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.

Tau Buffmander (command & control node and Multi spectrum sensor suit) bestows re roll hits and ignores cover on his unit but forgoes shooting

If with coordinated firepower his unit plus a Stormsurge firing one gun (say burst cannon) and a third unit combine and shoot target 'A' does the stormsurge benefit from re rolls to hit / ignores cover for the rest of its shots given that the Buffmander is no longer involved, potentially shooting another seven different targets (with anchors deployed) with re roll hits/ ignores cover.

Secondly (this is a bit more tenuous) can Buffmander running around without and unit combine as a third unit for coordinated firepower. Both signature systems say 'if a model with xxxx does not shoot in the shooting phase" whilst coordinated firepower says "these units must shoot the same target, resolving their shot as if they were one unit" Just wondering if it was intended that you need to be part of a unit to benefit from the buffs as there could be an argument to say that Buffmander can keep combining with multiple units as he's not shooting. (Thus substantiating the first question above as acceptable)

Personally I think that Buffmander gets to combine once, certainly if he's actually within a unit but also if solo, still very powerful. This would also mean only the stormsurges initial combined attacks with the commander get the benefits. (Note that to get ignores cover on all the stormsurges weapons shooting at different targets with anchors deployed would take 14 marker light hits not even taking into account the re roll hits)

If you are following ITC rules, they changed the rule so it doesn't treat them as one unit.

If your are follow the book, so long as they buffmander was included in the Coordinated Firepower fully (read below), the Stormsurge gets the bonuses regardless for how many other units it targets, just as you can target many different units with Target Locks on Crisis Suits and still get the benefit.

For Coordinated Firepower, all units must shoot at primary unit, however, models in those units may elect to shoot at other units, or may choose not to shoot at all.

I believe that at least one model from the unit has to fire to be treated as part of the Coordinated Firepower, so make sure you buy at least one drone for the Buffmander to shoot for him so his unit can be included in a Coordinated Firepower.

Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Cindis wrote:
Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Coordinated Firepower is a special rule allowing different units to be considered as one unit if shooting at the same target. This is how the Buffmander is able to share his benefits with a Stormsurge.

ITC, a tournament group who has designed a modified set of rules for Warhammer 40k, has seen fit to flat out change many unambiguous rules that they felt were or might become problems. This is one of them. They completely changed the Coordinated Power ability to be effectively worthless. Any discussion of ITC rules should really be marked as house rules and not actually core Warhammer 40k.

In terms of the actual question, I would agree that the Commander's unit needs to actually fire at least one shot to be able to share the buffs. The easiest way to get around this is to have the Commander join a unit who will be shooting or take Drones and hope they don't die. Joining a unit is your best bet. I like to put him in with a unit of Crisis Suits. Give all of the Suits Target Locks. This allows the individual Crisis Suit MODELS to shoot at whomever they want while the UNIT, which will be the various Drones the Suits have taken, shoots at the 'primary' target. Have a Stormsurge fire at least one weapon at the 'primary' target and he joins in.

 Kriswall wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Coordinated Firepower is a special rule allowing different units to be considered as one unit if shooting at the same target. This is how the Buffmander is able to share his benefits with a Stormsurge.

ITC, a tournament group who has designed a modified set of rules for Warhammer 40k, has seen fit to flat out change many unambiguous rules that they felt were or might become problems. This is one of them. They completely changed the Coordinated Power ability to be effectively worthless. Any discussion of ITC rules should really be marked as house rules and not actually core Warhammer 40k.

In terms of the actual question, I would agree that the Commander's unit needs to actually fire at least one shot to be able to share the buffs. The easiest way to get around this is to have the Commander join a unit who will be shooting or take Drones and hope they don't die. Joining a unit is your best bet. I like to put him in with a unit of Crisis Suits. Give all of the Suits Target Locks. This allows the individual Crisis Suit MODELS to shoot at whomever they want while the UNIT, which will be the various Drones the Suits have taken, shoots at the 'primary' target. Have a Stormsurge fire at least one weapon at the 'primary' target and he joins in.

This is correct

Oaktreegamer wrote:

Tau Buffmander (command & control node and Multi spectrum sensor suit) bestows re roll hits and ignores cover on his unit but forgoes shooting

If with coordinated firepower his unit plus a Stormsurge firing one gun (say burst cannon) and a third unit combine and shoot target 'A' does the stormsurge benefit from re rolls to hit / ignores cover for the rest of its shots given that the Buffmander is no longer involved, potentially shooting another seven different targets (with anchors deployed) with re roll hits/ ignores cover.

Secondly (this is a bit more tenuous) can Buffmander running around without and unit combine as a third unit for coordinated firepower. Both signature systems say 'if a model with xxxx does not shoot in the shooting phase" whilst coordinated firepower says "these units must shoot the same target, resolving their shot as if they were one unit" Just wondering if it was intended that you need to be part of a unit to benefit from the buffs as there could be an argument to say that Buffmander can keep combining with multiple units as he's not shooting. (Thus substantiating the first question above as acceptable)

Personally I think that Buffmander gets to combine once, certainly if he's actually within a unit but also if solo, still very powerful. This would also mean only the stormsurges initial combined attacks with the commander get the benefits. (Note that to get ignores cover on all the stormsurges weapons shooting at different targets with anchors deployed would take 14 marker light hits not even taking into account the re roll hits)

Basically correct, you can combine once in the Shooting phase (with units that has not shot yet) and need 2+ models to do so (3+ gets you the +1BS). If you combined with the SS for one weapon you do not get the commander buffs for the rest of the weapons. You do not need to join any unit to benefit, declaring CF with a unit is enough. Although the Commander does not actually fire he has participated and forgone his shooting thus he cannot do it anymore this phase.

 Kriswall wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Coordinated Firepower is a special rule allowing different units to be considered as one unit if shooting at the same target. This is how the Buffmander is able to share his benefits with a Stormsurge.

ITC, a tournament group who has designed a modified set of rules for Warhammer 40k, has seen fit to flat out change many unambiguous rules that they felt were or might become problems. This is one of them. They completely changed the Coordinated Power ability to be effectively worthless. Any discussion of ITC rules should really be marked as house rules and not actually core Warhammer 40k.

In terms of the actual question, I would agree that the Commander's unit needs to actually fire at least one shot to be able to share the buffs. The easiest way to get around this is to have the Commander join a unit who will be shooting or take Drones and hope they don't die. Joining a unit is your best bet. I like to put him in with a unit of Crisis Suits. Give all of the Suits Target Locks. This allows the individual Crisis Suit MODELS to shoot at whomever they want while the UNIT, which will be the various Drones the Suits have taken, shoots at the 'primary' target. Have a Stormsurge fire at least one weapon at the 'primary' target and he joins in.

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Cindis wrote:

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Care to quote the rule to prove he is spreading misinformation? Or did you just want to stick with an ad hominem?

I seem to remember it as Kriswall does. The note on Markerlights was not a limiting statement, but an example. And considering the fact that the buffmander's buffs are in consideration only when Shooting, it would apply when Weapons are fired. Only in consideration with Weapon groups is pointless as that would not be greatly affected by different units firing.

Cindis wrote:

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

->Denigrates others immediately and seemingly at random.
->Doesn't support own arguments.
->Doesn't bother to even invoke the text.

That's not misinformation, you're just being a douche.

Units participating in a Coordinated Fire "...resolve their shots as if they were a single unit..." There's no limit placed on the ability beyond that - so rules as written any special rule or wargear should be 'contagious' and affect each model participating.

Note that every unit participating "...must shoot the same target..." which means your buff commander or his unit must be in range, in line of sight and fire at least one weapon at the target chosen. The same goes for anyone else trying to share special rules, most notably Darkstrider.

Also note that you're not required to fire every weapon at the target, so you could participate with a Stormsurge's Smart Missile System to gain the benefits for your Pulse Driver at a different unit. I'd personally consider that sketchy and rude as all hell, but that's RaW.

Also also note the Stormsurge's Anchors give you two seperate shooting attacks, which means if you do Coordinate you will only have the bonus for the first or second time you shoot your weapoons, not both.

Cindis wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Coordinated Firepower is a special rule allowing different units to be considered as one unit if shooting at the same target. This is how the Buffmander is able to share his benefits with a Stormsurge.

ITC, a tournament group who has designed a modified set of rules for Warhammer 40k, has seen fit to flat out change many unambiguous rules that they felt were or might become problems. This is one of them. They completely changed the Coordinated Power ability to be effectively worthless. Any discussion of ITC rules should really be marked as house rules and not actually core Warhammer 40k.

In terms of the actual question, I would agree that the Commander's unit needs to actually fire at least one shot to be able to share the buffs. The easiest way to get around this is to have the Commander join a unit who will be shooting or take Drones and hope they don't die. Joining a unit is your best bet. I like to put him in with a unit of Crisis Suits. Give all of the Suits Target Locks. This allows the individual Crisis Suit MODELS to shoot at whomever they want while the UNIT, which will be the various Drones the Suits have taken, shoots at the 'primary' target. Have a Stormsurge fire at least one weapon at the 'primary' target and he joins in.

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

By 'the majority of players', I assume you mean the 'minority of players who vote for ITC rules changes'. Every discussion I've read has pretty quickly agreed that the rules as written allow sharing of 'Buffmander' buffs but that this might be a little too powerful. Generally the debate is surrounding whether or not ITC should have made such a sweeping rules change.

Charistoph wrote:

Cindis wrote:

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Care to quote the rule to prove he is spreading misinformation? Or did you just want to stick with an ad hominem?

I seem to remember it as Kriswall does. The note on Markerlights was not a limiting statement, but an example. And considering the fact that the buffmander's buffs are in consideration only when Shooting, it would apply when Weapons are fired. Only in consideration with Weapon groups is pointless as that would not be greatly affected by different units firing.

I could quote it all day and you still wouldn't understand what you were reading.

Fortunately the issue has already been resolved and arguments to the contrary can be chalked up to little more than sour grapes. You are of course welcome to play with whatever house rules you desire.

Cindis wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Cindis wrote:

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Care to quote the rule to prove he is spreading misinformation? Or did you just want to stick with an ad hominem?

I seem to remember it as Kriswall does. The note on Markerlights was not a limiting statement, but an example. And considering the fact that the buffmander's buffs are in consideration only when Shooting, it would apply when Weapons are fired. Only in consideration with Weapon groups is pointless as that would not be greatly affected by different units firing.

I could quote it all day and you still wouldn't understand what you were reading.

Fortunately the issue has already been resolved and arguments to the contrary can be chalked up to little more than sour grapes. You are of course welcome to play with whatever house rules you desire.

House rules like the ones ITC uses?

But you are correct. The argument was resolved and the overwhelming majority thinks that sharing buffs is legal per the core rules. The ITC voting minority decided this was too powerful and flat out changed the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

Cindis wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Cindis wrote:

Incorrect. They fire as one unit for the purposes of weapons fired and markerlights only.

WAAC powergame all you want, but don't pretend its supported by the actual rules. We've seen all the baseless arguments before, turns out the majority of players didn't buy it and went with the correct interpretation of the rule.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Care to quote the rule to prove he is spreading misinformation? Or did you just want to stick with an ad hominem?

I seem to remember it as Kriswall does. The note on Markerlights was not a limiting statement, but an example. And considering the fact that the buffmander's buffs are in consideration only when Shooting, it would apply when Weapons are fired. Only in consideration with Weapon groups is pointless as that would not be greatly affected by different units firing.

I could quote it all day and you still wouldn't understand what you were reading.

Fortunately the issue has already been resolved and arguments to the contrary can be chalked up to little more than sour grapes. You are of course welcome to play with whatever house rules you desire.

House rules like the ones ITC uses?

But you are correct. The argument was resolved and the overwhelming majority thinks that sharing buffs is legal per the core rules. The ITC voting minority decided this was too powerful and flat out changed the rules.

Ah yes, invoke that silent majority despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Or does overwhelming majority mean WAAC Tau players in this case?

there is no contrary. almost everybody that prefer the itc ruling or anything this direction agrees that RAW the CFP rule allwoes sharing. They prefer the limited reading because of balangcing reasons.

Cindis don't you see the difference between a honest " yes raw i works this way but i think it to op i wanna play it another way" and a plain "Na the rules are limited you can't read" ?

 _ghost_ wrote:
almost everybody that prefer the itc ruling or anything this direction agrees that RAW the CFP rule allwoes sharing. They prefer the limited reading because of balangcing reasons.

Citation needed.

Cindis wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
almost everybody that prefer the itc ruling or anything this direction agrees that RAW the CFP rule allwoes sharing. They prefer the limited reading because of balangcing reasons.

Citation needed.

None needed. The rule is clear. and ITC rulings are clearly for balancing on many things. They plainly state that they want it how the majority vote, which has nothing to do with RAW

ignore message

Cindis wrote:
I could quote it all day and you still wouldn't understand what you were reading.

Fortunately the issue has already been resolved and arguments to the contrary can be chalked up to little more than sour grapes. You are of course welcome to play with whatever house rules you desire.

Again with the ad hominim without anything to actually support your statements. Or is your quotes not in English? Seriously. I can barely read Spanish, I wouldn't understand it, but I can read it. If you are going to quote in another language than you could just lead with that.

I am not a Tau Player. The last time I had a Tau model, Broadsides would walk on their A.S.S. and fire. Never played a game with them and sold them off for Chaos, then Templars, now Necrons (as noted by my poster's title).

So, if you think I am WAAC for agreeing with something that would tear apart my Decurion, you are wack.

Hey Charistoph, as my groups resident Tyranid/BA/Eldar player, I'm gonna have to agree with you. The rules are quite clear that all supporting groups are one unit for the duration of the attack.

Cindis wrote:
Buffmanders buffs only apply to the unit he's joined to.

Hello once again troll. And reported again.

Cindis, you need to keep it polite. Everyone else can move on from him being rude now and back to the topic

I have a vague memory of them actually stating on Frontline's website when the ruling was made, that the rule was vauge, and the decision was originally put to a vote for balancing reasons, regretably I am at work and can't search for the article. I was one of the few in my gaming group that partially agreed with the ITC ruling. The remainder of the group I play with agree with Kriswall, and I personally believe the rule can be legally interpreted EITHER WAY.

I believe if you truly want to "balance" the rule, you don't allow it affect every single unit shot at by all the target locks, only allow it to affect the MAIN unit targeted. This rule was introduced as a way for Tau to deal with Deathstars, which is something they have ALWAYS struggled with, not so they could remove cover and twin-link every shot in their army at one wack. However, the rule works as ITC puts it in play due to the remainder of the ITC "house rules," and missions packages leaning towards MSU armies out performing deathstars anyway.

The CFP rule only lists markerlights as an example. Not an exhaustive list.

From my memory Nocturus, when Reecies first blogged about the rule it was presented in a way that he asked like 4 people how they interpreted the rule. However, those responses came off as an at a first glance answer flavored by how the user viewed the rule RAI which is why it was presented as vague to start as they came up with different answers.

However once the rules debate began after a while most of the arguments against were because it would be too powerful/cheesy in the RAW form or against RAI rather then that it wasn't allowed by RAW..

When Frontline finally put the rule up for vote, they did not phrase the question as "what is the RAW for this rule" but instead phrased it "How do you want to play this rule" and Frontline worded the question like this intentionally.

This is why on this forum the ITC ruling was clearly done for House Rule purposes and was not a definitive RAW "clarification".

Especially as the rule doesnt require clarification

You treat the units involved as one unit for shooting. THats really very simple

The ITC hosuerule is jsut that -a houserule for seeming "balance" purposes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Especially as the rule doesnt require clarification

You treat the units involved as one unit for shooting. THats really very simple

The ITC hosuerule is jsut that -a houserule for seeming "balance" purposes.

ITC has lots of house rules that modify generally unambiguous rules for balance purposes. It's not an FAQ, it's a modified version of the rule set. As such, discussions of what ITC does or doesn't allow isn't useful in a RaW argument.

Its my main gripe with the ITC format really - lack of transparency

Simply putting "balance change" by these questions would be so helpful. Lets people know it isnt a real rule clarification - just a change they made to rebalance the game.

The ITC FaQ and the AdeptiCon FaQ both adopted a very conservative implementation of the Coordinated Firepower rule (only the unit the Buffmander is joined to benefits from the Buffmander). The NOVA FaQ adopted a moderate implementation of the Coordinated Firepower rule (all shooting attacks made at the designated enemy unit gain the Buffmander's benefits; units capable of shooting at multiple targets do not gain the Buffmander's benefits when shooting at other targets).

Take this as you will. Personally, when scheduling a game, I include which FaQ I prefer to play under. Cuts down on time wasted discussing poorly worded/non-comprehensive rules.

Cheers!

DCannon4Life wrote:
The ITC FaQ and the AdeptiCon FaQ both adopted a very conservative implementation of the Coordinated Firepower rule (only the unit the Buffmander is joined to benefits from the Buffmander). The NOVA FaQ adopted a moderate implementation of the Coordinated Firepower rule (all shooting attacks made at the designated enemy unit gain the Buffmander's benefits; units capable of shooting at multiple targets do not gain the Buffmander's benefits when shooting at other targets).

Take this as you will. Personally, when scheduling a game, I include which FaQ I prefer to play under. Cuts down on time wasted discussing poorly worded/non-comprehensive rules.

Cheers!

Well spoken. It also cuts down on time wasted going over local house rules. If playing with one of the tournament 'FAQs', you'll be using a number of house rules that aren't present in core Warhammer 40k and were adopted for possible balance issues. ITC, Adepticon and NOVA all have house rules that modify unambiguous rules for balance or "making the rules as written match perceived rules as intended" reasons.