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.

Yes. Buffmander works (as do other similar rules like marker lights for instance) and works for models using target locks too fire at a different target as long as at least one model from that unit fires at the designated target. This is proven RaW, most likely RaI and the rules team don't even know why it is a debate.

fine thx This is what i thought too

Buff commander is with a unit of 3 Stealth suits. 2 stealth suits, A and B, are armed with burst cannons, 1, Stealth suit C has a fusion blaster and target lock.

As per shooting, the buff commander and unit declare they are firing burst cannons at target A. Fire warrior unit 1 and 2, still able to fire this shooting phase declare to join in for coordinated fire power. This triggers +1bs, and buff commander rules to 2 stealth suits firing burst cannons, and fire warrior unit 1 and 2.

***This is the consensus it seems RAW***

Now rules as written. The buff commander and the stealth suits chooses another weapon to fire, fusion blaster. Stealth suit C who has the fusion blaster plus a target lock declares he shooting at a different target. This triggers coordinated fire power eligibility, and as fire warriors units 3 and 4 who have not fired this phase decide they will join in. Now the stealth suit C with fusion blaster and fire warriors 3 and 4 get plus 1 BS for the shooting phase.

a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.

B) Does buff commander suit still work for stealth suit C and fire warrior unit 3 and 4 ?

Please share logic and rules, do not simply go " i am right and therefore you are wrong". Or speak in absolution when its clearly not, regardless how hard you want to call a duck a dog, you still need to prove its a dog first.

Stealth Suit C is not a unit declaring a target, so it would not trigger another Coordinated Fire.

Buffmander would work for Suit C for his shots.

Hmm target lock says "shoot at different target than rest of his unit."

Rules for shooting is pick a weapon, pick a target. But the fact his unit has already declared a primary unit, he doesnt count as a unit targeting elsewhere?

Seems this would of been a lot easier if coordinated fire power was written as an enemy unit. Like whenever 3 or more units declare to shoot at TARGET A, all models firing weapons at target A get +1 Bs and count as a single unit for all special rules and abilities provided by any other model firing at the target A.

Tsilber wrote:
Hmm target lock says "shoot at different target than rest of his unit."

Rules for shooting is pick a weapon, pick a target. But the fact his unit has already declared a primary unit, he doesnt count as a unit targeting elsewhere?

Seems this would of been a lot easier if coordinated fire power was written as an enemy unit. Like whenever 3 or more units declare to shoot at TARGET A, all models firing weapons at target A get +1 Bs and count as a single unit for all special rules and abilities provided by any other model firing at the target A.

Could the Stealth Unit charge the unit that Suit C shot at ?

Agreed the rule could have been written better.

Fragile wrote:


Could the Stealth Unit charge the unit that Suit C shot at ?

Excellent point!

Tsilber wrote:
Buff commander is with a unit of 3 Stealth suits. 2 stealth suits, A and B, are armed with burst cannons, 1, Stealth suit C has a fusion blaster and target lock.

As per shooting, the buff commander and unit declare they are firing burst cannons at target A. Fire warrior unit 1 and 2, still able to fire this shooting phase declare to join in for coordinated fire power. This triggers +1bs, and buff commander rules to 2 stealth suits firing burst cannons, and fire warrior unit 1 and 2.

***This is the consensus it seems RAW***

Now rules as written. The buff commander and the stealth suits chooses another weapon to fire, fusion blaster. Stealth suit C who has the fusion blaster plus a target lock declares he shooting at a different target. This triggers coordinated fire power eligibility, and as fire warriors units 3 and 4 who have not fired this phase decide they will join in. Now the stealth suit C with fusion blaster and fire warriors 3 and 4 get plus 1 BS for the shooting phase.

Sounds mostly correct. Just some notes:

*Some of the Buff Commander's abilities will not be available if he fires his Burst Cannon, as they require him to not shoot.
*There is no definition as to the timing of when a Target Lock possessing model declares their target like Split Fire has, many require the targets to be declared before any shooting, but any version is a House Rule.
*Stealth Suit C would get the BS buff even if the other Fire Warriors never fired, as it is in the unit providing a Coordinated Attack and a firing model. There is nothing requiring the model fire at the same target. But you may have obliquely referenced that in your question a.

Answers:

Tsilber wrote:
a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.

There is nothing to forbid a unit from participating in 2 Coordinated Attacks in the Detachment's special rules. However, Target Lock does not operate like Power of the Machine Spirit or the Super-Heavy's multi-targeting. There are some schools of thought on if the Target Locking model is shooting on behalf of the unit or not, since it is the model that targets and shoots, and not specifically the unit.

Tsilber wrote:
B) Does buff commander suit still work for stealth suit C and fire warrior unit 3 and 4 ?

Stealth Suit C, yes. It is still part of the unit that received the benefit, there is no question on this. FW 3 & 4 are a different story, as none of the models involved in the shooting actually possess the rules to pass on to their "unit". This goes back to how you perceive Target Lock working.

If you believe that it is as much like Super-Heavy shooting and all shots from the unit are shooting attacks of the unit, than Stealth Suit C is just one gun of the Stealth Suit Unit firing at that target, and so all the unit rules would still apply to FW 3 & 4, just like FW 1 & 2. It would also mean that any unit with a Target Lock using model could have 2+ units to Charge.

However, if you are one who sees Target Lock's shooting as not just one more gun of the unit, but the model operating on its own, than even qualifying for the Coordinated Attack bonus comes in to question, as it does not fall under the 3+ units qualification, being 2 units and 1 model. Nor would the buffs benefit the "extended" unit. It would also mean that a unit with a Target Lock using model would not qualify.

There are many levels of interaction when it comes to 40K, some are army level (Reserves), some are unit level (targeting), and some are model level (Wound/Hit Allocation). The rules always reference some level of interaction. So, where do you and your group see Target Locks?

Do all units participating in 'Combined Fire' count as being in the Commanders unit when shooting?

As far as I can tell, the whole problem rests on the answer to this question. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Several comments are stating it as fact, and please don't re-state that here. I get that people on both sides of the fence feel that they have the facts. I see the argument on both sides still, and I've been trying to boil it all down. It's going to be a tough call for all TO's for sure.

Please, I only want to know if this is the heart of the debate.

 Akar wrote:
Do all units participating in 'Combined Fire' count as being in the Commanders unit when shooting?

As far as I can tell, the whole problem rests on the answer to this question. I haven't made up my mind about this yet. Several comments are stating it as fact, and please don't re-state that here. I get that people on both sides of the fence feel that they have the facts. I see the argument on both sides still, and I've been trying to boil it all down. It's going to be a tough call for all TO's for sure.

Please, I only want to know if this is the heart of the debate.

Pretty much that is what the basic question is, and that question is answered in the rule. Some are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

There are some other actual complications beyond that, but that involves the hinkiness of the Target Lock and the mismanagement of the Shooting Sequence rules in the first place, as pointed out by Tsilber's scenario.

But when not trying to bring in that scenario, it really is very simple.

Does the 'Combined Fire' rule tell us to combine the shots, or combine the units?

This is my next question.

I'm only interested in what the rule says, not interpretations or how far we have to stretch things. I'm not a Tau player, and don't have the dex. I've seen some quotes on the rules but have no idea how accurate they are. If any pages were linked, then I either missed them, or couldn't load them because of the filters. (I'm at work). I've read most of the responses and this seems to be what is talked about, and whether they're the same/different thing, or whether one can exist without the other.

I believe they CAN be exclusive which is what we need to determine next. In order to do that, we need to look at what we're actually instructed/being given permission to do, right? From here I only see 2 Outcomes. This is before we get into any of the other debates about Markerlights, Target Lock, etc come into play. So I'm not concerned about these yet either.

Outcome/Argument A
Does the rule just tell/permit us to combine the shots?
If this is what the rule says, then we don't have any permission to ever actually combine the units into one unit. We would only shoot all the same weapons from all of the participating the units at the same time. This is where the 'As if they were one unit?' part that I keep seeing in these debates comes into play?

If this is the case, then each of the units participating would keep their own rules when firing. This keeps things simple since Formations, like the Stealth Cadre, wouldn't pass their bonuses to units not in the formation. This complicates things because 2 units with the same weapons, but with different rules, would have to be resolved separately. A quick example would be that if one unit of Fire Warriors had 'Ignores Cover' or 'Tank Hunter', while the other unit of Fire Warriors participating did not. Not really hard to do in-game, but it does slow down the shooting phase.

Outcome/Argument B
Does the rule actually say to combine the units to shoot at the same target? This would mean that all the units actually do become one unit, and should be treated as such.

If this is the case, then I can see the complaint in general. It would mean all models participating would be a part of the Commanders unit, and fall under the rules for them that say 'Other members of HIS unit...'. It simplifies things by just looking at all the rules that any of the separate units have, and puts them all into a pot, and adds them to every model in there. It complicates things, because Formations rules would extend to models not intended to receive those bonuses. Or 'Mysterious Objective' bonuses like 'Targeting Relay' or ' Skyfire' would apply to units that aren't claiming, or even near objectives.

Again, I'm not concerned with which of these is right at this point, just what the rule actually gives us permission to do. I just did all this to sort out the outcomes of what the rule says for my sake, more than any others. Any help to get me to THIS point is appreciated.

Now that the codex has been officially release, posting pages is against the rules since they are no longer rumors. However, posting a specific rule for discussion is okay. If you don't feel comfortable with quotes, I recommend purchasing the book.

Coordinated Firepower wrote:Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent 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. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill

I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.

It tells us that the added units must fire at the same target as the first, that we resolve shots as if they were a single unit, and that markerlight abilities are an example of what they can do, which includes model and unit based rules.

Well what does "resolve shots" mean?

If it means simply "roll to hit," then marker lights apply (at least the +BS part) but things like Tank Hunter do not.

Alcibiades wrote:
Well what does "resolve shots" mean?

If it means simply "roll to hit," then marker lights apply (at least the +BS part) but things like Tank Hunter do not.

When Shots are referenced in the BRB, it runs the gambit from shooting, to wound allocation.

Precision Shots wrote:If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a shooting weapon, that shot is a 'Precision Shot'.

Post to hit, prior to wound.

Missile Lock wrote:If a model with this special rule is shooting a weapon that has both the One Use Only and Blast special rules, that shot will instead scatter D6" rather than 2D6".

Prior to hit.

Vortex wrote:For determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the center of the marker, in the same manner as a Barrage weapon.

Wound allocation occurs after Rolling to Wound.

The BRB refers to a "Shot" as anything relating to the steps found in The Shooting Sequence. Resolving a shot is to proceeds from rolling to hit, to allocating wounds and removing casualties.

Select Another Weapon wrote:After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.

This tells us that in order to resolve a shot, it must complete at least steps 3 through 6, which are selecting a weapon, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, and allocating wounds and removing causalities. Resolving shots quite simply, is to complete a shooting sequence for a unit.

 Nilok wrote:

Coordinated Firepower wrote:Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent 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. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill

I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.

Ignoring the Markerlight bit for now, I'm not seeing anywhere in this rule where we are ever told to combine the units, only their shots. We ARE told that they must shoot the same target, and that all the shots are treated as one unit, as underlined. I see nothing stating that the units are ever treated as a single entity, only their shots. Therefore any rules granted to a unit, by whatever means, remains a part of their respective units within the attack.

The benefits for doing so are that all the units get +1 BS, as long as 3+ units participate.

 Akar wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Coordinated Firepower wrote:Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent 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. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill

I've underlined the most important and contentious part of the rule.

Ignoring the Markerlight bit for now, I'm not seeing anywhere in this rule where we are ever told to combine the units, only their shots. We ARE told that they must shoot the same target, and that all the shots are treated as one unit, as underlined. I see nothing stating that the units are ever treated as a single entity, only their shots. Therefore any rules granted to a unit, by whatever means, remains a part of their respective units within the attack.

The benefits for doing so are that all the units get +1 BS, as long as 3+ units participate.

If we resolve their shots as a single unit, then all the rules those models provide would be provided in those shots. Melta would still work for the Fusion Guns, but not for the Pulse Rifles, and Tank Hunter is still "if one model in this unit has this special rule", allowing the "unit" to receive the benefits.

I don't think that was his point. I think he is trying to say the shots are treated as if from one unit, not that all the units are treated as one. Then again I may be wrong. That's just how I read his last post.

It says "as if they were a single unit" the they must refer to either the shots or the units. Shots can't form units and the rule becomes meaningless if you try to treat the shots as a unit (as opposed to coming from a single unit) thus this can not be the correct meaning. Therefore the "they" must refer to the units which are treat as one unit for the "resolving [of] their shots".

I have to admit, I am a bit surprised at how confused people seem to be about this rule. Reading through the various comments, questions, etc. it really appears that the biggest stumbling block is that folks tend not to understand how a variety of pre-existing rules and mechanics (unit-wide USRs, unit coherency, target lock, shooting resolution, etc.) function. Which is fine, if you're not regularly playing at a tournament or competitive level frankly I wouldn't expect everyone to know or get these rules right 100% of the time. The problem for most of us in this hobby is that we play with small/local groups and the rule of cool/fun does (and often should) take precedence over rule lawyering (aka being that guy.) often times many local scenes don't ever even see a number of races get played, hence gaps in the knowledge base.

I'm going to take a stab at explaining those mechanics below for everyone to ensure we're all on a stable ground when looking at the Combined Fire rule which is clearly giving so many people fits. Of course if you disagree, please feel free to respectfully say so, but I would point out that I've been playing for.. 23 years in and out of the competitive scene, with an emphasis on the 6th and 7th edition rule sets for competitive play - and I am fairly certain I've got these right.

Unit-Wide USRs:
USRs consist of all the special rules found in the BRB starting on (tiny edition) page 156. They also include codex and formation-specific rules. These are listed under unit descriptions and weapon profiles as "Special Rules" and often times will be formated with the name boldened then text and examples for them. Thankfully many codices since 6th edition have made a practice of putting an index of these in the back of the book.

USRs consist of four basic groups. Unit-wide, Unit specific, Model specific, or Wargear-specific. I won't get into the specific ones, but Unit-Wide USRs nearly always share one of the following phrase or something nearly the same as it: "A Unit containing at least one model with this special rule..." or "..if X all Y made by other models in his/her/their unit get/have Z.. " (In this case X is your condition, Y is your action, and Z is your rule change/modifier) If you see either of these phrase, you have a Unit-Wide rule. That would mean this rule is shared by all models within the unit, so long as the source of that special rule exists within that unit and/or condition X has been met. So if you are taking an action as a unit (or as-if a unit) be it movement or shooting or assaulting or moral checks, etc. you look at any unit-wide USRs that are relevant sourced from within that Unit and you apply them at that time. Some examples for the former are Stubborn, Tank Hunter, Scouting. And examples for the Later tend to show up in codex specific moments like the Buffmander's gear.

Unit Coherency:
This popped up because of Reecius' op-ed thing in BoLs and on Frontline. But it really isn't relevant at all to the discussion of Combined Fire. It may once have in editions gone past (Second edition for instance had very different rules regarding unit coherency) but in 7th edition Unit Coherency matters during The Movement Phase, and only in extremely rare circumstances can it (or will it) ever impact the shooting phase. Essentially, a unit must attempt, during its move, to maintain coherency of 2". You can not knowingly choose to place them out of coherency when they otherwise could have been in coherency. It IS entirely possible for a unit to end up out of coherency due to losses during that phase or in later phases however. For instance, jet bikes moving through dangerous terrain could kill the center of a line of jet bikes during the move. During your own shooting phase a gets hot result could kill the guy in the center of your coherency. etc. All that happens is that, should coherency be lost, in your next movement phase your move must make every effort to return them to coherency. In the super rare event that it isn't possible (the entire center of a massive blob got cut down for instance or you roll abysmally for a unit spread out in difficult terrain) You are then forced to sacrifice your next shooting phase in that turn to run the unit into coherency or as close as you can get it. Note, this forced run takes place in the game turn after coherency was actually broken. You don't lose your shooting phase in the game turn you moved your unit up, and poor bob stepped on a land mine or crashed his jet bike into a lemonade stand. So there's no argument for losing your shooting phase in the shooting-instance that is created by this Combined Fire rule. Coherency wouldn't effect the shooting phase until after the next movement phase, by which time you are no longer treating them as a single unit. Hopefully that clears this up for anyone still hung up about coherency.

Target Locks:
I see this come up a lot. The problem is the Tau have Target Locks, which is similar but not the same as "Split Fire". Different rules and all that. So non-Tau players often don't quite get the rule right. A target lock simply allows the model that has the wargear to choose a different target from their unit during the declaration of a shooting attack and resolve their shoots against that separate target. This is different from the Split Fire rule in that you are not limited to a single model within the unit making use of the mechanic. You're only limited by how many models have target locks. Also, it should be noted that Split Fire specifically requires you to resolve the split fire shooting before the rest of the unit's shooting. That is not the case with Target Locks, you can resolve them in any order you like as it is not specified to you. You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved. Note that Unit-wide USRs will always work for models within that unit, regardless of their target choices. Hence the always popular buffmander in a block of crisis suits. It is important to realize though that markerlights consumed on one target to boost ballistic skill or remove cover will not provide those benefits to shots fired at a different target by the same unit. Also note that a common FAQ/addition to the rules for Target Locks is that they may not be used during overwatch instances of the shooting phase in order to target a unit other than the declared charger.

Shooting Resolution:
I notice one person ask what it meant to resolve shots. As if this was in some way different from any other shooting. All it means is to refer to the steps that define an action of shooting on page 30 in the little version of the BRB (first page of the shooting section) These steps are relevant for any action of shooting you will ever make. Sometimes a step is skipped (such as rolling to hit with flame templates) but these changes are always defined by the wargear or USRs that dictate the changes.

Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAW look at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments.

House Rule for Tau Combined Fire Rule:
Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent 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. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill. Any shooting which is not resolved against the declared target of the combined fire action via Target Lock or Giant Monsterous Creature rules will not benefit from the potential +1 Ballistic Skill, and may only benefit from USRs contained within its native unit.

The addition to the rule is italicized. This is a more "friendly" version of the rule if you and your mates are worried about balance within the game. But understand - it is just that. A House Rule. RAW there is no such restriction on the passage of benefits based on USRs since they resolve the shooting as if a single unit.

Hopefully this helps the discussion a bit. Sorry for the length!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

Answers:

Tsilber wrote:
a) Thoughts? can a single unit participate in 2 coordinated fire scenarios? We know it cant get +2 BS as the rules states it is +1 BS per firing model.

There is nothing to forbid a unit from participating in 2 Coordinated Attacks in the Detachment's special rules. However, Target Lock does not operate like Power of the Machine Spirit or the Super-Heavy's multi-targeting. There are some schools of thought on if the Target Locking model is shooting on behalf of the unit or not, since it is the model that targets and shoots, and not specifically the unit.

This is another great question, and I see how it comes up. But it is important to understand that you cannot ever "chain" Coordinated Attacks. via Target Locks. This is because of the order of operations for a shooting attack, and because of the specific wording of the Target Lock gear. Coordinated Firepower is invoked upon a unit (important to remember this is at the unit level, not the model level) selecting a target in the shooting phase. This is step 2 of the shooting phase. Target locks are used at this point as well by individual models within the unit (or unit[s] participating in the Coordinated Firepower influenced shooting action) to allow those models within the unit to resolve their shooting as follows: " Can shoot at a different target than his unit" Note that this is just at the model level, the unit never gets an additional target. So overall you still have only a single Target at the unit level, and Coordinated Firepower is invoked based on a unit target. Not a model target.

Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.

Hope that helps resolve any confusion on this one! Smart question though.

GreyDragoon wrote:
You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved.

Not quite accurate. There is no rule defining when a Target Lock model selects their alternate target any more than the multiple targets of a Super-Heavy (and GMC). The Shooting Sequence only allows for a target to be selected in step 2, not targets plural.

However, a good sportsman will declare them all at the beginning to avoid shenanigans, as you mentioned.

For readers: also keep in mind as well, that if all models are armed the same way and intend to all shoot the same with target locks, those targets would have to be announced together, as the firing of one weapon in the unit would prevent that weapon being selected on another model in another round of shooting from that unit. In other words, a Stealth Suit with Burst Cannon and Target Lock would have to resolve their target fire at the same time as any other Stealth Suits with Burst Cannons and without Target Locks, otherwise not shoot at all.

GreyDragoon wrote:
Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.

The difference between Super-Heavies (including GMCs) and Target Locks/Split Fire, is that it is not necessarily a model action, and there is nothing to define a "unit" target or "primary" target with them. All targets are "unit" targets for a Super-Heavy.

Here we see the faulty editing on the part of GW, and the apparent last ditch inclusion of the new Shooting Sequence. The new Shooting Sequence does not take in to account multiple targets of a shooting unit. And with the exception of Split Fire, no rules which allow multiple targeting inform us on how to resolve them properly in context with the new system. Super-Heavies are not required to have an "initial unit-level" target. Their rules do not separate out the models as providing different targeting points. In so doing, any target of the StormSurge can qualify as being the subject of a Coordinated Attack. If you are planning on doing so, it would be easier to have the Stormsurge initiate it, to minimize complications and shenanigans.

Charistoph wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
You still need to declare all of the targeting choices during the target declaration phase of shooting, so there aren't any shenanigans you can do with Target Locks to hit units disembarked by other shooting within your own unit, etc. Targets are declared in step 2 of a shooting action, well before any shots are resolved.

Not quite accurate. There is no rule defining when a Target Lock model selects their alternate target any more than the multiple targets of a Super-Heavy (and GMC). The Shooting Sequence only allows for a target to be selected in step 2, not targets plural.

However, a good sportsman will declare them all at the beginning to avoid shenanigans, as you mentioned.

For readers: also keep in mind as well, that if all models are armed the same way and intend to all shoot the same with target locks, those targets would have to be announced together, as the firing of one weapon in the unit would prevent that weapon being selected on another model in another round of shooting from that unit. In other words, a Stealth Suit with Burst Cannon and Target Lock would have to resolve their target fire at the same time as any other Stealth Suits with Burst Cannons and without Target Locks, otherwise not shoot at all.

Resolution is the users choice (order of resolution) but they absolutely do need to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice. I would be shocked not to see a person get reprimanded for repeatedly doing that in a tournament scenario. Good call on the fact the same weapon type/name they must resolve at the same time point though during resolution, hence if they do toss dice for some of them without declaring how the split is going ahead of time - they simply are screwed and can't use them against another target later in that shooting phase/resolution.

Charistoph wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
Where this gets.. more confusing actually is the GMC rules since they may fire any number of weapons at a different target as desired. What is left unsaid is that as part of the shooting action itself, the Unit of GMC (be it a single one or multiple GMCs within the units) had to declare an initial target. That is still the unit's "target". It is unfortunately a little more confusing than the target lock rule since it invokes the word target again. But as part of the Shooting action you still had to declare an initial Unit-level target. That will be the one that the Coordinated Firepower rule resolves itself against. The rest of the weapons on the big guy may be thrown at other targets, but that is determined at the model/wargear level as opposed to at the unit level.

The difference between Super-Heavies (including GMCs) and Target Locks/Split Fire, is that it is not necessarily a model action, and there is nothing to define a "unit" target or "primary" target with them. All targets are "unit" targets for a Super-Heavy.

Here we see the faulty editing on the part of GW, and the apparent last ditch inclusion of the new Shooting Sequence. The new Shooting Sequence does not take in to account multiple targets of a shooting unit. And with the exception of Split Fire, no rules which allow multiple targeting inform us on how to resolve them properly in context with the new system. Super-Heavies are not required to have an "initial unit-level" target. Their rules do not separate out the models as providing different targeting points. In so doing, any target of the StormSurge can qualify as being the subject of a Coordinated Attack. If you are planning on doing so, it would be easier to have the Stormsurge initiate it, to minimize complications and shenanigans.

I'd argue that Super Heavy users (and GMCs) still are declaring a primary or starting target to begin the shooting sequence. Totally agreed that they can charge anything they shoot at as a "target" due to the writing for their rules. So if you have a unit of Stormsurges or a Tau'Nar joining in on another unit's combined fire, they still need to place their primary target on that target. They can then throw the rest of their weapons anywhere they want. But since we're already in resolution of the first shooting action I don't believe you can start another full shooting action on the side with a new primary target. The implications would be god awfully complicated and could lead to the daisy chaining of combined fire, which I think is definitely a no-go.

I get where you're coming from Charistoph, certainly. I'm just wondering if you're advocating that say, a unit of 2 storm surges fires at a total of 6 targets. Do you believe they can at the unit target declaration phase then declare 6 simultaneous combined firing instances, each of which has the same core storm surge unit involved? I believe you have to declare the unit target up front, then you're choosing the targets of the other weapon systems at the same point after that fact, must as you might normally choose the target lock targets.

GreyDragoon wrote:
Resolution is the users choice (order of resolution) but they absolutely do need to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice. I would be shocked not to see a person get reprimanded for repeatedly doing that in a tournament scenario.

Simply stating that there are no official rulebook rules regarding this situation. Going by the BRB, they do not NEED to declare the division of their shots before tossing any dice (aside from dividing fire from the same Weapon Group). There is simply zero rules governing this. House Rules are not covered by the rulebook rules, and are determined by the House. Unfortunately, we are so diverse a group here, we cannot be a good "House".

GreyDragoon wrote:
Good call on the fact the same weapon type/name they must resolve at the same time point though during resolution, hence if they do toss dice for some of them without declaring how the split is going ahead of time - they simply are screwed and can't use them against another target later in that shooting phase/resolution.

Thank you. Much like Ordnance, if you do not think things through, you could end up screwing yourself, even if other rules would offer an easy way. Technically speaking, even Super-Heavies are constrained by this rule.

GreyDragoon wrote:
I'd argue that Super Heavy users (and GMCs) still are declaring a primary or starting target to begin the shooting sequence. Totally agreed that they can charge anything they shoot at as a "target" due to the writing for their rules. So if you have a unit of Stormsurges or a Tau'Nar joining in on another unit's combined fire, they still need to place their primary target on that target. They can then throw the rest of their weapons anywhere they want. But since we're already in resolution of the first shooting action I don't believe you can start another full shooting action on the side with a new primary target. The implications would be god awfully complicated and could lead to the daisy chaining of combined fire, which I think is definitely a no-go.

Argue all you like. The simple fact is that the rulebook simply does not cover it, nor is it even as close as definable as the situation with Target Locks and Split Fire. At least with Target Locks and Split Fire, it is defined as the model operating the shooting. But for Super-Heavies, much like Power of the Machine Spirit, it is on a weapon basis, and from single model units, to boot.

As far as I know, the only situation where a Super-Heavy is firing as more than one model is during Coordinated Attack (I admit, I could be wrong, I am not familiar with most IAs nor Apocalypse Formations), and that rule does not specifically address it.

Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAWlook at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments. 

I always find it odd people feel the need to try to balance rules like this. As you say the rule is actually very clear and the most likely RaI matches the RaW (it is not like GW arent aware Tau can split their fire).

I think we all agree that the Wraithknight is around 100 points undercosted yet I've never once seen a rules discussion onn whether the WK is 395 or 295 points nor have I even heard that suggested as a Tournament FAQ option. Yes we can deal with Wraithknights I guess we'll learn to deal with this (which still has no real incodex answer to the invisistar) so I have no idea why you'd jump all over this one rule that yes puts Tau into the top tier bracket along with all the other decurion style codexes...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Final thoughts: Personally, I feel the rules for Combined Fire are actually very clear cut, the real issue is that it gives rise to some real questions of balance within the game. With proper list building and a purely RAWlook at Combined Fire with no question of house rules or rebalancing, it can be one hell of a game changer - in much the same way the Invisibility rules have given rise to an entirely new meta, or the expansion of D weapons or Lords of War have changed the map. I would suggest - until a proper FAQ comes out (which will likely never happen knowing GW. Look at Invisibility.) to potentially rebalance this rule - that we either work within the larger tournament rule sets (ITC/NOVA/ETC) or you house rule it. Below I've given my suggestion for a house rule that leaves the power in this but at least gets rid of its most balance breaking issues with target locks and GMCs. Again, it's nothing more than a house rule, but I'd say it balances as best you can without really butchering this rule or other existing rules and you may want to use this at your FLGS or group until one of the larger tournament FAQs decides to make a rule for this that you'll see in a wide variety of tournaments. 

I always find it odd people feel the need to try to balance rules like this. As you say the rule is actually very clear and the most likely RaI matches the RaW (it is not like GW arent aware Tau can split their fire).

I think we all agree that the Wraithknight is around 100 points undercosted yet I've never once seen a rules discussion onn whether the WK is 395 or 295 points nor have I even heard that suggested as a Tournament FAQ option. Yes we can deal with Wraithknights I guess we'll learn to deal with this (which still has no real incodex answer to the invisistar) so I have no idea why you'd jump all over this one rule that yes puts Tau into the top tier bracket along with all the other decurion style codexes...

Don't get me wrong at all. I think it's very clear and honestly, I play competitive Tau so I love it. But I realize that if we're talking local friendly games this rule is pretty enormous. I only suggested the house rule for those that want a way to par it back a bit and play matches with folks that might want to play with you again after the game

Re: CharistophMade, I will whole heartedly agree that what's missing in the shooting rules (to catch up to target locks, GMCs, and Super Heavies) is some more clarity about where in the shooting resolution those specific targeting decisions happen. I would just say that for sanity's sake, since targeting is step two for the unit, that model and split/GMC/etc. has really its best/only home there. There isn't any other mention of where targeting even would happen in the BRB.

Combined Fire should be played RAW until enough testing against competitive builds has been done to assess it's true power (and not the power level people are guesstimating).

If Hunter Contigent builds simply wind up being top tier but still beatable then it's an easy RAI argument to make that GW endorses RAW. It just published another strong codex along the lines of SM, Necrons, and Eldar.

It's only if Hunter Contigent builds wind up being god tier, does the community need to step in and house rule something that makes 40k more balanced.


Has anyone actually done any testing of how OP the Hunter Contigent actually is, or are people still just running around like Chicken Little proclaiming Combined Fire just broke 40k?

col_impact wrote:
Combined Fire should be played RAW until enough testing against competitive builds has been done to assess it's true power (and not the power level people are guesstimating).

If Hunter Contigent builds simply wind up being top tier but still beatable then it's an easy RAI argument to make that GW endorses RAW. It just published another strong codex along the lines of SM, Necrons, and Eldar.

It's only if Hunter Contigent builds wind up being god tier, does the community need to step in and house rule something that makes 40k more balanced.


Has anyone actually done any testing of how OP the Hunter Contigent actually is, or are people still just running around like Chicken Little proclaiming Combined Fire just broke 40k?

Agreed. And yeah we've been testing it (used 'Tides as placeholders for stormsurges) vs a fairly wide variety of competitive builds. Although certainly not all, It's only been a week and we do have lives It's MUCH more competitive than the standard lists, but I will admit freely that the old tau regular cad lists also got better by access to storm surges, the new formations (not doing Cadre) and new 3 model unit sizes for Riptides. And to a lesser degree the vehicles. The only real threat to it TENDS to be the assault from reserve list but unless you blow it on your dice it's actually still pretty hard to get that assault in without losing a ton of your guys. I've been finding mixing one Surge with the big gun and one with the little one as a pair tends to be pretty great. They of course get interceptor and shielding for both, and the one with the blaster gets velocity tracker. It's a very potent combo with the cadre rules behind it and at least one consistent source of markerlights.

I have my resolution and it's very clear to me, so thank you to those who helped.

For those that care to read, here's how I've resolved it and 'Made the Call', until I see otherwise.
*****
So now that's out of the way, the Markerlight issue is easily addressed.
*****
The 'Target Lock' debate also clears itself right up, imo.
*****
As above, the decision is clear to me, which is what YMDC is about right? Present the arguments, then allow players to decide? TO's are going to make up their mind based on whatever need they seem fit. Reecius made his decision based on what he feels he needed to do, I certainly don't fault him for it, even if I disagree/agree with how he came to that or the end result. It's not going to stop people who agree from attending, and it's going to keep those who disagree out for those who would ruin the event. Meh.

I wish best of luck to those that continue the discussion further!

Akar did you actually read the arguments? Or was that a troll attempt? Because the rule is actually very clear and has been extensively explained to say the exact opposite of what you claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think you need yo go to the rulebook and read what makes up units (hint it isn't shots as you are claiming, you may never have a unit made up of shots).

@Akar: I am afraid Flingit is correct, but as normal, his delivery is a little... abrupt.

@Akar and thread: Could someone direct me to the thread where Reecius "Made up his mind"? This will be how most West Coast players play. Link please?

Hey Doktor,

So here is what people are referring to when they say he made up his mind. Feel free to see what you think about it.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/27/the-curious-case-of-buffmander-and-his-merry-band/

I wouldn't say the blowback necessarily, but rather the ongoing churn/dispute it looks like has caused him to decide that an FAQ Rule vote is going to be necessary, so look forward to that in the next community vote that happens. He goes over what is likely to happen on that front at 52 Minutes in.

http://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv/v/24311532