for this.
A ethernal? well then you have to pay a comander and a bodyguard crisis as tax. and so on. this comes on tom to the massive TL costs. and it gets costly if you realy want to rely on them.
Buying a TL does most of the time Deny you to buy a ELO or you loose a gun. and so on..
Scott-S6 wrote: It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.
Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.
I'm not convinced that's what was intended (GW have a habit of not fully thinking these things through) but it is what the rules say. I suspect that the middle ground option (buff sharing but not for models that shoot a different target) will be the outcome of the ITC vote.
Try putting together a 1850 point hunter contingent and count the number of units. Also understand that I could already boost my units with markerlights. In the Hunter Contingent there is no practical way of using the markerlights as effectively.
Previously you killed the markerlights, you'd just shift the focus to the buffers.
And it's hard to fit a CAD to a hunter contingent. You are welcome to try, though.
FWIW, I voted no to TL spreading the fun. Allowing that just makes everything way too complicated, otherwise of course every unit participating to CF would benefit from all buffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scott-S6 wrote: It is pretty powerful against MSU as many Tau models can get upgrades to allow them to shoot at a different target to the rest of the squad.
Essentially, you can spread your buffs across the whole army with CF and still shoot lots of units.
I'm not convinced that's what was intended (GW have a habit of not fully thinking these things through) but it is what the rules say. I suspect that the middle ground option (buff sharing but not for models that shoot a different target) will be the outcome of the ITC vote.
Try putting together a 1850 point hunter contingent and count the number of units. Also understand that I could already boost my units with markerlights. In the Hunter Contingent there is no practical way of using the markerlights as effectively.
Previously you killed the markerlights, you'd just shift the focus to the buffers.
And it's hard to fit a CAD to a hunter contingent. You are welcome to try, though.
FWIW, I voted no to TL spreading the fun. Allowing that just makes everything way too complicated, otherwise of course every unit participating to CF would benefit from all buffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm, double post? Maybe it fixes itself
The Darkstrider -1T thing only happens to one unit no matter what's going on with combined fire and target locks. If the Tau player has chosen to put target locks on all of their suits, then they have given up on Early Warning Overrides. With no interception, you can almost guarantee that the buff commander will be dead in very short order.
I voted keep it RAW because that strategy is just a gimmick and will be easily countered once people adapt to it.
_ghost_ wrote: that vote will end today right? when we will be able to read the results of that poll?
They will likely do what they normally do with these polls and sit on the results until Monday when they have a blog post written about it. Doubly so because it's a holiday weekend here in the states
Damn! i hate waiting! but well.... i cant chance it or speed the proces up.
I am realy currious about the results. although i dont play any ITC evnts this result will have a kind f wight as it represents a huge number of players regarding it globaly
So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GWFAQ?
Tautastic wrote: So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GWFAQ?
If they followed GW's rules there would be no FAQ's by ITC.
Tautastic wrote: So what if a miracle happens and GW does an FAQ regarding CF! GW site took out some of their FAQ down for older codex. Update maybe? And their FAQ contradicts the ITC vote results, who takes precedent? I would assume the GWFAQ?
If they followed GW's rules there would be no FAQ's by ITC.
If GW could write a decent well-balanced ruleset, there would be no need for groups like the ITC.
I am only asking because in my understanding, the pretense of the vote was because of the ambiguity of the CF rule. So IF (really big if) GW publishes an FAQ clarifying what the RAWCF rule is then would that in turn invalids the ITC vote if the results contradicts each other?
Tautastic wrote: I am only asking because in my understanding, the pretense of the vote was because of the ambiguity of the CF rule. So IF (really big if) GW publishes an FAQ clarifying what the RAWCF rule is then would that in turn invalids the ITC vote if the results contradicts each other?
I think the priority for the ITC is doing what the ITC voters decide. Pretty sure they would take a "sod off GW" stance in that situation.
It's either that, or just having to deal with TO rulings that don't have any say in.
kambien wrote:Voting on brb rules , i could sorta get with . Voting on rules in other codex , yeah thats not going to be abused cause by perception/fear
Except that Coordinated Firepower is well known, and absolutely broken if it shares special rules. For the sake of the game, it's better to have some player input on the balance of the game.
It's either that, or just having to deal with TO rulings that don't have any say in.
kambien wrote:Voting on brb rules , i could sorta get with . Voting on rules in other codex , yeah thats not going to be abused cause by perception/fear
Except that Coordinated Firepower is well known, and absolutely broken if it shares special rules. For the sake of the game, it's better to have some player input on the balance of the game.
Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.
Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.
Votes on these when?
Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.
Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.
Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.
Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.
The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.
kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.
That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.
If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.
Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.
Votes on these when?
Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.
Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.
Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.
Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.
The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.
kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.
That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.
If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.
Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
notredameguy10 wrote: Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.
Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.
Orock wrote:Decursion is absolutely broken.
Wraith knights being 100+ points under costed is broken.
Marine Gladius is broken.
Votes on these when?
Wraiths with Res Protocols in a Decurion are overpowered, sure, but other than that the Decurion is relatively balanced. Dedicated CC units will make hash out of most Necron units.
Ranged D and Stomps are heavily nerfed in ITC rules. You can also only bring up to two to an ITC game.
Gladius is definitely overpowered, but it is weaker in ITC missions due to automatically giving up kill points/destroyed unit objectives, and the fact that Maelstrom objectives are scored at the end of the player turn in ITC missions.
Coordinated Firepower being able to share special rules is game-breakingly powerful, and is at least as bad as unmodified Centstars.
The first major ITC internet vote was on whether to make Eldar jetbikes limited to one-in-three for their weapons. That one almost passed in favor of the nerf. If you want a vote on those rules, you can contact Reecius. Who knows? Maybe doble Canoptek harvest will prve so powerful that the ITC may have to step in.
kambien wrote:Its not broken. kil lthe buffmander and every model that purchased target locks as extra war gear just became a point sink . I'd love to have less points shooting at me.
That is dependent on two things: going first, and bien gable to kill a multi-wound model with a 2+ save, Feel No Pain, and a 2+ LoS! roll.
If either of those conditions are not met, you will be tabled.
Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
I playtested it several times with my tourney travel buddy. It pretty much came down to: Any army that could not mass-close-combat-engage on top of turn 2 died horribly, even my ITC battleco list. After about 5 playtest games we were like "this is just dumb." Voted the way I did because I would like to NOT see a brand new level of power creep above and beyond the current top tier, and especially not one that removes players from games as fast as Magic the gathering vintage combo decks.
notredameguy10 wrote: Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.
Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.
LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?
What is ridiculous is your blatant "moving of the goalposts". What standard of proof do you need to see that allowing Coordinated Firepower to share special rules is broken? It isn't like these battle reports aren't publicly available.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Point is all you are doing is fear mongering. You make statements about how broken Tau are solely based on ITC play testing, and when I call you out and say that Tau got demolished in both play testing, you then say its only because there are even cheesier things. Do you see how ridiculous you are sounding lol?
What is ridiculous is your blatant "moving of the goalposts". What standard of proof do you need to see that allowing Coordinated Firepower to share special rules is broken? It isn't like these battle reports aren't publicly available.
Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing you just said makes any sense. Show me one single battle report where Rule sharing single handedly won the game. In all the ITC battles it did nothing.
It looks like you play elder based on your Title. How about we increase wraithknight by 100 points? How about we nerf scatter bikes so you can only take 1 per 3? How about we revert all D weapons back to distort instead? I feel like those are all broken and are too powerful, so how about we nerf it all.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.
Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.
Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.
they actually didn't lose; as was said, they won in both games. Not sure about one of them, but I know that the RG V Tau game was a stomp for the RG because the buffmander was left on an unprotected flank at the start and got assaulted by Vanguard Vets on turn 1. Which, again, means that we STILL haven't actually seen this thing be stupidly op in any competitive games. Now,saying that, I voted to not allow the unit to fire at multiple targets, because that actually didn't seem that op, while not straying too far from RAW, and certainly seeming RAI. It's bad for Deathstars, sure, but even as an imperium player I'm tired of deathstars being the only competitive list for like 75% of the metagame (Read: 75% of eldar, most nids {unless the ton of Flyrants counts, not sure,} Some marines, and tau.) I'm really not scared of the bonuses otherwise, seeing as it's not hard to counter with a simple MSU list.
Frozocrone wrote: If enough people propose and vote on it, then the ITC will make changes.
There has been a scatterbike vote, didn't pass in favour of 1/3 for heavy weapons
I personally wonder how that vote would turn out today. Granted I don't think they're that ridiculous anymore in the wake of the things that showed up after them, so I would vote to keep them now, but that vote only passed by 8 votes, and there were apparently confessions of multi-votes in greater figures than that. Had the voting security been in place then, things might've been different.
notredameguy10 wrote:Now you are just spouting gibberish. Nothing you just said makes any sense. Show me one single battle report where Rule sharing single handedly won the game. In all the ITC battles it did nothing.
It looks like you play elder based on your Title. How about we increase wraithknight by 100 points? How about we nerf scatter bikes so you can only take 1 per 3? How about we revert all D weapons back to distort instead? I feel like those are all broken and are too powerful, so how about we nerf it all.
"Moving the Goalposts" or "Shifting the Goalposts" is a logical fallacy. More accurately, it is a rhetorical technique whereby one side of a debate repeatedly escalates their demands for proving an argument. For example:
I claim that Tau's Coordinated Fire and ability to share special rules is overpowered because only combos and mechanics that are more broken have beaten Tau armies using a Buffmander + Hunter Contingent.
You take my argument, and demand a higher standard of proof: a example of a specific battle report where the ability to share special rules with the Coordinated Firepower rule was the only factor in determining the win. As 40k is a game of dice, and has a large element of randomness in all stages of the game, this claim is impossible to prove.
On a side note, I do in fact play Eldar. I personally don't use Scatbikers, Wraithknghts, or D-weapons, so I am more than willing to agree to those conditions. However, Coordinated Fire in return must be depowered. That's what seems fair to me.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.
Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.
While Eldar certainly define the metagame at the GT level wherever 40k is played, there is a lot of regional variation. The ITC only represents part of North America and a subset of its total players. Therefore, any statements about balance are going to come from a North American perspective, where us crazy ex-colonials have taken to making FAQs and re-writing rules in the absence of GW doing so. Under these systems of codified TO rulings and house rules, the fact remains that (though they place highly) Eldar have yet to win any of the four major GT events in North America: the Bay Area Open, the Las Vegas Open, the Adepticon GT, or the NOVA Open GT.
Frontline Gaming may not have may Gt winners on hand, but they were playing GT-level lists. Sure, a lot comes down to the individual player, but there is only so much one can do against a clearly broken mechanic.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Oh so it is ok to nerf Tau, even though there are "even more broken mechanics and combinations" that beat that same tau lol? How does that seem fair to you?
Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
notredameguy10 wrote: Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.
Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.
So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
What formation are you talking about? If its Piranha Firestorm Wing then you are simply wrong and should stop right there. The rule is very clear and doesn't leave any room for other interpretation.
Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.
Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k communitie wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.
notredameguy10 wrote: LMAO. Both times they tried Tau with rules sharing Tau got demolished. So idk what you are talking about.
Eldar have yet to win a major tournament since their new codex was released. That doesn't meant that Eldar aren't overpowered compared to the majority of armies out there.
The only way Tau lost was because the opponent used even more broken mechanics and combinations, such as assaulting from Deep-Strike. That doesn't exactly bode well in terms of balance.
Firstly Eldar do extremely well in tournaments in Europe. They are actually completely dominating the UK meta for eg. Just go look at the allies of convenience GT, like 50%+ of the field where eldar armies. There are other places in the world besides USA.
Also your earlier point that frontline gaming ''tested tau'' is hilarious. Frontline gaming are just average players, so if they lose a few games vs Tau then Tau must be OP? ..... Okay, gives us a break.
While Eldar certainly define the metagame at the GT level wherever 40k is played, there is a lot of regional variation. The ITC only represents part of North America and a subset of its total players. Therefore, any statements about balance are going to come from a North American perspective, where us crazy ex-colonials have taken to making FAQs and re-writing rules in the absence of GW doing so. Under these systems of codified TO rulings and house rules, the fact remains that (though they place highly) Eldar have yet to win any of the four major GT events in North America: the Bay Area Open, the Las Vegas Open, the Adepticon GT, or the NOVA Open GT.
Frontline Gaming may not have may Gt winners on hand, but they were playing GT-level lists. Sure, a lot comes down to the individual player, but there is only so much one can do against a clearly broken mechanic.
Yeah, for some reason Eldar are very underrepresented with their new codex in the ITC for some reason. To me it almost feels like when the new book dropped, everyone just rolled their eyes and thought "this is silly, I'm going to plat a different army".
Plus, some of the ITC rules significantly nerf Eldar.
notredameguy10 wrote: Let me guess how many actual games you played against someone using this "game-breakingly powerful" rule... zero right?
Setting a precedent of immediately nerfing the rules of one specific army before even allowing people to try it out is a dangerous precedent.
I don't have to have played against a Buffmander in a Hunter contingent using Coordinated Firepower to know that the ability to share special rules like that is broken, especially given Tau's ability to engage multiple targets through Multitrackers and Target Locks.
Frontline Gaming have in fact playtested the new Tau with the ability to share special rules; they have posted the battle reports to prove it. The only way Tau lost was via armies assaulting rom Deep-Strike, which is a whole new level of broken unto itself.
So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
What formation are you talking about? If its Piranha Firestorm Wing then you are simply wrong and should stop right there. The rule is very clear and doesn't leave any room for other interpretation.
Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.
I saw a game at a local shop - GSF versus the new Tau. Players agreed to being able to target multiple units. Tau went first and popped at least eight rhinos. Pods then came down and the Marines were intercepted off the table... Game over.
Dozer Blades wrote: I saw a game at a local shop - GSF versus the new Tau. Players agreed to being able to target multiple units. Tau went first and popped at least eight rhinos. Pods then came down and the Marines were intercepted off the table... Game over.
I don't understand how , if all the units are going to have target locks , they not going to have room for interceptor on the suit slots, unless all the crisis suits are running around with 1 gun , then its lol
The do work on one Model. But each weapon and each wargear takes a slot on the suits. A normal Crisis does have tree slots. you see. Having both does allow you only one slot for a weapon.
Also both wargears doesn't spread so only a mdel that has them can use them.
notredameguy10 wrote:Oh so it is ok to nerf Tau, even though there are "even more broken mechanics and combinations" that beat that same tau lol? How does that seem fair to you?
Yes, because there should be fewer broken things in the game, not more. If the only way to beat that Tau army is to go to another level of broken, that ends up invalidating the majority of armies out there.
Naw wrote:
So the imba CF lost as it's so broken that it must be banned?
Shall we vote on those deep strike assaults next?
Voting no for everything you don't like should not be the way to enjoy this game. Correction, voting at all shouldn't be the way.
Technically there was already a decision on Blood Angels being able to assault after Deep-Striking, but to my knowledge that was more of a clarification than a balance decision. Blood Angels need all the help they can get, but I personally am not in favor of being able to assault after Deep-Striking. I do hope that comes up on a future vote, and would as such vote against allowing it.
Voting on rules allows for player input, and is a lot more democratic than "Because the TO/FAQ/Dark Lord Reecius Says So". The whole reason the poll has its wording is because Reecius doesn't believe that Coordinated Firepower RAW can share special rules. I'm willing to bet there would be a lot more outcry if Reecius unilaterally decided to change Tau because of his own interpretation of a rule.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Yes the piranha is like a land speeder
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
I played with complete permissive rules. There is a lot of tax in that contingent. To be honest, it didnt seem to help much.
Broadsides are already 100% TL'ed. 50% ignores cover. The +1 BS mathematically isnt that big of a buff over already being twinlinked. The FBC already allows monster or tank hunter with similar trade off (must all shoot at same thing).
Regardless of the ruling, it wont affect my playstyle or LVO list ideas that much. Although if it does turn out to be a win button, I for one, won't bring it to the LVO, and would opt for orks.
I have more fun playing a novel list and style anyway. Cheese or no. Win or no. I would be happy with a permissive rule interpretation.
This list is particularly vulnerable to Wraith wing. Wraith knights. Blood Angels, gray knights, daemons, flying bugs, psykers etc.
Meta shift will be negligible regardless of ruling IMO. I wanted to vote for permission but missed the window. Oh well....
All of these house-rulings and comp systems are just detrimental to the hobby as a whole.
The game already has all that's needed built in. That is points limit and Army Organisation (Battle Forged/Unbound).
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Yes the piranha is like a land speeder
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Yes the piranha is like a land speeder
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?
i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Yes the piranha is like a land speeder
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?
i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k communitie wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.
Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.
"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."
Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Can't wait for the results. Hopefully everyone did the correct thing. It did bug me that they did not have the question does a pirahna come back in that one formation.. Everyone knows it wouldn't, it wasn't part f the unit, it's a dedicated transport. Oh well
I'm unfamiliar with that particular formation, among many others...
But I thought a Tau Piranha was a light, two-seater gunship like a Space Marine Land Speeder. Is there a new type of Piranha that's a light transport for a small squad?
Yes the piranha is like a land speeder
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
Where does the Dedicated Transport part come in then?
i'd wager just not knowing the codex or because drones get treated as passengers
But, like, every Tau skimmer has drones...
Just ignore what he said initially, he doesn't have a clue.
What he's referencing is that the formation rule says that it can leave play if within 6" of the edge and that it restocks drones , seeker missiles and returns at full strength . He's talking about a vote on weather returning at full strength is replacing downed piranha or just replacing drones/seekers
Since the rule says that the "unit" returns at full strength, not the "models" I think it's very clear.
X078 wrote:All of these house-rulings and comp systems are just detrimental to the hobby as a whole.
The game already has all that's needed built in. That is points limit and Army Organisation (Battle Forged/Unbound).
Are we reading from the same rulebook and playing the same game here? Warhammer 40,000 is a poorly-written and atrociously balanced mess of a game going strictly by the rulebook.
In an age where Space Marines can get free dedicated transports, points no longer balance the game. In an age where Formations and Decurion-style detachments exist, list-building restrictions no longer balance the game. Some semblance of balance is needed, which is where house rules like that ITC rulings come into play.
Fun fact: I can break the game RAW by attaching two different psykers to the same unit. The game has no way to deal with this RAW, so the game breaks at the start of my Psychic Phase. Also, can you tell me what Mastery Levels actually do RAW? Cite page and paragraph.
Naw wrote:Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.
"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."
Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.
If GW actually playtested their game, there probably wouldn't be so many balance issues.
It isn't like the new Tau codex just released yesterday. People have already played against the new Tau, and the response from non-Tau players about Coordinated Firepower bieng able to share special rules has been overwhelmingly negative.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Maybe if some thought was put into how rules interact with each other and potential allies (no please not playtesting ..... I'm melting, meeeelting), various parts of the 40k community wouldn't take it upon themselves to give their audiences a chance to vote on their opinion, as opposed to that other fair measure of community opinion, not asking them, and guessing at what they would like doing...... oh wait.
Wow! Just wow! You make it sound as if the audience is voting based on playtesting.
"I voted for nerfs because I don't like Tau players."
Yeah, I can see how that is so much better than what GW is doing.
The joke is that GW don't playtest or do market research. So yes anything is better than nothing in this case, I mean finding out how your community feels about something is kind of basic tool in "how do I sell more, improve the business, etc".
TheNewBlood wrote: If GW actually playtested their game, there probably wouldn't be so many balance issues.
They do playtest their games, it's just that the people doing the playtesting are the same people writing the rules, so they have gaping blind spots about how vaguely they're written, and they tend to come at the game from a fluff perspective rather than a "how powerful an army can we make?" perspective. Also, in the Investor Relations section of their site, their business strategy basically states that they're in the business of selling models, and they use the games as tools to sell those models.
We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.
Simple, but every part of this statement is important.
We make things. We are a manufacturer. Not a retailer. We do have outlets in retail locations. We call these Games Workshop Hobby centres because they show customers how to engage with our hobby of collecting, painting and playing with our miniatures and games. They are the front end of our manufacturing business. If our Hobby centres do a great job, we will recruit lots of customers into our Hobby and they will enjoy spending their money on the products we make.
The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. Our games are played between people present in a room (a Hobby centre, a club, a school), not with a screen. They are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense. The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. This in turn allows us to reinvest in making more and more exciting miniatures and games, which creates a virtuous circle for all.
Dozer Blades wrote: I saw a game at a local shop - GSF versus the new Tau. Players agreed to being able to target multiple units. Tau went first and popped at least eight rhinos. Pods then came down and the Marines were intercepted off the table... Game over.
Hey I have a funny story for you. I played tau against my friends GSF. I killed 4 rhinos in the first turn. Then he shot some of my stuff. Then next turn I killed some more razorbacks. Then on HIS turn his tactical warlord trait that let him outflank his HQ, and 3 more units all in rhinos came on from the sides. I intercepted 2 of the rhinos successfully, then he shot me off the board to a man!
Isnt it fun how almost identical situations can be completely different?
Its always funny if any statement gets backed up with such evidence. as you Orock proved. Such evidence is worthless to make a point. simply because its no real evidence and there is always a result thats the total oposite to someothers anecdote.
Are we reading from the same rulebook and playing the same game here? Warhammer 40,000 is a poorly-written and atrociously balanced mess of a game going strictly by the rulebook.
In an age where Space Marines can get free dedicated transports, points no longer balance the game. In an age where Formations and Decurion-style detachments exist, list-building restrictions no longer balance the game. Some semblance of balance is needed, which is where house rules like that ITC rulings come into play.
I think all the new codices and especially the faction detachments (e.g. decurion) are perfectly fine and play to the strenghts (and fluff for those that care) to each army.
Fun fact: I can break the game RAW by attaching two different psykers to the same unit. The game has no way to deal with this RAW, so the game breaks at the start of my Psychic Phase.
Do elaborate.
Also, can you tell me what Mastery Levels actually do RAW? Cite page and paragraph.
The number of powers the psyker can use each turn, look it up in the psychic phase section.
Fun fact: I can break the game RAW by attaching two different psykers to the same unit. The game has no way to deal with this RAW, so the game breaks at the start of my Psychic Phase.
Do elaborate.
What is the Mastery Level of the unit? How do you know?
Also, can you tell me what Mastery Levels actually do RAW? Cite page and paragraph.
The number of powers the psyker can use each turn, look it up in the psychic phase section.
Which doesn't matter because we are not told what the relationship between Mastery Level and number of powers a psyker can cast actually is. All we know is that Powers You Can Cast is a function of Mastery Level.
However, Mastery Levels do do something. They generate extra Warp Charge dice.
Happyjew wrote: Which doesn't matter because we are not told what the relationship between Mastery Level and number of powers a psyker can cast actually is. All we know is that Powers You Can Cast is a function of Mastery Level.
Did they seriously leave it at that? Just "a function of Mastery Level"?
I ask because my rulebooks are all in a box or boxes in the basement awaiting sale of the house.
Happyjew wrote: Which doesn't matter because we are not told what the relationship between Mastery Level and number of powers a psyker can cast actually is. All we know is that Powers You Can Cast is a function of Mastery Level.
Did they seriously leave it at that? Just "a function of Mastery Level"?
I ask because my rulebooks are all in a box or boxes in the basement awaiting sale of the house.
Hilariously, yes. And we still don't know, because GW doesn't issue official FAQs anymore.
At least under the ITC rules Mastery Levels are defined and the game doesn't break during the psychic phase.
Happyjew wrote: Which doesn't matter because we are not told what the relationship between Mastery Level and number of powers a psyker can cast actually is. All we know is that Powers You Can Cast is a function of Mastery Level.
Did they seriously leave it at that? Just "a function of Mastery Level"?
I ask because my rulebooks are all in a box or boxes in the basement awaiting sale of the house.
Hilariously, yes. And we still don't know, because GW doesn't issue official FAQs anymore.
At least under the ITC rules Mastery Levels are defined and the game doesn't break during the psychic phase.
I didn't finish high school math and even I know that "function" doesn't necessarily refer to a 1:1 ratio...
My dad is great at math, has a degree in astrophysics and worked as a computer programmer for the Canadian government for about 30 years, and he listened to this story and just shook his head and rolled his eyes, then went back to watching TV. I imagine he might've laughed or commented if his back weren't in so much pain... along with other not-funny medical problems he has.
It is an interesting point of contention with the wording of unit coherency you brought up about the definition of "a single turn" just in general though.
