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.

Fires as a single unit is pretty clear to me. And my crisis suits always benefited from my budmander when he targeted something with the marker drones and they shot elsewhere. The only difference is the size of the unit that gets to take advantage of that now. So why doesn't it work exactly like that. Because that wouldn't be fair is not a reason anymore for 40k. It hasn't been for a long long time.

Because the House Rules you are playing in that specific game have restricted them.

The buffs in question do not share benefits to the unit, but are only possessed by the models in question.

That's all I got.

There was a huge thread on this about a month back. No doubt this will fall under the same back and forth as that one did.

Wasent there for that one. And the bufanders buffs specifically state they Confir to the unit.

As a non-Tau player I'm totally fine with the sharing of buffs across the entire "unit". It also means you suffer the penalties across the entire unit, including snap shot penalties.

Seeing games not buff across the entire "unit" have actually led to more broken shooting opportunities. To be honest, I think the sharing of buffs and penalties balances out. Part of the strategy against Tau Hunter Contingents is to either pin or flee as many units as possible. The more units fleeing, the less likely the Tau player will be to include those units in a coordinated firepower grouping as the snap shots circulate across the board.

I thought it was a given that snap shooting at a unit would be shared too. But in most cases you just leave that unit snap shooting OUT of the combined fire. However if you make a mistake like shooting everyone at a ghostkeel, THEN he makes you snapshot, you have made a big mistake.

I never argued the negatives.

By raw I think it does work in the most powerful way.

However, due to our several playtests of it, I think finding an opponent to play it like that more than once will be very difficult. Good luck.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
As a non-Tau player I'm totally fine with the sharing of buffs across the entire "unit". It also means you suffer the penalties across the entire unit, including snap shot penalties.

Seeing games not buff across the entire "unit" have actually led to more broken shooting opportunities. To be honest, I think the sharing of buffs and penalties balances out. Part of the strategy against Tau Hunter Contingents is to either pin or flee as many units as possible. The more units fleeing, the less likely the Tau player will be to include those units in a coordinated firepower grouping as the snap shots circulate across the board.

I don't think anyone was arguing against this. The rules say they are resolved as if a single unit. Penalties and bonuses thus work. Some people don't want that to be true though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
By raw I think it does work in the most powerful way.

However, due to our several playtests of it, I think finding an opponent to play it like that more than once will be very difficult. Good luck.

Did you try a CC invisistar against it? Or Wraithknight Spam?

It is a very competitive option so if playing against it with casual lists the results will be the same as playing casual lists against the above. That is not a reason to not play it by the rules that is a reason to either play competitive lists against it or have the Tau player not bring a buffmander in his Hunter Contingent.

RAW is as clear as it gets.
The whole discussion only came up because some people tried to restrict it for "not beeing fair". If you read carefully there is no room for discussion.

This ITC vote was wrong on too many levels to actually mean anything.
The question was influencing and leaning towards the "no" answer...

Aeri wrote:
RAW is as clear as it gets.
The whole discussion only came up because some people tried to restrict it for "not beeing fair". If you read carefully there is no room for discussion.

This ITC vote was wrong on too many levels to actually mean anything.
The question was influencing and leaning towards the "no" answer...

I wouldn't have minded the ITC ruling if they took a consistent and honest approach. So if they said CF is too powerful so we are changing it to make it fair. In line with that they make say Wraithknights 395 points, Brain Leech Devourers 30-40 points a pair, etc etc etc they don't though they just jump on the this Tau issue because the wording is complex (in no way ambiguous but complex). Terrible ruling.

Its not even that complex

To be honest tis the biggest problem with the ITC: BLATANT rules changes (like altering hard to hit for FMC) jsut arent labelled as such

Not that complex sure but not immediately obvious like say a points value. Certainly complex enough for them to pull the wool over their voters eyes...

However I do agree it really is that complex.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Not that complex sure but not immediately obvious like say a points value. Certainly complex enough for them to pull the wool over their voters eyes...

However I do agree it really is that complex.

That was more the way the question was worded. It was appallingly written, almost g'teed to sway people towards one result.

Asking good questions in a poll is *hard*, and this failed - likely unintentional, but the failing needs to be recognised.

No one can convince you of clear RAW.

Ignore ITC, they're power-tripping idiots.

I actually emailed Reece about this very topic and I can respect the answer that he gave - basically that they weren't asking "how the rules say it should work" on purpose. What they wanted to know was how the player base wanted to play it. Just like changes to 2+ re-rolls, invis, or even the big mek stomps, the rules are very clear. What they wanted to figure out was what the player-base wanted to actually use in their tournaments, which is a fair question. Because if people voted honestly, the RAW was really not unclear. Just like big mek buzz gob getting a mek stompa for literally hundreds of points less than it's valued at in the apocalypse book. The RAW was yes, but they were checking to see if it was what the players wanted to play with/against in the tournament, and as the company that makes a profit by the event, it's in their interest to find out what the player base wants.


I do still think that the wording could have been better and that the article Reece wrote beforehand certainly had an effect on the vote (how could it not have?) but they're people with opinions as well, many of them well-founded in more play testing than we are able to do. So although, in the end, I think that people should be able to use those rules, I'm still totally fine with using an unaltered ITC format.

FWIW I think that a Tau CAD or Mont'ka detachment with an OSC or something would be better than the Hunter Contingent anyhow. If you crave the tournament cheese that you believe you've lost, consider this 3 source list at 1850:

1) maxed out OSC (still min squads of stealths but good upgrades)
2) min drone network (mostly for ML support)
3) Riptide wing (1 unit of 3 and 2 single units)

Go go gadget giant robots

Then list it as a rules change Dont havea a"FAQ" with a mix of clarifications, changes-for "reasons" and changes-for "balance"

The initial problem is the term treat these units as if they are a single unit during the shooting phase is not the same as the typical and clear wording used in every other rule with this type of benefit of treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes. Which is used throughout the rulebook.

But let's assume you believe it is the same thing and that this single unit is able to ignore many other rules regarding a single unit restriction such as running during the shooting phase to maintain coherency.

I personally believe the intent was to share buffs as if it's a single unit and I don't think this is really that problematic, but RaW really isn't clear on this. And you are now picking and choosing which unit rules are relevant during this phase. Even if RaW is clear it allows shared buffs.

However the rules for hunger contingent specifically mention units must target a single target in order to be considered a single unit and every unit must target this single target. RAW it's a bit hazy as well when part of that unit targets another target through locks or other means. The unit is now targeting multiple targets and I don't think the intent was for multiple targets to be hit by shared buffs.

The problem is you are asking for RaW on rules that are poorly worded and unclear. Even though I agree with you RaW buffs share and I think ITC vote was mistaken by disallowing it. However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes. I think the vote will change at some point again but I still don't expect target locks to work as that vote was no where near close and even less clear rules wise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then list it as a rules change Dont havea a"FAQ" with a mix of clarifications, changes-for "reasons" and changes-for "balance"

I don't disagree. It looks to us like a "use-all FAQ as how the rules work".

In reality, though, their "FAQ" is an event-specific FAQ. If you go to an ITC event (that uses the unmodified ITC rules), then you may have a question, such as "how does coordinated firepower work?". The answer to that is, "at an ITC event, coordinated firepower works like this.....". That's all they are posting. Could they be more clear? Certainly. But it's us who are FAQ-starved and misinterpreting what they are saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
The initial problem is the term treat these units as if they are a single unit during the shooting phase is not the same as the typical and clear wording used in every other rule with this type of benefit of treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes. Which is used throughout the rulebook.

But let's assume you believe it is the same thing and that this single unit is able to ignore many other rules regarding a single unit restriction such as running during the shooting phase to maintain coherency.

I personally believe the intent was to share buffs as if it's a single unit and I don't think this is really that problematic, but RaW really isn't clear on this.

However the rules for hunger contingent specifically mention units must target a single target in order to be considered a single unit and every unit must target this single target. RAW it's a bit hazy as well when part of that unit targets another target through locks or other means. The unit is now targeting multiple targets and I don't think the intent was for multiple targets to be hit by shared buffs.

The problem is you are asking for RaW on rules that are poorly worded and unclear. Even though I agree with you RaW buffs share and I think ITC vote was mistaken by disallowing it. However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes. I think the vote will change at some point again but I still don't expect target locks to work as that vote was no where near close and even less clear rules wise.

There aren't any rules discrepancies with that however. (don't mean to open up a can of worms) but the rule says that they "fire as if a single unit", not "they run as if a single unit" or "are a single unit for the duration of the shooting phase"

gungo wrote:
The initial problem is the term treat these units as if they are a single unit during the shooting phase is not the same as the typical and clear wording used in every other rule with this type of benefit of treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes. Which is used throughout the rulebook.

But let's assume you believe it is the same thing and that this single unit is able to ignore many other rules regarding a single unit restriction such as running during the shooting phase to maintain coherency.

I personally believe the intent was to share buffs as if it's a single unit and I don't think this is really that problematic, but RaW really isn't clear on this. And you are now picking and choosing which unit rules are relevant during this phase.

However the rules for hunger contingent specifically mention units must target a single target in order to be considered a single unit and every unit must target this single target. RAW it's a bit hazy as well when part of that unit targets another target through locks or other means. The unit is now targeting multiple targets and I don't think the intent was for multiple targets to be hit by shared buffs.

The problem is you are asking for RaW on rules that are poorly worded and unclear. Even though I agree with you RaW buffs share and I think ITC vote was mistaken by disallowing it. However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes. I think the vote will change at some point again but I still don't expect target locks to work as that vote was no where near close and even less clear rules wise.

You also have a problem with your argument that it breaks due to a lack of coherency. Issues of Coherency are resolved during the movement phase, and only if the unit is unable to return to coherency in the movement phase does it automatically sacrifice its following shooting phase for a run move. This "unit" never reaches a movement phase, thus never triggering the automated run move that would consume its shooting phase. In effect it would have to be a "unit" for far longer than the one shooting phase it exists in for it to trigger Coherency issues.

I can see your concerns with having to target the unit and the question of "how do Target Locks work with that?" - but I would point out we've been using target locks and resolving this issue for a number of years now. When a crisis suit squad with TLs and a squad of marker or gun drones decides to fire, the drones have no TLs and thus must fire at the target of the unit. Theoretically a Buffmander is as well, although he has no guns to actually fire. It is - however - the target it is resolving against. The Crisis Suits, when you get to the step in shooting resolution where you are going to resolve their weapon profile, may however pick different targets for their weapons per the target lock rules. In a purely RAW that would also mean their targets aren't chargable, since they are not targets of the Unit (rather targets of the model) but ITC has already side stepped this and allowed any target of a TL or Split Fire action to be charged as well.

So it's not like we haven't been resolving this already. It's just the first time we've had to answer how it works under the auspices of Coordinated Firepower.

There is nothing fuzzy about using Split Fire at all. Theree is no issue at all.

That's my point of you are going to limit unit rules to firing as if a single unit and ignore running in the shooting phase which is part of the unit rules. Why are you now making an exception for sharing of buffs which are part of the unit rules but not necessarily part of firing. (Which really isn't a phase in the first place). It's unclear unless of course you choose to specifically ignore other specific unit requirements that take place during the shooting phase as well. I do agree the intent is sharing buffs however I do not believe the rules are clear on this especially considering GW has used the similar line of "treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes" is a much clearer and more broadly used rule.

They didnt want it for all rules purposes. They wanted it to be treated as a single unit just for shooting. THis is fairly clear.

GreyDragoon wrote:

gungo wrote:
The initial problem is the term treat these units as if they are a single unit during the shooting phase is not the same as the typical and clear wording used in every other rule with this type of benefit of treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes. Which is used throughout the rulebook.

But let's assume you believe it is the same thing and that this single unit is able to ignore many other rules regarding a single unit restriction such as running during the shooting phase to maintain coherency.

I personally believe the intent was to share buffs as if it's a single unit and I don't think this is really that problematic, but RaW really isn't clear on this. And you are now picking and choosing which unit rules are relevant during this phase.

However the rules for hunger contingent specifically mention units must target a single target in order to be considered a single unit and every unit must target this single target. RAW it's a bit hazy as well when part of that unit targets another target through locks or other means. The unit is now targeting multiple targets and I don't think the intent was for multiple targets to be hit by shared buffs.

The problem is you are asking for RaW on rules that are poorly worded and unclear. Even though I agree with you RaW buffs share and I think ITC vote was mistaken by disallowing it. However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes. I think the vote will change at some point again but I still don't expect target locks to work as that vote was no where near close and even less clear rules wise.

You also have a problem with your argument that it breaks due to a lack of coherency. Issues of Coherency are resolved during the movement phase, and only if the unit is unable to return to coherency in the movement phase does it automatically sacrifice its following shooting phase for a run move. This "unit" never reaches a movement phase, thus never triggering the automated run move that would consume its shooting phase. In effect it would have to be a "unit" for far longer than the one shooting phase it exists in for it to trigger Coherency issues.

I can see your concerns with having to target the unit and the question of "how do Target Locks work with that?" - but I would point out we've been using target locks and resolving this issue for a number of years now. When a crisis suit squad with TLs and a squad of marker or gun drones decides to fire, the drones have no TLs and thus must fire at the target of the unit. Theoretically a Buffmander is as well, although he has no guns to actually fire. It is - however - the target it is resolving against. The Crisis Suits, when you get to the step in shooting resolution where you are going to resolve their weapon profile, may however pick different targets for their weapons per the target lock rules. In a purely RAW that would also mean their targets aren't chargable, since they are not targets of the Unit (rather targets of the model) but ITC has already side stepped this and allowed any target of a TL or Split Fire action to be charged as well.

So it's not like we haven't been resolving this already. It's just the first time we've had to answer how it works under the auspices of Coordinated Firepower.

Where in the rulebook does it state unit coherency only matters in movement phase because the rulebook is pretty clear running is done in the shooting phase and must be done to maintain unit conherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They didnt want it for all rules purposes. They wanted it to be treated as a single unit just for shooting. THis is fairly clear.

Exactly
So you are now picking and choosing which rules you want to follow.
Hence it is not clear which rules you are to follow.
And if you take that rule literally it means just the act of firing and not for all rule purposes.
I agree the intent was to share rules and I think the rule supports that view but I don't think it's clear.

 FlingitNow wrote:


Did you try a CC invisistar against it? Or Wraithknight Spam?

You kidding? Any sort of 'deathstar' is going to stomped out of existence by an ultra-comboing all-rules shared CF tau cadre. You only have to get lucky with 1-2 markerlights for invisibility to mean almost nothing. As for wraithknights, take a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxPbKjf5Evs

And that tau force didn't even use CF to its fullest extent, brought a frigging coldstar instead of buffmander, and it still wiped 2x wraithknights in 2-3 turns.

I honestly don't disagree that going RAW, CF does seem to share special rules, but as it's been stated, good luck finding someone to play against (or against for a second time).

Because as an ork player, if a tau player asked me to play him with unrestricted CF and brought buffing ICs out the window, I'd just tell him GG. I'm not trying to be a poor sport, but it would literally not be a game.

gungo wrote:
Where in the rulebook does it state unit coherency only matters in movement phase because the rulebook is pretty clear running is done in the shooting phase and must be done to maintain unit conherency.

Because that is the only time it mentions to check for it, aside from Charge movement.

UNIT COHERENCY (Movement Phase)
...
During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option.

Can you provide a statement from the Shooting Phase to check for Coherency? And even Charge movement's restriction is the same as the first paragraph I ellipsised out above.

gungo wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They didnt want it for all rules purposes. They wanted it to be treated as a single unit just for shooting. THis is fairly clear.

Exactly
So you are now picking and choosing which rules you want to follow.
Hence it is not clear which rules you are to follow.
And if you take that rule literally it means just the act of firing and not for all rule purposes.
I agree the intent was to share rules and I think the rule supports that view but I don't think it's clear.

Not really picking and choosing when it is following the rules which are stated...

gungo wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:

gungo wrote:
The initial problem is the term treat these units as if they are a single unit during the shooting phase is not the same as the typical and clear wording used in every other rule with this type of benefit of treat this unit as a single unit for all rules purposes. Which is used throughout the rulebook.

But let's assume you believe it is the same thing and that this single unit is able to ignore many other rules regarding a single unit restriction such as running during the shooting phase to maintain coherency.

I personally believe the intent was to share buffs as if it's a single unit and I don't think this is really that problematic, but RaW really isn't clear on this. And you are now picking and choosing which unit rules are relevant during this phase.

However the rules for hunger contingent specifically mention units must target a single target in order to be considered a single unit and every unit must target this single target. RAW it's a bit hazy as well when part of that unit targets another target through locks or other means. The unit is now targeting multiple targets and I don't think the intent was for multiple targets to be hit by shared buffs.

The problem is you are asking for RaW on rules that are poorly worded and unclear. Even though I agree with you RaW buffs share and I think ITC vote was mistaken by disallowing it. However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes. I think the vote will change at some point again but I still don't expect target locks to work as that vote was no where near close and even less clear rules wise.

You also have a problem with your argument that it breaks due to a lack of coherency. Issues of Coherency are resolved during the movement phase, and only if the unit is unable to return to coherency in the movement phase does it automatically sacrifice its following shooting phase for a run move. This "unit" never reaches a movement phase, thus never triggering the automated run move that would consume its shooting phase. In effect it would have to be a "unit" for far longer than the one shooting phase it exists in for it to trigger Coherency issues.

I can see your concerns with having to target the unit and the question of "how do Target Locks work with that?" - but I would point out we've been using target locks and resolving this issue for a number of years now. When a crisis suit squad with TLs and a squad of marker or gun drones decides to fire, the drones have no TLs and thus must fire at the target of the unit. Theoretically a Buffmander is as well, although he has no guns to actually fire. It is - however - the target it is resolving against. The Crisis Suits, when you get to the step in shooting resolution where you are going to resolve their weapon profile, may however pick different targets for their weapons per the target lock rules. In a purely RAW that would also mean their targets aren't chargable, since they are not targets of the Unit (rather targets of the model) but ITC has already side stepped this and allowed any target of a TL or Split Fire action to be charged as well.

So it's not like we haven't been resolving this already. It's just the first time we've had to answer how it works under the auspices of Coordinated Firepower.

Where in the rulebook does it state unit coherency only matters in movement phase because the rulebook is pretty clear running is done in the shooting phase and must be done to maintain unit conherency.

Hi Gongo,

Sure, let's take a trip to the BRB shall we? I'm using the smaller version, so my apologies if the page numbers don't line up for you. But it's very early in the book, under "The Movement Phase" where you'll find the core reference to Unit Coherency and how to play it.

Page 19: " During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannove move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have the option."

Emphasis was mine on the key part of that. So unit coherency breaking does not suddenly mean you cannot shoot during your shooting phase. It means however that in the next movement phase you restore coherency or get as close as possible. In you are unable to restore unit coherency with that move, you must then make every effort to return to coherency going forward, including (but not limited to btw, you could always do interesting things like cast Gate of Infinity! And RAW you actually would be forced to do that (or attempt it) simply to restore your coherency.) running in your next shooting phase.

If you want a great example of why it waits until the next movement phase for the rule to come into play, think about a group of jetbikes moving forward at 2" coherency in a straight line. One in the center runs over difficult terrain, fails a dangerous terrain test, and fails his armor save. He's now dead - and the unit is no longer in coherency. The rules do not state that the unit as a whole cannot shoot in the coming shooting phase (same player turn) - but in the following movement phase they must return to coherency or do all they can to make that happen.

PS: This is one of those rules much like blasts on FMCs that if you've been playing for years you may not have noticed being changed. Who really re-reads all the small ball stuff when a new edition comes out anyway?

 Orock wrote:
Wasent there for that one.

That was more an informative to let you know that this concept has been brought up before, not trying to be judgemental.

 Orock wrote:
And the bufanders buffs specifically state they Confir to the unit.

Indeed they do, but I was telling you why they wouldn't share buffs, and one is that the rule itself does not confer benefits to the unit. Not all of a Buffmander's Special Rules roll out to his unit, like the Relentless he gets for being Jet Pack.

Another thing to remember is to have the Buffmander in a unit that is shooting, because he can't fire to get the most out of his Wargear, and if he's alone, he cannot participate in that Command Benefit without being in a shooting unit.

GreyDragoon wrote:

If you want a great example of why it waits until the next movement phase for the rule to come into play, think about a group of jetbikes moving forward at 2" coherency in a straight line. One in the center runs over difficult terrain, fails a dangerous terrain test, and fails his armor save. He's now dead - and the unit is no longer in coherency. The rules do not state that the unit as a whole cannot shoot in the coming shooting phase (same player turn) - but in the following movement phase they must return to coherency or do all they can to make that happen.

PS: This is one of those rules much like blasts on FMCs that if you've been playing for years you may not have noticed being changed. Who really re-reads all the small ball stuff when a new edition comes out anyway?

Not a great example. Models are moved individually and test for DT as soon as they enter. That jetbike moving into DT would die, then the next one would have to adjust its move to be in coherency.

If the buffmander has one single weapon he could join a CF.

Then one could decide that said Buffmander doesn't want to fire its weapon. Take a look at the BRB. you always have the option that a model in a unit doesn't fire at all. The unit iself still counts as shooting.

To understand its important to regocnize that shooting itself is a action of a unit. but a single Buffmander is both. a unit and a model. so while he is picked out as a unit to shoot the model cann still refuse to fire at all.

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:
Where in the rulebook does it state unit coherency only matters in movement phase because the rulebook is pretty clear running is done in the shooting phase and must be done to maintain unit conherency.

Because that is the only time it mentions to check for it, aside from Charge movement.

UNIT COHERENCY (Movement Phase)
...
During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option.

Can you provide a statement from the Shooting Phase to check for Coherency? And even Charge movement's restriction is the same as the first paragraph I ellipsised out above.

gungo wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They didnt want it for all rules purposes. They wanted it to be treated as a single unit just for shooting. THis is fairly clear.

Exactly
So you are now picking and choosing which rules you want to follow.
Hence it is not clear which rules you are to follow.
And if you take that rule literally it means just the act of firing and not for all rule purposes.
I agree the intent was to share rules and I think the rule supports that view but I don't think it's clear.

Not really picking and choosing when it is following the rules which are stated...

Which rules are stated because the only action detailed in this rule is the act of firing and according to most people here this doesn't include the entire shooting phase for this unit just the act of firing. You are stretching the truth by claiming rules are stated when they are not.

“Run
At times, warriors may have to redeploy quickly, literally running from cover to cover or simply concentrating on movement and giving up their chance to shoot. In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing. Roll a D6 to determine the maximum Run distance for the entire unit. Models in the unit may then immediately move up to that distance in inches. They may choose not to move after the roll is made, but still count as having Run.
”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.n
This is the section in the rulebook discussing concentrating on movement instead of shooting.

Gungo your argument about running makes absolutely no sense.