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.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
Continuation of that discussion here. GW is planning to FAQ it at some point. It's soon going to go to a vote to see how they want the rule to work in the ITC since it seems that was indeed how the rule was meant to work (stacking of buffs).

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/04/gw-to-faq-the-tau-coordinated-firepower-conundrum/

What a terrible article. He thinks Skyfire can be shared. I made that mistake when Coordinated Firepower was just shown to us

And in no pat of the e-mail is said they'll FAQ it. They're going to FAQ GMC shooting.

He's talking about if, for example, a firewarrior is on a skyfire nexus, and shoots with other units. Do the other units get skyfire?

Skyfire is a USR.

 Vector Strike wrote:


The e-mail itself isn't laughable at all - it shows us (because the WD person answering went to the RULES TEAM and it gave its answer about the matter) that RAW and RAI is that Coordinate Firepower shares special rules. It's not a FAQ and each group can take it as truth or no, but GW's position is clear on this. They messed up with the Target Lock interaction, but that's minor.

The email is laughable because it shows incompetency of either that WD employee or the Rules Team in general. I am sure that dozens if not hundreds of people have sent in emails about this rule. Yet, according to the WD person the "Rules Team doesn't feel the need to FAQ this. It's pretty clear to them!" ...come on....

If I had to field 10 phone calls a day because people were calling my work about something they thought they saw on our website. I'd fixed it or get it fixed so they'd stop calling. Or hell, at least convey to the customer that we will work on getting it fixed.

This guy told ONE person that "it's fine don't worry" meanwhile a flood of emails continue on the same question. How you think this is a "good answer" from GW, I have no idea.

And to top it off, he never answered the other question about it at all. Which absolutely brings up its validity.

BTW, if you try to email - gamefaqs@gwplc.com - you just get a generic "Thanks for your email! For the Emperor!" response.