Okay guys, this debate is raging on pretty hard on some Tau forums I follow, so I thought I'd bring it here and get some viewpoints. I'm completely torn on this, so I'll try to present as much evidence as I can for either side of the issue:
The new Tau Hunter Contingent detachment allows units to combine their fire, resolving their shots as though they were a part of the same unit. If a Buffmander (Commander equipped with a Command and Control Node, Multi-Spectrum Sensor Suite, and Puretide Engram Neurochip) is a part of one of those units, do those special rules confer to the entire "unit" that is combining fire?
Here are the rules for the Contingent, via Games Trust:
Spoiler:
And also the rules for the Buffmander's wargear:
Spoiler:
Points for:
- The wording of the MSS and CCN specifically refer to other models in his unit during the shooting phase, which by the rule of Combined Fire would be anything combining fire since they are treated as being one unit while resolving their shooting attacks
- The wording of the Combined Fire rule specifically mentions that it includes markerlights, which seems to imply that there are other benefits.
Points against:
- "As if they were a single unit" isn't the same as "they are the same unit"
- It's OP as hell
I'm actually split about 50/50 myself about this, so I'm very interested in hearing thoughts from you!
- "As if they were a single unit" isn't the same as "they are the same unit"
This doesn't matter. They can't fire as a single unit if they are not a single unit. One automatically leads to the other, so to speak. That's why the units will share special rules like Night Vision and Tank/Monster Hunter too: at one point, they must become one unit in order to fulfill a criteria in the special rule.
Well take a look at the rules. There you find the words that rell you that you resolve the shoots "as if they were one unit" and thats it. in every other case they had to writ anything like " they count as one unit till your next turn .." or anything else.
The real core here is how far this " count as one unit" realy goes. regarding that single Shooting Attack.
Some only want to count it for ML others for unitwide special rules
_ghost_ wrote: Well take a look at the rules. There you find the words that rell you that you resolve the shoots "as if they were one unit" and thats it. in every other case they had to writ anything like " they count as one unit till your next turn .." or anything else.
The real core here is how far this " count as one unit" realy goes. regarding that single Shooting Attack.
Some only want to count it for ML others for unitwide special rules
It's entirely possible for them to wound themselves with or as part of that shooting attack.
raverrn wrote: I was speaking to AtoMaki's "They can't fire as a single unit if they are not a single unit."
But it is simple: how could you resolve an attack from a single unit without forming a single unit first? The combined unit lasts until the attack is resolved as it is created as part of the special rule that ceases to be in effect after the attack is over.
_ghost_ wrote:Well take a look at the rules. There you find the words that rell you that you resolve the shoots "as if they were one unit" and thats it. in every other case they had to writ anything like " they count as one unit till your next turn .." or anything else.
The real core here is how far this "count as one unit" realy goes. regarding that single Shooting Attack.
Some only want to count it for ML others for unitwide special rules
From the way it reads, it would be an entire Shooting Sequence. It basically adds a sub-step in Step 1 after select a unit to shoot and adds, and anyone close by. They then proceed as if they all were the same unit. So, Fire Warriors, Commander, Devilfish, would all fire their weapons at the same target, and if Tokens were available, would single-use for them all. So, if the Commander has a Burst Cannon, both his and the Devilfish would be employing it together in the same To-Hit Rolls, and if two Fire Warrior Squads were shooting together in the same Sequence, all of their Pulse Rifles would roll To-Hit together.
I'm not sure if you meant Shooting Attack from a single weapon's group, or the 6th Edition which lumped all the weapons together, so just clarifying for those who may have them confused.
- "As if they were a single unit" isn't the same as "they are the same unit"
This doesn't matter. They can't fire as a single unit if they are not a single unit. One automatically leads to the other, so to speak. That's why the units will share special rules like Night Vision and Tank/Monster Hunter too: at one point, they must become one unit in order to fulfill a criteria in the special rule.
We are told the shots are resolved as they were a single unit, so the buffmanders abilities would affect all the units for any unit wide abilities it grants.
The one strange point is the buffmander has to be in an unit that is firing , since technically the buffmander has to not shoot to grant it's abilities and on its own, that is not firing at a target unit which the rule requires. Considering the buffmander will likely be joined to an unit this is a moot point.
Also. I don't think you can split fire if you use this rule as it specifies you must choose the same target, if you split fire you are not choosing the same target.
blaktoof wrote: We are told the shots are resolved as they were a single unit, so the buffmanders abilities would affect all the units for any unit wide abilities it grants.
The one strange point is the buffmander has to be in an unit that is firing , since technically the buffmander has to not shoot to grant it's abilities and on its own, that is not firing at a target unit which the rule requires. Considering the buffmander will likely be joined to an unit this is a moot point.
True, but that Buffmander is only taking 3 systems. Enough room for the long-ranged Missile Pod to be installed an shoot at almost anything he chooses.
blaktoof wrote: Also. I don't think you can split fire if you use this rule as it specifies you must choose the same target, if you split fire you are not choosing the same target.
The alternative targeting by Split Fire is performed by a model, not a unit, though. If attempted to use on a single model unit, though, I would agree. Also consider, even if it is not Split Fire, the same would be said for Target Locks, as they function at the same level (but don't have a defined sequence like Split Fire).
blaktoof wrote: We are told the shots are resolved as they were a single unit, so the buffmanders abilities would affect all the units for any unit wide abilities it grants.
The one strange point is the buffmander has to be in an unit that is firing , since technically the buffmander has to not shoot to grant it's abilities and on its own, that is not firing at a target unit which the rule requires. Considering the buffmander will likely be joined to an unit this is a moot point.
True, but that Buffmander is only taking 3 systems. Enough room for the long-ranged Missile Pod to be installed an shoot at almost anything he chooses.
blaktoof wrote: Also. I don't think you can split fire if you use this rule as it specifies you must choose the same target, if you split fire you are not choosing the same target.
The alternative targeting by Split Fire is performed by a model, not a unit, though. If attempted to use on a single model unit, though, I would agree. Also consider, even if it is not Split Fire, the same would be said for Target Locks, as they function at the same level (but don't have a defined sequence like Split Fire).
The reason I brought up the buffmander firing is for command and control node. If the buffmander uses it, the buffmander may not shoot. If the buffmander is not shooting itself, it cannot be an unit combining fire- so it has to be in an unit that is shooting. For the other rules a missile pod would work just fine though I agree.
The split fire thing, I agree would also bee an issue with target locks. The wording for coordinated firepower specifies "these units must shoot the same target" target being singular, if you use an ability that allows the unit to fire at something else, if you picked a different target using a special rule you are not picking the "same target" and we are told the units must do that. It is performed by models, but models make up units and you have to select units for coordinated fire. If you select an unit for coordinated fire, the restrictions as well as the benefits affect the unit (which is made up the models) so the models would not be able to target other units than the one the first unit their unit is coordinating with is targeting, because they must shoot the same target. This rule seems very specific special rule, so would override pretty much any general special rule which would grant the ability to shoot at a separate target from the rest of your unit.
Not really much of a drawback, but it restricts things like getting a bunch of benefits by combining rules from various units then firing at a bunch of different units through target locks while trying to benefit from coordinated firepower etc.
blaktoof wrote: The reason I brought up the buffmander firing is for command and control node. If the buffmander uses it, the buffmander may not shoot. If the buffmander is not shooting itself, it cannot be an unit combining fire- so it has to be in an unit that is shooting. For the other rules a missile pod would work just fine though I agree.
I did forget the restrictions on two of the Wargear. Of course, since he is an IC, it wouldn't be hard for him to join a unit first, and as you mentioned, the Drones are an option.
The split fire thing, I agree would also bee an issue with target locks. The wording for coordinated firepower specifies "these units must shoot the same target" target being singular, if you use an ability that allows the unit to fire at something else, if you picked a different target using a special rule you are not picking the "same target" and we are told the units must do that. It is performed by models, but models make up units and you have to select units for coordinated fire. If you select an unit for coordinated fire, the restrictions as well as the benefits affect the unit (which is made up the models) so the models would not be able to target other units than the one the first unit their unit is coordinating with is targeting, because they must shoot the same target. This rule seems very specific special rule, so would override pretty much any general special rule which would grant the ability to shoot at a separate target from the rest of your unit.
Split Fire and Target Locks do not have a unit targeting a separate target, though, just the models. And while it is Shooting the same target for the rest of the unit, it doesn't care if a couple models shoot something else, or at least does not mention it.
So this wasn't the question I was expecting from the title. Yes of course the buffmanders rules work, if you're not treating the models from the other units as being part of his unit for those rules you're not resolving the shots as one unit for the shooting attack and thus are breaking the coordinated firepower rule. I don't even see how this is a debate? In the rules "count as" and "treated as" are the same as is, yes this is problematic if the combined unit causes wounds to itself during the shooting phase. That is an interesting question, as is how does this interact with target locks/gargantuans and must the buffmander be in a unit that actually fires guns to qualify for joining the attack?
I don't have access to my book right now, but don't you check moral at the end of the shooting phase?
I know a lot of people put markers after a unit is shot to remind them, but I think it all happens at the end of the phase.
Nilok wrote: I don't have access to my book right now, but don't you check moral at the end of the shooting phase?
I know a lot of people put markers after a unit is shot to remind them, but I think it all happens at the end of the phase.
I've only just been skimming this thread, but couldn't see any mention of Morale tests?
blaktoof wrote: We are told the shots are resolved as they were a single unit, so the buffmanders abilities would affect all the units for any unit wide abilities it grants.
The one strange point is the buffmander has to be in an unit that is firing , since technically the buffmander has to not shoot to grant it's abilities and on its own, that is not firing at a target unit which the rule requires. Considering the buffmander will likely be joined to an unit this is a moot point.
True, but that Buffmander is only taking 3 systems. Enough room for the long-ranged Missile Pod to be installed an shoot at almost anything he chooses.
If Buffmander attacks, his entire point drops because both re-roll to hit and ignores cover items requires him to stay put.
Nilok wrote: I don't have access to my book right now, but don't you check moral at the end of the shooting phase?
I know a lot of people put markers after a unit is shot to remind them, but I think it all happens at the end of the phase.
I've only just been skimming this thread, but couldn't see any mention of Morale tests?
But yes, you only test at the end of the phase.
Also you can assign the wounds as you choose between the units firing as they are all equidistant from the firing unit and ypu take majority toughness across the board.
I'll point out here that the rule for combined fire states that the units participating must fire at the same target. Things like target locks, or GMCs that "may" split their fire among different targets would not work with this, as a specific restriction (must) always takes precedence over a general permission (may). One might try to argue that as long as one model in the unit is still targeting the "key" unit, that it would qualify for that line of text but i interpret it to mean the entire unit must fire. To have it not work that way wouldn't make sense if for example 3 units of crisis suits declared combine fire on a single rhino, then 2 of the units used target locks to shoot at 2 more other rhinos -- the unit didn't really combine it's firepower did it?
As far as USR sharing - any echo abilities that affect an entire unit during a shooting attack like preferred enemy, tank hunter, etc, would be shared during a combined fire excercise - to say otherwise is to basically say tau hunter contingents get NO command benefits whatsoever (practically). When Necrons get +1 RP rolls, or Gladius get free rhinos and objective secured on their core, or eldar get auto-6 run rolls -- just letting tau share markerlights and nothing else when combining their shots is a bit asinine. But i do say that when it happens, they are indeed combining firepower onto one target - not using a single buffmander to spread tank hunter across all their army then turn the entire enemy tankline into rubble.
It says unit not each model in the unit must target the designated unit. Thus my build for Riptides will be:
Riptide: Ion, EWO, TL, Drone 220
The unit (including drone) targets as required then the Riptide splits off with twin linked and ignores cover. I'm also going to run my buff suit as a Shas'vre in a crisis unit with a MP so he can likewise target the designated unit.
The Puetide Engram Neurochip upgrade has no effect on the combined unit, as it only effects the model with the upgrade, not it's unit. And since the Buffmander isn't even shooting in order to trigger the other two upgrades, the Puretide chip is effectively useless.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The Puetide Engram Neurochip upgrade has no effect on the combined unit, as it only effects the model with the upgrade, not it's unit. And since the Buffmander isn't even shooting in order to trigger the other two upgrades, the Puretide chip is effectively useless.
SJ
Take a look at the rules the puretide chip grants it's owner - Tank hunter, Monster Hunter, Stubborn, Counter-Attack, Furious Charge. These are all abilities that only require one model in a unit for the entire unit to benefit from.
The buffmander standing alone in a field cannot shoot and benefit from his MSSS or C&C node - but in a unit, they can target an enemy with shooting and then those benefits apply to the unit as well. These are all shared, and looks pretty watertight to me. My interpretation of the rule that is when you ignore the portion of text that says units in a combined fire attack must all shoot the same unit, by using target locks to split fire off amongst other targets, is when it gets crazy broken and obviously (to me) unintended. In that way you could have a single commander with all these benefits set up a shooting attack, then all your suits would "combine their fire" by shooting other things with target locks???/ that's in no way combining fire, it's at best a hairy loophole. The rule is strong and doesn't need the extra oomph some folks are trying to give it by gaming the target lock upgrade, IMO.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The Puetide Engram Neurochip upgrade has no effect on the combined unit, as it only effects the model with the upgrade, not it's unit. And since the Buffmander isn't even shooting in order to trigger the other two upgrades, the Puretide chip is effectively useless.
SJ
Take a look at the rules the puretide chip grants it's owner - Tank hunter, Monster Hunter, Stubborn, Counter-Attack, Furious Charge. These are all abilities that only require one model in a unit for the entire unit to benefit from.
The buffmander standing alone in a field cannot shoot and benefit from his MSSS or C&C node - but in a unit, they can target an enemy with shooting and then those benefits apply to the unit as well. These are all shared, and looks pretty watertight to me. My interpretation of the rule that is when you ignore the portion of text that says units in a combined fire attack must all shoot the same unit, by using target locks to split fire off amongst other targets, is when it gets crazy broken and obviously (to me) unintended. In that way you could have a single commander with all these benefits set up a shooting attack, then all your suits would "combine their fire" by shooting other things with target locks???/ that's in no way combining fire, it's at best a hairy loophole. The rule is strong and doesn't need the extra oomph some folks are trying to give it by gaming the target lock upgrade, IMO.
Nope the commander can't shoot if he can shoot how can he shoot? He must be in a unit that shoots for him to join the attack. However each individual unit with target lock models must also target that unit, so a model from that unit must fire at the target unit, then models with target locks are free to spread their fire.
tetrisphreak wrote:I'll point out here that the rule for combined fire states that the units participating must fire at the same target. Things like target locks, or GMCs that "may" split their fire among different targets would not work with this, as a specific restriction (must) always takes precedence over a general permission (may). One might try to argue that as long as one model in the unit is still targeting the "key" unit, that it would qualify for that line of text but i interpret it to mean the entire unit must fire. To have it not work that way wouldn't make sense if for example 3 units of crisis suits declared combine fire on a single rhino, then 2 of the units used target locks to shoot at 2 more other rhinos -- the unit didn't really combine it's firepower did it?
Yes, they would. Target Locks and Split Fire do not affect a unit's targeting (aside from not shooting that target), and allow a model to independently target. Super-Heavy Shooting multiple Targets does not give any Primary or Secondary status to their Targets, so all would be considered part of the target.
Coordinated Attack does not specify that the units may ONLY shoot the same target, just that they shoot at the same target. It is a fine line, and in most cases means nothing, but still allows for multiple targetting to be accomplished.
tetrisphreak wrote:The buffmander standing alone in a field cannot shoot and benefit from his MSSS or C&C node - but in a unit, they can target an enemy with shooting and then those benefits apply to the unit as well. These are all shared, and looks pretty watertight to me. My interpretation of the rule that is when you ignore the portion of text that says units in a combined fire attack must all shoot the same unit, by using target locks to split fire off amongst other targets, is when it gets crazy broken and obviously (to me) unintended. In that way you could have a single commander with all these benefits set up a shooting attack, then all your suits would "combine their fire" by shooting other things with target locks???/ that's in no way combining fire, it's at best a hairy loophole. The rule is strong and doesn't need the extra oomph some folks are trying to give it by gaming the target lock upgrade, IMO.
It is hairy and cheesy, and Tau have been doing stuff like that for years now. They almost NEED that level of shooting cheesiness because they sure can't do much damage in any other way*.
*Yes, there are exceptions, but I'm not going to include Unique models in this assessment.
Initially, It does seem like special rules carry over to other units participating in a "coordinated firepower" attack. The wording for Markerlights is unit specific and it just makes sense that since the participating units are "resolving their shots as if they were a single unit" that they benefit from rules that say "models in this unit get x bonus."
However, the rule specifies "this includes the use of markerlight abilities" but does not clarify if it also includes the use of special rules. This is what makes me question if special rules transfer. The attorney in me would have liked to see the rule say "this includes the use of markerlight abilities and special rules or wargear."
I mean, think of the implications:
-Darkstrider's structural analyzer rule would reduce the T for ALL shots involved. Hello S10 Hammerhead Railgun shots against T6 MCs w/o eternal Warrior? This mechanic can be pretty abusive against the right targets.
-The Pathfinder Pulse Accelerator Drone would increase the range of all pulse weapons fired from all other units involved. Say hello to Pulse Rifles with a potential threat range of 48" (move 6", 6" from drone, 6" from run via hunter cadre rule).
-Tank/Monster Hunter from a buffmander to all units involved. Say goodbye to an MC or Vehicle a turn. Guaranteed or your mattress if freeeeeee*.
So yeah, if special rules carry over, Buffmander with a Riptide is essentially back now...With a vengeance as you can buff multiple Riptide's supposedly.
Nasty combo I've been thinking over is 36 Fire Warriors, Fireblade, Ethereal, Buffmander and that allied SM formation that you can virtually guarantee a power (and hope for misfortune which makes all attacks against target-regardless of source-rending). Hello to a potential of 144 twin-linked BS5 cover ignoring monster/tank hunter shots that rend... Anyone got the math on how much damage that can do? Good bye Mr. Wraithknight!
All in all, these rules might be ok as they are because it helps mitigate crazy deathstars and it is only against a single target. This new incarnation of Tau will make MSU play/armies a lot more rewarding/effective.
The includes Marker lights is a redundant reminder. If you're not treating the models as part of the same unit for special rules why not when the rules explicitly state there are treated as the same unit.
There there is lots of craziness you can do. Have you seen the invisistars run at tournaments these days? Putting Darkstrider in there is a huge tax though as you require a CAD to add him.
-Darkstrider's structural analyzer rule would reduce the T for ALL shots involved. Hello S10 Hammerhead Railgun shots against T6 MCs w/o eternal Warrior? This mechanic can be pretty abusive against the right targets.
I think that is the exact reason he can't be taken in the Hunter Contingent.
You can sneak him in with another CAD, but even with just a Hunter Cadre and a formation, your points are going to be thin.
FlingitNow wrote: The includes Marker lights is a redundant reminder. If you're not treating the models as part of the same unit for special rules why not when the rules explicitly state there are treated as the same unit.
The rules say the shots are resolved "as if they were a single unit" not that they are treated as being the same unit, which is not exactly the same thing. You are coming to a conclusion not necessarily supported by the premises, there is a difference there. For example, not every weapon has the "gets hot" rule and so to differentiate, you simply roll those shots that get hot separately when the shots are coming from the same unit. Likewise, you could separate the units with the special rules into their own pools to be resolved separately but still count as coming from the same unit much like you would with a special weapon with special rules.
Overall, the main and primary benefit for combining shots is an improvement on Makerlight economy/efficiency. RAW, the rule is clear as to Markerlights but ambiguous as to other special rules. You have to make a logical inference that special rules are included, and a reasonable one at that, but don't pretend it is anything more than an inference. It certainly is not explicitly stated that special rules carry over and that is where I personally am a bit reluctant to play it as if they do-it just seems like "over 9000" strong!
-Darkstrider's structural analyzer rule would reduce the T for ALL shots involved. Hello S10 Hammerhead Railgun shots against T6 MCs w/o eternal Warrior? This mechanic can be pretty abusive against the right targets.
I think that is the exact reason he can't be taken in the Hunter Contingent.
You can sneak him in with another CAD, but even with just a Hunter Cadre and a formation, your points are going to be thin.
Spending 160 points for the inclusion of Darkstrider might be worth it! That is 100 points for him and 60 points for Kroot in an allied detachment.
Spending 160 points for the inclusion of Darkstrider might be worth it! That is 100 points for him and 60 points for Kroot in an allied detachment.
You can't have a primary CAD and an AD of the same Faction. The cheapest way to bring Darkstrider is 190 - 100 for him and 90 for 2x Strikers/Breachers.
I'm urging everyone to email gamefaqs@gwplc.com with this rules query. They are reticent to issue FAQs of late but if we as a group can overwhelm them with a single question we might get an answer on this one. The email I sent them is below, feel free to copy and paste. One way or the other an official answer will benefit everyone!
Hello,
I recently purchased the Tau Empire codex via Black Library’s website, and I had a rules question.
In the Hunter Contingent detachment, one of the command benefits is “Combined Fire”. This allows tau units to join their firepower together to target a single enemy unit at once.
1.) Do rules such as tank hunter, preferred enemy, etc that affect an entire unit apply to every tau unit participating in the attack, as long as one of the models have these types of rules?
2.) Additionally do the benefits from a Command and Control Node or Multi-Spectrum Sensor Suite apply in this manner?
3.) Can models use target locks (or in the Stormsurge’s case, the Gargantuan Monstrous Creature rules) to split off some of their firepower from the targeted unit, even though combined fire says all units must shoot at the same target?
3b.) If so, do models targeting units other than the main target retain the benefits of the special rules or wargear that apply to an entire unit’s shooting attack?
Thank you for taking the time to read this – hopefully it wasn’t too complicated of a question. Many people are discussing this rules issue currently so a timely FAQ would really come in handy for this. Thanks again.
mortetvie wrote: Initially, It does seem like special rules carry over to other units participating in a "coordinated firepower" attack. The wording for Markerlights is unit specific and it just makes sense that since the participating units are "resolving their shots as if they were a single unit" that they benefit from rules that say "models in this unit get x bonus."
However, the rule specifies "this includes the use of markerlight abilities" but does not clarify if it also includes the use of special rules. This is what makes me question if special rules transfer. The attorney in me would have liked to see the rule say "this includes the use of markerlight abilities and special rules or wargear."
I mean, think of the implications:
Yeah, it is powerful. But then that which would prevent the spreading of the benefit in the Coordinated Attack would also prevent the interactions of similar rules between ICs and units they join. A problem that people keep trying to do with ICs and Formation units (especially the Skyhammer).
The rules say the shots are resolved "as if they were a single unit" not that they are treated as being the same unit, which is not exactly the same thing. You are coming to a conclusion not necessarily supported by the premises, there is a difference there. For example, not every weapon has the "gets hot" rule and so to differentiate, you simply roll those shots that get hot separately when the shots are coming from the same unit. Likewise, you could separate the units with the special rules into their own pools to be resolved separately but still count as coming from the same unit much like you would with a special weapon with special rules.
Overall, the main and primary benefit for combining shots is an improvement on Makerlight economy/efficiency. RAW, the rule is clear as to Markerlights but ambiguous as to other special rules. You have to make a logical inference that special rules are included, and a reasonable one at that, but don't pretend it is anything more than an inference. It certainly is not explicitly stated that special rules carry over and that is where I personally am a bit reluctant to play it as if they do-it just seems like "over 9000" strong!
So let's look at that first sentence you've posted. If they were in a single unit would they receive the benefit of the special rules? If the answer is yes why would it is different when you are treating them as if they were a single unit?
This does not need an FAQ. This is pretty clear and appears to be the entire point of the rule. Why else would it exist if not for the units to gain the benefit of being one big unit. Otherwise this is just a negative rule. Or if it was to ONLY gain the benefits of MLs then why word it like this why not just say all the units combine fire so they all gain the bonuses from the same MLs why the potentially confusing and awkward mechanic of them becoming 1 unit?
Yeah honestly I don't think this would be any sort of an issue if people weren't knee-jerk reacting about how OP they think it is. So tau can shoot. What else is new? They can't assault, psychic or move (well) so they sure should be able to shoot.
The real question (that can't really have a RAW answer as far as I can tell) is how all of this transfers over to overwatch and interceptor, if at all.
luke1705 wrote: Yeah honestly I don't think this would be any sort of an issue if people weren't knee-jerk reacting about how OP they think it is. So tau can shoot. What else is new? They can't assault, psychic or move (well) so they sure should be able to shoot.
The real question (that can't really have a RAW answer as far as I can tell) is how all of this transfers over to overwatch and interceptor, if at all.
Over watch still has supporting fire. The hunter cadre gives it within 12" which is amazing.
luke1705 wrote: Yeah honestly I don't think this would be any sort of an issue if people weren't knee-jerk reacting about how OP they think it is. So tau can shoot. What else is new? They can't assault, psychic or move (well) so they sure should be able to shoot.
The real question (that can't really have a RAW answer as far as I can tell) is how all of this transfers over to overwatch and interceptor, if at all.
Agreed. I'd say it definitely doesn't apply to interceptor as that is a weapon by weapon rule rather than unit by unit. Overwatch is a grey area so I wouldn't do it as overwatch is just a royal mess at the best of times without creating an argument over this.
I can see how there is an issue about special rules carrying over between units using this formation rule.
However, RAW, it seems that you can technically use Target locks or GMC, shoot at different targets, get a +1 BS, and still satisfy the formation rule.
The rule says' "...these units must shoot at the same target..."
This means that if there is at least one attack coming from a unit, the must condition has been satisfied. The rule does not preclude a unit from attacking other targets if the unit has the ability to do so. It is simply a condition stating that a unit has to essentially join in with a shooting attack to acquire the benefit.
I think people might be reading must as must only
If the rule stated "...these units must only shoot at the same target...", then all of the units shooting at the target to get the Coordinated Firepower bonus would only be able to shoot at one target using the formation rule.
Must = At least one shooting attack from your unit
Must Only = All shooting attacks from your unit
Also, the last part of the rule says ", When 3 or more units combine their firepower, firing models add +1 to their Ballistic Skill."
Assuming that the must part has been satisfied, other models in the unit that are not firing at the same target but are still firing weapons can be considered "firing models" and gain +1 BS.
With RAW, your unit can target lock shoot at an enemy unit and still gain a +1BS so long as your unit is also shooting,with two of your other units, at another target .
FlingitNow wrote: Agreed. I'd say it definitely doesn't apply to interceptor as that is a weapon by weapon rule rather than unit by unit. Overwatch is a grey area so I wouldn't do it as overwatch is just a royal mess at the best of times without creating an argument over this.
The BS buff would not entirely work for Interceptor or Overwatch. The rest of it would be questionable about even wanting to do it.
First off, (going by the link in the OP) Coordinated Attack only states this working in the Shooting Phase. Interceptor is done in the Movement Phase, and Overwatch is in the Assault Phase.
Second, all the units would have to have Interceptor for it to work with it, even if it could work with any Shooting Sequence. Though, that is easier with Tau than any other army.
Third, even if Coordinated Attack did work outside the Shooting Phase, its BS buff does not work with Snap Shots like Markerlights do. Snap Shots set value would override any additions that CA would make.
So people are saying the intent is to give the entire Tau army BS5+, twin-linked, ignore cover, tank/monster hunter, skyfire on demand, with -1T on enemy models, with all the target locks they want to spread the love around?
HandofMars wrote: So people are saying the intent is to give the entire Tau army BS5+, twin-linked, ignore cover, tank/monster hunter, skyfire on demand, with -1T on enemy models, with all the target locks they want to spread the love around?
Really?
Skyfire is by model by model basis, not unit so that doesn't work.
I believe the intent was to allow sharing of rules, but not in conjunction with spreading with target lock. However, based purely on how the rules are written, yes, you can share through spreading with target locks
HandofMars wrote: So people are saying the intent is to give the entire Tau army BS5+, twin-linked, ignore cover, tank/monster hunter, skyfire on demand, with -1T on enemy models, with all the target locks they want to spread the love around?
Really?
the rule has firing at the same target unit tied to getting the combined benefits, there does not seem to be any RAW permission for all the models in the units to get the benefits for any shooting, but for units getting the benefits for shooting the same target.
firing with split fire or target locks that are not firing at that same target, and should not gain benefits.
There is no actual RAW permission to extend the benefits beyond the "same unit" targeted.
blaktoof wrote: the rule has firing at the same target unit tied to getting the combined benefits, there does not seem to be any RAW permission for all the models in the units to get the benefits for any shooting, but for units getting the benefits for shooting the same target
firing with split fire or target locks that are not firing at that same target, and should not gain benefits.
There is no actual RAW permission to extend the benefits beyond the "same unit" targeted..
This would only be the case if the models with Target Locks and firing with Split Fire were not part of the unit when they fired. They are, though. Nothing says they stop being part of the unit when they fire at their separate targets. Since they do not stop being part of the same unit, any benefits to the unit are still in place when they fire at a different target.
Except that all models participating in "Coordinated Firepower" must target the same unit so...
To loosely paraphrase, here we have a situation where one rule (Target Lock) says a model can shoot at a different target from his unit and another (Coordinated Firepower) that says one must shoot at a specific target.
Ultimately, both can probably function together as follows:
Unit (a) has 3 Crisis Suits, 1 of which has a Target Lock. Unit (b) has 3 Stealth Suits, 1 of which has a Target Lock. Unit (c) has 10 Fire Warriors and a Buffmander.
If all three units participate in a Coordinated Firepower attack against a unit of Space Marines, all units targeting the unit of Space Marines would benefit from the special rules of the Buffmander and Coordinated Firepower while those targeting a different unit via the Target Lock rule would not.
Likewise, if a Buffmander were in unit (a) as per the example above, everyone in unit (a) would benefit from the Buffmander rules but would only also benefit from the Concentrated Firepower rule if they targeted and shot at the same target as everyone else participating in the Coordinated Firepower attack.
Does that make sense to everyone? This appears to be the least logically violative way of applying both rules.
mortetvie wrote: Except that all models participating in "Coordinated Firepower" must target the same unit so...
Where does it say that? I see only the requirements for units. And units and models are not always the same thing.
mortetvie wrote: To loosely paraphrase, here we have a situation where one rule (Target Lock) says a model can shoot at a different target from his unit and another (Coordinated Firepower) that says one must shoot at a specific target.
Ultimately, both can probably function together as follows:
Unit (a) has 3 Crisis Suits, 1 of which has a Target Lock. Unit (b) has 3 Stealth Suits, 1 of which has a Target Lock. Unit (c) has 10 Fire Warriors and a Buffmander.
If all three units participate in a Coordinated Firepower attack against a unit of Space Marines, all units targeting the unit of Space Marines would benefit from the special rules of the Buffmander and Coordinated Firepower while those targeting a different unit via the Target Lock rule would not.
Likewise, if a Buffmander were in unit (a) as per the example above, everyone in unit (a) would benefit from the Buffmander rules but would only also benefit from the Concentrated Firepower rule if they targeted and shot at the same target as everyone else participating in the Coordinated Firepower attack.
Does that make sense to everyone? This appears to be the least logically violative way of applying both rules.
No, it does not make sense, as you are not following the rules for it. The Target Lock models are still part of the unit, and have not left it, so are still receive the benefits as such.
If the Buffmander was in unit (a), and the TL Crisis Suit model fired at a different target without Coordinated Attack involved, would he not also receive the benefits of the Buffmander? Can you demonstrate where Target Lock says it loses any unit benefits while it fires at a separate target?
Charistoph, if that doesn't make sense then I don't know what to tell you.
Concentrated Firepower specifically says you must shoot at the same target as everyone else participating so... Either (1) you choose to read and apply the rules to have an absurd result where you are choosing to have one rule override another (how can a model shooting at a different target via Target Lock count as shooting at the same target as the unit it is in?) or (2) you must go along with the option that allows both rules to operate without violating each other.
Specifically, it leads to a logically absurd result and contradiction if you want to have a model not in the same unit as a Buffmander to benefit from the Buffmander's special rules, if that model is in a unit participating in a Coordinated Firepower shooting attack against a unit but that model via Target Lock is shooting at a different unit.
So I ask you again, how can a model shooting at a different target via Target Lock count as shooting at the same target as the unit it is in? Hint, it can't because that is logically impossible...
So lets look at the two rules again side by side:
Target Lock="A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit"
Concentrated Firepower="...Can add their firepower to the attack. These units must fire at the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit"
My interpretation does not violate either of the rules above but yours violates the second rule requiring shots be fired at the same target... Essentially, you keep harping on the idea that "but X *UNIT* is shooting at the required target, it is just Y *MODEL* that isn't and and Y *MODEL* is still a part of the *UNIT* participating in the Coordinated Firepower attack." while that is technically correct, it still violates the rule. This is because the units are adding their firepower to the ATTACK... an attack that must target a single unit. Only firepower added to the specific attack targeting that specific unit benefit from this rule, else an absurd result occurs. Is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the attack? If not, no benefit from Coordinated Firepower, seems pretty straightforward to me.
mortetvie wrote: Charistoph, if that doesn't make sense then I don't know what to tell you.
Concentrated Firepower specifically says you must shoot at the same target as everyone else participating so... Either (1) you choose to read and apply the rules to have an absurd result where you are choosing to have one rule override another (how can a model shooting at a different target via Target Lock count as shooting at the same target as the unit it is in?) or (2) you must go along with the option that allows both rules to operate without violating each other.
Specifically, it leads to a logically absurd result and contradiction if you want to have a model not in the same unit as a Buffmander to benefit from the Buffmander's special rules, if that model is in a unit participating in a Coordinated Firepower shooting attack against a unit but that model via Target Lock is shooting at a different unit.
So I ask you again, how can a model shooting at a different target via Target Lock count as shooting at the same target as the unit it is in? Hint, it can't because that is logically impossible...
So lets look at the two rules again side by side:
Target Lock="A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit"
Concentrated Firepower="...Can add their firepower to the attack. These units must fire at the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit"
My interpretation does not violate either of the rules above but yours violates the second rule requiring shots be fired at the same target... Essentially, you keep harping on the idea that "but X *UNIT* is shooting at the required target, it is just Y *MODEL* that isn't and and Y *MODEL* is still a part of the *UNIT* participating in the Coordinated Firepower attack." while that is technically correct, it still violates the rule. This is because the units are adding their firepower to the ATTACK... an attack that must target a single unit. Only firepower added to the specific attack targeting that specific unit benefit from this rule, else an absurd result occurs. Is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the attack? If not, no benefit from Coordinated Firepower, seems pretty straightforward to me.
You're good all the way up until the point where you say "else an absurd result occurs". I agree that your interpretation is probably how GW thinks they wrote the rule; however it is not what they actually wrote. The rule, quoted for ease of reference:
"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 at the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of marker light abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic skill"
What would be clear would be if GW had simply said "...combine their firepower, the models firing at the target unit add 1 to...."
However, it doesn't say that. You're interpreting it to say that, yes. But what it says is that there is a checklist:
1) target a unit with your unit A
2) declare that you will contribute firepower from unit B and C
3) you are then firing unit A, B, and C as if they were a single unit
4) all models in units A, B, and C which fire this turn gain +1 BS 5) resolve each weapon type in the order you choose
Target lock does not violate any rule here except for the rule of "this doesn't feel right". It feels like they SHOULD have to contribute their firepower to the attack in order to gain the +1 BS. But in reality, they don't. Their unit does, but a model that isn't bound to targeting the same unit that its own unit does, is still able to follow its own targeting protocols, as the Combined Fire Rule affects units, not models.
The rules do not violate each other. Your unit shoots at your opponent's unit. A model in that unit gains the benefit for doing so, but is independently able to split fire. If you want to feel fluffy about it, maybe they all yell in an inspiring manner, and hearing the throngs of voices causes the guy shooting at a different squad to still feel inspired, even though his eyes are elsewhere.
Models and units are different things. Look up the rules for them and understanding that come here and then try to point to the part of the rule that requires all models to target the same unit.
FlingitNow wrote: Models and units are different things. Look up the rules for them and understanding that come here and then try to point to the part of the rule that requires all models to target the same unit.
He is correct. It says the unit has to target it, not all the models.
I get what you are saying but... The unit consists of every model in it and reading through the rules for how a unit/model shoots only convinces me more strongly of this.. Therefore, does the Concentrate Fire rule specify that part or all of the unit must target the target of the "Concentrated Fire" attack? Since it doesn't specify, which is it and why? Here we have two Advanced rules in the same codex that seemingly contradict each other without any ability to override one another so you have to figure out (1) which one applies and why or (2) how both can apply harmoniously.
You have to find something in the rules that addresses this and since there isn't (that I can see ATM), the more conservative interpretation should prevail (which would include no Target Lock usage for Concentrate Fire IMO, or at the very least my previous application of the two rules).
FlingitNow wrote: Models and units are different things. Look up the rules for them and understanding that come here and then try to point to the part of the rule that requires all models to target the same unit.
He is correct. It says the unit has to target it, not all the models.
You've misunderstood me. I agree with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mortetvie wrote: I get what you are saying but... The unit consists of every model in it. Therefore, does the rule specify that part or all of the unit must target the target of the "Concentrated Fire" attack? Since it doesn't specify, which is it and why?
You have to find something in the rules that addresses this and since there isn't (that I can see ATM), the more conservative interpretation should prevail (which would include no Target Lock usage for Concentrate Fire IMO, or at the very least my previous application of the two rules).
Cool if a unit needs to be with a certain number of inches to trigger an effect does the entire unit need to be in that radius or just part of it?
If the unit targets the required target it has fulfilled the requirement in the rule regardless whether every model fires at that unit.
Flingitnow, except that the rule states that the unit must SHOOT at the same target, not merely "target" the same target. Is the condition met when only part of the unit shoots at the target? If so, what is the basis for that position? A unit is a reference to ALL of the models in that unit, mind you, as the BRB states that "a unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model...is also considered to be a unit in its own right."
mortetvie wrote: Flingitnow, except that the rule states that the unit must SHOOT at the same target, not merely "target" the same target. Is the condition met when only part of the unit shoots at the target? If so, what is the basis for that position? A unit is a reference to ALL of the models in that unit, mind you, as the BRB states that "a unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model...is also considered to be a unit in its own right."
So lets say you slap me and your best friend both in the face. Have you slapped me in the face?
It says the unit must shoot the target unit. It doesn't require all models in the unit to shoot the target unit. Or are you saying any unit containing an Ethereal can never join the attack nor can a buffsuit?
mortetvie wrote: Flingitnow, except that the rule states that the unit must SHOOT at the same target, not merely "target" the same target. Is the condition met when only part of the unit shoots at the target? If so, what is the basis for that position? A unit is a reference to ALL of the models in that unit, mind you, as the BRB states that "a unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model...is also considered to be a unit in its own right."
So lets say you slap me and your best friend both in the face. Have you slapped me in the face?
It says the unit must shoot the target unit. It doesn't require all models in the unit to shoot the target unit. Or are you saying any unit containing an Ethereal can never join the attack nor can a buffsuit?
It also doesn't grant permission for models to get bonuses from other units outside of targetting the unit the first unit targetted.
the shooting is only given permission to count as all coming from a single unit against that target, not against all targets.
Tau unit A targets enemy unit 1.
Tau unit B, and C have not shot yet, they use this special rule to fire with unit A at target 1.
two models from unit B fire at unit 2. They will not get to have the bonuses from unit A and C as those are tied in the combined attack against enemy unit 1, not for all the tau units against all targets.
The rule grants permission to combine the rules of the units against the same target as unit A's shooting attack, not against all targets, nor a blanket rule just allowing them to combine rules. Ignoring the first part of the rule to take away context of the rule is bad.
Mortetvie, your argument seems to lead to rules conflicts, where the opposite does not.
It seems to me that following that logic would mean that, when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no "firing unit" for determining closest model etc.
Flingit and caristophs's arguments do not lead to any conflict i can see
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blacktoof, the only rule split firing models may not get is +1bs
They are still part of the unit that has the other rules
jokerkd wrote: Mortetvie, your argument seems to lead to rules conflicts, where the opposite does not.
It seems to me that following that logic would mean that, when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no "firing unit" for determining closest model etc.
Flingit and caristophs's arguments do not lead to any conflict i can see
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blacktoof, the only rule split firing models may not get is +1bs
They are still part of the unit that has the other rules
Well, care to elaborate on that? As in explain where the conflict is in my interpretation and how there isn't one in the alternative? Because saying "when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no 'firing unit' for determiing closest model etc." doesn't logically follow or make any sense.
Anyway, lets say two units are on opposite side of a target unit and they both shoot at it-how do you figure out which model is closets to which one for allocating hits? It only makes sense to divide up the shots into corresponding pools between all units participating in the Concentrated Firepower attack to differentiate between (1) different weapons, (2) different BS, (3) different special rules, (4) different directions as necessary as per the example above.
Fling, Normally different units cannot normally combine their shots as if they were one unit. The Concentrated Firepower rule specifies how this is accomplished and ONLY specifies that the use of Markerlights is shared, not special rules so you have to rely on a logical inference (at best) to say that they all share any special rules.
The rule grants permission to combine the rules of the units against the same target as unit A's shooting attack, not against all targets, nor a blanket rule just allowing them to combine rules. Ignoring the first part of the rule to take away context of the rule is bad.
Can you specifically quote where you're taking it from the rule that the combination is only against the same target? It says "when 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill". I don't see anything about who is firing upon whom for that last sentence It just says, "are 3 units firing together as one unit?" "yes?" "ok +1 BS to all 3 units"
"Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"
the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.
The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.
reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.
models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.
jokerkd wrote: Mortetvie, your argument seems to lead to rules conflicts, where the opposite does not.
It seems to me that following that logic would mean that, when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no "firing unit" for determining closest model etc.
Flingit and caristophs's arguments do not lead to any conflict i can see
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blacktoof, the only rule split firing models may not get is +1bs
They are still part of the unit that has the other rules
Well, care to elaborate on that? As in explain where the conflict is in my interpretation and how there isn't one in the alternative? Because saying "when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no 'firing unit' for determiing closest model etc." doesn't logically follow or make any sense.
Anyway, lets say two units are on opposite side of a target unit and they both shoot at it-how do you figure out which model is closets to which one for allocating hits? It only makes sense to divide up the shots into corresponding pools between all units participating in the Concentrated Firepower attack to differentiate between (1) different weapons, (2) different BS, (3) different special rules, (4) different directions as necessary as per the example above.
If you do not consider the "unit" to have fired at the target when using concentrated fire and target lock, then logically, why would you consider it a "firing unit" as required to resolve the shooting phase.
Using Flingit's point without the analogy; unit A fires on targets X and Y. Did unit A fire on target X?
blaktoof wrote: "Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"
the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.
The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.
reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.
models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.
I don't see how that first sentence changes anything the models are still part of the units that are combined.
blaktoof wrote: "Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"
the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.
The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.
reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.
models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.
If nothing else, this is probably a reasonable middle ground. Avoids the "my riptide's drones contributed to the combined fire attack then my riptide target locked to the unit it actually wanted to fire at and thanked them kindly for +1 BSTL Ignores Cover TH/MH" nonsense that I can't begin to field myself. And that's coming from someone fully planning on fielding two optimized stealth cadres with max ghostkeels
jokerkd wrote: Mortetvie, your argument seems to lead to rules conflicts, where the opposite does not.
It seems to me that following that logic would mean that, when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no "firing unit" for determining closest model etc.
Flingit and caristophs's arguments do not lead to any conflict i can see
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blacktoof, the only rule split firing models may not get is +1bs
They are still part of the unit that has the other rules
Well, care to elaborate on that? As in explain where the conflict is in my interpretation and how there isn't one in the alternative? Because saying "when any unit uses split fire or target lock, there would be no 'firing unit' for determiing closest model etc." doesn't logically follow or make any sense.
Anyway, lets say two units are on opposite side of a target unit and they both shoot at it-how do you figure out which model is closets to which one for allocating hits? It only makes sense to divide up the shots into corresponding pools between all units participating in the Concentrated Firepower attack to differentiate between (1) different weapons, (2) different BS, (3) different special rules, (4) different directions as necessary as per the example above.
If you do not consider the "unit" to have fired at the target when using concentrated fire and target lock, then logically, why would you consider it a "firing unit" as required to resolve the shooting phase.
Using Flingit's point without the analogy; unit A fires on targets X and Y. Did unit A fire on target X?
But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).
So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.
Mortetvie we're going around in circles here. Your position is clear (and not one that I disagree with in principle). You're using logic to support your position that Target locks should not benefit from coordinated fire because they're not firing on the same target, but again, that's not what the rules say. They say that if the unit is firing on the same target as two other units, then everyone gets the benefits. HIWPI is probably not that way. RAI is probably not that way (if it was even considered). But RAW does support it.
Maybe we should generally insert an addendum at this point of something to the effect of:
"Let's try and avoid repeating ourselves as much as possible"
But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).
So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.
You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.
Your assumption that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.
mortetvie wrote: But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s).
In general, yes, just like every model in a unit can normally only shoot at one target. Except, you know, when it doesn't like in the case of Target Lock and Split Fire. But the Command Benefit itself does not say "models" at any point.
mortetvie wrote: Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).
Yet, the model is part of the firing unit, even if they are not shooting at the same target. And rules like Tank Hunter and Coordinated Attack do not specify that the model is shooting at it, just the unit.
Of course, if the Target Locking unit is firing at an Infantry unit, Tank or Monster Hunter won't help very much...
mortetvie wrote: So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.
Coordinated Attack doesn't care about the models, it cares about the unit. Models separating their fire from their fire from their unit are not excluded in unit affecting rules (though, they may for other reasons, such as Markerlight buffs or trying to Monster Hunt a Tank).
But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).
So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.
You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.
Your assume that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.
No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.
Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.
If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.
here we essentially have an all units, including all models in said units, must shoot at the same target restriction in place unless otherwise specified or allowed. My point is-what specifically allows a model to not shoot at the same target because doing so would violate the coordinated firepower rules RAW. If you are pointing to Target Lock, that doesn't cut it because Target Lock overrides the basic rules for units and shooting in the BRB and Target Lock should not be able to override another Advanced rule in the same codex. The thing is, there IS an interaction somewhere between Target Lock and Concentrated Firepower and a violation of one of the rules, but how and where this occurs is up for debate.
Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.
But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).
So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.
You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.
Your assume that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.
No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.
Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.
If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.
here we essentially have an all units, including models, must shoot at the same target unless otherwise specified or allowed. My point is-what specifically allows a model to not shoot at the same target because doing so would violate the coordinated firepower rules RAW.
Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.
You seemed to have ignored my final point. How do you resolve this with your interpretation of the rules?
mortetvie wrote: No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.
So does the entire Shooting Sequence. Yet, Target Locked Crisis Suits are still part of the unit, and can gain those same bonuses when using the TL. You have not provided any rule to support this claim that the word "unit" in this sentence means "all models" any more than at any other time.
mortetvie wrote: Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.
It's (3) since the word "model" is not used once in this Command Benefit.
mortetvie wrote: If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.
Incorrect. Markerlights specifically state that "All models firing at the target of this shooting attack..." for Pinpoint. For Scour, it's, "All weapons fired at the target as part of this Shooting attack..."
So, no, models utilizing Target Lock will only benefit from the Markerlights used at the CA target, and only benefit from those used on their TL'd target.
The Hunter rules and the BS bonus from the Command Benefit, do not work that way.
mortetvie wrote: Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.
Not quite, as I've said before. But if it truly was all about the models, why is "model" not used like it is used in Markerlight rules?
There are times where an interaction is on a model level and on a unit level. You need to learn the difference, as this mostly affects ICs, but can affect the regular models in a unit, too. Coordinated Attack is on a unit level, Target Lock is on a model level.
Nilok, I did ignore your final point... Because you said I assume X when I do not do so and then you came up with an irrelevant scenario that misstates or mischaracterizes my point. Specifically, I maintain that, unless specifically stated otherwise, only models that CHOOSE to shoot at all must shoot at the same target and normal shooting restrictions such as range/los still apply so I don't see what your point really is about.
Charistoph, when something refers to a "unit" in 40k, it can just as well be said "every model forming the unit."
Everything is on a unit level, which defacto includes every model in any given unit that is referenced UNLESS specifically stated otherwise. Therefore, when one rule or set of rules talks about units, it includes every model in that unit unless specifically stated otherwise.
Here, you have a rule interaction that effectively says "every model participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack must shoot at the same target" and another rule that says "X model may shoot at a different target from its unit." The reason the rule says "unit" and not "model" is because it would be redundant since a reference to "unit" automatically includes and implies every model in the referenced "unit" unless specifically stated otherwise.
How to reconcile that in the most logical manner is the issue here.
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Bojazz wrote: so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?
mortetvie wrote: Nilok, I did ignore your final point... Because you said I assume X when I do not do so and then you came up with an irrelevant scenario that misstates or mischaracterizes my point. Specifically, I maintain that, unless specifically stated otherwise, only models that CHOOSE to shoot at all must shoot at the same target and normal shooting restrictions such as range/los still apply so I don't see what your point really is about.
You choose to believe it was irrelevant, when it's purpose was to show how your interpretation causes more problems. When an interpretation of a rule can act in two different ways from the same wording, it does not pass the validity test as a sound interpretation.
You dance around the hard "must" you have based your argument around saying it does not apply to any other scenarios unless it follows your belief. It either applies in all accounts or none, never sometimes. If your argument is valid, both not shooting at the target with all models and having at least one model shoot at a different target would violate your "must" argument.
Until you rectify this, this is simply your HIWPI.
mortetvie wrote:Charistoph, when something refers to a "unit" in 40k, it can just as well be said "every model forming the unit."
Yes, and no. The game actually goes through many steps separating the concept of model and unit, and there are times when a model can be "differentiated" out from the unit because of one reason or another.
Let's take a look at the Shooting sequence. A unit is selected to Shoot. The unit selects a target. The unit selects a weapon to use. The models fire as they can, or as you choose. You roll To-Hit the unit. You roll To Wound the unit. When Wounds are allocated, they are on a model by model basis. When a model loses all its Wounds, the models is removed. Only when the last model is removed is the unit considered removed.
See the difference between the levels?
mortetvie wrote:Everything is on a unit level,
Now I know this is not true. There are so many rules that are only on the model level that it isn't funny. I have already demonstrated some, but let's look at a few USRs. Review Relentless, Furious Charge, Counter Attack, and Concussive. All of these affect only on a model by model basis.
There there are some interesting ones like Split Fire where if one model has it, any model can be chosen to to perform the Split Fire attack, but it is only that one model that will be firing at a separate target, not the unit.
mortetvie wrote:which defacto includes every model in any given unit that is referenced UNLESS specifically stated otherwise. Therefore, when one rule or set of rules talks about units, it includes every model in that unit unless specifically stated otherwise.
Guess what, Target Lock specifies, and that's something you seem to keep forgetting.
mortetvie wrote:Here, you have a rule interaction that effectively says "every model participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack must shoot at the same target" and another rule that says "X model may shoot at a different target from its unit." The reason the rule says "unit" and not "model" is because it would be redundant since a reference to "unit" automatically includes and implies every model in the referenced "unit" unless specifically stated otherwise.
How to reconcile that in the most logical manner is the issue here.
"The unit" is a level of organization that models are a part of, and under normal circumstances, the model would either fire or not at the target of the whole unit. Target Locks allow for the models to select a different target from the unit, but this does not exclude them from the unit when receiving general benefits (specific target benefits are a different story, of course).
jokerkd wrote:Actually, the rule does call out models for the +1bs part, but only that part
True, i did miss that part. But it says the models gain the buff if the unit fires at the target, not if the MODELS fire at the target.
Bojazz wrote: so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?
Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.
Bojazz wrote: so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?
Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.
Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).
Bojazz wrote: so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?
Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.
Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).
It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.
To give you a hint, how do you remove models from a unit, and from where?
No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.
Do you really believe this? So if I score a unit on a hit with say a shooting attack I have scored a hit on each and every model in the unit?
To Score an Objective you believe each and every model in the unit must be within 3" of the objective. To be in range of an enemy unit I must be in range of each and every model in that unit?
So I think we both know you don't treat rules that reference the unit as automatically applying to each and every model as you yourself admit by not counting the models that choose not to shoot.
So the unit must shoot the target, this either means some one in the unit must shoot the target (this is consistent with how all other incidences of unit work) or each and every model in the unit must shoot (which then means each and every model including those without ranged weapons, out of range and precludes the possibility of a model choosing not to shoot). So which is it?
Bojazz wrote: so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.
Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?
Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.
Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).
It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.
To give you a hint, how do you remove models from a unit, and from where?
Reflected tidewall wounds are allocated to a random model in the"attacking unit". If you've got 4 units firing as one with coordinated fire, could a reflected firewarrior attack be allocated to a buffmander in a broadside unit? The discussion is revolving around just how far coordinated fire goes in terms of making the firing unit a single unit. That is how this is relevant to the thread.
It depends on the timing of the tidewall rule. But assuming it is immediate then of course a shot from one model could be rabdomly deflected to a different model in the same unit. Not sure why you think it wouldn't?
FlingitNow wrote: It depends on the timing of the tidewall rule. But assuming it is immediate then of course a shot from one model could be rabdomly deflected to a different model in the same unit. Not sure why you think it wouldn't?
Not sure why you think I think it wouldn't? Was simply looking for confirmation and insight, since it is a new premise and I didn't want to miss anything.
Nilok wrote: It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.
To be fair, it may not be mismanaging his resources, just really crappy dice. If every Markerlight not in the Coordinated Attack Unit (and not including Networked) only produced 1 Markerlight Token because your dice have an obsession with 1 and 2, is that true mismanagement?
Of course, the mismanagement could be just applying all that firepower against a unit behind the tidewall instead of a target you don't need to worry about Cover reflections from.
A buffmander attached to three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 marker drones each with target locks are in a group preparing to fire on a group of carnifex. Next to it is a hive tyrant on the ground. Also participating in the coordinated fire are three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 gun drones each and three units of fire warriors. The buffmander does not fire, granting monster hunters. Everyone fires at the carnifex except the six crisis suits with middle pods shoot the hive tyrant. All the nids have cover. For simplicity sake we say that three markerdrones hit the carnifex. So everyone ignores his cover and gets +1 bs for a marker hit and +1 bs for coordinated fire. Squad A of crisis suits shooting at the hive tyrant with split fire would still get monster hunters because they are directly attached to the buffmander but squad B would not. And since only two squads were firing at the hive tyrant the crisis suits do not benefit from a higher BS score this turn even though their pods are shooting at the carnifex TECHNICALLY making them part of the overall coordinated fire, but not really because it wasent the designated group target.
At least that's as simple as I can say it sounds. I don't know makes perfect sense in my head.
A buffmander attached to three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 marker drones each with target locks are in a group preparing to fire on a group of carnifex. Next to it is a hive tyrant on the ground. Also participating in the coordinated fire are three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 gun drones each and three units of fire warriors. The buffmander does not fire, granting monster hunters. Everyone fires at the carnifex except the six crisis suits with middle pods shoot the hive tyrant. All the nids have cover. For simplicity sake we say that three markerdrones hit the carnifex. So everyone ignores his cover and gets +1 bs for a marker hit and +1 bs for coordinated fire. Squad A of crisis suits shooting at the hive tyrant with Target Locks would still get monster hunters because they are directly attached to the buffmander but squad B would not. And since only two squads were firing at the hive tyrant the crisis suits do not benefit from a higher BS score this turn even though their pods are shooting at the carnifex TECHNICALLY making them part of the overall coordinated fire, but not really because it wasent the designated group target.
At least that's as simple as I can say it sounds. I don't know makes perfect sense in my head.
Not quite. First is that Target Locks do not grant Split Fire, but that's minor. Crisis Squad A would still qualify for BS +1 since they are part of the unit firing on the target. The rule grants +1 BS to the units combining fire, not just the models combining fire. The models receive the benefit because the bonus is based on the unit's interactions, and the models only have to be shooting. It doesn't necessarily state that they are firing on that target. But that's GW for you, they rarely consider half of the capacity of their rules when they right them.
I finally understand this rule.
When tau units become one big unit that grant them buffs? When they shoot at one same target.
So single riptide with target lock wont get the buff if he want to shoot other unit because this action wont fullfil conditions of coop fire rule that require to shoot the same target.
But nothing prevent him taking 30 point tax to take drone.
Mr.T wrote: I finally understand this rule.
When tau units become one big unit that grant them buffs? When they shoot at one same target.
So single riptide with target lock wont get the buff if he want to shoot other unit because this action wont fullfil conditions of coop fire rule that require to shoot the same target.
But nothing prevent him taking 30 point tax to take drone.
Exactly so now most people will take a Drone and TL on their Riptides. Hide the drone behind the riptide to keep it alive.
doktor_g wrote: Seems like the buffmander rules apply. As does split fire. Looks like buffmander-sniping and alpha strike just became meta shift.
Here is the question, though, who are you actually going to play against with the most liberal interpretation of this rule? No friendly/pick-up game would agree to such a condition, except maybe the guy playing a pile of Wraithknights. ITC/ETC is surely to rule against such a wide interpretation as well. Also, do you really want to be the guy to put this on the table?
No cancer "jokes", motyak
The options are:
1. Units combining fire only gain the benefits of the coordinated attack (+1BS etc.), plus marker lights, as they are specifically called out as applying.
2. The marker light call-out is a redundant statement, and all USRs apply as the coordinating units count as one, and thus share their rules. However, if a model targets something other than the unit being coordinated against, it doesn't get the benefits.
3. They are just one unit, period, all shenanigans apply.
The only conclusions that can be (vaguely) drawn from the rules as written is 1 or 3. 2 is probably a good middle-ground and perhaps even what was intended. We await a ruling from GW or ITC.
1. Units combining fire only gain the benefits of the coordinated attack (+1BS etc.), plus marker lights, as they are specifically called out as applying.
2. The marker light call-out is a redundant statement, and all USRs apply as the coordinating units count as one, and thus share their rules. However, if a model targets something other than the unit being coordinated against, it doesn't get the benefits.
3. They are just one unit, period, all shenanigans apply.
The only conclusions that can be (vaguely) drawn from the rules as written is 1 or 3. 2 is probably a good middle-ground and perhaps even what was intended. We await a ruling from GW or ITC.
Nothing supports the exclusions of 1 & 2.
If you want to be talking to a friend or group about it reducing the impact to 1 or 2, that's fine, but the mechanics are quite clear in supporting 3.
There's no reason anyone should deny the buff commander effecting all the units taking part. If they thought the target lock scenario is not RAI, I'd concede the point just because it's a bit cheeky. RAW is not always reasonable but then again, being OP is just what codices do these days
From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.
Mr.T wrote: I finally understand this rule.
When tau units become one big unit that grant them buffs? When they shoot at one same target.
So single riptide with target lock wont get the buff if he want to shoot other unit because this action wont fullfil conditions of coop fire rule that require to shoot the same target.
But nothing prevent him taking 30 point tax to take drone.
I think MtT may have a cool interpretation for ITC. If you dont shoot at tge unit targeted... no buffs.
Mr.T wrote: I finally understand this rule.
When tau units become one big unit that grant them buffs? When they shoot at one same target.
So single riptide with target lock wont get the buff if he want to shoot other unit because this action wont fullfil conditions of coop fire rule that require to shoot the same target.
But nothing prevent him taking 30 point tax to take drone.
I think MtT may have a cool interpretation for ITC. If you dont shoot at tge unit targeted... no buffs.
As if Coordinated Attack only cared about models shooting at the target.
It cares about UNITS shooting at the target and models firing (but it does not specify firing at that target).
Mr.T wrote: I finally understand this rule.
When tau units become one big unit that grant them buffs? When they shoot at one same target.
So single riptide with target lock wont get the buff if he want to shoot other unit because this action wont fullfil conditions of coop fire rule that require to shoot the same target.
But nothing prevent him taking 30 point tax to take drone.
I think MtT may have a cool interpretation for ITC. If you dont shoot at tge unit targeted... no buffs.
As if Coordinated Attack only cared about models shooting at the target.
It cares about UNITS shooting at the target and models firing (but it does not specify firing at that target).
It does list "models" in one part of the rule.
When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill.
However, even at the most conservative reading of the rule, it would only deny the +1 BS when a model uses a Target Lock while still gaining all the unit wide rules. Even then however, it simply reads they need to be firing and does not specify a target for the models.
The literal reading is models get +1 BS when shooting while their unit has joined with at least two other units, while models that don't shoot do not get a BS buff.
This prevents models with BS 0, like Kroot Hounds, from becoming BS 1 and being able to fire emplaced weapons.
The rule has a bit more thought put into than some people are giving it credit for.
There's no part of the rule that restricts units participating in Coordinated Fire from also shooting at other targets if they have special rules for that. Reference my last post.
The part that a lot of people are missing is the must part of "these units must shoot at the same target..." does not mean must only. If it did, they would have wrote Must Only. Does everyone see the difference?
There are quite a few people reading more into the rule than what is actually there.
All must means is that any unit, whether it be a riptide with a target lock, crisis suits with target locks, etc, must make at least one shooting attack with other units to gain the Coordinated Firepower buff. If they can split fire, the rule doesn't say that they can't do so and it also doesn't say they they are precluded from the +1 BS.
Secondly, " ...resolving their shots as if they were one unit - this incudes the use of markerlight abilities" is also pretty simple. Ask yourself, how does a single unit resolve it's shots? How do you normally do that? Why would you make any exception for this special rule if it is telling you to resolve all of those shooting attacks "as if they were one unit?" When would you normally exclude special rules for a unit when those rules are supposed to be applied unit wide? It is clear that this rule treats multiple units as one unit under some very specific circumstances. That means special rules that are normally shared within a unit could also be shared among all participating units "as if they were one unit."
Look, I get it, it is a very powerful rule. But it is also a very simple rule. The complicated part is people trying to explain it away because of the implications the rule introduces to the meta and as a result, not liking it.
IMHO (as someone who actively practices law I need to discuss real life "RAI" and "RAW" on regular basis.):
1) Splitfire The unit needs to shoot the target. End of story. It does not say the entire unit or every model, so used target locks dont break the ability. To be even more clear: the buff does apply to the model using a target lock.
2) Becoming one unit This is simply wrong, they don't magically become a single unit. They are just treated as one for the purpose of shooting and therefore are NOT a single unit and are treated as such in every other situation.
3) The Buffmander As much as I hate it (and I play Tau myself) there is no restriction about special rules applying to one of the shooting units. I would prefer the reading, that only markerlights are shared (and I WILL play it like that!) but I see no argument in the wording of the rule why it should not include the buffmander. The buffs (as long as they explicitly affect a whole unit) are for the purpose of shooting affecting the whole unit of the buffmander - and that is every model also targeting the same unit.
4) Conclusion I hate this rule. On the one hand it suits the Tau fluff and enhances the synergy of our units. But they went completely over the top with it. You can heavily abuse this to a cheeselevel of over 9000. I will not play it as written and will only use it on markerlights - which is a pretty awesome buff on its own. If I ever play against another Tau who uses the Buffmander there is no argument to stop him/her from doing so.
On the topic of combined fire, when is the +1 bs added? That is to say, if you are shooting at an invisible target, you can only make snap shots and your bs is reduced to 1. Do you get a +1 from the combined fire meaning you can shoot at bs 2? It should be noted that you can use marker lights to increase your bs when snap shooting.
As OP as it is, I find it hard to argue why the 'shoot as one unit' rules would apply to markerlights but not to other special rules.
That being said, it does specifically call out markerlights, and not generic special rules. Perhaps one could say that markerlights are allowed only because it's mentioned in the rule, and because special rules aren't addressed, they can't be applied in the same manner.
In the end, unfortunately, it does say all units combine fire as if they were one unit. And RAW, tau have many special rules that affects a 'unit's' shooting abilities.
So, overall, I'd probably be on the side of buffmander and the like helping everyone in the army. At least, I suppose, only one enemy unit can be in range of the buffmander can be shot at with the special rule sharing. But that's still really powerful.
Charistoph wrote: As if Coordinated Attack only cared about models shooting at the target.
It cares about UNITS shooting at the target and models firing (but it does not specify firing at that target).
It does list "models" in one part of the rule.
When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill.
However, even at the most conservative reading of the rule, it would only deny the +1 BS when a model uses a Target Lock while still gaining all the unit wide rules. Even then however, it simply reads they need to be firing and does not specify a target for the models.
The literal reading is models get +1 BS when shooting while their unit has joined with at least two other units, while models that don't shoot do not get a BS buff.
This prevents models with BS 0, like Kroot Hounds, from becoming BS 1 and being able to fire emplaced weapons.
The rule has a bit more thought put into than some people are giving it credit for.
That's more or less what I meant. It doesn't care if the models are not shooting at the Coordinated Target, just the units. Which means the Target Locked/Split Firing models literally get the BS bonus so long as the non-Locked/Split Firing portions of the unit are involved in shooting the Coordinated Target. For some reason (I blame the sinus infection I have this week), I couldn't quite fit that definition in the parenthetical. If they aren't shooting, they don't get the buff, but the buff doesn't matter for them anyway.
lambsandlions wrote: On the topic of combined fire, when is the +1 bs added? That is to say, if you are shooting at an invisible target, you can only make snap shots and your bs is reduced to 1. Do you get a +1 from the combined fire meaning you can shoot at bs 2? It should be noted that you can use marker lights to increase your bs when snap shooting.
Edit:
No. Snap shot is a fixed modifier (BS1). Order of operations for applying modifiers is first Multipliers and Division, second addition and subtraction, and lastly fixed modifiers. Marker lights are an exception as they specifically state that they modify snap-shots.
lambsandlions wrote: On the topic of combined fire, when is the +1 bs added? That is to say, if you are shooting at an invisible target, you can only make snap shots and your bs is reduced to 1. Do you get a +1 from the combined fire meaning you can shoot at bs 2? It should be noted that you can use marker lights to increase your bs when snap shooting.
No. Snap shot is a fixed modifier (BS1). Order of operations for applying modifiers is first addition and subtraction, second Multipliers and Division, and lastly fixed modifiers. Marker lights are an exception as they specifically state that they modify snap-shots.
Swap the multipliers/dividers with additives/subtractive.
A lot of Tau players want it so they can split fire with every USR... they want the most broken OP interpretation . Now I remember I said a lot... not every.
Dozer Blades wrote: A lot of Tau players want it so they can split fire with every USR... they want the most broken OP interpretation . Now I remember I said a lot... not every.
I haven't touched Tau since 5th Edition Grey Knights was released, or was it Blood Angels?
I have Templars and Necrons, and Tau is the most common army I see at the local tables. If I was a power monger, I would be arguing the opposite.
Dozer Blades wrote: A lot of Tau players want it so they can split fire with every USR... they want the most broken OP interpretation . Now I remember I said a lot... not every.
I do feel that the simplest way to interpret the rule is to just treat it as a combined unit in resolving the shooting attack; I do realize that this is overwhelming when taking Target Locks, GC and split-fire into account.
I feel Reecius interpretation on BOLS to be seriously lacking as mostly it comes down to 1) breaking unit coherency -- which has no bearing when resolving a shooting attack once a target has been selected -- 2) unit composition that include IC and MC -- which again has no bearing with resolving shooting attacks 3) It is too overwhelming once you figure in TL, GC, and Splitfire -- which is a HIWPI argument
Now that said, I would be fine if the ITC and similar tourneys offered a compromise that allowed models targeting the original enemy unit to share special rules but models targeting other enemy units via a "split-fire like" method not to share in said special rules.
I have to be honest and say I agree with Reecius. The main reasons why are because he put a lot of time and effort into researching his article which included polling some respected gamers. It was not a gut reaction. This is how we should discuss new rules.
Dozer Blades wrote: I have to be honest and say I agree with Reecius. The main reasons why are because he put a lot of time and effort into researching his article which included polling some respected gamers. It was not a gut reaction. This is how we should discuss new rules.
I don't think that is the best way to do it since it is mostly based on gut reaction of different people, which is what a poll at this point is. The best way to really see is the play the rule in many games with the different interpretations. The people at ITC put a lot of game time in their faqs, which is why people prefer them.
Well most of his arguments refer do problems that dont exist cuz he doesn't want to use the rule as it is written.
Arguing that a Codex Rule acts different than the BRB is not a counting argument. Neigther does it count to imply rule problems and fallaciec that dont realy exist. Unit coherency is not checket the moment CF taks action and so on....
So, overall, I'd probably be on the side of buffmander and the like helping everyone in the army. At least, I suppose, only one enemy unit can be in range of the buffmander can be shot at with the special rule sharing. But that's still really powerful.
Unfortunately for your point of view the Buffmander is not required to shoot to benefit the unit, on the contrary. Assume the buffmander unit splits fire at two different targets, the special rules work on both targets. Why would the contingent behave differently, especially as the rule says they shoot as a single unit.
I can see this thread going forever with the naysayers really not having any support for their argument. It's quite sad to claim that as the rule does not specify special rules that they would not apply. Guess what? That is explained elsewhere in the book under the universal special rules.
So, overall, I'd probably be on the side of buffmander and the like helping everyone in the army. At least, I suppose, only one enemy unit can be in range of the buffmander can be shot at with the special rule sharing. But that's still really powerful.
Unfortunately for your point of view the Buffmander is not required to shoot to benefit the unit, on the contrary. Assume the buffmander unit splits fire at two different targets, the special rules work on both targets. Why would the contingent behave differently, especially as the rule says they shoot as a single unit.
I can see this thread going forever with the naysayers really not having any support for their argument. It's quite sad to claim that as the rule does not specify special rules that they would not apply. Guess what? That is explained elsewhere in the book under the universal special rules.
I'm not sure, the line "units must shoot the same target" for the Coordianted Firepower rule infers that at least one model must fire from the unit to the target to be able to claim benefit of the super-unit. This means if you target lock all your Crisis Suits away from the target if a Buffmander is with them, they will fail on the requirement that the unit "must shoot [at the target]".
On the other hand, this could simply mean that you must select the target for being shot.
A simple solution is to have a Gun Drone with the Buffmander so it can shoot for him to satisfy both readings of the rule, or insure he is with a long range unit, like Sniper Drones or Railsides to mark targets for your army from a distance.
Dozer Blades wrote: I have to be honest and say I agree with Reecius. The main reasons why are because he put a lot of time and effort into researching his article which included polling some respected gamers. It was not a gut reaction. This is how we should discuss new rules.
Reecius' article is terrible. He should have put effort into reading the rules. All his article shows is a complete lack of understanding he has of many basic rules (MCs and ICs, unit coherency both of which he gets wrong) and a summing up that completely white washes that his approach requires making up a load of extra rules to follow.
We have a reading that is by far the most likely RaI and follows what the RaW is and breaks no rules and invents no rules. Reecius discards this out of hand because it is powerful. Which makes me wonder what his interpretation of a Wraithknights points cost is. The other option us you disregard what is written and make up a whole series of new rules to determine how this rule works.
So, overall, I'd probably be on the side of buffmander and the like helping everyone in the army. At least, I suppose, only one enemy unit can be in range of the buffmander can be shot at with the special rule sharing. But that's still really powerful.
Unfortunately for your point of view the Buffmander is not required to shoot to benefit the unit, on the contrary. Assume the buffmander unit splits fire at two different targets, the special rules work on both targets. Why would the contingent behave differently, especially as the rule says they shoot as a single unit.
I can see this thread going forever with the naysayers really not having any support for their argument. It's quite sad to claim that as the rule does not specify special rules that they would not apply. Guess what? That is explained elsewhere in the book under the universal special rules.
I'm not sure, the line "units must shoot the same target" for the Coordianted Firepower rule infers that at least one model must fire from the unit to the target to be able to claim benefit of the super-unit. This means if you target lock all your Crisis Suits away from the target if a Buffmander is with them, they will fail on the requirement that the unit "must shoot [at the target]".
On the other hand, this could simply mean that you must select the target for being shot.
A simple solution is to have a Gun Drone with the Buffmander so it can shoot for him to satisfy both readings of the rule, or insure he is with a long range unit, like Sniper Drones or Railsides to mark targets for your army from a distance.
I plan to run 3 crisis suits with the buffmander, one of them would always join the fun. Buffmander markerlights something elsewhere, 1-2 Riptides and a Stormsurge erase pretty much anything, the other suits can shoot something else. I could legally further benefit from the rule, but probably will not play it that way.
There's nothing that would prevent those three suits shooting at three different targets, 2 riptides with target locks splitting between the same three and adding stormsurge to it, other than coming out as a complete TFG in this case.
Could someone link the article by Reecius? Having a hard time finding it with my phone's browser.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nevermind, it is under editorials...
Sigh, Reecius, you are simply wrong. What has forming a unit (occurs in movement phase) got to do with shooting as if a single unit? Why is such obvious rule ignored? Doesn't matter to me, we don't follow ITC or anyone else's rulings for that matter.
I might be mis-remembering, so bear with me. Two units s of FW. One right in front of the target, the other hiding in ruins. Target is obscured by the ruins. Since both FW units are one for the purpose of the attack, would the target get a Cover save against all the FW shots?
The problem is not just that the broadest interpretation of the rule would be very powrful; the problem is that it does not represent what the rule is stated as representing (units combining their fire on one target). It is not so much a metter of RAW vs. RAI as a matter of RANS (Rules As Not Stupid).
I know 40K is not a hard simulation game, but the rule is supposed to bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to be representing, and the sharing of special rules among models firing at different things does not resemble what it is stated to be representing. It is the opposite, in fact.
I know 40K is not a hard simulation game, but the rule is supposed to bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to be representing, and the sharing of special rules among models firing at different things does not resemble what it is stated to be representing. It is the opposite, in fact.
I wonder how you view Warp Spiders and the Flicker Jump.. Nevertheless, that something is stupid doesn't mean anything here.
I know 40K is not a hard simulation game, but the rule is supposed to bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to be representing, and the sharing of special rules among models firing at different things does not resemble what it is stated to be representing. It is the opposite, in fact.
I wonder how you view Warp Spiders and the Flicker Jump.. Nevertheless, that something is stupid doesn't mean anything here.
The Flicker Jump rules do match what the rule is supposed to represent, which is Warp Spiders teleporting out of the line of fire. The broad interpretation of this Tau rule, in which you can gain benefits in firing at multiple targets, does not match what the rule is supposed to represent, which is units combining fire on one target, and does not match it at all.
I know 40K is not a hard simulation game, but the rule is supposed to bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to be representing, and the sharing of special rules among models firing at different things does not resemble what it is stated to be representing. It is the opposite, in fact.
I wonder how you view Warp Spiders and the Flicker Jump.. Nevertheless, that something is stupid doesn't mean anything here.
The Flicker Jump rules do match what the rule is supposed to represent, which is Warp Spiders teleporting out of the line of fire. The broad interpretation of this Tau rule, in which you can gain benefits in firing at multiple targets, does not match what the rule is supposed to represent, which is units combining fire on one target, and does not match it at all.
Now that we have established you as an Eldar player, care to elaborate why you think coordination isn't what we are doing with the rule? Maybe you are mixing it up with another word?
The rule is "Coordinated Firepower" and coordination is exactly what we are doing with Tau and this rule. By coordinating our attacks we get the most benefit out of the units that we utilize. It is exactly in the spirit of the rule, it is exactly the opposite of what you think it is.
Alcibiades wrote: The problem is not just that the broadest interpretation of the rule would be very powrful; the problem is that it does not represent what the rule is stated as representing (units combining their fire on one target). It is not so much a metter of RAW vs. RAI as a matter of RANS (Rules As Not Stupid).
I know 40K is not a hard simulation game, but the rule is supposed to bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to be representing, and the sharing of special rules among models firing at different things does not resemble what it is stated to be representing. It is the opposite, in fact.
Yet when writing the rule the Design Team would have been VERY aware that Tau can fire at multiple targets with single units. It has been one of their defining characteristics since first inception. So they knew combining the units would be able target multiple enemy units. They also know how to shut down buffs going out to those other targets as the marker light rules demonstrate.
The rules have no ambiguity in this case, yes they have complexity bit that is not the same thing. Also yes the rule is VERY powerful, so are many other rules.
Happyjew wrote: I might be mis-remembering, so bear with me. Two units s of FW. One right in front of the target, the other hiding in ruins. Target is obscured by the ruins. Since both FW units are one for the purpose of the attack, would the target get a Cover save against all the FW shots?
It's one of the problems with this rule. The other one is if 2 units, each flanking a unit, combine their shooting... from where do you remove models first?
Based on the the wording in Coordinated Firepower, if a unit of markerlights is one of the 3 or more required units, none of the 3+ units get to benefit from the markerlights unless it is a networked markerlight. Also help explain the lack of Skyrays in the Cadre.
So sure if there is aToken on the Target already everyone gets to use the benefit, but you can't cascade the markerlights in the order you fire. I figure this is the reason ML are called out specificly. As to the Target Lock issue, GW botched it again. They did this before with ML and Target Locks but atleast FAQ'd that eventually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: I might be mis-remembering, so bear with me. Two units s of FW. One right in front of the target, the other hiding in ruins. Target is obscured by the ruins. Since both FW units are one for the purpose of the attack, would the target get a Cover save against all the FW shots?
I would say yes, and that takes a lot of punch out the rule. So long as any model has a cover from a firing model it gets cover, I can see this also bringing up some weird edge cases with damage pool spread potential increase the effective wound distance on normally shorter range guns do to the positioning.
Happyjew wrote: I might be mis-remembering, so bear with me. Two units s of FW. One right in front of the target, the other hiding in ruins. Target is obscured by the ruins. Since both FW units are one for the purpose of the attack, would the target get a Cover save against all the FW shots?
It's one of the problems with this rule. The other one is if 2 units, each flanking a unit, combine their shooting... from where do you remove models first?
It's something worth a FAQ
This one is actually easy, always take the closet target model to a firing model and it solves itself. There will be more cases of equidistant models so randomize those.
Happyjew wrote: I might be mis-remembering, so bear with me. Two units s of FW. One right in front of the target, the other hiding in ruins. Target is obscured by the ruins. Since both FW units are one for the purpose of the attack, would the target get a Cover save against all the FW shots?
Yes, since it only requires cover from one firing model.
Suppose you have something with Positional Relay in Reserves and other unit Outflanking. The enemy then kills one of the Infiltration Cadre units, allowing you to activate the rule letting you bring everyone from Reserves. If the first model I bring forth is the one with Positional Relay (from my own table edge), would the Outflanking model benefit from it? Positional Relay doesn't need to start in the table to work, but Reserves order of operations can be a bit wacky.
Yes it is. There is literally nothing that even hints you can't. Some people want you to be treated as single unit in some circumstances but not others and the rules give us no guidance for that and thus they have to be treated as 1 unit for all purposes whilst resolving the shots no mixing and matching unless you make rules up. Also remember the targeting is done by the units so as long as at least 1 model in the units shoots at the designated target then you're good to use target locks.
This is not only RaW but seems most likely RaI. The Design Team would have been acutely aware that Tau can split their firepower within units as that has been a defining characteristic of the army since first inception. Further more the spreading of special rules seems to be the entire point of the rule as it serves no other function so it either exists for that or has no reason to exist (remember you're giving up ObSec for this and thus rule needs to be on par with Decurion and free transport marines). This is further highlighted when they call out the example of markerlights using the "including" wording which illustrates that they know ML sharing is but one of the benefits of being a combined unit.
Further evidence from an RaI perspective comes in the form of the markerlight rules themselves which are clear that models splitting off shots do not receive the benefit.
My final point of why they didn't include a line saying "including sharing special rules" is because such a line could cause further confusion. Leading you to believe special rules that don't innately share from model to their unit would work. Like smash, hammer of wrath, interceptor, skyfire etc. (The final 2 being the most appropriate).
So, not to keep the thread open unnecessarily, but I have a question. My local TO has decreed that the Firebase Support Cadre in the Hunter Contingent can't join fire with any other units. This doesn't seem correct from my reading, but his responses to me challenging his rulings have varied between "I don't have time to discuss this with you, the answer is no" and "Please learn to read". Since I can't really have a conversation there, can anyone else shed some light on this interaction?
His argument says that both the Co-Ordinated Firestorm and Coordinated Firepower are both special rules that replace normal shooting, and thus you can't use both of them at the same time. I see it as follows.
1. The FSC declares it's firing as a single unit using co-ordinated firestorm.
2. The Coordinated Firepower rule says "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment for who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack."
3. My unit of Broadsides (or whatever) from my Hunter Cadre uses Coordinated Firepower to join the unit created by the co-ordinated firestorm (which is still part of the hunter contingent, since the formation is part of the contingent).
The FSC is using one special rule. The other broadside team is using another. I'd like to understand his argument for why this isn't allowed.
LockeWatts wrote: So, not to keep the thread open unnecessarily, but I have a question. My local TO has decreed that the Firebase Support Cadre in the Hunter Contingent can't join fire with any other units. This doesn't seem correct from my reading, but his responses to me challenging his rulings have varied between "I don't have time to discuss this with you, the answer is no" and "Please learn to read". Since I can't really have a conversation there, can anyone else shed some light on this interaction?
His argument says that both the Co-Ordinated Firestorm and Coordinated Firepower are both special rules that replace normal shooting, and thus you can't use both of them at the same time. I see it as follows.
1. The FSC declares it's firing as a single unit using co-ordinated firestorm.
2. The Coordinated Firepower rule says "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment for who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack."
3. My unit of Broadsides (or whatever) from my Hunter Cadre uses Coordinated Firepower to join the unit created by the co-ordinated firestorm (which is still part of the hunter contingent, since the formation is part of the contingent).
The FSC is using one special rule. The other broadside team is using another. I'd like to understand his argument for why this isn't allowed.
Then don't go to his events and tell him he has acted disgracefully and is ruining the fun for people attending his shoddy event and in future he should try reading the rules, before making calls on them. Point out his attitude stinks as much as Reecius'.
FlingItNow, he runs the only good events in my area. And they are good events, I just wish he would be reasonable about other positions on things. It is nice to hear that others agree.
Maybe I'll email White Dwarf and ask them this specific question.
LockeWatts wrote: FlingItNow, he runs the only good events in my area. And they are good events, I just wish he would be reasonable about other positions on things. It is nice to hear that others agree.
Maybe I'll email White Dwarf and ask them this specific question.
Maybe he thinks that this will not make his tournaments good events. When a TO delivers an answer to a rules question, they need to think about the over all balance of their tournament and how it will affect attendance (they don't all do this, some are just capricious), so sometimes the answer will not be RAW. (though, the attitude in this case sounds more capricious, but that could just be the perspective or timing).
LockeWatts wrote: So, not to keep the thread open unnecessarily, but I have a question. My local TO has decreed that the Firebase Support Cadre in the Hunter Contingent can't join fire with any other units. This doesn't seem correct from my reading, but his responses to me challenging his rulings have varied between "I don't have time to discuss this with you, the answer is no" and "Please learn to read". Since I can't really have a conversation there, can anyone else shed some light on this interaction?
His argument says that both the Co-Ordinated Firestorm and Coordinated Firepower are both special rules that replace normal shooting, and thus you can't use both of them at the same time. I see it as follows.
1. The FSC declares it's firing as a single unit using co-ordinated firestorm.
2. The Coordinated Firepower rule says "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment for who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack."
3. My unit of Broadsides (or whatever) from my Hunter Cadre uses Coordinated Firepower to join the unit created by the co-ordinated firestorm (which is still part of the hunter contingent, since the formation is part of the contingent).
The FSC is using one special rule. The other broadside team is using another. I'd like to understand his argument for why this isn't allowed.
I'm honestly not sure what happens when multiple units from different formations join together with Coordinated Firepower.
It could be anywhere from the super-unit can benefit from all the rules, only the original units from the formations can benefit from their rules, or none of them can benefit from their rules. While it is all from the same formation, however, you can get both the bonus from Coordinated Firepower and any formation bonuses.
LockeWatts wrote: So, not to keep the thread open unnecessarily, but I have a question. My local TO has decreed that the Firebase Support Cadre in the Hunter Contingent can't join fire with any other units. This doesn't seem correct from my reading, but his responses to me challenging his rulings have varied between "I don't have time to discuss this with you, the answer is no" and "Please learn to read". Since I can't really have a conversation there, can anyone else shed some light on this interaction?
His argument says that both the Co-Ordinated Firestorm and Coordinated Firepower are both special rules that replace normal shooting, and thus you can't use both of them at the same time. I see it as follows.
1. The FSC declares it's firing as a single unit using co-ordinated firestorm.
2. The Coordinated Firepower rule says "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment for who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack."
3. My unit of Broadsides (or whatever) from my Hunter Cadre uses Coordinated Firepower to join the unit created by the co-ordinated firestorm (which is still part of the hunter contingent, since the formation is part of the contingent).
The FSC is using one special rule. The other broadside team is using another. I'd like to understand his argument for why this isn't allowed.
First lets look at the shooting Phase:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a target
3. Select a Weapon
4. Roll To Hit
5. Roll To Wound
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
7. Select Another Weapon
thats how it works for one single unit..
When are both Rules triggered and who can trigger them?
Coordinatet Fire can only be triggered by a single unit during step 2 of that phase.
Co-Ordinated Firestorm requires all Units of this formationand is triggered in step 1. you literaly decide to replace the normal way of how the shooting phase works for a bunch of units. (the ones in your formation. ) And in step thwo of the phase you have several units already active.
In both rules then the involved units are treated as one single unit. BUT this is only for resolving their shots! this this are the stept 3-7 of that shooting phase.
So you cant trigger Coordinated Firepower when you use Co-ordinatet Firestorm cuz you have more than one unit that is already involver in a shooting attack. keep in mind that only the shoots are resolved aa if they were a single unit. in regartd of targeting the rule itself speaks of several units.
On the other Side you Cant trigger Co-ordinated Firestorm when you used Coordinated Firepower cuz then you stardet ur action with one single unit. and you are already past the momen u(step 1) you could choose to use co-ordinated firestorm
In both rules then the involved units are treated as one single unit. BUT this is only for resolving their shots! this this are the stept 3-7 of that shooting phase.
So you cant trigger Coordinated Firepower when you use Co-ordinatet Firestorm cuz you have more than one unit.
This doesn't follow. One, I disagree with what you mean for resolving shots (see: the rest of the discussion around this idea), but two, there's nothing that says I can't join other units using coordinated firepower to any of the sub units in the coordinated firestorm, which would then trigger on step 3 as you suggested.
LockeWatts wrote: So, not to keep the thread open unnecessarily, but I have a question. My local TO has decreed that the Firebase Support Cadre in the Hunter Contingent can't join fire with any other units. This doesn't seem correct from my reading, but his responses to me challenging his rulings have varied between "I don't have time to discuss this with you, the answer is no" and "Please learn to read". Since I can't really have a conversation there, can anyone else shed some light on this interaction?
His argument says that both the Co-Ordinated Firestorm and Coordinated Firepower are both special rules that replace normal shooting, and thus you can't use both of them at the same time. I see it as follows.
1. The FSC declares it's firing as a single unit using co-ordinated firestorm.
2. The Coordinated Firepower rule says "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same detachment for who can still shoot can add their firepower to the attack."
3. My unit of Broadsides (or whatever) from my Hunter Cadre uses Coordinated Firepower to join the unit created by the co-ordinated firestorm (which is still part of the hunter contingent, since the formation is part of the contingent).
The FSC is using one special rule. The other broadside team is using another. I'd like to understand his argument for why this isn't allowed.
First lets look at the shooting Phase:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a target
3. Select a Weapon
4. Roll To Hit
5. Roll To Wound
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
7. Select Another Weapon
thats how it works for one single unit..
When are both Rules triggered and who can trigger them?
Coordinatet Fire can only be triggered by a single unit during step 2 of that phase.
Co-Ordinated Firestorm requires all Units of this formationand is triggered in step 1. you literaly decide to replace the normal way of how the shooting phase works for a bunch of units. (the ones in your formation. ) And in step thwo of the phase you have several units already active.
In both rules then the involved units are treated as one single unit. BUT this is only for resolving their shots! this this are the stept 3-7 of that shooting phase.
So you cant trigger Coordinated Firepower when you use Co-ordinatet Firestorm cuz you have more than one unit that is already involver in a shooting attack. keep in mind that only the shoots are resolved aa if they were a single unit. in regartd of targeting the rule itself speaks of several units.
On the other Side you Cant trigger Co-ordinated Firestorm when you used Coordinated Firepower cuz then you stardet ur action with one single unit. and you are already past the momen u(step 1) you could choose to use co-ordinated firestorm
Sure you can, but why would you? It would take a Super Heavy target to be worth it, as the FBSC would go first with Firestorm and know counts as a single unit to which you have to add 2 more units so you are burning at least 5 units just to get a +1 to BS. Honestly against a the kind of firepower Tau put out I would say thank you since it is pretty much guaranteeing a ridiculous level of over kill.
That is by the way the downside of Co-Fire, you can end up with multiple units wasting fire power and giving things cover saves that might not have had one before.
Well, since the FBSC meets the requirements for both, it would get +1 BS from Coordinated Firepower and Tank Hunter/Monster Hunter from Co-Ordinated Firestorm as it meets both requirements and is part of the Hunter Contingent. The two rules are not mutually exclusive.
LockeWatts wrote: FlingItNow, he runs the only good events in my area. And they are good events, I just wish he would be reasonable about other positions on things. It is nice to hear that others agree.
Maybe I'll email White Dwarf and ask them this specific question.
Ugh man, that's terrible. How did he react when Necrons, Eldar, SM and DA hit the shelves? How about KDK and the FMC 'summoning'? War Convocation free bonuses?
Looks like he did that because of fearmongers asking him to.
Yes. Buffmander works (as do other similar rules like marker lights for instance) and works for models using target locks too fire at a different target as long as at least one model from that unit fires at the designated target. This is proven RaW, most likely RaI and the rules team don't even know why it is a debate.
Buff commander is with a unit of 3 Stealth suits. 2 stealth suits, A and B, are armed with burst cannons, 1, Stealth suit C has a fusion blaster and target lock.
As per shooting, the buff commander and unit declare they are firing burst cannons at target A. Fire warrior unit 1 and 2, still able to fire this shooting phase declare to join in for coordinated fire power. This triggers +1bs, and buff commander rules to 2 stealth suits firing burst cannons, and fire warrior unit 1 and 2.
***This is the consensus it seems RAW***
Now rules as written. The buff commander and the stealth suits chooses another weapon to fire, fusion blaster. Stealth suit C who has the fusion blaster plus a target lock declares he shooting at a different target. This triggers coordinated fire power eligibility, and as fire warriors units 3 and 4 who have not fired this phase decide they will join in. Now the stealth suit C with fusion blaster and fire warriors 3 and 4 get plus 1 BS for the shooting phase.
a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.
B) Does buff commander suit still work for stealth suit C and fire warrior unit 3 and 4 ?
Please share logic and rules, do not simply go " i am right and therefore you are wrong". Or speak in absolution when its clearly not, regardless how hard you want to call a duck a dog, you still need to prove its a dog first.
Hmm target lock says "shoot at different target than rest of his unit."
Rules for shooting is pick a weapon, pick a target. But the fact his unit has already declared a primary unit, he doesnt count as a unit targeting elsewhere?
Seems this would of been a lot easier if coordinated fire power was written as an enemy unit. Like whenever 3 or more units declare to shoot at TARGET A, all models firing weapons at target A get +1 Bs and count as a single unit for all special rules and abilities provided by any other model firing at the target A.
Tsilber wrote: Hmm target lock says "shoot at different target than rest of his unit."
Rules for shooting is pick a weapon, pick a target. But the fact his unit has already declared a primary unit, he doesnt count as a unit targeting elsewhere?
Seems this would of been a lot easier if coordinated fire power was written as an enemy unit. Like whenever 3 or more units declare to shoot at TARGET A, all models firing weapons at target A get +1 Bs and count as a single unit for all special rules and abilities provided by any other model firing at the target A.
Could the Stealth Unit charge the unit that Suit C shot at ?
Tsilber wrote: Buff commander is with a unit of 3 Stealth suits. 2 stealth suits, A and B, are armed with burst cannons, 1, Stealth suit C has a fusion blaster and target lock.
As per shooting, the buff commander and unit declare they are firing burst cannons at target A. Fire warrior unit 1 and 2, still able to fire this shooting phase declare to join in for coordinated fire power. This triggers +1bs, and buff commander rules to 2 stealth suits firing burst cannons, and fire warrior unit 1 and 2.
***This is the consensus it seems RAW***
Now rules as written. The buff commander and the stealth suits chooses another weapon to fire, fusion blaster. Stealth suit C who has the fusion blaster plus a target lock declares he shooting at a different target. This triggers coordinated fire power eligibility, and as fire warriors units 3 and 4 who have not fired this phase decide they will join in. Now the stealth suit C with fusion blaster and fire warriors 3 and 4 get plus 1 BS for the shooting phase.
Sounds mostly correct. Just some notes:
*Some of the Buff Commander's abilities will not be available if he fires his Burst Cannon, as they require him to not shoot.
*There is no definition as to the timing of when a Target Lock possessing model declares their target like Split Fire has, many require the targets to be declared before any shooting, but any version is a House Rule.
*Stealth Suit C would get the BS buff even if the other Fire Warriors never fired, as it is in the unit providing a Coordinated Attack and a firing model. There is nothing requiring the model fire at the same target. But you may have obliquely referenced that in your question a.
Answers:
Tsilber wrote: a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.
There is nothing to forbid a unit from participating in 2 Coordinated Attacks in the Detachment's special rules. However, Target Lock does not operate like Power of the Machine Spirit or the Super-Heavy's multi-targeting. There are some schools of thought on if the Target Locking model is shooting on behalf of the unit or not, since it is the model that targets and shoots, and not specifically the unit.
Tsilber wrote: B) Does buff commander suit still work for stealth suit C and fire warrior unit 3 and 4 ?
Stealth Suit C, yes. It is still part of the unit that received the benefit, there is no question on this. FW 3 & 4 are a different story, as none of the models involved in the shooting actually possess the rules to pass on to their "unit". This goes back to how you perceive Target Lock working.
If you believe that it is as much like Super-Heavy shooting and all shots from the unit are shooting attacks of the unit, than Stealth Suit C is just one gun of the Stealth Suit Unit firing at that target, and so all the unit rules would still apply to FW 3 & 4, just like FW 1 & 2. It would also mean that any unit with a Target Lock using model could have 2+ units to Charge.
However, if you are one who sees Target Lock's shooting as not just one more gun of the unit, but the model operating on its own, than even qualifying for the Coordinated Attack bonus comes in to question, as it does not fall under the 3+ units qualification, being 2 units and 1 model. Nor would the buffs benefit the "extended" unit. It would also mean that a unit with a Target Lock using model would not qualify.
There are many levels of interaction when it comes to 40K, some are army level (Reserves), some are unit level (targeting), and some are model level (Wound/Hit Allocation). The rules always reference some level of interaction. So, where do you and your group see Target Locks?
Do all units participating in 'Combined Fire' count as being in the Commanders unit when shooting?
As far as I can tell, the whole problem rests on the answer to this question. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Several comments are stating it as fact, and please don't re-state that here. I get that people on both sides of the fence feel that they have the facts. I see the argument on both sides still, and I've been trying to boil it all down. It's going to be a tough call for all TO's for sure.
Please, I only want to know if this is the heart of the debate.
Akar wrote: Do all units participating in 'Combined Fire' count as being in the Commanders unit when shooting?
As far as I can tell, the whole problem rests on the answer to this question. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Several comments are stating it as fact, and please don't re-state that here. I get that people on both sides of the fence feel that they have the facts. I see the argument on both sides still, and I've been trying to boil it all down. It's going to be a tough call for all TO's for sure.
Please, I only want to know if this is the heart of the debate.
Pretty much that is what the basic question is, and that question is answered in the rule. Some are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
There are some other actual complications beyond that, but that involves the hinkiness of the Target Lock and the mismanagement of the Shooting Sequence rules in the first place, as pointed out by Tsilber's scenario.
But when not trying to bring in that scenario, it really is very simple.
Does the 'Combined Fire' rule tell us to combine the shots, or combine the units?
This is my next question.
I'm only interested in what the rule says, not interpretations or how far we have to stretch things. I'm not a Tau player, and don't have the dex. I've seen some quotes on the rules but have no idea how accurate they are. If any pages were linked, then I either missed them, or couldn't load them because of the filters. (I'm at work). I've read most of the responses and this seems to be what is talked about, and whether they're the same/different thing, or whether one can exist without the other.
I believe they CAN be exclusive which is what we need to determine next. In order to do that, we need to look at what we're actually instructed/being given permission to do, right? From here I only see 2 Outcomes. This is before we get into any of the other debates about Markerlights, Target Lock, etc come into play. So I'm not concerned about these yet either.
Outcome/Argument A Does the rule just tell/permit us to combine the shots? If this is what the rule says, then we don't have any permission to ever actually combine the units into one unit. We would only shoot all the same weapons from all of the participating the units at the same time. This is where the 'As if they were one unit?' part that I keep seeing in these debates comes into play?
If this is the case, then each of the units participating would keep their own rules when firing. This keeps things simple since Formations, like the Stealth Cadre, wouldn't pass their bonuses to units not in the formation. This complicates things because 2 units with the same weapons, but with different rules, would have to be resolved separately. A quick example would be that if one unit of Fire Warriors had 'Ignores Cover' or 'Tank Hunter', while the other unit of Fire Warriors participating did not. Not really hard to do in-game, but it does slow down the shooting phase.
Outcome/Argument B Does the rule actually say to combine the units to shoot at the same target? This would mean that all the units actually do become one unit, and should be treated as such.
If this is the case, then I can see the complaint in general. It would mean all models participating would be a part of the Commanders unit, and fall under the rules for them that say 'Other members of HIS unit...'. It simplifies things by just looking at all the rules that any of the separate units have, and puts them all into a pot, and adds them to every model in there. It complicates things, because Formations rules would extend to models not intended to receive those bonuses. Or 'Mysterious Objective' bonuses like 'Targeting Relay' or ' Skyfire' would apply to units that aren't claiming, or even near objectives.
Again, I'm not concerned with which of these is right at this point, just what the rule actually gives us permission to do. I just did all this to sort out the outcomes of what the rule says for my sake, more than any others. Any help to get me to THIS point is appreciated.
Akar wrote: Does the 'Combined Fire' rule tell us to combine the shots, or combine the units?
This is my next question.
I'm only interested in what the rule says, not interpretations or how far we have to stretch things. I'm not a Tau player, and don't have the dex. I've seen some quotes on the rules but have no idea how accurate they are. If any pages were linked, then I either missed them, or couldn't load them because of the filters. (I'm at work). I've read most of the responses and this seems to be what is talked about, and whether they're the same/different thing, or whether one can exist without the other.
I believe they CAN be exclusive which is what we need to determine next. In order to do that, we need to look at what we're actually instructed/being given permission to do, right? From here I only see 2 Outcomes. This is before we get into any of the other debates about Markerlights, Target Lock, etc come into play. So I'm not concerned about these yet either.
Outcome/Argument A Does the rule just tell/permit us to combine the shots? If this is what the rule says, then we don't have any permission to ever actually combine the units into one unit. We would only shoot all the same weapons from all of the participating the units at the same time. This is where the 'As if they were one unit?' part that I keep seeing in these debates comes into play?
If this is the case, then each of the units participating would keep their own rules when firing. This keeps things simple since Formations, like the Stealth Cadre, wouldn't pass their bonuses to units not in the formation. This complicates things because 2 units with the same weapons, but with different rules, would have to be resolved separately. A quick example would be that if one unit of Fire Warriors had 'Ignores Cover' or 'Tank Hunter', while the other unit of Fire Warriors participating did not. Not really hard to do in-game, but it does slow down the shooting phase.
Outcome/Argument B Does the rule actually say to combine the units to shoot at the same target? This would mean that all the units actually do become one unit, and should be treated as such.
If this is the case, then I can see the complaint in general. It would mean all models participating would be a part of the Commanders unit, and fall under the rules for them that say 'Other members of HIS unit...'. It simplifies things by just looking at all the rules that any of the separate units have, and puts them all into a pot, and adds them to every model in there. It complicates things, because Formations rules would extend to models not intended to receive those bonuses. Or 'Mysterious Objective' bonuses like 'Targeting Relay' or ' Skyfire' would apply to units that aren't claiming, or even near objectives.
Again, I'm not concerned with which of these is right at this point, just what the rule actually gives us permission to do. I just did all this to sort out the outcomes of what the rule says for my sake, more than any others. Any help to get me to THIS point is appreciated.
Now that the codex has been officially release, posting pages is against the rules since they are no longer rumors. However, posting a specific rule for discussion is okay. If you don't feel comfortable with quotes, I recommend purchasing the book.
Coordinated Firepower wrote: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 markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill
I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.
It tells us that the added units must fire at the same target as the first, that we resolve shots as if they were a single unit, and that markerlight abilities are an example of what they can do, which includes model and unit based rules.
If it means simply "roll to hit," then marker lights apply (at least the +BS part) but things like Tank Hunter do not.
When Shots are referenced in the BRB, it runs the gambit from shooting, to wound allocation.
Precision Shots wrote:If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a shooting weapon, that shot is a 'Precision Shot'.
Post to hit, prior to wound.
Missile Lock wrote:If a model with this special rule is shooting a weapon that has both the One Use Only and Blast special rules, that shot will instead scatter D6" rather than 2D6".
Prior to hit.
Vortex wrote:For determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the center of the marker, in the same manner as a Barrage weapon.
Wound allocation occurs after Rolling to Wound.
The BRB refers to a "Shot" as anything relating to the steps found in The Shooting Sequence. Resolving a shot is to proceeds from rolling to hit, to allocating wounds and removing casualties.
Select Another Weapon wrote:After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
This tells us that in order to resolve a shot, it must complete at least steps 3 through 6, which are selecting a weapon, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, and allocating wounds and removing causalities. Resolving shots quite simply, is to complete a shooting sequence for a unit.
Coordinated Firepower wrote: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 markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill
I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.
Ignoring the Markerlight bit for now, I'm not seeing anywhere in this rule where we are ever told to combine the units, only their shots. We ARE told that they must shoot the same target, and that all the shots are treated as one unit, as underlined. I see nothing stating that the units are ever treated as a single entity, only their shots. Therefore any rules granted to a unit, by whatever means, remains a part of their respective units within the attack.
The benefits for doing so are that all the units get +1 BS, as long as 3+ units participate.
Coordinated Firepower wrote: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 markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill
I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.
Ignoring the Markerlight bit for now, I'm not seeing anywhere in this rule where we are ever told to combine the units, only their shots. We ARE told that they must shoot the same target, and that all the shots are treated as one unit, as underlined. I see nothing stating that the units are ever treated as a single entity, only their shots. Therefore any rules granted to a unit, by whatever means, remains a part of their respective units within the attack.
The benefits for doing so are that all the units get +1 BS, as long as 3+ units participate.
If we resolve their shots as a single unit, then all the rules those models provide would be provided in those shots. Melta would still work for the Fusion Guns, but not for the Pulse Rifles, and Tank Hunter is still "if one model in this unit has this special rule", allowing the "unit" to receive the benefits.
I don't think that was his point. I think he is trying to say the shots are treated as if from one unit, not that all the units are treated as one. Then again I may be wrong. That's just how I read his last post.
It says "as if they were a single unit" the they must refer to either the shots or the units. Shots can't form units and the rule becomes meaningless if you try to treat the shots as a unit (as opposed to coming from a single unit) thus this can not be the correct meaning. Therefore the "they" must refer to the units which are treat as one unit for the "resolving [of] their shots".
I have to admit, I am a bit surprised at how confused people seem to be about this rule. Reading through the various comments, questions, etc. it really appears that the biggest stumbling block is that folks tend not to understand how a variety of pre-existing rules and mechanics (unit-wide USRs, unit coherency, target lock, shooting resolution, etc.) function. Which is fine, if you're not regularly playing at a tournament or competitive level frankly I wouldn't expect everyone to know or get these rules right 100% of the time. The problem for most of us in this hobby is that we play with small/local groups and the rule of cool/fun does (and often should) take precedence over rule lawyering (aka being that guy.) often times many local scenes don't ever even see a number of races get played, hence gaps in the knowledge base.
I'm going to take a stab at explaining those mechanics below for everyone to ensure we're all on a stable ground when looking at the Combined Fire rule which is clearly giving so many people fits. Of course if you disagree, please feel free to respectfully say so, but I would point out that I've been playing for.. 23 years in and out of the competitive scene, with an emphasis on the 6th and 7th edition rule sets for competitive play - and I am fairly certain I've got these right.
Unit-Wide USRs:
USRs consist of all the special rules found in the BRB starting on (tiny edition) page 156. They also include codex and formation-specific rules. These are listed under unit descriptions and weapon profiles as "Special Rules" and often times will be formated with the name boldened then text and examples for them. Thankfully many codices since 6th edition have made a practice of putting an index of these in the back of the book.
USRs consist of four basic groups. Unit-wide, Unit specific, Model specific, or Wargear-specific. I won't get into the specific ones, but Unit-Wide USRs nearly always share one of the following phrase or something nearly the same as it: "A Unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." or "..if X all Y made by other models in his/her/their unit get/have Z.. " (In this case X is your condition, Y is your action, and Z is your rule change/modifier) If you see either of these phrase, you have a Unit-Wide rule. That would mean this rule is shared by all models within the unit, so long as the source of that special rule exists within that unit and/or condition X has been met. So if you are taking an action as a unit (or as-if a unit) be it movement or shooting or assaulting or moral checks, etc. you look at any unit-wide USRs that are relevant sourced from within that Unit and you apply them at that time. Some examples for the former are Stubborn, Tank Hunter, Scouting. And examples for the Later tend to show up in codex specific moments like the Buffmander's gear.
Unit Coherency:
This popped up because of Reecius' op-ed thing in BoLs and on Frontline. But it really isn't relevant at all to the discussion of Combined Fire. It may once have in editions gone past (Second edition for instance had very different rules regarding unit coherency) but in 7th edition Unit Coherency matters during The Movement Phase, and only in extremely rare circumstances can it (or will it) ever impact the shooting phase. Essentially, a unit must attempt, during its move, to maintain coherency of 2". You can not knowingly choose to place them out of coherency when they otherwise could have been in coherency. It IS entirely possible for a unit to end up out of coherency due to losses during that phase or in later phases however. For instance, jet bikes moving through dangerous terrain could kill the center of a line of jet bikes during the move. During your own shooting phase a gets hot result could kill the guy in the center of your coherency. etc. All that happens is that, should coherency be lost, in your next movement phase your move must make every effort to return them to coherency. In the super rare event that it isn't possible (the entire center of a massive blob got cut down for instance or you roll abysmally for a unit spread out in difficult terrain) You are then forced to sacrifice your next shooting phase in that turn to run the unit into coherency or as close as you can get it. Note, this forced run takes place in the game turn after coherency was actually broken. You don't lose your shooting phase in the game turn you moved your unit up, and poor bob stepped on a land mine or crashed his jet bike into a lemonade stand. So there's no argument for losing your shooting phase in the shooting-instance that is created by this Combined Fire rule. Coherency wouldn't effect the shooting phase until after the next movement phase, by which time you are no longer treating them as a single unit. Hopefully that clears this up for anyone still hung up about coherency.
Target Locks:
I see this come up a lot. The problem is the Tau have Target Locks, which is similar but not the same as "Split Fire". Different rules and all that. So non-Tau players often don't quite get the rule right. A target lock simply allows the model that has the wargear to choose a different target from their unit during the declaration of a shooting attack and resolve their shoots against that separate target. This is different from the Split Fire rule in that you are not limited to a single model within the unit making use of the mechanic. You're only limited by how many models have target locks. Also, it should be noted that Split Fire specifically requires you to resolve the split fire shooting before the rest of the unit's shooting. That is not the case with Target Locks, you can resolve them in any order you like as it is not specified to you. You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved. Note that Unit-wide USRs will always work for models within that unit, regardless of their target choices. Hence the always popular buffmander in a block of crisis suits. It is important to realize though that markerlights consumed on one target to boost ballistic skill or remove cover will not provide those benefits to shots fired at a different target by the same unit. Also note that a common FAQ/addition to the rules for Target Locks is that they may not be used during overwatch instances of the shooting phase in order to target a unit other than the declared charger.
Shooting Resolution:
I notice one person ask what it meant to resolve shots. As if this was in some way different from any other shooting. All it means is to refer to the steps that define an action of shooting on page 30 in the little version of the BRB (first page of the shooting section) These steps are relevant for any action of shooting you will ever make. Sometimes a step is skipped (such as rolling to hit with flame templates) but these changes are always defined by the wargear or USRs that dictate the changes.
Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAW look at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments.
House Rule for Tau Combined Fire Rule:
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 markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill. Any shooting which is not resolved against the declared target of the combined fire action via Target Lock or Giant Monsterous Creature rules will not benefit from the potential +1 Ballistic Skill, and may only benefit from USRs contained within its native unit.
The addition to the rule is italicized. This is a more "friendly" version of the rule if you and your mates are worried about balance within the game. But understand - it is just that. A House Rule. RAW there is no such restriction on the passage of benefits based on USRs since they resolve the shooting as if a single unit.
Hopefully this helps the discussion a bit. Sorry for the length!
Tsilber wrote: a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.
There is nothing to forbid a unit from participating in 2 Coordinated Attacks in the Detachment's special rules. However, Target Lock does not operate like Power of the Machine Spirit or the Super-Heavy's multi-targeting. There are some schools of thought on if the Target Locking model is shooting on behalf of the unit or not, since it is the model that targets and shoots, and not specifically the unit.
This is another great question, and I see how it comes up. But it is important to understand that you cannot ever "chain" Coordinated Attacks. via Target Locks. This is because of the order of operations for a shooting attack, and because of the specific wording of the Target Lock gear. Coordinated Firepower is invoked upon a unit (important to remember this is at the unit level, not the model level) selecting a target in the shooting phase. This is step 2 of the shooting phase. Target locks are used at this point as well by individual models within the unit (or unit[s] participating in the Coordinated Firepower influenced shooting action) to allow those models within the unit to resolve their shooting as follows: " Can shoot at a different target than his unit" Note that this is just at the model level, the unit never gets an additional target. So overall you still have only a single Target at the unit level, and Coordinated Firepower is invoked based on a unit target. Not a model target.
Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.
Hope that helps resolve any confusion on this one! Smart question though.
GreyDragoon wrote: You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved.
Not quite accurate. There is no rule defining when a Target Lock model selects their alternate target any more than the multiple targets of a Super-Heavy (and GMC). The Shooting Sequence only allows for a target to be selected in step 2, not targets plural.
However, a good sportsman will declare them all at the beginning to avoid shenanigans, as you mentioned.
For readers: also keep in mind as well, that if all models are armed the same way and intend to all shoot the same with target locks, those targets would have to be announced together, as the firing of one weapon in the unit would prevent that weapon being selected on another model in another round of shooting from that unit. In other words, a Stealth Suit with Burst Cannon and Target Lock would have to resolve their target fire at the same time as any other Stealth Suits with Burst Cannons and without Target Locks, otherwise not shoot at all.
GreyDragoon wrote: Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.
The difference between Super-Heavies (including GMCs) and Target Locks/Split Fire, is that it is not necessarily a model action, and there is nothing to define a "unit" target or "primary" target with them. All targets are "unit" targets for a Super-Heavy.
Here we see the faulty editing on the part of GW, and the apparent last ditch inclusion of the new Shooting Sequence. The new Shooting Sequence does not take in to account multiple targets of a shooting unit. And with the exception of Split Fire, no rules which allow multiple targeting inform us on how to resolve them properly in context with the new system. Super-Heavies are not required to have an "initial unit-level" target. Their rules do not separate out the models as providing different targeting points. In so doing, any target of the StormSurge can qualify as being the subject of a Coordinated Attack. If you are planning on doing so, it would be easier to have the Stormsurge initiate it, to minimize complications and shenanigans.
GreyDragoon wrote: You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved.
Not quite accurate. There is no rule defining when a Target Lock model selects their alternate target any more than the multiple targets of a Super-Heavy (and GMC). The Shooting Sequence only allows for a target to be selected in step 2, not targets plural.
However, a good sportsman will declare them all at the beginning to avoid shenanigans, as you mentioned.
For readers: also keep in mind as well, that if all models are armed the same way and intend to all shoot the same with target locks, those targets would have to be announced together, as the firing of one weapon in the unit would prevent that weapon being selected on another model in another round of shooting from that unit. In other words, a Stealth Suit with Burst Cannon and Target Lock would have to resolve their target fire at the same time as any other Stealth Suits with Burst Cannons and without Target Locks, otherwise not shoot at all.
Resolution is the users choice (order of resolution) but they absolutely do need to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice. I would be shocked not to see a person get reprimanded for repeatedly doing that in a tournament scenario. Good call on the fact the same weapon type/name they must resolve at the same time point though during resolution, hence if they do toss dice for some of them without declaring how the split is going ahead of time - they simply are screwed and can't use them against another target later in that shooting phase/resolution.
GreyDragoon wrote: Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.
The difference between Super-Heavies (including GMCs) and Target Locks/Split Fire, is that it is not necessarily a model action, and there is nothing to define a "unit" target or "primary" target with them. All targets are "unit" targets for a Super-Heavy.
Here we see the faulty editing on the part of GW, and the apparent last ditch inclusion of the new Shooting Sequence. The new Shooting Sequence does not take in to account multiple targets of a shooting unit. And with the exception of Split Fire, no rules which allow multiple targeting inform us on how to resolve them properly in context with the new system. Super-Heavies are not required to have an "initial unit-level" target. Their rules do not separate out the models as providing different targeting points. In so doing, any target of the StormSurge can qualify as being the subject of a Coordinated Attack. If you are planning on doing so, it would be easier to have the Stormsurge initiate it, to minimize complications and shenanigans.
I'd argue that Super Heavy users (and GMCs) still are declaring a primary or starting target to begin the shooting sequence. Totally agreed that they can charge anything they shoot at as a "target" due to the writing for their rules. So if you have a unit of Stormsurges or a Tau'Nar joining in on another unit's combined fire, they still need to place their primary target on that target. They can then throw the rest of their weapons anywhere they want. But since we're already in resolution of the first shooting action I don't believe you can start another full shooting action on the side with a new primary target. The implications would be god awfully complicated and could lead to the daisy chaining of combined fire, which I think is definitely a no-go.
I get where you're coming from Charistoph, certainly. I'm just wondering if you're advocating that say, a unit of 2 storm surges fires at a total of 6 targets. Do you believe they can at the unit target declaration phase then declare 6 simultaneous combined firing instances, each of which has the same core storm surge unit involved? I believe you have to declare the unit target up front, then you're choosing the targets of the other weapon systems at the same point after that fact, must as you might normally choose the target lock targets.
GreyDragoon wrote: Resolution is the users choice (order of resolution) but they absolutely do need to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice. I would be shocked not to see a person get reprimanded for repeatedly doing that in a tournament scenario.
Simply stating that there are no official rulebook rules regarding this situation. Going by the BRB, they do not NEED to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice (aside from dividing fire from the same Weapon Group). There is simply zero rules governing this. House Rules are not covered by the rulebook rules, and are determined by the House. Unfortunately, we are so diverse a group here, we cannot be a good "House".
GreyDragoon wrote: Good call on the fact the same weapon type/name they must resolve at the same time point though during resolution, hence if they do toss dice for some of them without declaring how the split is going ahead of time - they simply are screwed and can't use them against another target later in that shooting phase/resolution.
Thank you. Much like Ordnance, if you do not think things through, you could end up screwing yourself, even if other rules would offer an easy way. Technically speaking, even Super-Heavies are constrained by this rule.
GreyDragoon wrote: I'd argue that Super Heavy users (and GMCs) still are declaring a primary or starting target to begin the shooting sequence. Totally agreed that they can charge anything they shoot at as a "target" due to the writing for their rules. So if you have a unit of Stormsurges or a Tau'Nar joining in on another unit's combined fire, they still need to place their primary target on that target. They can then throw the rest of their weapons anywhere they want. But since we're already in resolution of the first shooting action I don't believe you can start another full shooting action on the side with a new primary target. The implications would be god awfully complicated and could lead to the daisy chaining of combined fire, which I think is definitely a no-go.
Argue all you like. The simple fact is that the rulebook simply does not cover it, nor is it even as close as definable as the situation with Target Locks and Split Fire. At least with Target Locks and Split Fire, it is defined as the model operating the shooting. But for Super-Heavies, much like Power of the Machine Spirit, it is on a weapon basis, and from single model units, to boot.
As far as I know, the only situation where a Super-Heavy is firing as more than one model is during Coordinated Attack (I admit, I could be wrong, I am not familiar with most IAs nor Apocalypse Formations), and that rule does not specifically address it.
Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAWlook at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments.
I always find it odd people feel the need to try to balance rules like this. As you say the rule is actually very clear and the most likely RaI matches the RaW (it is not like GW arent aware Tau can split their fire).
I think we all agree that the Wraithknight is around 100 points undercosted yet I've never once seen a rules discussion onn whether the WK is 395 or 295 points nor have I even heard that suggested as a Tournament FAQ option. Yes we can deal with Wraithknights I guess we'll learn to deal with this (which still has no real incodex answer to the invisistar) so I have no idea why you'd jump all over this one rule that yes puts Tau into the top tier bracket along with all the other decurion style codexes...
Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAWlook at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments.
I always find it odd people feel the need to try to balance rules like this. As you say the rule is actually very clear and the most likely RaI matches the RaW (it is not like GW arent aware Tau can split their fire).
I think we all agree that the Wraithknight is around 100 points undercosted yet I've never once seen a rules discussion onn whether the WK is 395 or 295 points nor have I even heard that suggested as a Tournament FAQ option. Yes we can deal with Wraithknights I guess we'll learn to deal with this (which still has no real incodex answer to the invisistar) so I have no idea why you'd jump all over this one rule that yes puts Tau into the top tier bracket along with all the other decurion style codexes...
Don't get me wrong at all. I think it's very clear and honestly, I play competitive Tau so I love it. But I realize that if we're talking local friendly games this rule is pretty enormous. I only suggested the house rule for those that want a way to par it back a bit and play matches with folks that might want to play with you again after the game
Re: CharistophMade, I will whole heartedly agree that what's missing in the shooting rules (to catch up to target locks, GMCs, and Super Heavies) is some more clarity about where in the shooting resolution those specific targeting decisions happen. I would just say that for sanity's sake, since targeting is step two for the unit, that model and split/GMC/etc. has really its best/only home there. There isn't any other mention of where targeting even would happen in the BRB.
Combined Fire should be played RAW until enough testing against competitive builds has been done to assess it's true power (and not the power level people are guesstimating).
If Hunter Contigent builds simply wind up being top tier but still beatable then it's an easy RAI argument to make that GW endorses RAW. It just published another strong codex along the lines of SM, Necrons, and Eldar.
It's only if Hunter Contigent builds wind up being god tier, does the community need to step in and house rule something that makes 40k more balanced.
Has anyone actually done any testing of how OP the Hunter Contigent actually is, or are people still just running around like Chicken Little proclaiming Combined Fire just broke 40k?
col_impact wrote: Combined Fire should be played RAW until enough testing against competitive builds has been done to assess it's true power (and not the power level people are guesstimating).
If Hunter Contigent builds simply wind up being top tier but still beatable then it's an easy RAI argument to make that GW endorses RAW. It just published another strong codex along the lines of SM, Necrons, and Eldar.
It's only if Hunter Contigent builds wind up being god tier, does the community need to step in and house rule something that makes 40k more balanced.
Has anyone actually done any testing of how OP the Hunter Contigent actually is, or are people still just running around like Chicken Little proclaiming Combined Fire just broke 40k?
Agreed. And yeah we've been testing it (used 'Tides as placeholders for stormsurges) vs a fairly wide variety of competitive builds. Although certainly not all, It's only been a week and we do have lives It's MUCH more competitive than the standard lists, but I will admit freely that the old tau regular cad lists also got better by access to storm surges, the new formations (not doing Cadre) and new 3 model unit sizes for Riptides. And to a lesser degree the vehicles. The only real threat to it TENDS to be the assault from reserve list but unless you blow it on your dice it's actually still pretty hard to get that assault in without losing a ton of your guys. I've been finding mixing one Surge with the big gun and one with the little one as a pair tends to be pretty great. They of course get interceptor and shielding for both, and the one with the blaster gets velocity tracker. It's a very potent combo with the cadre rules behind it and at least one consistent source of markerlights.
I have my resolution and it's very clear to me, so thank you to those who helped.
For those that care to read, here's how I've resolved it and 'Made the Call', until I see otherwise.
Spoiler:
The 'Combined Fire' rule only grants permission to combine the shots. There is nothing that declares that UNITS are combined for shooting, or that they are all treated as one unit for the shooting attack. Yes, the 'as if they are one unit' is there. They expressly left the 'if' in there. Since we have the existing condition of 'resolving their shots', the 'as if they're one unit' does not combine them into one unit at any point in during the action. Unless there is more to the rule that hasn't been posted stating that the units become one unit when declaring the attack against the same target, this issue is pretty much done.
Where does the rule ever tell us to actually combine the units?
It doesn't. As there are other posters here who feel the same way, I'm not alone in this. I agree that if it was intended to actually combine the units, and their rules, it would need to be expressly worded as such. A simple 'resolving all models in the units as a single unit' or 'resolving the attack' as a single unit would have to be in there. The 'As if' does change the statement. We're only given permission, as written, to treat the shots as if they're one unit as opposed to 'treat the units as one unit'. This question will have to be answered by anyone who attempts to try spreading the USRs (Unit wide, per GreyDragoon, thank you!) to units that don't have them, without having permission to do so.
To back this up, if the rule was actually intended to combine the units, then the Tau codex would have to give us instructions on how to do that. The reason? Well the BRB doesn't have rules for combining different units, beyond IC's. We have no instructions on how 2 'units' with different rules interact when trying to make them one unit. The 'Combined Fire' rule doesn't either, so we have to leave any USRs in their units when they fire.
*****
So now that's out of the way, the Markerlight issue is easily addressed.
Spoiler:
'Well if Markerlights affect all participating units, then everything else must also affect all participating units!'
This is where the whole 'as if they were a single unit' = a single unit argument rests. From what I've read here, and in other locations, there is about the same disagreement as to whether the 'includes the use of markerlight abilities' is to be treated as an actual rule vs. being an example of the result of 'combining units'. If you're one of those players who is wishing that they are treated as an actual unit, then this becomes a clarification and not a rule. The problem with using this line of reasoning to define the rest of the rule, is that it conflicts with the 'resolving the shots' portion of the rule, and attempts to extend the permission from just the shots as if they're a unit, to treating all units as a unit. Again, a link is trying to be made to connect all the units together beyond 'resolving shots' when no permission exists to do so.
So the other opinion becomes the fact. The ability to use any Markerlights to affect all of the units shots is another perk granted by 'Combined Fire'. It's not an outcome to be applied, and therefore extend to other benefits, like USRs, Formation bonuses, Buffmander, etc.
*****
The 'Target Lock' debate also clears itself right up, imo.
Spoiler:
Based on what I've read here, the +1 BS is not linked to shooting a unit, but how many units participate in 'Combined Fire'. So before we get when a player chooses to use the 'Target Lock', the model is still treated as a being in a unit that is participating in combined fire. So it gets +1 BS.
I read in a few places that players are trying to say it's timing thing. Without reading too much into it, we have 2 events that are triggered at the same time, and when that happens the controlling player still gets to choose the order in which to resolve things. I get why non-players would be frustrated, since on the surface it appears to function like Markerlights and is tied to the targeted unit, but it's not the case. It's not Dex specific to me, and the core rules favor the Tau player on this one.
*****
As above, the decision is clear to me, which is what YMDC is about right? Present the arguments, then allow players to decide? TO's are going to make up their mind based on whatever need they seem fit. Reecius made his decision based on what he feels he needed to do, I certainly don't fault him for it, even if I disagree/agree with how he came to that or the end result. It's not going to stop people who agree from attending, and it's going to keep those who disagree out for those who would ruin the event. Meh.
I wish best of luck to those that continue the discussion further!
Akar did you actually read the arguments? Or was that a troll attempt? Because the rule is actually very clear and has been extensively explained to say the exact opposite of what you claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also think you need yo go to the rulebook and read what makes up units (hint it isn't shots as you are claiming, you may never have a unit made up of shots).
I wouldn't say the blowback necessarily, but rather the ongoing churn/dispute it looks like has caused him to decide that an FAQ Rule vote is going to be necessary, so look forward to that in the next community vote that happens. He goes over what is likely to happen on that front at 52 Minutes in.
FlingitNow wrote: From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.
I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.
FlingitNow wrote: From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.
I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.
FlingitNow wrote: From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.
I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.
Then make your own rules?
That's what ends up happening in pretty much every tournament and 99% of pick-up games that run into unforeseen complications and GW just tells you to roll for it. Their design methodology changes every 6 months, and every book is written in an isolated bubble from everything else, ostensibly to maintain an iron curtain of security for some ridiculous reason or another. Assuming they don't know their head from their rectum is the more likely choice.
FlingitNow wrote: Then don't go to his events and tell him he has acted disgracefully and is ruining the fun for people attending his shoddy event and in future he should try reading the rules, before making calls on them. Point out his attitude stinks as much as Reecius'.
Or how about you act like an adult, and abide by the rulings of the particular venue, since you are taking advantage of their space to play? The only thing that's shoddy is your attitude.
Just curious,if special rules DO carry over, how would a pulse accelerator drone affect the maximum range of the pulse blaster? Would it just extend the maximum range of every "range band" that it has so that up to 5" for the S6 Ap 3 profile becomes up to 11"?
mortetvie wrote: Just curious,if special rules DO carry over, how would a pulse accelerator drone affect the maximum range of the pulse blaster? Would it just extend the maximum range of every "range band" that it has so that up to 5" for the S6 Ap 3 profile becomes up to 11"?
Why if? The accelerator drone would increase the maximum range of the weapon as its rules say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or how about you act like an adult, and abide by the rulings of the particular venue, since you are taking advantage of their space to play? The only thing that's shoddy is your attitude.
It is not the ruling that makes his event shoddy but his attitude of claiming it is what the rules say when anyone who can actually read English could tell you it wasn't and refusing to discuss it.
If his attitude was "no we are playing like this because the rule is too powerful" that would be one thing. If his attitude was "No this what I believe the rules mean what evidence do you have to support your stance?" Again that would be illustrative of an adult attitude. But he's saying that is what he believes the rules say (which provides he hasn't even bothered reading the rule before making his judgement, or that he is completely clueless about the rules) and refusing to discuss it, that is the childish attitude. Along with comments like "I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything."...
Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.
Rules Lawyers please pick this apart.
Coordinated Fire (CF):
- A Unit (not a Model in a unit or Weapon on a model), declares or combines in to a CF attack.
Shooting
- Shooting is resolved per unit and must be completed by that unit before moving on.
Target Lock (TL)
- A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a DIFFERENT target to the rest of his unit.
- Target Lock rule specifically points out that a Model not a Unit can select a DIFFERENT target.
Gargantuan (GMC)
- When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a DIFFERENT target if desired.
Example #1: Crisis units with Target Locks
- Buffmander is part of 3+ crisis units declaring CF at a specific target.
- A model with a Target Lock from the buffmander unit, targets a different unit, thus not firing in the CF shooting, it never leaves the unit just not part of the CF unit shooting phase.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- The TL model can now resolve its shooting phase with it's original USR/Buffs like Twin-Link, Ignores Cover etc, but not +1BS from CF.
- Repeat per model with TL.
Example #2: Gargantuan shooting as part of CF unit
- Buffmander is part of 3+ units declaring CF at a specific target, one unit is a Storm Surge (single model).
- Storm Surge joins in and combines to the attack choosing one weapon.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- Storm Surge can now resolve its shooting phase per normal rules without CF for any other weapons.
- Repeat per weapon type.
Basically you must commit to 3+ units to get the benefit from Coordinated Fire. If you want the buffmander buffs detachment wide then commit all units that can shoot at the combined target. Since the CF rule only applies for the shooting phase of the combined units until its resolved thus units/models not firing are not included for any sharing of USR/Buffs or +1BS. Units not participating can of course start Coordinated Fire again with new USR/buffs as long as 3+ units that still can shoot combines.
I think this will be one of the choices in the upcoming ITC poll. I played one test game with the most permissive rules for small tau detachment (changed from my previous list of firebase cadre). My next game (tomorrow) will use these above. TBH. It didn't make much difference with broadsides except gaining Ignores cover as FSC already had tank hunter in its previous incarnation.
X078 wrote: Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.
Rules Lawyers please pick this apart.
Coordinated Fire (CF):
- A Unit (not a Model in a unit or Weapon on a model), declares or combines in to a CF attack.
Shooting
- Shooting is resolved per unit and must be completed by that unit before moving on.
Target Lock (TL)
- A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a DIFFERENT target to the rest of his unit.
- Target Lock rule specifically points out that a Model not a Unit can select a DIFFERENT target.
Gargantuan (GMC)
- When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a DIFFERENT target if desired.
Example #1: Crisis units with Target Locks
- Buffmander is part of 3+ crisis units declaring CF at a specific target.
- A model with a Target Lock from the buffmander unit, targets a different unit, thus not firing in the CF shooting, it never leaves the unit just not part of the CF unit shooting phase.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- The TL model can now resolve its shooting phase with it's original USR/Buffs like Twin-Link, Ignores Cover etc, but not +1BS from CF.
- Repeat per model with TL.
Example #2: Gargantuan shooting as part of CF unit
- Buffmander is part of 3+ units declaring CF at a specific target, one unit is a Storm Surge (single model).
- Storm Surge joins in and combines to the attack choosing one weapon.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- Storm Surge can now resolve its shooting phase per normal rules without CF for any other weapons.
- Repeat per weapon type.
Basically you must commit to 3+ units to get the benefit from Coordinated Fire. If you want the buffmander buffs detachment wide then commit all units that can shoot at the combined target. Since the CF rule only applies for the shooting phase of the combined units until its resolved thus units/models not firing are not included for any sharing of USR/Buffs or +1BS. Units not participating can of course start Coordinated Fire again with new USR/buffs as long as 3+ units that still can shoot combines.
Am i mistaken , or d o you not chose who is shooting by thier weapon not by what the model has selected ?
X078 wrote: Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.
You should always take the less powerful interpretation, as the most powerful frequently is the most unfun/makes you an asshat. However, in this case you are actually arguing for the reasonable interpretation. It makes sense that coordinated fire treats you as one unit while you resolve that attack. Once you finish the resolution of that attack, and start firing target locked models, you are no longer one unit under the coordinated fire rule.
I thought you chose the unit you would like to have fire. Then choose the target. Then choose the first weapon(s) to fire (if more than one weapon type or BS or other modifier to a particular weapon/model/unit).
Am i mistaken , or d o you not chose who is shooting by thier weapon not by what the model has selected ?
I believe it is: You nominate unit to shoot, then select target, then select weapon etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You should always take the less powerful interpretation, as the most powerful frequently is the most unfun/makes you an asshat. However, in this case you are actually arguing for the reasonable interpretation. It makes sense that coordinated fire treats you as one unit while you resolve that attack. Once you finish the resolution of that attack, and start firing target locked models, you are no longer one unit under the coordinated fire rule.
This interpretation is to me at least the most powerful with RAW backing. To me anything else looks like possibly wishful thinking without RAW support. But if anyone can find rules backing up another interpretation it would be interesting to see the arguments for them. So far I have not found anything else solid.
Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?
Anpu-adom wrote: Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?
But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target
Anpu-adom wrote: Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?
But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target
Agreed, kambien. There are too many assumptions being made here.
Anpu-adom wrote: Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?
But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target
Agreed, kambien. There are too many assumptions being made here.
Fine, let me break it down.
The first unit gets to pick a target, as part of the select target step of shooting. This could be multiple targets if the original unit has target locks or some other ability allowing it to select more than one target (gargantuan creature, etc). Other units then 'add their firepower'... it doesn't say that they go through the 'select target' step again. While they would technically gain the benefits of Target Lock, etc it has no effect because the targets have already been selected in the 'select target' step of shooting. The window has closed.
The tau player then selects which of the available weapons to shoot at which of the targets, and then completes that shooting...so on and so forth.
Two assumptions that I see:
#1. All the targets of the unit need to chosen at the same time. I feel justified in making this because we have seen this to be the case in other places. You can't blow up a transport, for example and then shoot at the unit within with the same unit.
#2. The targeting window closes before the other units are brought in. I don't have any examples of this in other cases... I believe that it is unique to this case. The closest is the idea of a unit with Target Locks joining in on a Supporting fire. No one argues that such a unit can choose a target other than the one charging. I believe that this is as close as we can get to a precedent, but it is a good one.
Finally, it doesn't break the game. It would limit the shooting somewhat (to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?) Provides a clear target for the opponent (clear the Crisis Suit team, and you limit the Tau damage potential in future turns). It doesn't hamstring Target Locks or Split Fire or Gargantuan Monstrous Creature shooting in other cases.
Anpu-adom wrote: The first unit gets to pick a target, as part of the select target step of shooting. This could be multiple targets if the original unit has target locks or some other ability allowing it to select more than one target (gargantuan creature, etc). Other units then 'add their firepower'... it doesn't say that they go through the 'select target' step again. While they would technically gain the benefits of Target Lock, etc it has no effect because the targets have already been selected in the 'select target' step of shooting. The window has closed.
See, Assumption #1: That all a Target Locks targets must be declared at the same time as the unit.
Reality: Target Lock determination is never defined in the codex, and multiple target selection is only defined for one rule.
Assumption #2: Coordinated Attack prevents Target Locks from having their target determined after the rest of the unit has their target by closing the targeting window.
Reality: As far as has been presented so far, this is never mentioned at any point of the rule.
Anpu-adom wrote: Two assumptions that I see:
#1. All the targets of the unit need to chosen at the same time. I feel justified in making this because we have seen this to be the case in other places. You can't blow up a transport, for example and then shoot at the unit within with the same unit.
Only with Split Fire. Target Locks, Super-Heavies, and Power of the Machine Spirit carry no such restrictions.
All the Targets do not NEED to be chosen at the same time. You would just prefer it. The only time targets for multi-targeting units NEED to be chosen at the same time is when you have two of the same weapon name that you will be firing. The only reason this is a NEED, is because a unit cannot go back and choose to fire the same weapon a second time, even if a model has not chosen it.
You are also assuming that Target Lock targets cannot be declared at the same time. Targets need to be declared before selecting a Weapon, nothing else. There is literally nothing between there, except for maybe checking Range and LOS. Coordinated Attack does not state that selecting another unit to fire on the same target happens after selecting a Weapon. Targeting Window only comes closed with the "all of a unit's targets are declared first" approach when a Weapon is being declared to shoot.
Anpu-adom wrote: #2. The targeting window closes before the other units are brought in. I don't have any examples of this in other cases... I believe that it is unique to this case. The closest is the idea of a unit with Target Locks joining in on a Supporting fire. No one argues that such a unit can choose a target other than the one charging. I believe that this is as close as we can get to a precedent, but it is a good one.
Why is the targeting window closed any more than for when the unit is operating on its own?
Basic Shooting Sequence is:
1) Select a Unit to Shoot.
2) Choose a Target.
3) Select a Weapon.
4) Roll To-Hit.
5) Roll To-Wound.
6) Allocate Wounds.
7) Select Another Weapon or Another Unit.
At most, Coordinated Attack's Shooting Sequence is:
1) Select a Unit to Shoot.
1a) Select other units to join in.
2) Choose a Target.
3) Select a Weapon.
4) Roll To-Hit.
5) Roll To-Wound.
6) Allocate Wounds.
7) Select Another Weapon or Another Unit.
It may be that 1a is changed to 2a, but that is really no different than when the unit is operating solo. Until the Weapon is selected to fire, "Target Selection" is technically not closed.
As for the Charging thing, I was recently accused of trolling on another forum for suggesting the idea (and sticking to it) that a unit that Split Fired could not Charge the target the Split Firing model shot at. Target Locks are no different in this case, either. So, don't expect people to not argue against this concept.
Anpu-adom wrote: Finally, it doesn't break the game. It would limit the shooting somewhat (to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?) Provides a clear target for the opponent (clear the Crisis Suit team, and you limit the Tau damage potential in future turns). It doesn't hamstring Target Locks or Split Fire or Gargantuan Monstrous Creature shooting in other cases.
If it breaks a model's Wargear from doing what it is normally supposed to do, and without permission or orders to do so, it breaks the game.
Now, should a Target Locking model being able to initiate or participate in a Coordinated Attack? No, not really. It is operating on a model-level at this point, but it still remains a member of its unit.
Super-Heavies are a different story. They are unit whose weapons can fire at different targets, but is never separated out as a model action. So, a Stormsurge could participate in 2 Coordinated Attacks (or more if you ascribe to the GC can fire 3+ Weapons options), since all are Attacks from that one unit normally. However, keeping track of that would make my head hurt.
Super-Heavies are a different story. They are unit whose weapons can fire at different targets, but is never separated out as a model action. So, a Stormsurge could participate in 2 Coordinated Attacks (or more if you ascribe to the GC can fire 3+ Weapons options), since all are Attacks from that one unit normally. However, keeping track of that would make my head hurt.
Charistoph's interpretation is from what i can tell basically the same as mine. However i disagree on the Super-Heavy/GMC shooting (although it would be nice if possible, so prove me wrong). My basis for this is that the GMC rules say that a GMC can fire at a different target thus stating that a target has been selected before by this unit. And since you have declared a target before and you do so as a Unit (even if a single model only) then you cannot CF with remaining weapons since CF rules states it must join in as a unit.
I simplify it for myself by viewing a GMC as a Unit consisting of one Model (or more in case of Tau SS) where every weapon has a Target Lock. Still a Unit and even though each weapon can fire at a different target, weapons are not considered a Unit.
I'd Unsub'd because the issue is resolved, but w/o consensus. Although it is hard to believe that such a thing is possible, I'll get to that at the end. I came back because one of my mates informed me that someone pointed out that my reasoning was invalid and I had been called out for 'trolling'. When I went through the thread, I didn't see it. So it's either been removed, reported, or more likely, someone on my Ignore list. When I saw it was someone on my Ignore list, I tried to walk away. To be clear I'm not back because of that, I'm back because people agree with him which could mean that I haven't made my stance clear enough for them to make their own decision, or respect how I came about mine.
First, the rules:
To anyone who isn't a TO, a Tau Player, someone who doesn't against Tau often, or is just starting out with Tau, this thread gets confusing fast. There are 3 different discussions going on. 'Combined Firepower+Buffmander', 'Combined Firepower+Target Lock', and 'Combined Firepower+Markerlights'. I'm only interested in the 1st one. My initial posts were because I didn't understand the debate, didn't have access to the Tau Codex, and was just looking at what rules were involved. Then I did what everyone should do, and look at all the possible outcomes, which I did. However, once I got my hands on the Dex from my friend, I went back to not understanding why there is even a debate. Deliberate misapplication of the rule is what's causing the problem.
So I'm going to break it down: Only for those who care to know about how I've resolved it, not for any debate, I'm done!
Spoiler:
There are 2 Statements about 'Combined Fire' that can be pulled from what I've read here, and other forums.
1) '... resolving their shots, as if they were a single unit...' (RAW)
2) '... resolving their shots, as a single unit... ' (Perceived RAI interpretation)
While these two statements appear similar in both plain English and function, the inability to differentiate them doesn't make them right. The inclusion of the word 'IF' makes these very different statements, and this has been pointed out by other people. The word 'if' is also not the source of the conflict, so I'll come back to it.
The REAL issue with 'Combined Firepower' is that we are told to treat the the participating units 'as if they were a single unit'. We have NO specific instructions on 'How to treat different units as if they were a single unit'.
So we have the following list of potential unresolved problems:
- How do we resolve the presence of a 'Command and Control Node' and 'Multi-Spectrum Sensor Suite'?
- How does a Cadre Fireblades ability get resolved when participating in a CF?
- How do we resolve a 'Pulse Amplifier' in a unit of Pathfinders, on a unit of Breachers when using CF?
- How do we resolve a Warlord Trait, that grants a bonus to a unit?
- How do we resolve a Unit that is 'Combining Firepower' with a unit with Formation bonuses?
- How do we resolve 'Target Relay' or 'Skyfire Nexus' Objectives when a unit controlling these decides to participate in CF?
- How do we resolve units that participate in CF, with 'Blind' (or other similar effects) on one unit participating in CF? (Yes the answer is to simply not have them participate, but the option is there there, so how to we resolve it?)
- How do we resolve Maledictions when a unit under their effects decides to participate in CF?
- There are quite possibly more, but you get the point.
The ONLY contribution that has been attempted to be passed off as the ONE answer to all of these questions has been 'as if they were a single unit'. This interpretation would be 100% flawless if the rule stated 'as a single unit', which matches Statement 2. As long as anyone can't tell the difference between the two statements, this debate will go on, and on, and on... To be clear, I'm NOT agreeing with this. The people I've got on /ignore have a habit of picking a part of what is said, then trolling by quoting the part they feel is right saying 'Well here it appears you are proving your own argument wrong'. They do the same with Rules interpretation so this isn't suprising. That is why they're on ignore.
Fortunately, we have ANOTHER condition, one that is conveniently, or more likely, deliberately ignored, to persuade everyone that statement 2 is in fact the ONLY way to play it. The underlined portion in each of the statements about 'resolving their shots' is the only thing we're actually allowed/instructed/permitted to ever resolve. This is as pretty 'plain english' as it gets. How do we resolve XXX from the above list then? We don't! Why? We don't have any permission to resolve them? If we did, then we would need specific instructions on how to actually do that, which don't exist to support that all of the 'How do...' list are also resolved 'as if they were a single unit'. You simply can't resolve a Commanders Wargear bonuses to a unit he isn't attached to, because that would be MORE than resolving the shots as a single unit, you'd be resolving his Wargear without any permission to do so.
End of applicable rules, and the 'as if they were single unit' support completely destroyed.
This DOES still create a conflict though, one which honestly needs to be addressed.
Spoiler:
This example situation has been attempted to illustrate that the ONLY way to for 'Combined Fire' to work is to resolve all options 'as if they were a single unit'. Which is false, because in order to do so you would need to change the RAW of 'Combined Fire'.
Example: A Commander has joined a unit of Fire Warriors. A completely separate unit of Fire Warriors decides to participate in 'Combined Fire'. Following the steps, we then select a weapon, in this case 'Pulse Rifle', and we immediately have a problem. 1 unit of Pulse Rifles are standard, while the Pulse Rifles from the Commanders unit also have 'Ignore Cover'. So we're left with the conundrum of a Weapon that has the same profile, but the models firing them add additional rules to some of the shots. How do we resolve this? We have a situation that is not covered by both the 'Combined Fire' rule or the BRB.
The most reasonable solution is to keep the Pulse Rifles with 'Ignore Cover' and without it, in separate piles, roll them together, then have the enemy take their respective saves against the shots with the applicable rules. In Short, treat them as weapons with different profiles, but resolve them at the same time. Reading the thread I had up about resolving how 'Pulse Blasters' are resolved with different profiles, there are good number of players who are trying to do this when specifically not allowed to do so. This solution also isn't hard to grasp for anyone that actually plays 40k, it doesn't break the game, but most importantly it doesn't alter the 'Combined Fire' rule, or what permissions it gives.
So the best solution is NOT to change the 'Combined Fire' rule to extend beyond what it gives us permission to do. I'm not denying that players may agree that is one way to handle it for simplicity sake. I'm just saying that it's stupid to expect everyone else to play it the same way because one person feels that's how it is, and use the same line in every reply as if that ends the argument.
So back to my 'Resolution w/o Consensus'.
It is completely possible to have a resolution w/o everyone agreeing, or even having a majority consensus. In 40k, this has been in effect for a few editions now. This is why most of us use YMDC, and it's core purpose. We have a place to come, listen to all sides of a debate, then make a decision based on what's been said. As far as this topic is concerned, we've already reached that point, until we get an FAQ clarifying it further.
A) Players are going to decide on their own, how they're going to play the rule, or allow the rule to be played. This applies to ALL of us, whether we're casual or competitive. For me, the answer is a definite 'No'. It's abusing the rule, and I'm done with playing games of 40k where my first inclination is to reach across the table and beat the )@#( out of the person who attempts it.
B) There are always going to be TFG players who will try and get away with it every opportunity they can, regardless of the type of game/venue/event being played. Nothing posted on forums will ever change that.
C) TO's are going to decide what's best for their event, regardless of what the rule says. I've seen a few slings at Reecius here, and no I haven't read his thoughts on it. It's not like on a forum, where everyone is trying to figure out how everyone should play the game. Regardless of whether I agree with him or his reasoning, I've never taken anything he has said or ruled as being applicable to anything outside of Frontlinegaming and the ITC. (I'm also not denying that those events, are a commentary on the state of 40k, just to be clear.) This also hasn't stopped players from trying to apply the ITC rulings, like DWeapons, and Invisibility to everyone who plays 40k.
Any good TO, is going to make a decision for what is best for both HIS event, and HIS players attending that event. As long as he his transparent about his decision making process, the only differences between what a TO is doing is that his decisions are going to CHANGE the way everyone plays 40k for that instance, and that rules ARE going to be changed. Advice is constantly given along the lines of 'If you're unsure, just ask your opponent/TO if it's okay?' before you play, then there is no issue, and people actually have a fun time.
D) As a result of that, it's the responsibility of any Player who wants to use a controversial rule, to ask. If he wants to play all units as a single unit, it's his duty to ask the TO if it's not already stated. It doesn't change for casual play either, it's the Tau players responsibilty to say 'Hey, I have this rule and I like to play it this way... is that going to bother you?' It's not my responsibility to ask every Tau player how they plan on playing this rule before a game begins. It's his. I'm the same way with my Necrons, or when I play Unbound. It's my responsibility to ask my opponent if it's okay that I put my Praetorians in a Nightscythe. The RAW here is that what I want to do isn't allowed, the reality is that most players/TO I've asked about it, hasn't had an issue with it. When it's been a 'No', I just play a different list or army.
Even with these resolutions, one truth will always remain the same, and that is people will still believe that their incorrect interpretations are fact, and push it on EVERYONE who questions this. Even de-railing threads that are clearly addressing a separate issue, to change it to their own discussion. It happens all the time, and often by the same people. (Admittedly, I'm kind of doing the same thing with just this bit, but I feel some players have forgotten that A-D, are still a part of how this game is played) This is outside the intent of YMDC, at least to me. Having more time to respond to every statement contrary to how they view it, without providing any actual basis, especially when points have shown the gaping hole in their application, is 'trolling' and it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with such a narrow minded person. These are the kind of players who are going to NOT say anything and bring it up in game/tournament because simply because it wasn't discussed. Since it wasn't discussed, then it somehow means it's allowed.
Unfortunately, they have as much right to be here as I do, and all we can do is hope that the 'reporting system' works. I know it's been used, as I'll get an odd 'you've been reported' notification about 1x a year, but still wonder why the 'brow beating' continues and they're still able to post. Luckily, we also have an ignore box, so we can choose individually who we feel is or isn't a troll, based on our own standards. I invite everyone to do the same, even if it means putting me on Ignore.
The hilarious thing is, that it won't stop those on ignore from responding even when they know they're on ignore. Which is my only frustration for posting here again. I'm here because of something one of those people posted, and not because of anything I said or did.
*****
If you actually read ALL of this, THANK YOU. Again, good luck to those who want to keep this going, but I've made my call, and YMDC has done it's job. Until we get an FAQ (which hasn't been done in a long time), there is no need for me to come back.
GW rules have been riddled with "as if" language for decades; this language is nothing new. Seeing as the gaming community and previous GWFAQs have traditionally treated the wording "as if" to mean treat it "as is" for specified conditions, I don't believe Aker interpretation to be accurate. If you treat a Hive Tyrant as if he were a IC when attached to a Tyrant Guard unit then you apply all rules relating to IC while the Hive Tyrant is attached (May not generally be targeted separately from its attached unit, May make LOS on a 2+, Unit may use it's leadership if higher, Ect.). If a model moves as if it is Jump Infantry, then you apply all the rules relating to jump infantry when the model moves (May move 12", May ignore Intervening Terrain, Treats difficult Terrain as Dangerous Terrain, ect.). Combined Fire says "resolve their shots as if they were a single unit". So you apply all rules relating to a single unit resolving their shot. If you do not apply the buffmander's twin-linked wargear ability to the combined units, then you did not resolve their shots as if they were a single unit. If you do not apply the pulse amplifiers extended range to all the models with pulse weapons in the combined units, then you did not resolve their shots as if they were a single unit.
Alcibiades wrote: She entered the room with an aura of authority about her, as if she were a queen. She was in fact a McDonald's cashier.
And guess what? Regardless if she was a queen or a McDonald's cashier, she STILL HAD AN AURA OF AUTHORITY ABOUT HER.
So your own little analogy backfires. Coordinated Fire units are shooting as if they were the same unit, meaning for the duration of shooting, they are considered the same unit.
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: The shots are resolved as if they came from one unit, not that they are the same unit.
The only difference between the two is one is temporary, and the other permanent. There is no functional differences between the rules you listed besides that.
as far as i know shots can never be a unit.
further . if you do something. pretending any defined case is given.
then it does't matter for you if you just pretend thatthe case is given or if it's realy given. in both cases you do exacly the same thing
Kapitalist-Pig wrote: The shots are resolved as if they came from one unit, not that they are the same unit.
You quoted it wrong and that makes a big difference. The correct wording is: "resolving their shots as if they are a single unit". You wrote: "resolved as if they came from one unit". The actual wording means they share rules. As if coming from a single unit and as if they are a single unit are very different.
This is what i thought too
That's a less effective way to way to read the rules.