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.

Thanks GD. Looks like they decided not to decide. Which is ok. We just need to lower the cost of the BG Stompa.

 FlingitNow wrote:
From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.

I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.

HandofMars wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.

I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.

Then make your own rules?

 Nilok wrote:

HandofMars wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
From an RaI stance it is not like GW don't know Tau can split their fire. It is literally one of their defining characteristics from their very first codex. It is also not like they don't know how to word things so that models splitting off shots don't get the benefits as they do that with Marker Lights. To be me this seems to be certain RaI.

I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything.

Then make your own rules?

That's what ends up happening in pretty much every tournament and 99% of pick-up games that run into unforeseen complications and GW just tells you to roll for it. Their design methodology changes every 6 months, and every book is written in an isolated bubble from everything else, ostensibly to maintain an iron curtain of security for some ridiculous reason or another. Assuming they don't know their head from their rectum is the more likely choice.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Then don't go to his events and tell him he has acted disgracefully and is ruining the fun for people attending his shoddy event and in future he should try reading the rules, before making calls on them. Point out his attitude stinks as much as Reecius'.

Or how about you act like an adult, and abide by the rulings of the particular venue, since you are taking advantage of their space to play? The only thing that's shoddy is your attitude.

Just curious,if special rules DO carry over, how would a pulse accelerator drone affect the maximum range of the pulse blaster? Would it just extend the maximum range of every "range band" that it has so that up to 5" for the S6 Ap 3 profile becomes up to 11"?

No, why would it do that? It would only increase max range by 6", as stated under "Pulse Accelerator" on pg 123 of the new Codex.

 mortetvie wrote:
Just curious,if special rules DO carry over, how would a pulse accelerator drone affect the maximum range of the pulse blaster? Would it just extend the maximum range of every "range band" that it has so that up to 5" for the S6 Ap 3 profile becomes up to 11"?

Why if? The accelerator drone would increase the maximum range of the weapon as its rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Or how about you act like an adult, and abide by the rulings of the particular venue, since you are taking advantage of their space to play? The only thing that's shoddy is your attitude.

It is not the ruling that makes his event shoddy but his attitude of claiming it is what the rules say when anyone who can actually read English could tell you it wasn't and refusing to discuss it.

If his attitude was "no we are playing like this because the rule is too powerful" that would be one thing. If his attitude was "No this what I believe the rules mean what evidence do you have to support your stance?" Again that would be illustrative of an adult attitude. But he's saying that is what he believes the rules say (which provides he hasn't even bothered reading the rule before making his judgement, or that he is completely clueless about the rules) and refusing to discuss it, that is the childish attitude. Along with comments like "I disagree. I am quite certain GW doesn't know anything."...

vitae_drinker wrote:
No, why would it do that? It would only increase max range by 6", as stated under "Pulse Accelerator" on pg 123 of the new Codex.

Take a read of this thread, it may be it does.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669567.page

Hmm, completly forgot about Coordinated Firepower.

I could see the argument going either way, actually.

Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.


Rules Lawyers please pick this apart.


Coordinated Fire (CF):
- A Unit (not a Model in a unit or Weapon on a model), declares or combines in to a CF attack.

Shooting
- Shooting is resolved per unit and must be completed by that unit before moving on.

Target Lock (TL)
- A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a DIFFERENT target to the rest of his unit.
- Target Lock rule specifically points out that a Model not a Unit can select a DIFFERENT target.

Gargantuan (GMC)
- When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a DIFFERENT target if desired.


Example #1: Crisis units with Target Locks
- Buffmander is part of 3+ crisis units declaring CF at a specific target.
- A model with a Target Lock from the buffmander unit, targets a different unit, thus not firing in the CF shooting, it never leaves the unit just not part of the CF unit shooting phase.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- The TL model can now resolve its shooting phase with it's original USR/Buffs like Twin-Link, Ignores Cover etc, but not +1BS from CF.
- Repeat per model with TL.

Example #2: Gargantuan shooting as part of CF unit
- Buffmander is part of 3+ units declaring CF at a specific target, one unit is a Storm Surge (single model).
- Storm Surge joins in and combines to the attack choosing one weapon.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- Storm Surge can now resolve its shooting phase per normal rules without CF for any other weapons.
- Repeat per weapon type.

Basically you must commit to 3+ units to get the benefit from Coordinated Fire. If you want the buffmander buffs detachment wide then commit all units that can shoot at the combined target. Since the CF rule only applies for the shooting phase of the combined units until its resolved thus units/models not firing are not included for any sharing of USR/Buffs or +1BS. Units not participating can of course start Coordinated Fire again with new USR/buffs as long as 3+ units that still can shoot combines.

I think this will be one of the choices in the upcoming ITC poll. I played one test game with the most permissive rules for small tau detachment (changed from my previous list of firebase cadre). My next game (tomorrow) will use these above. TBH. It didn't make much difference with broadsides except gaining Ignores cover as FSC already had tank hunter in its previous incarnation.

X078 wrote:
Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.


Rules Lawyers please pick this apart.


Coordinated Fire (CF):
- A Unit (not a Model in a unit or Weapon on a model), declares or combines in to a CF attack.

Shooting
- Shooting is resolved per unit and must be completed by that unit before moving on.

Target Lock (TL)
- A model with a Target Lock can shoot at a DIFFERENT target to the rest of his unit.
- Target Lock rule specifically points out that a Model not a Unit can select a DIFFERENT target.

Gargantuan (GMC)
- When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a DIFFERENT target if desired.


Example #1: Crisis units with Target Locks
- Buffmander is part of 3+ crisis units declaring CF at a specific target.
- A model with a Target Lock from the buffmander unit, targets a different unit, thus not firing in the CF shooting, it never leaves the unit just not part of the CF unit shooting phase.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- The TL model can now resolve its shooting phase with it's original USR/Buffs like Twin-Link, Ignores Cover etc, but not +1BS from CF.
- Repeat per model with TL.

Example #2: Gargantuan shooting as part of CF unit
- Buffmander is part of 3+ units declaring CF at a specific target, one unit is a Storm Surge (single model).
- Storm Surge joins in and combines to the attack choosing one weapon.
- The combined CF unit resolves shooting as if one unit, shares USR/buffs and firing models gets +1BS.
- CF Unit shooting phase is resolved, coordinate fire ended, USR/buffs +1BS is not shared/given anymore.
- Storm Surge can now resolve its shooting phase per normal rules without CF for any other weapons.
- Repeat per weapon type.

Basically you must commit to 3+ units to get the benefit from Coordinated Fire. If you want the buffmander buffs detachment wide then commit all units that can shoot at the combined target. Since the CF rule only applies for the shooting phase of the combined units until its resolved thus units/models not firing are not included for any sharing of USR/Buffs or +1BS. Units not participating can of course start Coordinated Fire again with new USR/buffs as long as 3+ units that still can shoot combines.

Am i mistaken , or d o you not chose who is shooting by thier weapon not by what the model has selected ?

X078 wrote:
Sharing of the USR (Buffmander etc) buffs via Coordinated Fire rule for any units that joins in is RAW clear. But the issue people seem to have is how far the sharing via Target Locks and GMC shooting can go. But I do believe the answer is in the existing rules for those two objects. I am often a proponent of the most powerful RAW interpretation possible, and the following take on the Coordinated Fire rule looks pretty solid both RAW and RAI.

You should always take the less powerful interpretation, as the most powerful frequently is the most unfun/makes you an asshat. However, in this case you are actually arguing for the reasonable interpretation. It makes sense that coordinated fire treats you as one unit while you resolve that attack. Once you finish the resolution of that attack, and start firing target locked models, you are no longer one unit under the coordinated fire rule.

I thought you chose the unit you would like to have fire. Then choose the target. Then choose the first weapon(s) to fire (if more than one weapon type or BS or other modifier to a particular weapon/model/unit).

Am i mistaken , or d o you not chose who is shooting by thier weapon not by what the model has selected ?

I believe it is: You nominate unit to shoot, then select target, then select weapon etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You should always take the less powerful interpretation, as the most powerful frequently is the most unfun/makes you an asshat. However, in this case you are actually arguing for the reasonable interpretation. It makes sense that coordinated fire treats you as one unit while you resolve that attack. Once you finish the resolution of that attack, and start firing target locked models, you are no longer one unit under the coordinated fire rule.

This interpretation is to me at least the most powerful with RAW backing. To me anything else looks like possibly wishful thinking without RAW support. But if anyone can find rules backing up another interpretation it would be interesting to see the arguments for them. So far I have not found anything else solid.

Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?

But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target

kambien wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?

But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target

Agreed, kambien. There are too many assumptions being made here.

Charistoph wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Here is the way I see it:
The first unit declared the target... other units may add their firepower on that unit. The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected. (All targets of shooting have to be declared at the same time).
It doesn't really make much of a difference in the end through... I can just make sure that my first unit that I declare shooting with is the one with Target Locks. That would limit to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?

But then target locks in any unit ( regardless if your using CF ) do nothing cause you say "The opportunity for other units to use their Target Locks has passed because the target unit has already been selected." and you must select a target for a unit before target locks target

Agreed, kambien. There are too many assumptions being made here.

Fine, let me break it down.

The first unit gets to pick a target, as part of the select target step of shooting. This could be multiple targets if the original unit has target locks or some other ability allowing it to select more than one target (gargantuan creature, etc). Other units then 'add their firepower'... it doesn't say that they go through the 'select target' step again. While they would technically gain the benefits of Target Lock, etc it has no effect because the targets have already been selected in the 'select target' step of shooting. The window has closed.
The tau player then selects which of the available weapons to shoot at which of the targets, and then completes that shooting...so on and so forth.
Two assumptions that I see:
#1. All the targets of the unit need to chosen at the same time. I feel justified in making this because we have seen this to be the case in other places. You can't blow up a transport, for example and then shoot at the unit within with the same unit.
#2. The targeting window closes before the other units are brought in. I don't have any examples of this in other cases... I believe that it is unique to this case. The closest is the idea of a unit with Target Locks joining in on a Supporting fire. No one argues that such a unit can choose a target other than the one charging. I believe that this is as close as we can get to a precedent, but it is a good one.
Finally, it doesn't break the game. It would limit the shooting somewhat (to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?) Provides a clear target for the opponent (clear the Crisis Suit team, and you limit the Tau damage potential in future turns). It doesn't hamstring Target Locks or Split Fire or Gargantuan Monstrous Creature shooting in other cases.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
The first unit gets to pick a target, as part of the select target step of shooting. This could be multiple targets if the original unit has target locks or some other ability allowing it to select more than one target (gargantuan creature, etc). Other units then 'add their firepower'... it doesn't say that they go through the 'select target' step again. While they would technically gain the benefits of Target Lock, etc it has no effect because the targets have already been selected in the 'select target' step of shooting. The window has closed.

See, Assumption #1: That all a Target Locks targets must be declared at the same time as the unit.

Reality: Target Lock determination is never defined in the codex, and multiple target selection is only defined for one rule.

Assumption #2: Coordinated Attack prevents Target Locks from having their target determined after the rest of the unit has their target by closing the targeting window.

Reality: As far as has been presented so far, this is never mentioned at any point of the rule.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Two assumptions that I see:
#1. All the targets of the unit need to chosen at the same time. I feel justified in making this because we have seen this to be the case in other places. You can't blow up a transport, for example and then shoot at the unit within with the same unit.

Only with Split Fire. Target Locks, Super-Heavies, and Power of the Machine Spirit carry no such restrictions.

All the Targets do not NEED to be chosen at the same time. You would just prefer it. The only time targets for multi-targeting units NEED to be chosen at the same time is when you have two of the same weapon name that you will be firing. The only reason this is a NEED, is because a unit cannot go back and choose to fire the same weapon a second time, even if a model has not chosen it.

You are also assuming that Target Lock targets cannot be declared at the same time. Targets need to be declared before selecting a Weapon, nothing else. There is literally nothing between there, except for maybe checking Range and LOS. Coordinated Attack does not state that selecting another unit to fire on the same target happens after selecting a Weapon. Targeting Window only comes closed with the "all of a unit's targets are declared first" approach when a Weapon is being declared to shoot.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
#2. The targeting window closes before the other units are brought in. I don't have any examples of this in other cases... I believe that it is unique to this case. The closest is the idea of a unit with Target Locks joining in on a Supporting fire. No one argues that such a unit can choose a target other than the one charging. I believe that this is as close as we can get to a precedent, but it is a good one.

Why is the targeting window closed any more than for when the unit is operating on its own?

Basic Shooting Sequence is:
1) Select a Unit to Shoot.
2) Choose a Target.
3) Select a Weapon.
4) Roll To-Hit.
5) Roll To-Wound.
6) Allocate Wounds.
7) Select Another Weapon or Another Unit.

At most, Coordinated Attack's Shooting Sequence is:
1) Select a Unit to Shoot.
1a) Select other units to join in.
2) Choose a Target.
3) Select a Weapon.
4) Roll To-Hit.
5) Roll To-Wound.
6) Allocate Wounds.
7) Select Another Weapon or Another Unit.

It may be that 1a is changed to 2a, but that is really no different than when the unit is operating solo. Until the Weapon is selected to fire, "Target Selection" is technically not closed.

As for the Charging thing, I was recently accused of trolling on another forum for suggesting the idea (and sticking to it) that a unit that Split Fired could not Charge the target the Split Firing model shot at. Target Locks are no different in this case, either. So, don't expect people to not argue against this concept.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Finally, it doesn't break the game. It would limit the shooting somewhat (to the max size of a Crisis Suit Team, right?) Provides a clear target for the opponent (clear the Crisis Suit team, and you limit the Tau damage potential in future turns). It doesn't hamstring Target Locks or Split Fire or Gargantuan Monstrous Creature shooting in other cases.

If it breaks a model's Wargear from doing what it is normally supposed to do, and without permission or orders to do so, it breaks the game.

Now, should a Target Locking model being able to initiate or participate in a Coordinated Attack? No, not really. It is operating on a model-level at this point, but it still remains a member of its unit.

Super-Heavies are a different story. They are unit whose weapons can fire at different targets, but is never separated out as a model action. So, a Stormsurge could participate in 2 Coordinated Attacks (or more if you ascribe to the GC can fire 3+ Weapons options), since all are Attacks from that one unit normally. However, keeping track of that would make my head hurt.

Super-Heavies are a different story. They are unit whose weapons can fire at different targets, but is never separated out as a model action. So, a Stormsurge could participate in 2 Coordinated Attacks (or more if you ascribe to the GC can fire 3+ Weapons options), since all are Attacks from that one unit normally. However, keeping track of that would make my head hurt.

Charistoph's interpretation is from what i can tell basically the same as mine. However i disagree on the Super-Heavy/GMC shooting (although it would be nice if possible, so prove me wrong). My basis for this is that the GMC rules say that a GMC can fire at a different target thus stating that a target has been selected before by this unit. And since you have declared a target before and you do so as a Unit (even if a single model only) then you cannot CF with remaining weapons since CF rules states it must join in as a unit.

I simplify it for myself by viewing a GMC as a Unit consisting of one Model (or more in case of Tau SS) where every weapon has a Target Lock. Still a Unit and even though each weapon can fire at a different target, weapons are not considered a Unit.

I'd Unsub'd because the issue is resolved, but w/o consensus. Although it is hard to believe that such a thing is possible, I'll get to that at the end. I came back because one of my mates informed me that someone pointed out that my reasoning was invalid and I had been called out for 'trolling'. When I went through the thread, I didn't see it. So it's either been removed, reported, or more likely, someone on my Ignore list. When I saw it was someone on my Ignore list, I tried to walk away. To be clear I'm not back because of that, I'm back because people agree with him which could mean that I haven't made my stance clear enough for them to make their own decision, or respect how I came about mine.

First, the rules:
To anyone who isn't a TO, a Tau Player, someone who doesn't against Tau often, or is just starting out with Tau, this thread gets confusing fast. There are 3 different discussions going on. 'Combined Firepower+Buffmander', 'Combined Firepower+Target Lock', and 'Combined Firepower+Markerlights'. I'm only interested in the 1st one. My initial posts were because I didn't understand the debate, didn't have access to the Tau Codex, and was just looking at what rules were involved. Then I did what everyone should do, and look at all the possible outcomes, which I did. However, once I got my hands on the Dex from my friend, I went back to not understanding why there is even a debate. Deliberate misapplication of the rule is what's causing the problem.

So I'm going to break it down: Only for those who care to know about how I've resolved it, not for any debate, I'm done!
This DOES still create a conflict though, one which honestly needs to be addressed.

So back to my 'Resolution w/o Consensus'.

It is completely possible to have a resolution w/o everyone agreeing, or even having a majority consensus. In 40k, this has been in effect for a few editions now. This is why most of us use YMDC, and it's core purpose. We have a place to come, listen to all sides of a debate, then make a decision based on what's been said. As far as this topic is concerned, we've already reached that point, until we get an FAQ clarifying it further.

A) Players are going to decide on their own, how they're going to play the rule, or allow the rule to be played. This applies to ALL of us, whether we're casual or competitive. For me, the answer is a definite 'No'. It's abusing the rule, and I'm done with playing games of 40k where my first inclination is to reach across the table and beat the )@#( out of the person who attempts it.
B) There are always going to be TFG players who will try and get away with it every opportunity they can, regardless of the type of game/venue/event being played. Nothing posted on forums will ever change that.
C) TO's are going to decide what's best for their event, regardless of what the rule says. I've seen a few slings at Reecius here, and no I haven't read his thoughts on it. It's not like on a forum, where everyone is trying to figure out how everyone should play the game. Regardless of whether I agree with him or his reasoning, I've never taken anything he has said or ruled as being applicable to anything outside of Frontlinegaming and the ITC. (I'm also not denying that those events, are a commentary on the state of 40k, just to be clear.) This also hasn't stopped players from trying to apply the ITC rulings, like DWeapons, and Invisibility to everyone who plays 40k.

Any good TO, is going to make a decision for what is best for both HIS event, and HIS players attending that event. As long as he his transparent about his decision making process, the only differences between what a TO is doing is that his decisions are going to CHANGE the way everyone plays 40k for that instance, and that rules ARE going to be changed. Advice is constantly given along the lines of 'If you're unsure, just ask your opponent/TO if it's okay?' before you play, then there is no issue, and people actually have a fun time.

D) As a result of that, it's the responsibility of any Player who wants to use a controversial rule, to ask. If he wants to play all units as a single unit, it's his duty to ask the TO if it's not already stated. It doesn't change for casual play either, it's the Tau players responsibilty to say 'Hey, I have this rule and I like to play it this way... is that going to bother you?' It's not my responsibility to ask every Tau player how they plan on playing this rule before a game begins. It's his. I'm the same way with my Necrons, or when I play Unbound. It's my responsibility to ask my opponent if it's okay that I put my Praetorians in a Nightscythe. The RAW here is that what I want to do isn't allowed, the reality is that most players/TO I've asked about it, hasn't had an issue with it. When it's been a 'No', I just play a different list or army.

Even with these resolutions, one truth will always remain the same, and that is people will still believe that their incorrect interpretations are fact, and push it on EVERYONE who questions this. Even de-railing threads that are clearly addressing a separate issue, to change it to their own discussion. It happens all the time, and often by the same people. (Admittedly, I'm kind of doing the same thing with just this bit, but I feel some players have forgotten that A-D, are still a part of how this game is played) This is outside the intent of YMDC, at least to me. Having more time to respond to every statement contrary to how they view it, without providing any actual basis, especially when points have shown the gaping hole in their application, is 'trolling' and it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with such a narrow minded person. These are the kind of players who are going to NOT say anything and bring it up in game/tournament because simply because it wasn't discussed. Since it wasn't discussed, then it somehow means it's allowed.

Unfortunately, they have as much right to be here as I do, and all we can do is hope that the 'reporting system' works. I know it's been used, as I'll get an odd 'you've been reported' notification about 1x a year, but still wonder why the 'brow beating' continues and they're still able to post. Luckily, we also have an ignore box, so we can choose individually who we feel is or isn't a troll, based on our own standards. I invite everyone to do the same, even if it means putting me on Ignore.

The hilarious thing is, that it won't stop those on ignore from responding even when they know they're on ignore. Which is my only frustration for posting here again. I'm here because of something one of those people posted, and not because of anything I said or did.

*****
If you actually read ALL of this, THANK YOU. Again, good luck to those who want to keep this going, but I've made my call, and YMDC has done it's job. Until we get an FAQ (which hasn't been done in a long time), there is no need for me to come back.

If you actually read ALL of this, THANK YOU.

I lost interest by the time you wrote "as if" doesn't actually mean what it means. Let's just agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

GW rules have been riddled with "as if" language for decades; this language is nothing new. Seeing as the gaming community and previous GW FAQs have traditionally treated the wording "as if" to mean treat it "as is" for specified conditions, I don't believe Aker interpretation to be accurate. If you treat a Hive Tyrant as if he were a IC when attached to a Tyrant Guard unit then you apply all rules relating to IC while the Hive Tyrant is attached (May not generally be targeted separately from its attached unit, May make LOS on a 2+, Unit may use it's leadership if higher, Ect.). If a model moves as if it is Jump Infantry, then you apply all the rules relating to jump infantry when the model moves (May move 12", May ignore Intervening Terrain, Treats difficult Terrain as Dangerous Terrain, ect.). Combined Fire says "resolve their shots as if they were a single unit". So you apply all rules relating to a single unit resolving their shot. If you do not apply the buffmander's twin-linked wargear ability to the combined units, then you did not resolve their shots as if they were a single unit. If you do not apply the pulse amplifiers extended range to all the models with pulse weapons in the combined units, then you did not resolve their shots as if they were a single unit.

She entered the room with an aura of authority about her, as if she were a queen. She was in fact a McDonald's cashier.

Alcibiades wrote:
She entered the room with an aura of authority about her, as if she were a queen. She was in fact a McDonald's cashier.

And guess what? Regardless if she was a queen or a McDonald's cashier, she STILL HAD AN AURA OF AUTHORITY ABOUT HER.

So your own little analogy backfires. Coordinated Fire units are shooting as if they were the same unit, meaning for the duration of shooting, they are considered the same unit.

The shots are resolved as if they came from one unit, not that they are the same unit.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
The shots are resolved as if they came from one unit, not that they are the same unit.

The only difference between the two is one is temporary, and the other permanent. There is no functional differences between the rules you listed besides that.

as far as i know shots can never be a unit.
further . if you do something. pretending any defined case is given.
then it does't matter for you if you just pretend thatthe case is given or if it's realy given. in both cases you do exacly the same thing

 _ghost_ wrote:
as far as i know shots can never be a unit.

That's a less effective way to way to read the rules.