Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Again:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?

Sorry buddy, but you loose this one. The rules are clear and you are the only person not understanding them.

I have already declared shooting. The chance to run is already passed.

notredameguy10 wrote:
Sorry buddy, but you loose this one. The rules are clear and you are the only person not understanding them.

10/10. I really like the citations, deft counters, and logical analyses. Well done!

Oh, and the answer to my question was absolutely brilliant and I did not see it coming.

In fact, I didn't see it at all.

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.

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.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 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:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Naw wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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

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.

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.

 bomtek80 wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Naw wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 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!

Sometimes I wonder if people actually read the thread before knee-jerking XD

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.

autoincorrect edit

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.

So classy! We are done, thank you.

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.

Yeah I don't know what everyone's on about. Having seen the rule, coherency doesn't effect it.

Read the thread! *high-fives notredameguy10*

notredameguy10 wrote:
Sorry buddy, but you loose this one. The rules are clear and you are the only person not understanding them.

I have already declared shooting. The chance to run is already passed.

People don't generally get to unilaterally declare "I have totally won the argument."

Guys, whatever conclusions you come to, please do it without backbiting and personal attacks.

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.

Whole? So every fire warrior kroot, every vehicle and every stealth-suit every Drohne and every Flyer has a Target lock?

 _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.

.

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.