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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

That is true. Insert "models that don't split fire" instead.

What amazes me is it took Dakka about 0.2 seconds to notice this, but somehow slipped past GW's community, creative, and proofreading departments.

It's _Really_ obvious the wording for this is badly done. The intent is blindingly obvious. The RAW is equally obvious. If I can see the immediate source of confusion, why did one single person at GW not go, 'Hey, we could phrase this ever so slightly differently?' These arn't first drafts...

I suppose the soultion is the same as always. If you and your opponent disagree, dice it off. But the intent and the wording are both clear. It's just a shame [As normal, for GW] that they're opposites...

It's the software development mindset. They ship with known bugs and address them in a patch.

But as you've said the RAI is blindingly obvious, so that might be good enough for them.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
What amazes me is it took Dakka about 0.2 seconds to notice this, but somehow slipped past GW's community, creative, and proofreading departments.

It's _Really_ obvious the wording for this is badly done. The intent is blindingly obvious. The RAW is equally obvious. If I can see the immediate source of confusion, why did one single person at GW not go, 'Hey, we could phrase this ever so slightly differently?' These arn't first drafts...

I suppose the soultion is the same as always. If you and your opponent disagree, dice it off. But the intent and the wording are both clear. It's just a shame [As normal, for GW] that they're opposites...

Considering they also only allowed models to attack with their base profile if they had NO other CCWs, even if those CCW were limited use, and also forgot to say you have to deploy wholly within your own deployment zone, are you really surprised?

Our fire is so focused it can hit things we are not focused on better...

RAI, HIWPI there is no explicit permission to get the bonus versus another unit than the one that suffered the wound. The focused fire is happening against the unit that suffered the initial would d that triggers the ability to use the Strategem.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
What amazes me is it took Dakka about 0.2 seconds to notice this, but somehow slipped past GW's community, creative, and proofreading departments.

It's _Really_ obvious the wording for this is badly done. The intent is blindingly obvious. The RAW is equally obvious. If I can see the immediate source of confusion, why did one single person at GW not go, 'Hey, we could phrase this ever so slightly differently?' These arn't first drafts...

I suppose the soultion is the same as always. If you and your opponent disagree, dice it off. But the intent and the wording are both clear. It's just a shame [As normal, for GW] that they're opposites...

I spend a command point to re-roll my roll-off in the Most Playtested Edition. Clearly the Tau are now focused not because they are concentrating fire on a unit but because cherry-tapping an enemy unit was part of a ritual to gain Khorne's blessing! Had GW intended otherwise, they would have written as such!

Not to be arrogant but I posted the solution above and will post it again here.

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/Old wording:
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.

So the stratagem should read:

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.



If you can pick a hole in that, please do.

It's not the models that get +1 or the units that get +1... it is WOUND ROLLS against the single chosen target unit.

 Silentz wrote:
Not to be arrogant but I posted the solution above and will post it again here.

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/Old wording:
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.

So the stratagem should read:

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.



If you can pick a hole in that, please do.

It's not the models that get +1 or the units that get +1... it is WOUND ROLLS against the single chosen target unit.

Seems locked down to me. No ambiguity and point put across.

Well... to be fair, some could argue that wound rolls don't target anything.

Just saying

But it is significantly better wording.

 Lance845 wrote:
Well... to be fair, some could argue that wound rolls don't target anything.

Just saying

But it is significantly better wording.

True, but by the wound roll you have already made the hit roll so there can’t be any ambiguity in what you are targeting,

Unless... flamers...

GW could definitely do with having some technical writing courses or something, to make them focus on how you define the target, action, validity and so on of a special rule. But... these nested definitions within definitions are a mistake that proof readers/editors should have caught.

Well this the problem when you have something open for interpretation. What does it mean to target something? Declare your intent to shoot it? Roll dice to shoot it? When does being targeted end? Is a dead unit still targeted?

For example, if you use this stratagem, and your next model split fires into this unit, and another unit. If you kill the target giving you the +1, would you still get it for the next target? In essence, are you still targeting the dead unit?

All in all it's just a quagmire once you start poking at this even a little. They need to FAQ it, and just change the wording altogether. Even if the intent is that you get the +1 while split-firing, it's not immediately clear that the RAW supports THAT interpretation, either.

What an awful rule.

You're overthinking it. Massively.

Assuming your whole army is T'au Sept

Step 1: cause an unsaved wound to a unit
Step 2: spend CP and declare stratagem
Step 3: continue playing normally until you are making a wound roll against that nominated unit
Step 4: add 1 to that roll

Repeat steps 3 and 4 until it's the charge phase

 Silentz wrote:
You're overthinking it. Massively.

Assuming your whole army is T'au Sept

Step 1: cause an unsaved wound to a unit
Step 2: spend CP and declare stratagem
Step 3: continue playing normally until you are making a wound roll against that nominated unit
Step 4: add 1 to that roll

Repeat steps 3 and 4 until it's the charge phase

that's the intent, but not what it says.

Reviving this thread in light of the errata:

Focus Fire was changed to read as:

"Add 1 to wound for attacks made by other T'au Sept units from your army that target the same enemy unit this phase."

The way this sentence is written can look ambiguous. "Attacks made by units that target" can either mean that the units are targeting or that the attacks are targeting.

Thankfully, the Shooting Phase sequence is step-by-step:
-Choose Units.
-Choose Targets.
-Choose Weapons.
-Resolve Attacks.

Thus, we know that units target units, and attacks are resolved against units. RAW, Focused Fire still adds 1 to wound vs every unit targeted.

Ideally, the fix would be:

"For the remainder of this Shooting Phase, other T'AU SEPT units in your army add 1 to wound when they Resolve Attacks against this unit."

Since Resolve Attacks is an explicit step in the Shooting Phase (Step 4, in fact), this avoids That Guy rulelawyering going "technically a weapon doesn't target." Now, as long as Tau don't get the ability to melee in the Shooting Phase, you should be good.

Old GW, same as the new GW. An errata that doesn't fix anything, Errata needed for their Errata books. But I mean, give them a break, they are fledgling new company with only 30+ years trying to get this right.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Old GW, same as the new GW. An errata that doesn't fix anything, Errata needed for their Errata books. But I mean, give them a break, they are fledgling new company with only 30+ years trying to get this right.

What does this post add to the rules discussion?

Changes or not, the meaning and how to play this are abundantly clear unless deliberately trying to manipulate for advantage. Use the most logical, reasonable, obvious application.