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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

So many things wrong with this post.

1.) Nowhere does it say "counted as a unit". It says "as if they were a single unit"
2.) If they are firing as if a single unit, rules are shared; just as they are in a normal "unit"
3.) As for target locks, RAW you absolutely can shoot off at another target. The UNIT is still firing at the intended target, as the rule says it must. That does not prohibit on MODEL in that unit from firing at another target, as the UNIT is still firing at the same original target.

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

Exactly. You count as a unit. Therefore any abilities that say "the unit gains X" apply to the whole combined unit.

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

Yes you do. The UNIT gets the bonuses, and must shoot at the declared target. The fact that some models within the unit split their fire does not change the fact that they benefit from "the unit gains X" abilities. There's a huge difference between models and units, and you need to pay careful attention to it here.

Is the model part of the unit?
Simple question, simple answer:
Yes. The model is part of the unit. The UNIT must fire at the same target.

There is no allowance for using Target Locks.

Sorry, you are wrong. We have had target locks for years. A popular build was a buffmander with 3 crisis suits all with 2 missle pods and target locks each with 2 marker drones. The UNIT would fire at something, the commander would refrain giving the drones bs5 and twin linked, and the suits would all shot something else. With Each. And. Every. Benefit. Now a rule exists that just makes that one huge unit. It's clear to anyone that didn't try and cheat their opponent out of their rules.

There is no ambiguity, just those unwilling to accept raw.

notredameguy10 wrote:
1.) Nowhere does it say "counted as a unit". It says "as if they were a single unit"
2.) If they are firing as if a single unit, rules are shared; just as they are in a normal "unit"
3.) As for target locks, RAW you absolutely can shoot off at another target. The UNIT is still firing at the intended target, as the rule says it must. That does not prohibit on MODEL in that unit from firing at another target, as the UNIT is still firing at the same original target.

agreed. and I'm well aware that target locks aren't split fire.

 Orock wrote:
Sorry, you are wrong. We have had target locks for years. A popular build was a buffmander with 3 crisis suits all with 2 missle pods and target locks each with 2 marker drones. The UNIT would fire at something, the commander would refrain giving the drones bs5 and twin linked, and the suits would all shot something else. With Each. And. Every. Benefit. Now a rule exists that just makes that one huge unit. It's clear to anyone that didn't try and cheat their opponent out of their rules.

There is no ambiguity, just those unwilling to accept raw.

funny no? a buffed squad is no problem, but use CFP to make a bigger squad and all of a sudden the Target Locks stop working?

there are tricks as well. with the new book you don't need to bring farsight to get a massive crisis squad, and you don't actually need a commander to make a buff suit - take a shas'vre upgrade and give the buff equipments to the shas'vre. I really like the Coldstar Commander with Drone Controller and Target Lock. use it with a drone unit or two with CFP and its all kind of fun.

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

I play Blood Angels. GW fethed us over personally.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes. The model is part of the unit. The UNIT must fire at the same target.

Target locks create an exception to the rule that all models in a unit must fire at the same target, and specifically grant permission to fire at a target other than the one the "parent" unit has selected. Nowhere in the CF rule does it say that all models must fire at the same target. As long as the "parent" unit selects the CF target what any individual models within that unit do is irrelevant.

So? That is clear rule abuse, the GW designers have MULTIPLE rules that if taken RaW break the game and make it so the game can't even begin.

The community has always functioned by RaI.

CF is idiotic phrasing. It simply should have been select an enemy unit/model; everyone who shoots at that unit receives all benefits other units have when shooting at it.

EDIT: This is coming from a guy who thinks GC should be able to fire all their weapons.

How is it "clear rule abuse"? This isn't a game-breaking rule where the game ceases to function in anything resembling a reasonable state if you attempt to use RAW, it's just some models getting more firepower (on average) than you feel they should have. Sorry if you don't like how it works as-printed, but the fact that you think it's too powerful doesn't mean there's any ambiguity in the rules.

 Quickjager wrote:
This is coming from a guy who thinks GC should be able to fire all their weapons.

They CAN, when each weapon fires at a different target. It is only when focusing on a single target that you are limited to firing two weapons. (at least according to my own interpretation of the GMC rules in the rulebook)

Alright then when I resolve perils of the warp, after my Librarian casted Vortex of Doom or Invisibility in my unit of Brotherhood of Psykers, I obviously should roll to randomly allocate my wound that results from that.

No, I shouldn't; I should play the spirit of the game and take it on my goddamn libby.

I can play the word games all day to get advantages in the psychic phase but I don't.


EDIT: See that is the fourth goddamn interpretation of GMC firing rules I have seen. It is fething madness.

What's the full rule for CF, rather than all of these abridged versions? Also target lock please.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
What's the full rule for CF, rather than all of these abridged versions? Also target lock please.

ah, a request for information. how refreshing,

(pg.72, 2015 Tau Empire Codex)Coordinated Firepower: Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units in 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.

Only this contingent, CADs CANNOT join or gain benefits. also, not limited to 3+ units - can use 2 but you won't gain the BS buff.

(pg.124, 2015 Tau Empire Codex) Target Lock: A model with a target lock can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit.

Honestly the only things I got out of that were +1 BS for 3+ units shooting together and you don't need triple the marker lights for the 3+ units. The rest seems to tell you nothing on how things like buffmander or characters would interact with this.

Do the buffmanders effects get transfered to the other units in this 'unit'? Honestly I couldn't tell you one way or the other for RAI or RAW, as it doesn't give you anything helpful at all about the 'unit' other than resolving shots as 1 unit. I can see the argument for shared special rules, but on principle it's not something I'd be happy with because it's so vague and generally 'urgh' to read.

But seriously that's a massive oversight on GW's part (or would be if they cared about the rules). Did the guy who wrote this, have no idea about the Puretide chip ( I assume it still exists)?

Target lock wise, I'd say continue as normal but you don't get +1 BS ( not shooting at the same unit as the 'unit'), and you'd have to have markelighted the "target locked" unit for markelight effects.

While I personally agree with the not getting +1 bs on the target lock model firing elsewhere, i disagree with your reading of how ambiguous the rule is. you are overthinking it. Just pretend for a moment that like the rule says, they are all a single unit. If they are all a single huge unit, do the get all the bonuses> The answer is yes.

Look people, there IS another version of this crap out there you know. Its called superfriends. You know, the one where you take thunderwolves with stormshields and hammers, 3 white scars librarians for the conclave and things like hit and run, and a blood angels apothecary who grants FnP, and you can take the shield eternal on the white scars too for Andamantium will. All of these rules, weither you want them to or not, stack together in a single unit.

People are only in denial because they dont want to see another example of this crap. And its easier to bully a minority playerbase than to tell the Imperium of man players that their rules are broken. Go ahead, try and nerf ANYTHING a space marine army can do on popular vote. I dont care how abusive it is, free razorbacks, characters joining skyhammer formations, it does not matter. It will not pass.

I think that we are more in agreement than otherwise. the problem is that they made so many synergistic options in this game, without the added proviso that, 'this cannot be used in conjunction with X'.
For instance, 3 Monat (solo) Riptides with Target Locks are normally BS3. with Combined Firepower they get +1 Ballistic Skill, but they also have the Fire Team rule (pg.116, 2015 Tau Empire Codex): 'Whilst a unit with this special rule includes 3 vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, all vehicles and Monstrous Creatures have +1 Ballistic Skill.' Does this make them BS 3, 4 or 5 when employing their Target Locks? The way that I read it, they are BS5 while shooting at separate targets.
Does this mean that when using CFP, any Devilfish (which doesn't have Fire Team) benefit from the benefits of the rule?

 Orock wrote:
While I personally agree with the not getting +1 bs on the target lock model firing elsewhere, i disagree with your reading of how ambiguous the rule is. you are overthinking it. Just pretend for a moment that like the rule says, they are all a single unit. If they are all a single huge unit, do the get all the bonuses> The answer is yes.

Look people, there IS another version of this crap out there you know. Its called superfriends. You know, the one where you take thunderwolves with stormshields and hammers, 3 white scars librarians for the conclave and things like hit and run, and a blood angels apothecary who grants FnP, and you can take the shield eternal on the white scars too for Andamantium will. All of these rules, weither you want them to or not, stack together in a single unit.

People are only in denial because they dont want to see another example of this crap. And its easier to bully a minority playerbase than to tell the Imperium of man players that their rules are broken. Go ahead, try and nerf ANYTHING a space marine army can do on popular vote. I dont care how abusive it is, free razorbacks, characters joining skyhammer formations, it does not matter. It will not pass.

I have no leanings either way, I think super friends rule sharing is also stupid.

But my point is, is the 'unit' a unit for special rules, or is it just a unit for the purposes of the bonuses from the CF rule?

And that for me is where the ambiguitiy lies. If I was writing this rule, there'd be an extra sentence saying special rules that are shared by an IC or whatever, are shared/not shared for the purposes of the 'unit'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:
I think that we are more in agreement than otherwise. the problem is that they made so many synergistic options in this game, without the added proviso that, 'this cannot be used in conjunction with X'.
For instance, 3 Monat (solo) Riptides with Target Locks are normally BS3. with Combined Firepower they get +1 Ballistic Skill, but they also have the Fire Team rule (pg.116, 2015 Tau Empire Codex): 'Whilst a unit with this special rule includes 3 vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, all vehicles and Monstrous Creatures have +1 Ballistic Skill.' Does this make them BS 3, 4 or 5 when employing their Target Locks? The way that I read it, they are BS5 while shooting at separate targets.
Does this mean that when using CFP, any Devilfish (which doesn't have Fire Team) benefit from the benefits of the rule?

Forgive my ignorance, but I assume Riptides can be taken in 1-3 units that can split?

Which my interpretation would be BS4 unless they all shot at the same unit ( then BS5 due to CF).

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Orock wrote:
While I personally agree with the not getting +1 bs on the target lock model firing elsewhere, i disagree with your reading of how ambiguous the rule is. you are overthinking it. Just pretend for a moment that like the rule says, they are all a single unit. If they are all a single huge unit, do the get all the bonuses> The answer is yes.

Look people, there IS another version of this crap out there you know. Its called superfriends. You know, the one where you take thunderwolves with stormshields and hammers, 3 white scars librarians for the conclave and things like hit and run, and a blood angels apothecary who grants FnP, and you can take the shield eternal on the white scars too for Andamantium will. All of these rules, weither you want them to or not, stack together in a single unit.

People are only in denial because they dont want to see another example of this crap. And its easier to bully a minority playerbase than to tell the Imperium of man players that their rules are broken. Go ahead, try and nerf ANYTHING a space marine army can do on popular vote. I dont care how abusive it is, free razorbacks, characters joining skyhammer formations, it does not matter. It will not pass.

I have no leanings either way, I think super friends rule sharing is also stupid.

But my point is, is the 'unit' a unit for special rules, or is it just a unit for the purposes of the bonuses from the CF rule?

And that for me is where the ambiguitiy lies. If I was writing this rule, there'd be an extra sentence saying special rules that are shared by an IC or whatever, are shared/not shared for the purposes of the 'unit'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:
I think that we are more in agreement than otherwise. the problem is that they made so many synergistic options in this game, without the added proviso that, 'this cannot be used in conjunction with X'.
For instance, 3 Monat (solo) Riptides with Target Locks are normally BS3. with Combined Firepower they get +1 Ballistic Skill, but they also have the Fire Team rule (pg.116, 2015 Tau Empire Codex): 'Whilst a unit with this special rule includes 3 vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, all vehicles and Monstrous Creatures have +1 Ballistic Skill.' Does this make them BS 3, 4 or 5 when employing their Target Locks? The way that I read it, they are BS5 while shooting at separate targets.
Does this mean that when using CFP, any Devilfish (which doesn't have Fire Team) benefit from the benefits of the rule?


Which my interpretation would be BS4 unless they all shot at the same unit ( then BS5 due to CF).

They do not have to quote every single inter-reaction of different rules. Just because they didn't specifically spell out that rules are shared does not change the fact that special rules they are shared for amongst a unit.

I thought this was a permissible rules set? Or am I mistaken in that?

And yes, in this case, it should be spelt out, because not saying anything at all, either way is incredibly stupid when it comes to writing rules.

Again, if GW did play testing, this would have been solved within about 5 min of any Tau player knowing what a buffmander is and asking "how do these interact?"

Alright so it is not enough to say " as if they were one single unit" ?

as far as i know the only requirement for USR sharing is that the one wich is the rule bearer is in the same unit as the other ones. CF allows you to act as if they were in the same unit. why the heck is it nessesary to retell you that usr are shared?

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Not this same crap again. You don't need the CF rule specify how USR's work because it is explained in the BRB. Unbelievable arguments.

Next you will probably tell us about lack of coherency?

The arguments basically break down to this:

OMG yu guize, they only COUNT like a unit for the purposes of shooting, but they aren't AKTUALLY a unit, so they can't.

Or my favorite:

No you gotta run to be in gigantic unit coherancy instead of shooting! What do you mean why would they bother to write the rule if that was the case? I dunno man, GW writes rules all the time that don't make sense. Even major faction rules. Sorry you can't see that you would have to run. Maybe you can't read good!

 Orock wrote:
The arguments basically break down to this:

OMG yu guize, they only COUNT like a unit for the purposes of shooting, but they aren't AKTUALLY a unit, so they can't.

Or my favorite:

No you gotta run to be in gigantic unit coherancy instead of shooting! What do you mean why would they bother to write the rule if that was the case? I dunno man, GW writes rules all the time that don't make sense. Even major faction rules. Sorry you can't see that you would have to run. Maybe you can't read good!

I could do something similar to your argument but I won't as it doesn't add anything.


It gives you specific exemption for 'sharing' marker lights, it doesn't mention USR's if that helps. Otherwise why bother specifically mentioning makerlights at all, as they would function the exact same right as they do with being exempted, right?

Also would not the coherency issue not also come from them now being a 'unit' so in the moment before they shoot, they would have to get into coherency as soon as possible, I.e "These 3 that are out of coherency are going to use CF, now treat them as a 'unit', must attempt to get into coherency as they are a 'unit'? Or is that not the coherency argument (I'm just guessing).

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Otherwise why bother specifically mentioning makerlights at all, as they would function the exact same right as they do with being exempted, right?

Probably because markerlights are a core Tau mechanic and the most likely thing to be shared, so they make a good example of how buffs apply to the whole combined "unit".

Also would not the coherency issue not also come from them now being a 'unit' so in the moment before they shoot, they would have to get into coherency as soon as possible, I.e "These 3 that are out of coherency are going to use CF, now treat them as a 'unit', must attempt to get into coherency as they are a 'unit'? Or is that not the coherency argument (I'm just guessing).

No, because the SHOTS are resolved as a single unit. If you aren't resolving shooting attacks then they aren't considered a single unit, and if you're resolving shooting attacks then you aren't checking coherency or running.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Orock wrote:
The arguments basically break down to this:

OMG yu guize, they only COUNT like a unit for the purposes of shooting, but they aren't AKTUALLY a unit, so they can't.

Or my favorite:

No you gotta run to be in gigantic unit coherancy instead of shooting! What do you mean why would they bother to write the rule if that was the case? I dunno man, GW writes rules all the time that don't make sense. Even major faction rules. Sorry you can't see that you would have to run. Maybe you can't read good!

I could do something similar to your argument but I won't as it doesn't add anything.


It gives you specific exemption for 'sharing' marker lights, it doesn't mention USR's if that helps. Otherwise why bother specifically mentioning makerlights at all, as they would function the exact same right as they do with being exempted, right?

Also would not the coherency issue not also come from them now being a 'unit' so in the moment before they shoot, they would have to get into coherency as soon as possible, I.e "These 3 that are out of coherency are going to use CF, now treat them as a 'unit', must attempt to get into coherency as they are a 'unit'? Or is that not the coherency argument (I'm just guessing).

Again, COHERENCY IS NOT DONE DURING THE SHOOTING PHASE. coherency does not affect shooting at all.

Second, they put marker lights because it is a clarifying statement. That does not mean that is the only thing it does.

If coherancy was checked for shooting then what happens if 5 space marines are shooting. 3 on the outside have bolters and 2 center have plasma guns. Oh no, your plasma gunners flubbed and died. I guess the other 3 have to run to get closer. Oh wait they don't, because they already selected their targets and the next opportunity they would have to maintain coherancy is their next turn.

Oh I wouldn't shoot my plasma first you say? What if someone cast the psychic power that makes ALL your weapons get hot? Might as well shoot the plasma first right? If you kill them before the bolters have to shoot that's that many less gets hot tests.

 Quickjager wrote:
So? That is clear rule abuse,

Say what??

Case A - A buffmander in a unit of 9 suits with target locks shooting at different targets
Case B - A buffmander in a unit of 3 crisis suits and 2 other units of 3 crisis suits, where all three participate in coordinated fire while also shooting other targets with their target locks

Why in case A the special rules affect the unit but in case B they do not affect all three units? What is your rule based view on this?

the GW designers have MULTIPLE rules that if taken RaW break the game and make it so the game can't even begin.

Please can you list these multiple rules that don't allow me to even start a game?