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.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 16:32:10
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?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/24 16:42:50
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/24 17:15:14
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 17:13:44
Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/24 17:39:22
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 17:53:53
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/24 18:15:47
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 18:21:42
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/24 18:24:32
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.
20000+ points
2500 
2200 
~1.5k
~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
