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

 Nilok wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

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.

Alcibiades wrote:

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.

Naw wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

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.

Alcibiades wrote:

Naw wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

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?

It's something worth a FAQ

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:

 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.

A question involving the Infiltration Cadre:

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.

Is there a conclusion?

According to RAW is it allowed to transfer special rules?

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).

WD Team says they are shared. However, the rules team doesn't think it needs a FAQ, so probably we'll never see an official standing.

The rules team are right this no more needs an FAQ than the question of whether Wraithknights are 295 points or 395 points...

SO, we seem to have more or less of a resolution on this one... Time to move on.

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.

Show him this thread:
http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23875&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Hey there Vector Strike. Yeah, I read it. I asked him to. His response was an explicit no.

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.

I see no reason why you can't use both. They are not mutually exclusive.

 _ghost_ wrote:

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.

So regarding the topic

do we have a result in this conversation?