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.

Would anyone be willing to propose a simple solution to the ITC? Rather than nerfing Coordinated Firepower, please change the benefit of Target Locks.
Currently, Target Locks are (p.124) 'A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit' many things would be simplified if it was changed to, 'Target Lock gives the unit Split Fire'

Split Fire (p.172 of the rulebook) says that one model in the unit can fire at a different target than the rest of its unit.
One Model
not anything with a Target Lock.

I was going to ask about Fire Team, and whether I could get away with +2 Ballistic Skill when employing Coordinated Firepower with 3 solo riptides with Target Locks. That brought up the question, "If I am using the 3 riptides for coordinated firepower and they all have target locks, do any of them actually have to fire at the original target?" to which I thought, 'no, actually they don't' How to fix that? what I suggested above.

**small edit** ooh, post 666

 carldooley wrote:
Would anyone be willing to propose a simple solution to the ITC? Rather than nerfing Coordinated Firepower, please change the benefit of Target Locks.
Currently, Target Locks are (p.124) 'A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit' many things would be simplified if it was changed to, 'Target Lock gives the unit Split Fire'

Split Fire (p.172 of the rulebook) says that one model in the unit can fire at a different target than the rest of its unit.
One Model
not anything with a Target Lock.

I was going to ask about Fire Team, and whether I could get away with +2 Ballistic Skill when employing Coordinated Firepower with 3 solo riptides with Target Locks. That brought up the question, "If I am using the 3 riptides for coordinated firepower and they all have target locks, do any of them actually have to fire at the original target?" to which I thought, 'no, actually they don't' How to fix that? what I suggested above.

**small edit** ooh, post 666

I like what itc did better

I feel the need to post here, because I accidentally exalted the thread

The solution you propose would not only not solve the underlying issue people have with the detatchment, it would completely shift Tau meta in the use of target locks to one where you only need to take one in a squad you want to be able to utilize it.

exalting doesn't do what most people seem to think it does; it isn't dakka's version of a 'like' button.

Why not? regardless of the number of times a unit would have the split fire USR, only one model can fire at a different target than the rest of the unit. if there are 2 dozen Target Locks in the unit that resolves a Coordinated Firepower, only a single model would be permitted to fire at another target, not the thing that could happen now (if you ignore the ITC vote result).

 carldooley wrote:
Would anyone be willing to propose a simple solution to the ITC? Rather than nerfing Coordinated Firepower, please change the benefit of Target Locks.
Currently, Target Locks are (p.124) 'A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit' many things would be simplified if it was changed to, 'Target Lock gives the unit Split Fire'

Split Fire (p.172 of the rulebook) says that one model in the unit can fire at a different target than the rest of its unit.
One Model
not anything with a Target Lock.

I was going to ask about Fire Team, and whether I could get away with +2 Ballistic Skill when employing Coordinated Firepower with 3 solo riptides with Target Locks. That brought up the question, "If I am using the 3 riptides for coordinated firepower and they all have target locks, do any of them actually have to fire at the original target?" to which I thought, 'no, actually they don't' How to fix that? what I suggested above.

**small edit** ooh, post 666

Alternatively, you could play the rule as it clearly is intended to be what with the rule being named COORDINATED FIREPOWER and only gaining the benefit if you fire at the target chosen as part of the COORDINATED FIREPOWER attack rather than trying to game the system.

Additionally? Step back and realize that you can perform multiple Coordinated Firepower attacks per turn.
It isn't a problem with Target Lock or ITC, it's people taking advantage of the system and others calling them out for it.

I was going to ask about Fire Team, and whether I could get away with +2 Ballistic Skill when employing Coordinated Firepower with 3 solo riptides with Target Locks. That brought up the question, "If I am using the 3 riptides for coordinated firepower and they all have target locks, do any of them actually have to fire at the original target?" to which I thought, 'no, actually they don't' How to fix that? what I suggested above.

 carldooley wrote:
exalting doesn't do what most people seem to think it does; it isn't dakka's version of a 'like' button.

Why not? regardless of the number of times a unit would have the split fire USR, only one model can fire at a different target than the rest of the unit. if there are 2 dozen Target Locks in the unit that resolves a Coordinated Firepower, only a single model would be permitted to fire at another target, not the thing that could happen now (if you ignore the ITC vote result).

You and alot of other people are unfortunately mixing up Split Fire with Target Locks. They are not the same. Please reread both the rules again, I will also try and clear it up.

Split Fire
This lets one model in a unit, and one model only, to shoot a different target than the rest of the unit, regardless of how many models has split fire in the unit.
You Split fire before you shoot with the rest of your unit.

Target Lock
This lets a model with a Target Lock target and fire at a different target than his unit. Any model in a unit having Target Lock can use this special rule.
You Target Lock after you have shot with the unit (with any models equipped with it).

Both special rules refer to that the unit must shot at its selected target and thus at least one model from the unit must fire at the "original" target.
A simple drone would suffice if needed.

I like what the ITC did, we just need to get them to expand it to all the unbalanced aspects of all armies.

The best thing to do is for metas to ask their tau players to playtest the rule as full sharing and see what happens. Each meta handles things differently - a meta where Orks stomp everything probably doesn't need full sharing, whereas other with 3 Wraithknights would require that.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I like what the ITC did, we just need to get them to expand it to all the unbalanced aspects of all armies.

There's no other army out there which could do anything like Coordinated Firepower.

The closest is the new Cadian Detachment and the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company being able to have "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire" put onto multiple Infantry Squads at once by the Company Commander within the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company.
That still requires issuing the Order(against LD8, at best, on 3D6 discarding the highest and allowing for a reroll with Vox-Casters) and units being within 12".

That's nowhere near as powerful as the Hunter Cadre's "Coordinated Firepower", which some people were exploiting by having a unit that is far outside of range join in to gain the benefits without ever firing or claiming that special rules applied or that they could Target Lock and still gain the benefits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I like what the ITC did, we just need to get them to expand it to all the unbalanced aspects of all armies.

That's nowhere near as powerful as the Hunter Cadre's "Coordinated Firepower", which some people were exploiting by having a unit that is far outside of range join in to gain the benefits without ever firing or claiming that special rules applied or that they could Target Lock and still gain the benefits.

Because RAW that all works.

Here's an even simpler solution: play it as-written. Units share buffs, models can split their fire and keep the buffs, etc. If/when there is significant evidence, instead of just reflexive "OMG TAU ARE TOO GOOD" nonsense, that this makes Tau too powerful compared to other armies and their overpowered formations ITC could consider what changes should be made. And they could acknowledge them as changes instead of hiding behind this absurd idea that RAW is in any way unclear.

 Peregrine wrote:
Here's an even simpler solution: play it as-written. Units share buffs, models can split their fire and keep the buffs, etc. If/when there is significant evidence, instead of just reflexive "OMG TAU ARE TOO GOOD" nonsense, that this makes Tau too powerful compared to other armies and their overpowered formations ITC could consider what changes should be made. And they could acknowledge them as changes instead of hiding behind this absurd idea that RAW is in any way unclear.

The RAW is clear. but that's not what the ITC asked people about. They asked how people wanted to play and use the rule, not what the rule stated.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Here's an even simpler solution: play it as-written. Units share buffs, models can split their fire and keep the buffs, etc. If/when there is significant evidence, instead of just reflexive "OMG TAU ARE TOO GOOD" nonsense, that this makes Tau too powerful compared to other armies and their overpowered formations ITC could consider what changes should be made. And they could acknowledge them as changes instead of hiding behind this absurd idea that RAW is in any way unclear.

The RAW is clear. but that's not what the ITC asked people about. They asked how people wanted to play and use the rule, not what the rule stated.

And THAT is the problem. They asked how people wanted to play it weeks after the codex was released and before even 1 single tournament occurred. If it was a RAW vote than sure, vote right away. But it wasn't. It was a popular opinion vote.

 Peregrine wrote:
Here's an even simpler solution: play it as-written. Units share buffs, models can split their fire and keep the buffs, etc. If/when there is significant evidence, instead of just reflexive "OMG TAU ARE TOO GOOD" nonsense, that this makes Tau too powerful compared to other armies and their overpowered formations ITC could consider what changes should be made. And they could acknowledge them as changes instead of hiding behind this absurd idea that RAW is in any way unclear.

This^

Don't attend events using ITC farcical rulings.

That's as simple as it gets.

Stores and conventions like money. If you aren't giving them money and explain why, they'll change.

I think ITC is probably interested in having people actually show up to their tournaments with a varied list of armies, rather than just clones of the new hotness, which they seem to be currently getting with Eldar. Chances are, the number of 40k players attending is on the decline (since the hobby's pop, as a whole, is declining), so having a year of Tau v Tau games ad infinitum is probably not high on their list of desired results.

notredameguy10 wrote:
And THAT is the problem. They asked how people wanted to play it weeks after the codex was released and before even 1 single tournament occurred. If it was a RAW vote than sure, vote right away. But it wasn't. It was a popular opinion vote.

I honestly don't see the problem. People had already played against Tau sharing special abilities through CFP and realized how overpowered it was. Reecius makes the case for an alternate way to play the rule, and put it up for the ITC community to vote. The (admittedly very slim) majority of ITC players decided to play CFP as not sharing special rules to balance CFP within the ITC community. It's a lot less arbitrary than simply banning Tau or Forge World outright.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Don't attend events using ITC farcical rulings.

That's as simple as it gets.

Stores and conventions like money. If you aren't giving them money and explain why, they'll change.

You might disagree about the Tau ruling, but you cannot seriously tell me that the ITC nerfs to Invisibility, 2+ re-rollable, and Ranged D are bad for the game.

If you live west of the Mississippi river in the USA and plan on attending tournaments, it will be very had to find a major tournament that does not follow the ITC rulings.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
And THAT is the problem. They asked how people wanted to play it weeks after the codex was released and before even 1 single tournament occurred. If it was a RAW vote than sure, vote right away. But it wasn't. It was a popular opinion vote.

I honestly don't see the problem. People had already played against Tau sharing special abilities through CFP and realized how overpowered it was. Reecius makes the case for an alternate way to play the rule, and put it up for the ITC community to vote. The (admittedly very slim) majority of ITC players decided to play CFP as not sharing special rules to balance CFP within the ITC community. It's a lot less arbitrary than simply banning Tau or Forge World outright.

Both published BR from FLG using the strongest set of CFP rules had Tau still losing both games. There isn't one published BR of Tau winning by a ridiculous amount due to CFP

But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

 Psienesis wrote:
I think ITC is probably interested in having people actually show up to their tournaments with a varied list of armies, rather than just clones of the new hotness, which they seem to be currently getting with Eldar. Chances are, the number of 40k players attending is on the decline (since the hobby's pop, as a whole, is declining), so having a year of Tau v Tau games ad infinitum is probably not high on their list of desired results.

Exactly. TOs want as many people to come to their tournaments as possible so more people will pay entry fees so there is more money for prize support. If everyone is simplay spamming the same couple of overpowered army builds, less people will want to come. Remember that tournament players (and DakkaDakka posters) are the minority in the hobby, at least in my experience.

The FLGSs that I attend have seen growing interest in the game and tournament attendance in 7th edition because of their adopting the ITC rulings as a means of balancing the game.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
And THAT is the problem. They asked how people wanted to play it weeks after the codex was released and before even 1 single tournament occurred. If it was a RAW vote than sure, vote right away. But it wasn't. It was a popular opinion vote.

I honestly don't see the problem. People had already played against Tau sharing special abilities through CFP and realized how overpowered it was. Reecius makes the case for an alternate way to play the rule, and put it up for the ITC community to vote. The (admittedly very slim) majority of ITC players decided to play CFP as not sharing special rules to balance CFP within the ITC community. It's a lot less arbitrary than simply banning Tau or Forge World outright.

Both published BR from FLG using the strongest set of CFP rules had Tau still losing both games. There isn't one published BR of Tau winning by a ridiculous amount due to CFP

Probably because many people realized that you don't GET the bonuses by doing stupid crap like split-firing off or any of that garbage.

CFP is CLEARLY intended to not share special rules outside of Markerlight benefits and also to take out single targets.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

]]
Yes, but that doesn't mean its automatically OP. How would you feel if your favorite army comes out with a new codex and 2 weeks after it is released they nerf when of the best things about the codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:
And THAT is the problem. They asked how people wanted to play it weeks after the codex was released and before even 1 single tournament occurred. If it was a RAW vote than sure, vote right away. But it wasn't. It was a popular opinion vote.

I honestly don't see the problem. People had already played against Tau sharing special abilities through CFP and realized how overpowered it was. Reecius makes the case for an alternate way to play the rule, and put it up for the ITC community to vote. The (admittedly very slim) majority of ITC players decided to play CFP as not sharing special rules to balance CFP within the ITC community. It's a lot less arbitrary than simply banning Tau or Forge World outright.

Both published BR from FLG using the strongest set of CFP rules had Tau still losing both games. There isn't one published BR of Tau winning by a ridiculous amount due to CFP

Probably because many people realized that you don't GET the bonuses by doing stupid crap like split-firing off or any of that garbage.

CFP is CLEARLY intended to not share special rules outside of Markerlight benefits and also to take out single targets.

You obviously didn't read my post. they used THE STRONGEST reading of the rule. meaning everything shared and target locks sharing rules. (Tau do not have split fire. Target lock is different)

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

Yes, but that doesn't mean its automatically OP. How would you feel if your favorite army comes out with a new codex and 2 weeks after it is released they nerf when of the best things about the codex

No offense, but it's not a nerf. It didn't change ANYTHING about the rule itself.

It presented an interpretation as to how the rule works. It's a pretty easy to read rule, but still people want the "easy" benefits of everything and anything.

You obviously didn't read my post. they used THE STRONGEST reading of the rule. meaning everything shared and target locks sharing rules. (Tau do not have split fire. Target lock is different)

Target Lock is different to Split-Fire, yes. I'm well aware of that. I have the Tau book within easy reach.
Split-Fire is a USR. That's why I used lowercase "split-firing off" instead of saying "utilizing Split-Fire".

Whether or not they used that interpretation is irrelevant compared to if they actually did utilize CFP.

And to an extent, it also applies to the army they're fighting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

Yes, but that doesn't mean its automatically OP. How would you feel if your favorite army comes out with a new codex and 2 weeks after it is released they nerf when of the best things about the codex

No offense, but it's not a nerf. It didn't change ANYTHING about the rule itself.

It presented an interpretation as to how the rule works. It's a pretty easy to read rule, but still people want the "easy" benefits of everything and anything.

You are right. it is a easy reading of the rules lol. "Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit". That is pretty simple to read. Multiple units become one unit for the duration of shooting.
The vote WAS NOT a vote on how the rule reads. It was specifically worded as "how do you wish to play this"

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

Yes, but that doesn't mean its automatically OP. How would you feel if your favorite army comes out with a new codex and 2 weeks after it is released they nerf when of the best things about the codex

No offense, but it's not a nerf. It didn't change ANYTHING about the rule itself.

It presented an interpretation as to how the rule works. It's a pretty easy to read rule, but still people want the "easy" benefits of everything and anything.

You are right. it is a easy reading of the rules lol. "Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit". That is pretty simple to read. Multiple units become one unit for the duration of shooting.
The vote WAS NOT a vote on how the rule reads. It was specifically worded as "how do you wish to play this"

"How do you wish to play this?" is not that dissimilar from "How do you read this rule as being intended?".

But if you don't like it? Don't play in their tournaments. And stop posting on Dakka with rules problems, instead take the friggin' time to talk to the people who you are actually playing with.

 Kanluwen wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
But you obviously feel it is powerful enough option to put on a public display of outrage over the vote.

Yes, but that doesn't mean its automatically OP. How would you feel if your favorite army comes out with a new codex and 2 weeks after it is released they nerf when of the best things about the codex

No offense, but it's not a nerf. It didn't change ANYTHING about the rule itself.

It presented an interpretation as to how the rule works. It's a pretty easy to read rule, but still people want the "easy" benefits of everything and anything.

You are right. it is a easy reading of the rules lol. "Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit". That is pretty simple to read. Multiple units become one unit for the duration of shooting.
The vote WAS NOT a vote on how the rule reads. It was specifically worded as "how do you wish to play this"

"How do you wish to play this?" is not that dissimilar from "How do you read this rule as being intended?".

Not true at all. Scatter bikes for example. That has 0% conflict in terms of rule debate and it was put up for a vote because people didn't like it. That was also worded similar to "How do you wish to play this".

Whatever man. Clearly you're not going to be happy unless it's done the way YOU want it to be done, so it's not worth discussing with you.

Simple Solution to this?

1.Allow rule sharing.
2.Dont allow use of Target lock during a CF and call it a ballancing issue!

Its easy and a good compromis.

Most po+eople feared that A Tau army gets every USR everywhere. My Solution doesn't do that. It keeps CF strong. and its also fair enough to say its cuz of balancing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Probably because many people realized that you don't GET the bonuses by doing stupid crap like split-firing off or any of that garbage.

CFP is CLEARLY intended to not share special rules outside of Markerlight benefits and also to take out single targets.

This is your opinion. It has nothing to do with the printed text of the rules, which clearly allows you to share buffs and split fire while keeping the buffs. Your speculation about the "intent" of the rule is irrelevant.

Now, if you want to argue that the rule is too powerful and needs to be changed for balance reasons then that's a valid argument to make. But don't pretend that your attempt to nerf an army is just clarifying an ambiguous rule because it isn't.

Show me where it "clearly allows that"?

It says that you "count as" a unit when performing the attack and specifically calls out the use of markerlight abilities.

PS? No. You absobloodylutely do not get the bonus split-firing off.
Read the rule:

These units must shoot at the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit--this includes the use of markerlight abilities.

Nothing in there about allowing for USRs to apply. Just that it has to shoot at the same target and the shots get resolved "as if they were a single unit". You can make the argument that the USRs transfer because they "become a single unit", but notice that they do NOT actually become a unit.

They are COUNTED AS a unit.