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.

In case you haven't been paying attention: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/10/27/the-curious-case-of-buffmander-and-his-merry-band/

Reecius from Frontline Gaming weighs in on the Tau Hunter Contingent. The jist of it is that because of the way that the Combined Fire rule is worded, his interpretation is that the only special rules that can be shared are the +1 BS and Markerlights. Therefore, a Buffmander would only give his special rules to the unit that he had joined, not every unit that uses the Combined Fire special rule. Though not yet official, we can expect this to be incorporated into the ITC FAQ for Tau.

Honestly, I agree with this ruling. This prevents Tau from being completely overpowered with the Hunter Contingent and avoids further rules complications.

What are your thoughts about how the ITC will handle the new Tau?

There's also a YMDC thread on it.

We'll have to wait and see if GW FAQ it, hah!!

I'm undecided on it. On one hand, I enjoy my deathstars, on the other it's against RAW.

EDIT: Turns out there was a follow up to it.

I really doubt GW will FAQ it, that no longer seems like their thing.

Frozocrone wrote:There's also a YMDC thread on it.

We'll have to wait and see if GW FAQ it, hah!!

I'm undecided on it. On one hand, I enjoy my deathstars, on the other it's against RAW.

EDIT: Turns out there was a follow up to it.

This isn't so much about the rules conundrum itself, just what kind of effect this ruling will have. Again, I feel that the change to Combined Fire is better for the game, as it prevents Tau from having a one-click answer to most deathstars and the ability to severely hurt MSU due to Target Locks. The "clarification" is from the GW White Dwarf team, and we all know how reliable those are.

oz of the north wrote:I really doubt GW will FAQ it, that no longer seems like their thing.

Even if GW does FAQ it to allow for Tau to benefit from all the Buffmander rules in Combined Fire, I can see the ITC keeping Reecius's interpretation. After all, the ITC has shown they are more than willing to go against RAW if they feel it's for the good of the game.

The way me and my group have been running it is that only the group the buffmander actually targets grants the abilities to combined fire. Yes, we know he doesn't actually shoot, and that you could have 9 crisis suits all with target locks targeting 9 different things, but we just say he has to designate a target himself that apply the buffs when shot at. Now if he still has 9 crisis suits with target locks THEY get the buffs for their targets, but the fire warriors sitting next to them wouldn't get them unless they target the buffmanders dedicated unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its still just as deadly against super death stars where everyone might be shooting that anyway but less broken against say 6 different rhinos where you could spread the love.

I'm in the boat where the more sensible way to read the rule is correct. It would be ridiculous otherwise and the game doesn't need any more of that really.

I'm ok with whatever decision they make, but only if they playtest the new Tau to exhaustion. Just reading the rules and saying "this is how ITC will be now for Tau and we're done with it" isn't the best way to decide this.

Continuation of that discussion here. GW is planning to FAQ it at some point. It's soon going to go to a vote to see how they want the rule to work in the ITC since it seems that was indeed how the rule was meant to work (stacking of buffs).

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/04/gw-to-faq-the-tau-coordinated-firepower-conundrum/

 Gamgee wrote:
Continuation of that discussion here. GW is planning to FAQ it at some point. It's soon going to go to a vote to see how they want the rule to work in the ITC since it seems that was indeed how the rule was meant to work (stacking of buffs).

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/04/gw-to-faq-the-tau-coordinated-firepower-conundrum/

What a terrible article. He thinks Skyfire can be shared. I made that mistake when Coordinated Firepower was just shown to us

And in no pat of the e-mail is said they'll FAQ it. They're going to FAQ GMC shooting.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
Continuation of that discussion here. GW is planning to FAQ it at some point. It's soon going to go to a vote to see how they want the rule to work in the ITC since it seems that was indeed how the rule was meant to work (stacking of buffs).

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/11/04/gw-to-faq-the-tau-coordinated-firepower-conundrum/

What a terrible article. He thinks Skyfire can be shared. I made that mistake when Coordinated Firepower was just shown to us

And in no pat of the e-mail is said they'll FAQ it. They're going to FAQ GMC shooting.

There is a reason I did not link to that article in the OP; the GW email is laughable, and shows how little queries to GW can be trusted.

You can make the case that RAI the special rules apply to every unit using Coordinated Fire. You can also argue that RAI 2+ re-rollable saves and 1+ Feel No Pain are supposed to be in the game as well; it's just in those cases RAI lines up with RAW. That hasn't stopped the ITC from re-writing the rules before in those cases to prevent certain things fro being colossally overpowered.

At least the ITC is putting it to a vote instead of making a blanket ruling. I certainly know which way I'll be voting.

Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Ok, so... If the buffs aren't shared, why would I want to use Coordinated Firepower?

I mean, clearly I would want to use it if I made a point of building that formation.

Is the ability to pool markerlights really more useful than using the points I'd save here and there to have another marker drone unit either cascading marker light hits or hitting a different target?

Is committing multiple units to one target with all the risks of overkilling to the point I've effectively wasted a unit's shooting preferable in any way?

To your opponent it's preferable

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Off course, seeing as it isn't YOUR army. Voting against a ruling just because you don't want another army to have it, even though as written and as intended USR should be shared, is just wrong.

Hey, it's tau. If it isn't one of my six armies, I'm good. My imperial Knights, grey Knights, inquisition, militarum Tempestus, skitarii, and cult mechanicus are just fine. The "tau" however, already have their players trying to do things like illegally deploy a stormsurge on a tide wall and anchor it but move the wall and what not. Instant loss of respect for the tau due to all these rules being in question, and tau players wanting it to be the better of two options. I'll do my part in nerfing whatever I can. This has been your anti tau public service announcement. If you know a tau player near you, nerf them. Thank you and good night

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Hey, it's tau. If it isn't one of my six armies, I'm good. My imperial Knights, grey Knights, inquisition, militarum Tempestus, skitarii, and cult mechanicus are just fine. The "tau" however, already have their players trying to do things like illegally deploy a stormsurge on a tide wall and anchor it but move the wall and what not. Instant loss of respect for the tau due to all these rules being in question, and tau players wanting it to be the better of two options. I'll do my part in nerfing whatever I can. This has been your anti tau public service announcement. If you know a tau player near you, nerf them. Thank you and good night

You are whats wrong with the game. It's selfish and childish.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Off course, seeing as it isn't YOUR army. Voting against a ruling just because you don't want another army to have it, even though as written and as intended USR should be shared, is just wrong.

The thing ism the RAW is debatable and the RAI just makes Tau as overpowered as Gladius or Centstar.

The solution to balance problems is to tone down the worst offenders, not elevate new armies to the heights of overpoweredness.

I don't play Tau, but I will be voting against rules stacking in the Hunter contingent because I think it would be better for the game, not because I hate Tau.

So someone said something about skyfire? thats model by model so no way.

As far as the way the sharing rule is written I really feel that it is RAW and RAI as being able to share USRs, AND here's why. if you decide to shoot the 3 squads, you would combine individually, in a lot of cases you would probably do damage you are looking for with 2 of those squads(especially with decent marker support), Adding a 3rd unit and having it fire ends up being a tax you pay for the added benefit of for sure being able to kill it when you decide to waste a whole extra units worth of shooting on a unit. I also be we'll see a lot less USR sharing over 3 units as over just 2.

Now, I am a tau player but not a buffmander user, i cant get over feeling so wasteful of bs 5 shooting. Plus im a Mark'O whore, and not including the Mark'O I rarely fire more than 2 squads at any 1 unit.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

There is a reason I did not link to that article in the OP; the GW email is laughable, and shows how little queries to GW can be trusted.

You mistunderstood me. I pointed out that Reecius made a mistake believing GW will FAQ Coordinate Firepower anytime soon; the e-mail said they're gonna FAQ GMC shooting, because that one was too ambiguous.

The e-mail itself isn't laughable at all - it shows us (because the WD person answering went to the RULES TEAM and it gave its answer about the matter) that RAW and RAI is that Coordinate Firepower shares special rules. It's not a FAQ and each group can take it as truth or no, but GW's position is clear on this. They messed up with the Target Lock interaction, but that's minor.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

There is a reason I did not link to that article in the OP; the GW email is laughable, and shows how little queries to GW can be trusted.

You mistunderstood me. I pointed out that Reecius made a mistake believing GW will FAQ Coordinate Firepower anytime soon; the e-mail said they're gonna FAQ GMC shooting, because that one was too ambiguous.

The e-mail itself isn't laughable at all - it shows us (because the WD person answering went to the RULES TEAM and it gave its answer about the matter) that RAW and RAI is that Coordinate Firepower shares special rules. It's not a FAQ and each group can take it as truth or no, but GW's position is clear on this. They messed up with the Target Lock interaction, but that's minor.

I don't think that GW's position on this issue is clear. For all we know, the rules team changed their mind on the subject, or the letter writer only got the opinion of one member of the rules team. An official position would be the prompt release of an FAQ, which GW doesn't do anymore.

Even if it does get FAQed, I can still see the ITC ruling that the only rules that are shared via Coordinated Firepower are the +1 BS and Markerlight tokens. Letting Buffmanders share their rules to the entire army turns Tau into an "I Win" button against virtually every army out there, whether they're deathstars or MSU.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Care to explain why? Shall we vote for army wide 4+ better-than-fnp also? How about vote on the cost of a wraithknight?

Buffmander shared the rules in the past, and now (G)MC's can again benefit from those rules.

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Care to explain why? Shall we vote for army wide 4+ better-than-fnp also? How about vote on the cost of a wraithknight?

Buffmander shared the rules in the past, and now (G)MC's can again benefit from those rules.

The ITC already resrtricts the most broken mechanics in the game (Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, ranged D). Resurrection protocols are powerful, but not nearly on the same level as what I listed. Yes the Wraithknight is criminally undercosted, but there are plenty of other powerful units in the game that are just as undercosted (Gravcents. Flyrants).

the Buffmander did share his rules before, but only to the unit that he joined. If you don't think that the ability to combine fire for the enitre army with Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank hunter/Monster hunter and the ability to split fire with the same special rules, I don't know what to tell you.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Care to explain why? Shall we vote for army wide 4+ better-than-fnp also? How about vote on the cost of a wraithknight?

Buffmander shared the rules in the past, and now (G)MC's can again benefit from those rules.

The ITC already resrtricts the most broken mechanics in the game (Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, ranged D). Resurrection protocols are powerful, but not nearly on the same level as what I listed. Yes the Wraithknight is criminally undercosted, but there are plenty of other powerful units in the game that are just as undercosted (Gravcents. Flyrants).

the Buffmander did share his rules before, but only to the unit that he joined. If you don't think that the ability to combine fire for the enitre army with Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank hunter/Monster hunter and the ability to split fire with the same special rules, I don't know what to tell you.

This guy explained why.

Which, again brings us back to the question of why.

If I have two units shooting at the same target at the same time, and the drone controller in squad A does not up the BS of the drones in squad B, why am I combining their shots at all?

If it was for the markerlights that would have been the rule instead of a 'this includes markerlights' tacked on the end. If it were for the +1BS the rule would have either a 3 unit minimum to shoot this way at all, or the bonus wouldn't require 3 units.

It's ultimately the prospect of using it in conjunction with target locks to get this bonus all over the place that makes it seem legitimately broken, but it seems to me the part where it explicitly says they must fire at the same target is clearly there to prevent that from happening.

regardless of how I feel about the rule I believe the outcome of the ITC ruling will be one of the two following:

1- All units, and the models in those units must fire at the same target- no split fire/target lock/GC picking multiple targets. All buffs that say they affect an unit if 1+ model has it, will stack for all units combining fire.

2- All units firing at the same target as the nominated target for cooridnated fire will get the +1BS and share unit rules, units firing with target locks/split fire etc at other targets will not benefit form the +1BS or any unit special rules from units outside of their unit.

To be fair, who cares what that fella thinks, while it is nice to have another opinion, that's all it is, and has absolutely no weight behind it, no more valid than anyone else's.

Formosa wrote:To be fair, who cares what that fella thinks, while it is nice to have another opinion, that's all it is, and has absolutely no weight behind it, no more valid than anyone else's.

Totally agree. ITC has no bearing in my games. However, depending on their decision, people can take it as truth and will use it in rules discussion outside ITC.

TheNewBlood wrote:
the Buffmander did share his rules before, but only to the unit that he joined. If you don't think that the ability to combine fire for the enitre army with Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank hunter/Monster hunter and the ability to split fire with the same special rules, I don't know what to tell you.

How about playtesting it before jumping to conclusions? People have been testing it and didn't find it as powerful as some are painting it. As I've said - if they properly playtest it and reach a reasonable conclusion (either yes or no), it's acceptable. If they don't, I'll see they don't care that much for balance.

Maybe people are just scared for their death stars.

Without the sharing or rules, some death starts can easily take an entire army's worth of shooting and shrug it off, with the sharing though.....it might die in a turn or two, and i think that scares all these non tau players into screaming OP because it might take out their OP death star.......

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Naw wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Itc should keep it as restricted as possible. I'll be voting for such

Care to explain why? Shall we vote for army wide 4+ better-than-fnp also? How about vote on the cost of a wraithknight?

Buffmander shared the rules in the past, and now (G)MC's can again benefit from those rules.

The ITC already resrtricts the most broken mechanics in the game (Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, ranged D). Resurrection protocols are powerful, but not nearly on the same level as what I listed. Yes the Wraithknight is criminally undercosted, but there are plenty of other powerful units in the game that are just as undercosted (Gravcents. Flyrants).

You missed the point or maybe I missed the public vote on these.

the Buffmander did share his rules before, but only to the unit that he joined. If you don't think that the ability to combine fire for the enitre army with Ignores Cover, re-rolls to hit, and Tank hunter/Monster hunter and the ability to split fire with the same special rules, I don't know what to tell you.

Check how many units Tau can fit to the Hunter Contingent, considering also how they must do the targeting.

And you have already tested the rules to see that they are imbalanced? Sorry if your deathstar army is no longer optimal, but you may want to try something new.

If ITC really wanted to do something good for the game they'd give everything in the csm book the points drop it requires but then again I never agree with tournament house rules and I personally think they are stupid