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.

Fling, Normally different units cannot normally combine their shots as if they were one unit. The Concentrated Firepower rule specifies how this is accomplished and ONLY specifies that the use of Markerlights is shared, not special rules so you have to rely on a logical inference (at best) to say that they all share any special rules.

blaktoof wrote:


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.

Can you specifically quote where you're taking it from the rule that the combination is only against the same target? It says "when 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their ballistic skill". I don't see anything about who is firing upon whom for that last sentence It just says, "are 3 units firing together as one unit?" "yes?" "ok +1 BS to all 3 units"

"Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"

the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.

The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.

reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.

models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.

 mortetvie wrote:

 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.

If you do not consider the "unit" to have fired at the target when using concentrated fire and target lock, then logically, why would you consider it a "firing unit" as required to resolve the shooting phase.

Using Flingit's point without the analogy; unit A fires on targets X and Y. Did unit A fire on target X?

blaktoof wrote:
"Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"

the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.

The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.

reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.

models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.

I don't see how that first sentence changes anything the models are still part of the units that are combined.

blaktoof wrote:
"Whenever an unit from a hunter contingent targets 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"

the above is not fluff, it is part of the rule.

The attack is made against a target unit. The combination of firing and the combining of rules is "the attack" against the targeted unit.

reading of the second and third sentence in a vaccuum is great and all, but it removes the ability to use the rule since you need the first sentence rules (saying its a shooting attack against a enemy unit) to get the second and third rules. Ie without a unit targetting something in the first place, and models adding in- the first sentence, it is not possible to get to the second and third sentence for what you get in such a case.

models using target locks/splitfire are not part of that shooting attack, they are going through the shooting sequence targeting a different unit in a separate attack with a separate wound pool and resolution.

If nothing else, this is probably a reasonable middle ground. Avoids the "my riptide's drones contributed to the combined fire attack then my riptide target locked to the unit it actually wanted to fire at and thanked them kindly for +1 BS TL Ignores Cover TH/MH" nonsense that I can't begin to field myself. And that's coming from someone fully planning on fielding two optimized stealth cadres with max ghostkeels

 jokerkd wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 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.

If you do not consider the "unit" to have fired at the target when using concentrated fire and target lock, then logically, why would you consider it a "firing unit" as required to resolve the shooting phase.

Using Flingit's point without the analogy; unit A fires on targets X and Y. Did unit A fire on target X?

But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).

So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.

Mortetvie we're going around in circles here. Your position is clear (and not one that I disagree with in principle). You're using logic to support your position that Target locks should not benefit from coordinated fire because they're not firing on the same target, but again, that's not what the rules say. They say that if the unit is firing on the same target as two other units, then everyone gets the benefits. HIWPI is probably not that way. RAI is probably not that way (if it was even considered). But RAW does support it.

Maybe we should generally insert an addendum at this point of something to the effect of:


"Let's try and avoid repeating ourselves as much as possible"

 mortetvie wrote:

But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).

So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.

You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.

Your assumption that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.

 mortetvie wrote:
But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s).

In general, yes, just like every model in a unit can normally only shoot at one target. Except, you know, when it doesn't like in the case of Target Lock and Split Fire. But the Command Benefit itself does not say "models" at any point.

 mortetvie wrote:
Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).

Yet, the model is part of the firing unit, even if they are not shooting at the same target. And rules like Tank Hunter and Coordinated Attack do not specify that the model is shooting at it, just the unit.

Of course, if the Target Locking unit is firing at an Infantry unit, Tank or Monster Hunter won't help very much...

 mortetvie wrote:
So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.

Coordinated Attack doesn't care about the models, it cares about the unit. Models separating their fire from their fire from their unit are not excluded in unit affecting rules (though, they may for other reasons, such as Markerlight buffs or trying to Monster Hunt a Tank).

 Nilok wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).

So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.

You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.

Your assume that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.

No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.

Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.

If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.

here we essentially have an all units, including all models in said units, must shoot at the same target restriction in place unless otherwise specified or allowed. My point is-what specifically allows a model to not shoot at the same target because doing so would violate the coordinated firepower rules RAW. If you are pointing to Target Lock, that doesn't cut it because Target Lock overrides the basic rules for units and shooting in the BRB and Target Lock should not be able to override another Advanced rule in the same codex. The thing is, there IS an interaction somewhere between Target Lock and Concentrated Firepower and a violation of one of the rules, but how and where this occurs is up for debate.

Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.

 mortetvie wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

But the Concentrated Firepower rule says all units must shoot at the same, single, target and the word unit includes and refers to every model in said unit(s). Target Lock allows for a model to shoot at a separate target from the unit it is in, but the Concentrated Fire specifically deals with the resolution of the shots directed at the targeted unit. It doesn't make sense for a model shooting at a separate target to benefit from any special rules from the Concentrated Fire special rule or any other special rules from a model that is not in the same unit (e.g., buffmander that is in another unit).

So I ask again, how is the model shooting at a different target via Target Lock adding its firepower to the Concentrated Firepower attack? The obvious answer is it isn't therefore it should not benefit from it. I mean, are you really going to suggest that markerlight hits on one unit that all units from the Concentrated Firepower attack are using should extend to models that are shooting at a different target? If not, then neither should the models shooting at separate targets benefit from the special rules if the source of the special rules is not actually in the same unit.

You are committing a fallacy of division, assuming something that applies to part of it, applies to all of it.

Your assume that all models in the unit must shoot to count as a unit must shooting, but that simply isn't the case. Only at least one model must shoot at the designated unit for it to count. You argument means that if you can't fire with all models at the designated unit for whatever reason such as being out of range, mean that the unit as a whole can't fire, which is not the case.

No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.

Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.

If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.

here we essentially have an all units, including models, must shoot at the same target unless otherwise specified or allowed. My point is-what specifically allows a model to not shoot at the same target because doing so would violate the coordinated firepower rules RAW.

Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.

You seemed to have ignored my final point. How do you resolve this with your interpretation of the rules?

 mortetvie wrote:
No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere.

So does the entire Shooting Sequence. Yet, Target Locked Crisis Suits are still part of the unit, and can gain those same bonuses when using the TL. You have not provided any rule to support this claim that the word "unit" in this sentence means "all models" any more than at any other time.

 mortetvie wrote:
Either (1) Target Lock violates the Coordinated Firepower restriction and said model is unable to use Target Lock while the unit is participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack; or (2) Target Lock does not violate this restriction but the firing model does not gain the benefits of Coordinated Fire; or (3) Target Lock does not violate this restriction and the firing model gains the benefits of Coordinated Fire.

It's (3) since the word "model" is not used once in this Command Benefit.

 mortetvie wrote:
If we look at option (3), which you guys are arguing, then a model shooting at a separate target via Target Lock will also benefit from Markerlight hits on that different target even though the Markerlight hits were against a different target (the target of the Coordinated Firepower attack) because Coordinated Firepower says that the units all benefit from Markerlight abilities. That is an absurd result and therefore should not be the way to interpret the rule. If you are going to argue that option (3) but the Target Lock using model doesn't specifically benefit from Markerlight hits if it is targeting a target that has no Markerlight tokens on it, then you are acknowledging that this is because there are certain rules with certain restrictions that you cannot justify overcoming-much like how you should not be able to justify (from a logical perspective) a model to either (1) benefit from Target Lock while the unit is performing a Coordinated Firepower attack; or, (2) benefit from the Coordinated Firepower attack rule while using Target Lock.

Incorrect. Markerlights specifically state that "All models firing at the target of this shooting attack..." for Pinpoint. For Scour, it's, "All weapons fired at the target as part of this Shooting attack..."

So, no, models utilizing Target Lock will only benefit from the Markerlights used at the CA target, and only benefit from those used on their TL'd target.

The Hunter rules and the BS bonus from the Command Benefit, do not work that way.

 mortetvie wrote:
Also, Charistoph, the Coordinated Attack rule DOES care about models because units are made up of models-a fact you wantonly disregard. All units=all models in said units.

Not quite, as I've said before. But if it truly was all about the models, why is "model" not used like it is used in Markerlight rules?

There are times where an interaction is on a model level and on a unit level. You need to learn the difference, as this mostly affects ICs, but can affect the regular models in a unit, too. Coordinated Attack is on a unit level, Target Lock is on a model level.

Nilok, I did ignore your final point... Because you said I assume X when I do not do so and then you came up with an irrelevant scenario that misstates or mischaracterizes my point. Specifically, I maintain that, unless specifically stated otherwise, only models that CHOOSE to shoot at all must shoot at the same target and normal shooting restrictions such as range/los still apply so I don't see what your point really is about.

Charistoph, when something refers to a "unit" in 40k, it can just as well be said "every model forming the unit."

Everything is on a unit level, which defacto includes every model in any given unit that is referenced UNLESS specifically stated otherwise. Therefore, when one rule or set of rules talks about units, it includes every model in that unit unless specifically stated otherwise.

Here, you have a rule interaction that effectively says "every model participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack must shoot at the same target" and another rule that says "X model may shoot at a different target from its unit." The reason the rule says "unit" and not "model" is because it would be redundant since a reference to "unit" automatically includes and implies every model in the referenced "unit" unless specifically stated otherwise.

How to reconcile that in the most logical manner is the issue here.

so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Bojazz wrote:
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?

Actually, the rule does call out models for the +1bs part, but only that part

 mortetvie wrote:
Nilok, I did ignore your final point... Because you said I assume X when I do not do so and then you came up with an irrelevant scenario that misstates or mischaracterizes my point. Specifically, I maintain that, unless specifically stated otherwise, only models that CHOOSE to shoot at all must shoot at the same target and normal shooting restrictions such as range/los still apply so I don't see what your point really is about.

You choose to believe it was irrelevant, when it's purpose was to show how your interpretation causes more problems. When an interpretation of a rule can act in two different ways from the same wording, it does not pass the validity test as a sound interpretation.

You dance around the hard "must" you have based your argument around saying it does not apply to any other scenarios unless it follows your belief. It either applies in all accounts or none, never sometimes. If your argument is valid, both not shooting at the target with all models and having at least one model shoot at a different target would violate your "must" argument.

Until you rectify this, this is simply your HIWPI.

mortetvie wrote:Charistoph, when something refers to a "unit" in 40k, it can just as well be said "every model forming the unit."

Yes, and no. The game actually goes through many steps separating the concept of model and unit, and there are times when a model can be "differentiated" out from the unit because of one reason or another.

Let's take a look at the Shooting sequence. A unit is selected to Shoot. The unit selects a target. The unit selects a weapon to use. The models fire as they can, or as you choose. You roll To-Hit the unit. You roll To Wound the unit. When Wounds are allocated, they are on a model by model basis. When a model loses all its Wounds, the models is removed. Only when the last model is removed is the unit considered removed.

See the difference between the levels?

mortetvie wrote:Everything is on a unit level,

Now I know this is not true. There are so many rules that are only on the model level that it isn't funny. I have already demonstrated some, but let's look at a few USRs. Review Relentless, Furious Charge, Counter Attack, and Concussive. All of these affect only on a model by model basis.

There there are some interesting ones like Split Fire where if one model has it, any model can be chosen to to perform the Split Fire attack, but it is only that one model that will be firing at a separate target, not the unit.

mortetvie wrote:which defacto includes every model in any given unit that is referenced UNLESS specifically stated otherwise. Therefore, when one rule or set of rules talks about units, it includes every model in that unit unless specifically stated otherwise.

Guess what, Target Lock specifies, and that's something you seem to keep forgetting.

mortetvie wrote:Here, you have a rule interaction that effectively says "every model participating in a Coordinated Firepower attack must shoot at the same target" and another rule that says "X model may shoot at a different target from its unit." The reason the rule says "unit" and not "model" is because it would be redundant since a reference to "unit" automatically includes and implies every model in the referenced "unit" unless specifically stated otherwise.

How to reconcile that in the most logical manner is the issue here.

"The unit" is a level of organization that models are a part of, and under normal circumstances, the model would either fire or not at the target of the whole unit. Target Locks allow for the models to select a different target from the unit, but this does not exclude them from the unit when receiving general benefits (specific target benefits are a different story, of course).

jokerkd wrote:Actually, the rule does call out models for the +1bs part, but only that part

True, i did miss that part. But it says the models gain the buff if the unit fires at the target, not if the MODELS fire at the target.

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?

Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.

Bojazz wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?

Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.

Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?

Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.

Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).

It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.

To give you a hint, how do you remove models from a unit, and from where?

No... I am pointing out that where the word "unit" is used in Coordinated Firepower, or anywhere else in any rule, it always refers to every model in the unit (unless specifically stated otherwise) because that is how it works in the BRB and everywhere else. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that where Coordinated Firepower says "units must shoot at the same target" that it includes every single model in the participating units unless specified elsewhere. 

Do you really believe this? So if I score a unit on a hit with say a shooting attack I have scored a hit on each and every model in the unit?

To Score an Objective you believe each and every model in the unit must be within 3" of the objective. To be in range of an enemy unit I must be in range of each and every model in that unit?

So I think we both know you don't treat rules that reference the unit as automatically applying to each and every model as you yourself admit by not counting the models that choose not to shoot.

So the unit must shoot the target, this either means some one in the unit must shoot the target (this is consistent with how all other incidences of unit work) or each and every model in the unit must shoot (which then means each and every model including those without ranged weapons, out of range and precludes the possibility of a model choosing not to shoot). So which is it?

 Nilok wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
so would the relfected wounds from a tidewall field be reflected to a random model from any of the firing units using concentrated firepower? Because I'd love to see a hammerhead shoot his own commander.

Considering how wounds are only reflected from a Tidewall Field in an enemy shooting phase, and how Coordinated Firepower is ONLY in effect in the Tau player's shooting phase, I hardly see how this is possible or relevant? Care to elaborate?

Tau vs Tau. Coordinated firepower Tau fires at enemy Tau on the Tidewall. Shots are reflected back to the Coordinated Firepower Tau. That's how it's possible, and relevant.

Don't you think it is mighty presumptuous that anyone would be getting cover saves against Tau? But assuming one Tau player actually failed to negate a target's cover save that also happens to be behind a Tidewall, I don't know how that would work exactly nor am I certain what bearing it has on the present discussion =).

It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.

To give you a hint, how do you remove models from a unit, and from where?

Reflected tidewall wounds are allocated to a random model in the"attacking unit". If you've got 4 units firing as one with coordinated fire, could a reflected firewarrior attack be allocated to a buffmander in a broadside unit? The discussion is revolving around just how far coordinated fire goes in terms of making the firing unit a single unit. That is how this is relevant to the thread.

It depends on the timing of the tidewall rule. But assuming it is immediate then of course a shot from one model could be rabdomly deflected to a different model in the same unit. Not sure why you think it wouldn't?

 FlingitNow wrote:
It depends on the timing of the tidewall rule. But assuming it is immediate then of course a shot from one model could be rabdomly deflected to a different model in the same unit. Not sure why you think it wouldn't?

Not sure why you think I think it wouldn't? Was simply looking for confirmation and insight, since it is a new premise and I didn't want to miss anything.

 Nilok wrote:
It is a realistic circumstance, especially if the shooting Tau player mismanages his resources, or they are required elsewhere. Assuming a possible scenario wont happen is practically begging for it to blindside you.

To be fair, it may not be mismanaging his resources, just really crappy dice. If every Markerlight not in the Coordinated Attack Unit (and not including Networked) only produced 1 Markerlight Token because your dice have an obsession with 1 and 2, is that true mismanagement?

Of course, the mismanagement could be just applying all that firepower against a unit behind the tidewall instead of a target you don't need to worry about Cover reflections from.

The way I interpret it is this way:

A buffmander attached to three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 marker drones each with target locks are in a group preparing to fire on a group of carnifex. Next to it is a hive tyrant on the ground. Also participating in the coordinated fire are three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 gun drones each and three units of fire warriors. The buffmander does not fire, granting monster hunters. Everyone fires at the carnifex except the six crisis suits with middle pods shoot the hive tyrant. All the nids have cover. For simplicity sake we say that three markerdrones hit the carnifex. So everyone ignores his cover and gets +1 bs for a marker hit and +1 bs for coordinated fire. Squad A of crisis suits shooting at the hive tyrant with split fire would still get monster hunters because they are directly attached to the buffmander but squad B would not. And since only two squads were firing at the hive tyrant the crisis suits do not benefit from a higher BS score this turn even though their pods are shooting at the carnifex TECHNICALLY making them part of the overall coordinated fire, but not really because it wasent the designated group target.

At least that's as simple as I can say it sounds. I don't know makes perfect sense in my head.

 Orock wrote:
The way I interpret it is this way:

A buffmander attached to three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 marker drones each with target locks are in a group preparing to fire on a group of carnifex. Next to it is a hive tyrant on the ground. Also participating in the coordinated fire are three crisis suits with missile pods and 2 gun drones each and three units of fire warriors. The buffmander does not fire, granting monster hunters. Everyone fires at the carnifex except the six crisis suits with middle pods shoot the hive tyrant. All the nids have cover. For simplicity sake we say that three markerdrones hit the carnifex. So everyone ignores his cover and gets +1 bs for a marker hit and +1 bs for coordinated fire. Squad A of crisis suits shooting at the hive tyrant with Target Locks would still get monster hunters because they are directly attached to the buffmander but squad B would not. And since only two squads were firing at the hive tyrant the crisis suits do not benefit from a higher BS score this turn even though their pods are shooting at the carnifex TECHNICALLY making them part of the overall coordinated fire, but not really because it wasent the designated group target.

At least that's as simple as I can say it sounds. I don't know makes perfect sense in my head.

Not quite. First is that Target Locks do not grant Split Fire, but that's minor. Crisis Squad A would still qualify for BS +1 since they are part of the unit firing on the target. The rule grants +1 BS to the units combining fire, not just the models combining fire. The models receive the benefit because the bonus is based on the unit's interactions, and the models only have to be shooting. It doesn't necessarily state that they are firing on that target. But that's GW for you, they rarely consider half of the capacity of their rules when they right them.

Oh I meant to say the piece of wargear that grants split fire