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.

 mortetvie wrote:

-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!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

-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.

 mortetvie wrote:

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.

"As if they are a single unit"

If they are a single unit, all models in that unit gain the rules.

If you are not giving them the special rules, you are not treating them as a single unit

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?

Really?

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).

 Gamgee wrote:

 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?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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.

Blacktoof why are you not treating them as one unit for the shooting attack?