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.

Wow - thats some awful rules writing.

Do they just hire people fresh off the street for each new codex they put out?

The rules they put out are like they're written by someone who isn't aware that 40K players (and all gamers) will nitpick the exact wording to twist an advantage out of it. You can blame the players all you want, but the nitpicking and rules lawyering is completely foreseeable and counter-able by more exact wording.

Good old GW, getting the wording wrong in hilarious fashion. The second sentence should be "Add 1 on all to wound rolls against that enemy unit made by any other T’AU SEPT units from your army this phase."

 Silentz wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Literally couldn't agree with this any more.

Also agree. It's (yet another) quite interesting insight for me into how different people are able to read the same piece of text and derive different meanings. I genuinely struggled to understand how you can interpret the rule in that way.

I am clearly not devious enough to twist things in such a way!

Must be so hard to be a rules writer.

As a rules writer, it's not actually that hard. GW is just exceptionally bad at it for some reason.

Writing rules is not unlike writing a programing script. Good code is clear and concise. If it doesn't say exactly what it's doing it just doesn't work or cause unintended bugs and errors. So you learn to trim the fat and write your rules to be as precise and direct as possible. Why a bunch of English people are so bad at clear concise English is beyond me.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Again, I maintain that it is worded to operate in exactly the way people believe. The bonus ONLY applies on the target unit. Not it applies if the attacker targets only that unit.

Your original wording meant that bonuses were only gained if the unit only targeted one unit, with that unit being the focus of the stratagem.

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase."

Your structuring of the sentence means that the "only target the same enemy unit" clause applies to the T'au Sept unit, not the wound rolls (especially as I'm not aware of any mechanic to have a wound roll which affects multiple units). This has the effect that a unit must direct all of its attacks against the unit to get the +1.

It should read "You can add 1 to rolls to wound against the same enemy unit for attacks made by any other T'au SEPT unit this phase."

This way a unit can split its fire and will gain the +1 against the previously wounded unit but not any other targets it is firing at.

Just email GW, guys. This forum is for interpretations of the existing rule as it stands, not proving who's the best technical writer.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just email GW, guys. This forum is for interpretations of the existing rule as it stands, not proving who's the best technical writer.

You do understand what YMDC is for right? For deciding what the RAW actually means. Technical writing, or the lack thereof, is essentially what YMDC is about. I'm not trying to be offensive, but "just email GW you bunch of technical writer weenies" isn't exactly the kind of input people are looking for.

In this case I think the RAW is quite clear - albeit completely opposite the apparent RAI. I'll put in my vote for the two week FAQ fix.

Here is the solution, without changing any of the wording... just move the bolded 9 words from the middle of the sentence to the end.

Before:
Use this stratagem after a T'AU SEPT unit from your army inflicts an unsaved wound on an enemy unit in the Shooting phase. You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'AU SEPT units from your army that target the same enemy unit this phase.

After:
Use this stratagem after a T'AU SEPT unit from your army inflicts an unsaved wound on an enemy unit in the Shooting phase. You can add 1 to wound rolls that target the same enemy unit this phase for any other T'AU SEPT units from your army.



The mistake they have made is having a clear definition of the action "add 1 to wound rolls that target the same enemy unit this phase"
and a clear definition of the eligible benefactors "any other T'AU SEPT units from your army"

But, they have 'split the infinitive' so to speak and embedded one within the other.


It's an errata.

"that are resolved against" rather than "that target" is simpler.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just email GW, guys. This forum is for interpretations of the existing rule as it stands, not proving who's the best technical writer.

You do understand what YMDC is for right? For deciding what the RAW actually means. Technical writing, or the lack thereof, is essentially what YMDC is about. I'm not trying to be offensive, but "just email GW you bunch of technical writer weenies" isn't exactly the kind of input people are looking for.

In this case I think the RAW is quite clear - albeit completely opposite the apparent RAI. I'll put in my vote for the two week FAQ fix.

The meaning has been debated and the OP answered, then people moved into Proposed Rules territory, and I didn't call anyone a "weenie". My view that playing RAW silly buggers here is simply douchey stands, and my point about in-thread "needs an FAQ" being pointless unless you actually ask GW directly to write one also stands. YMMV, as ever.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just email GW, guys. This forum is for interpretations of the existing rule as it stands, not proving who's the best technical writer.

We've already debated and determined how the rules are to be interpreted. RAW, it allows you a bonus when firing at separate targets, not just the one previously hit. That discussion is over.

Now we are proceeding to mock GW's terrible rules writing.

The RAI and RAW are both very obvious in this case. If GW was ever put on trial for being gakky rules writers, this would be exhibit A.

SirWeeble wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Just email GW, guys. This forum is for interpretations of the existing rule as it stands, not proving who's the best technical writer.

We've already debated and determined how the rules are to be interpreted. RAW, it allows you a bonus when firing at separate targets, not just the one previously hit. That discussion is over.

Now we are proceeding to mock GW's terrible rules writing.

The RAI and RAW are both very obvious in this case. If GW was ever put on trial for being gakky rules writers, this would be exhibit A.

Disagree. Exhibit a would be from the 6th ed tyranid codex. Pyrovores volatile rule having it blow up the entire table.

Exhibit B would probably be back from early 4th edition Terminators not having terminator armor.

You roll your guns one at a time.

You are targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at them.
You are not targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at something else.

From the shooting rules:

In either case, declare how
you will split the shooting unit’s shots
before any dice are rolled, and resolve
all the shots against one target before
moving on to the next

So you are only ever targeting one unit at a given time. It is not possible to simultaneously target the Nurglings and another unit. Therefore you don't get the +1 to wound when targeting a different unit.

Pretty sure Exhibit A would be giving Harlequins a non-functional "Furious Assault" rule instead of "Furious Charge" in 4th edition, the edition where they explicitly made a point of consolidating USRs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
You roll your guns one at a time.

You are targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at them.
You are not targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at something else.

From the shooting rules:

In either case, declare how
you will split the shooting unit’s shots
before any dice are rolled, and resolve
all the shots against one target before
moving on to the next

So you are only ever targeting one unit at a given time. It is not possible to simultaneously target the Nurglings and another unit. Therefore you don't get the +1 to wound when targeting a different unit.

It doesn't matter the guns are resolved one at a time, the unit is targeting both.

 Marmatag wrote:
You roll your guns one at a time.

You are targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at them.
You are not targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at something else.

From the shooting rules:

In either case, declare how
you will split the shooting unit’s shots
before any dice are rolled, and resolve
all the shots against one target before
moving on to the next

So you are only ever targeting one unit at a given time. It is not possible to simultaneously target the Nurglings and another unit. Therefore you don't get the +1 to wound when targeting a different unit.

Mind. Blown.

So RAW is exactly as expected?!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Pretty sure Exhibit A would be giving Harlequins a non-functional "Furious Assault" rule instead of "Furious Charge" in 4th edition, the edition where they explicitly made a point of consolidating USRs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
You roll your guns one at a time.

You are targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at them.
You are not targeting the Nurglings when you shoot at something else.

From the shooting rules:

In either case, declare how
you will split the shooting unit’s shots
before any dice are rolled, and resolve
all the shots against one target before
moving on to the next

So you are only ever targeting one unit at a given time. It is not possible to simultaneously target the Nurglings and another unit. Therefore you don't get the +1 to wound when targeting a different unit.

It doesn't matter the guns are resolved one at a time, the unit is targeting both.

You declare how you will split shots at the start, but you only target one unit at a time. If you could target both units at the same time, you would need to roll dice simultaneously which is not possible as per rules.

It does not matter Marmatag.
You have to target the unit "this same phase". It doesn't say that it needs to be simultaneously.

If you shoot with the first weapon agaisnt the target, and then a second one to another target, you have targeted that unit this phase? Yes you have. So you gain +1 to wound.
It does not matter how hard you try to arguee the RAW in this stratagem is correct guys. It isn't.

When you are done shooting against a target you cease to target that unit.

I guess it depends on how you read the tense of "target" in this case.

It does not matter that you have ceased to target that unit. Have you targeted it this phase? Yes, you have. So you receive +1 to Wound.


I will post again the image if people has forgotten how it is written:

Right.

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other units from your army that target the same enemy unit this phase."

You can't simultaneously target 2 units. When you are done rolling dice against that unit in question, you are no longer targeting it.

"that target the same enemy unit" -> what does it mean to target a unit? Target in this case is a very specific point when shooting. You are only targeting this unit when you shoot at it. You cease to target the unit when you're done shooting, so you no longer target the same enemy unit.

This is what i'm saying. If you read target as "has targeted" (past tense) then it would work the way you're saying.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is what i'm saying. If you read target as "has targeted" (past tense) then it would work the way you're saying.

By that logic you can never get the +1 to wound in any circumstance because by that point (the rolling to wound) you're no longer "targeting" the unit.

 Marmatag wrote:
Right.

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other units from your army that target the same enemy unit this phase."

You can't simultaneously target 2 units. When you are done rolling dice against that unit in question, you are no longer targeting it.

Actually you do, and you provided the quotation stating it in your first post on this subject.

"In either case, declare how
you will split the shooting unit’s shots
before any dice are rolled, and resolve
all the shots against one target before
moving on to the next"

When you declare, you are declaring what units you are targeting, so at the time of the declaration you are targeting both units you are using split fire against. It doesn't matter that you only resolve against one target at a time, both have been declared as targets by the unit, which would mean it would get the +1 from both. At least, according to RAW. A FAQ to fix this would be useful to keep TFG from trying to exploit it.

As written you're declaring how you're splitting shots. I know this is the ultimate pedantic response - I fully understand this is annoying - but splitting shots is not the same as targeting.

You are only targeting a unit when you are actively shooting at it. You have to resolve shots against one target, before moving on to the next target.

I might be wrong. I'm trying to think if there is a rules precedent in how we should handle targeting in a sequence.

Let's look at curse of the walking pox.

If i split fire into a unit of cultists, and into a unit of poxwalkers. Let's say there is 1 poxwalker left, and 10 cultists left. I put 5 shots into the poxwalker, and 50 shots into the cultists.

Does the order that these are resolved matter?

If i shoot the poxwalkers first eliminating them, then i eliminate the cultists, can it spawn poxwalkers, as there was no unit of poxwalkers left? If i shoot the cultists first, there is no question - the poxwalkers will spawn because there is a unit within 7". If the shots are resolved simultaneously, then it doesn't matter, and the poxwalkers will spawn regardless.

In the event the shots are simultaneous then I agree with you guys, and that the +1 to wound would be available for all shots regardless of target.

 Marmatag wrote:
As written you're declaring how you're splitting shots. I know this is the ultimate pedantic response - I fully understand this is annoying - but splitting shots is not the same as targeting.

You are only targeting a unit when you are actively shooting at it. You have to resolve shots against one target, before moving on to the next target.

I might be wrong. I'm trying to think if there is a rules precedent in how we should handle targeting in a sequence.

Let's look at curse of the walking pox.

If i split fire into a unit of cultists, and into a unit of poxwalkers. Let's say there is 1 poxwalker left, and 10 cultists left. I put 5 shots into the poxwalker, and 50 shots into the cultists.

Does the order that these are resolved matter?

If i shoot the poxwalkers first eliminating them, then i eliminate the cultists, can it spawn poxwalkers, as there was no unit of poxwalkers left? If i shoot the cultists first, there is no question - the poxwalkers will spawn because there is a unit within 7". If the shots are resolved simultaneously, then it doesn't matter, and the poxwalkers will spawn regardless.

In the event the shots are simultaneous then I agree with you guys, and that the +1 to wound would be available for all shots regardless of target.

As off topic as it is, that's not even a question. If you wipe out a unit of Poxwalkers there's no way you can spawn new ones from it.

What does it mean to target a unit? When do you begin targeting a unit, and when do you stop targeting a unit?

I'm not trolling i'm legitimately asking

 doctortom wrote:
Exhibit B would probably be back from early 4th edition Terminators not having terminator armor.

Exhibit C would be Codex Supplement: Legion of the Damned being unplayable in 6th since it required starting entirely in Reserves and thus automatically losing.

 Marmatag wrote:
What does it mean to target a unit? When do you begin targeting a unit, and when do you stop targeting a unit?

It's simply selecting a valid target. One that's in range and LOS and > 1" away. Pick a unit that will attack. Choose targets. In the ranged attacks section, they use the term "target". If you're expecting specific definitions in legalese for when 'targeting' starts/stops, or specific consistant terminology for anything in the rules, you're going to be disappointed.

I you want to be philosophical about it, I suppose you can light a spliff and have some deep thoughts about it, but it's ultimately undefined.

Got it. So after you've killed a unit and moved on to another target, you're still technically targeting the dead unit?

I don't think RAW is clear one way or the other. This needs an FAQ.

"You can add +1 to wound rolls for any other sept units that target the same unit that target the same enemy unit this phase."

You know how you fix this debacle? All you need to do is change "sept units" to "sept models". BOOOOOOOM.

Figured that out in about 9 seconds.

 Xenomancers wrote:
"You can add +1 to wound rolls for any other sept units that target the same unit that target the same enemy unit this phase."

You know how you fix this debacle? All you need to do is change "sept units" to "sept models". BOOOOOOOM.

Figured that out in about 9 seconds.

Except models can split their fire as well? If I have a Plasma Rifle and SMS, I can fire one at A and one at B.