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.

gungo wrote:
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.

Incorrect. If the unit is Running, they are not Shooting. If the unit is not Shooting, they would not be included in the Coordinated Firepower Attack. Therefore, no picking and choosing.

If you mean that if they are Out of Coherency in the Shooting Phase, which rule requires the unit be in Coherency in the Shooting Phase? The check that forces the Run occurs during the Movement Phase, and if not in Coherency by the end, they Run. If they Run, they are not part of the Coordinated Attack, so a pointless segue unless you can provide an answer to that question.

1.So unit coherence doesn't aplay while CF is resolved because the next check for unit coherency is in the following movement phase.
2. even when it would be checked while CF is resolved running is still not possible because Running is a alternative to shooting and CF itself states that you have to shoot.

so why are there still people around that want to forbit shooting because of unit coherency?

Gungo please read Coordinated Firepower and WHEN it triggers. Then come back and explain how the Tau units gain the ability to both shoot and run in the same phase? Because VF is very clear that when it triggers and that happens AFTER you have chosen to shoot with a unit and thus choosing to run us no longer an option. Thus tired dishonest argument was tried by Reecius in his ludicrous article written purely to try to sway the vote (either that or Reecius us completely clueless about rules).

Fragile wrote:
Gungo your argument about running makes absolutely no sense.

It wasn't a great example of unit rules being ignored I admit but I also think shared buffs were allowed for this detachment. I just don't think the rule was clear.

gungo wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Gungo your argument about running makes absolutely no sense.

It wasn't a great example of unit rules being ignored I admit but I also think shared buffs were allowed for this detachment. I just don't think the rule was clear.

What is unclear about it? It is absolutely unambiguous. You resolve yhe shots as if all the units firing in the CF were 1 giant unit. Everything that would be true if they were 1 giant unit you treat as if it is true whilst resolving the shots.

gungo wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Gungo your argument about running makes absolutely no sense.

It wasn't a great example of unit rules being ignored I admit but I also think shared buffs were allowed for this detachment. I just don't think the rule was clear.

It is actually quite clear.

Where the picking and choosing comes in to play is to consider one of the contributing units as not part of the "as one unit" for receiving Monster Hunter because one doesn't want that Broadside group with the 3 HYMP to use it because of "balance", but can use the +1 BS from the Markerlights. Never mind that they would still get it if that Buffmander were in the same group.

I have seen a lot of people trying to pick and choose which rules to follow when it comes to Formations, and this is quite possibly the second worst. The worst is the Skyhammer, when an IC joins the unit. The IC is part of the unit when it comes to everything but receiving the benefits granted to the units is how they want it to be played. It is pretty sad how far people will go, sometimes.

gungo wrote:
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.

This is the typical smoke screen, the usual garbage on the subject.

One Tau unit chooses target (we are already following the _shooting_ steps), 2 other units then join in and all three units are handled as one unit.

Look up the shooting steps and tell us where we are told to check for coherency or whether we run or anything else that has zero bearing on this issue.

It wasn't a rules clarification. It was a nerf by players who were afraid they'd have a harder fight in front of them.

But as one poster said, the drone net and riptide wing are the new king anyway, much stronger than the hunter contingent.

However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes.

When the actual numbers were given by Reece where did you get this number? Overall, it was close, could have gone both ways.

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Gungo your argument about running makes absolutely no sense.

It wasn't a great example of unit rules being ignored I admit but I also think shared buffs were allowed for this detachment. I just don't think the rule was clear.

It is actually quite clear.

Where the picking and choosing comes in to play is to consider one of the contributing units as not part of the "as one unit" for receiving Monster Hunter because one doesn't want that Broadside group with the 3 HYMP to use it because of "balance", but can use the +1 BS from the Markerlights. Never mind that they would still get it if that Buffmander were in the same group.

I have seen a lot of people trying to pick and choose which rules to follow when it comes to Formations, and this is quite possibly the second worst. The worst is the Skyhammer, when an IC joins the unit. The IC is part of the unit when it comes to everything but receiving the benefits granted to the units is how they want it to be played. It is pretty sad how far people will go, sometimes.

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument.

Look I have no problem sharing buffs in CF. I voted to share buffs in coordinated fire. I may have not been clear on the rulings of coherency on this rule however at no point did I not think this wasn't the intent. This rule could have been clearer using the generic rule used in the rulebook of for all special rules and not just singling out marked lights.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

gungo wrote:
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.

This is the typical smoke screen, the usual garbage on the subject.

One Tau unit chooses target (we are already following the _shooting_ steps), 2 other units then join in and all three units are handled as one unit.

Look up the shooting steps and tell us where we are told to check for coherency or whether we run or anything else that has zero bearing on this issue.

It wasn't a rules clarification. It was a nerf by players who were afraid they'd have a harder fight in front of them.

But as one poster said, the drone net and riptide wing are the new king anyway, much stronger than the hunter contingent.

However your also talking about a vote decided by less then 3 votes.

When the actual numbers were given by Reece where did you get this number? Overall, it was close, could have gone both ways.

Sorry tank shock was 5 votes.
The sharing buffs was 487 to 460 so 14 votes the other way would of changed the outcome.

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument. 

You know that the Assault Squad is a unit right?

Look I have no problem sharing buffs in CF. I voted to share buffs in coordinated fire. I may have not been clear on the rulings of coherency on this rule however at no point did I not think this wasn't the intent. This rule could have been clearer using the generic rule used in the rulebook of for all special rules and not just singling out marked lights

They single out MLs as an example. They don't single out special rules as that could be more confusing. The units don't share special rules. Just because the Riptide has Relentless doesn't mean anyone else joining the CF gets it. The same is true for rules like Shrouded, or Tank Hunter however the rest of the unit benefits from these rules because 1 model has them.

they single out because Markerlights are used BETWEEN step 2 and step 3 of the shootingphase.

but all units couns as one single unit from step 3 on. .. everybody sees why markerlight have to be explained especialy?

gungo wrote:
Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument.

I do not change the rules, I use generic pronoun-type words to get the idea across. A unit name is not referring to a unit of some kind? If it is not referring to a unit, what is it referring to? Where is it stated that the unit name is NOT referring to a unit?

It really is that simple, but because it may be powerful, people try to confuse it more than it needs to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 _ghost_ wrote:
they single out because Markerlights are used BETWEEN step 2 and step 3 of the shootingphase.

but all units couns as one single unit from step 3 on. .. everybody sees why markerlight have to be explained especialy?

To be fair, Coordinated Attack is implemented between Step 2 and Step 3 as well. It has to be done before selecting a Weapon.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument. 

You know that the Assault Squad is a unit right?

An assault squad is a unit
But a unit is not an assault squad

Again why change the words in a rule unless you feel the need to change them to prove your position.

gungo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument. 

You know that the Assault Squad is a unit right?

An assault squad is a unit
But a unit is not an assault squad

Again why change the words in a rule unless you feel the need to change them to prove your position.

Because sometimes using generic words help make the process in understanding the overall concept better. In most cases, I am referring to the concept which would apply not just to situations where a specific unit's name is used, which means the generic term is practical. Also remember, not just Assault Squads are referenced in the Skyhammer's rules, Devastator Squads are also mentioned. And when an IC joins an Assault Squad, it is a member of the Assault Squad for all rules purposes. When an IC joins a Devastator Squad, it is a member of the Devastator Squad for all rules purposes. And that is something I also stated in those discussions if you bother to remember.

The generic word of "unit" is used in three out of the four rules as well. The first rule is in regards to the units of the Formation gaining the ability to choose to Deep Strike on Turn 1 or Turn 2. The third rule is for units targeted by the Devastator Squads (ICs may be joined to either). The fourth rule is for units both targeted by the Devastator Squads and being Charged by the Assault Squads (ICs may be joined to any of those three).

So, yes, simple in concept, but only confused when people deliberately attempt to confuse the situation.

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. 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.

but its not unclear, you just think of it as one giant uint. Its as easy as pie. And unit coherancy never comes into play. You have to be in coherancy before declaring shooting, or during your next movement phase. Since declaring targets is after, it has no effect, and only haters are stretching for a rule like that. "so all my army has to be within 2 inches of each squad if they want that bonus"? No. Its pretty clear it was never suposed to be that restrictive. And as far as target locks, thats wrong too. If I have 9 crisis suits in my commanders squad, they all still benefit from his buffs, and they can target different things. Because the UNIT targets what he targets, but the MODEL targets other things. Its the same as rapid firing. If a unit is in rapid fire range it can, but only the MODELS actually in that range get to shoot twice. Or the ghostkeel cover save rule. If a UNIT is within 12 inches they can shoot and remove a good portion of its cover saves, but only the MODELS actually within 12 inches. The ones outside it still gets its cover from, assuming some are within 12 inches and some are not that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 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.

as a fellow ork player, I can tell you its gg WITHOUT that buff against tau anyway, so that point is moot. They take out your trukks/battlewagons and then jump back alot and finish you. i get it. Been on the other side of this, and done it many times too. And as for "good luck getting a game" yeah thats not how it works anymore. Good luck getting a game with all knights. Good luck getting a game witht a finely tuned necron decursion with wraith spam. Good luck getting a game playing eldar period. Good luck getting a game with 500 points of free razorbacks. Good luck getting a game with 3 flying hive tyrants and 4 crones, and 2 15 point troop models to finisih out your list. I thought this way too. Know what the problem is? That is all that is left now a days. If you want a game PERIOD, someone on one end of the table is being cheezy. Believe me, I would love to run my ork dreadmob list, or just a fun fluffy ork list with assorted fun things. And you can. And I do occasionally. But I am under no delusion that my dreadmob list is ever going to win a game against anything woefully underprepared agains AV spam. The game is broken to the core, with half the lists being good, the other half bad. There is no middle ground anymore. And I can only think of one truley take all comers list, the skitarii 90 vanguard drop pod list. So unfortunatley your reasons dont sway me. BUT I will say I wish that was how it worked nowadays.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

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.

The arguement of movement is a non starter. But lets pretend that everyone WAS in unit coherancy. That your whole army was moving within 2 inches of itself. What prevents the buffmanders abilities from confering to the rest? That was the only question I asked.

And trying to use unit coherancy, when it has nothing to do with shooting after targets are declared, is just trying to cheeze your opponents out of their rules. This isnt Privateer Press, page 5 does not say win at all costs, and deny your enemy everything. If you have a 5 man group of marines, with 2 in the center that have plasma guns, and the BOTH overheat and die, and you fired them first, do the other 3 marines not get to shoot their bolters now? Of course they do, because unit coherancy was checked before the firing phase. And it dosent matter now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument. 

You know that the Assault Squad is a unit right?

Look I have no problem sharing buffs in CF. I voted to share buffs in coordinated fire. I may have not been clear on the rulings of coherency on this rule however at no point did I not think this wasn't the intent. This rule could have been clearer using the generic rule used in the rulebook of for all special rules and not just singling out marked lights

They single out MLs as an example. They don't single out special rules as that could be more confusing. The units don't share special rules. Just because the Riptide has Relentless doesn't mean anyone else joining the CF gets it. The same is true for rules like Shrouded, or Tank Hunter however the rest of the unit benefits from these rules because 1 model has them.

Actually your wrong. I have my big mek in mega armor join a unit of mek guns all the time. Why? Because he has slow and purposeful, which then transfers to the unit, allowing them to move and still shoot. Its quite useful. And they dident "single out" markerlights. They used it as an example. They could have just as easily wrote "treat these units as the same unit for the purposes of shooting. Any benefits such as tank hunters from a commanders puretide engram nanochip may be used." BUT then people would be argueing "but then you dont get to share the markerlights, it dosent say specifically!"

Of all these arguements, its not the players trying to use these rules as written that are the ones trying to find loopholes in the system....

gungo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument. 

You know that the Assault Squad is a unit right?

An assault squad is a unit
But a unit is not an assault squad

Again why change the words in a rule unless you feel the need to change them to prove your position.

Assault squad is the name of the unit on the data sheet. This is covered in the rules governing the layout of a data sheet. So here the two can be used interchangeably. Saying otherwise breaks rules.

Charistoph wrote:

gungo wrote:
Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation. You just make judge mental leaps adding words to rules that didn't exist. If you weren't just trying to manipulate the rule why do you insist on changing the wording in the rule every time you bring it up. Just use the actual words in the rule instead of trying to change the wording in the rule if you believe that's what it means. Instead you keep changing the rule every time you bring up this argument.

I do not change the rules, I use generic pronoun-type words to get the idea across. A unit name is not referring to a unit of some kind? If it is not referring to a unit, what is it referring to? Where is it stated that the unit name is NOT referring to a unit?

It really is that simple, but because it may be powerful, people try to confuse it more than it needs to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 _ghost_ wrote:
they single out because Markerlights are used BETWEEN step 2 and step 3 of the shootingphase.

but all units couns as one single unit from step 3 on. .. everybody sees why markerlight have to be explained especialy?

To be fair, Coordinated Attack is implemented between Step 2 and Step 3 as well. It has to be done before selecting a Weapon.

Are we really trying to shut down a RAW arguement by making up half steps that exist between steps.....

Charistoph wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 _ghost_ wrote:
they single out because Markerlights are used BETWEEN step 2 and step 3 of the shootingphase.

but all units couns as one single unit from step 3 on. .. everybody sees why markerlight have to be explained especialy?

To be fair, Coordinated Attack is implemented between Step 2 and Step 3 as well. It has to be done before selecting a Weapon.

Its a lil more complex what i mean is:

Markerlight abilities are used BETWEEN stp 2 and step 3.
CF trats participating units as one single AT step 3 and following.

So what does that mean? Well if they had not included that markerlight sentenc we would have trouble. Because these Abilities are not shareable. How to deal with it if its not especialy written out? we would have unit A with said abilities and unit B and C without them. now they act as one single unit? so what with said abilities??
Thats the reason Markerlights are explainde fot themselfes. Regarding USR. well. then dont have to be named extra. Becaus telling someone that participating units shots are resolved as if all units were one single unit is enough to enable USR sharing.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 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.

Right so you clearly don't understand what invisistar means. Without big blasts from Riptides and Stormsurges you'll struggle to do much to an invisistar even with 3-4 ML hits. Also remember the deathstar doesn't really care about the rule sharing as you'll all be firing at 1 unit anyway.

Who said anything about 2 Wraithknights? That was a 2k game so you could fit in 5-6 Wraithknights if you wanted? I was talking about competitive stuff not 2 numpties playing with bad lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Orks they have nothing to compete with CF Tau that is true. So why are you taking Orks to top tier tournaments? If not them how powerful CF is doesn't matter as both you and your opponent have agreed to handicap yourself on power level.

gungo wrote:
Except skyhammer never states units it said assault squads in this formation

Aha, so if the units in Skyhammer formation are assault squads rather than units can you please point out in the rules how "assault squads" move and shoot, not to mention assault

Sorry tank shock was 5 votes.
The sharing buffs was 487 to 460 so 14 votes the other way would of changed the outcome.

Ok, thought you had some other source I had missed.

 _ghost_ wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
they single out because Markerlights are used BETWEEN step 2 and step 3 of the shootingphase.

but all units couns as one single unit from step 3 on. .. everybody sees why markerlight have to be explained especialy?

To be fair, Coordinated Attack is implemented between Step 2 and Step 3 as well. It has to be done before selecting a Weapon.

Its a lil more complex what i mean is:

Markerlight abilities are used BETWEEN stp 2 and step 3.
CF trats participating units as one single AT step 3 and following.

So what does that mean? Well if they had not included that markerlight sentenc we would have trouble. Because these Abilities are not shareable. How to deal with it if its not especialy written out? we would have unit A with said abilities and unit B and C without them. now they act as one single unit? so what with said abilities??
Thats the reason Markerlights are explainde fot themselfes. Regarding USR. well. then dont have to be named extra. Becaus telling someone that participating units shots are resolved as if all units were one single unit is enough to enable USR sharing.

If I remember the special rule correctly, the inclusion of units happens after a target is declared, and must be completed before, not while, the first Weapon is selected. If you do not include them before a Weapon is selected, how would you which ones you could choose from?

That was more my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Are we really trying to shut down a RAW arguement by making up half steps that exist between steps.....

I am not sure of your question.

If I remember the rule correctly, the inclusion of other units is made after the first unit's target is selected at Step 2. They must be included before Step 3, which is selecting a Weapon, otherwise you wouldn't know what Weapon options you have to choose from.

Of course, I could be wrong, I'm running off of a memory that's older than a couple weeks with some sleep deprivation in between, and if so, a proper quote should help.

I have yet to see one halfway decent arguement against why this would not work.

This cant be all the arguement was based off. Because its not even close to flimsy. Its like theoretical if the rules for units existed in some paralel universe theory.

Orock what it was based on was Reecius' ludicrous article followed by a bunch of people that don't play Tau and/or don't understand/haven't read the rules. That's how you win a vote, you carefully choose the question to push voters one way and release propaganda with a weak argument you know won't stand scrutiny but it doesn't have to because democracy is a dumb way to make decisions.

Sorry for the delayed response. Lots of activity on this one!

 FlingitNow wrote:

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...

I brought this up because in every argument I've seen going against the RAW interpretation that the buffs are shared the penalties aren't mentioned. All the focus is on all the goodies the coordinated units receive and how powerful that is. What's not mentioned is how the penalties should also be shared. When that's brought into the equation the benefits are mitigated, either by forcing the coordinated units to be less effective or reducing the number of units that participate in Coordinated Firepower.

I sincerely believe the "nerfing" of the rules against what RAW would permit actually strengthens CF rather than weakens it. I personally find it extremely cheesy that I cause a small squad of 3 Fire Warriors to run away but it can get LoS on a unit 48" away and be a throwaway third unit in a CF blob to give the other two units +1BS. To me, that is a gross exploitation of rules. There's no way that fleeing unit should be permitted to provide a bonus. Though the other buffs aren't shared amongst the other joining units, this makes CF more powerful than buff sharing would be while minimizing the number of units that can contribute. I strategically load my list with Pinning and/or focus fire on smaller units to force Morale checks, but it's negated because of a knee-jerk belief that the RAW is too powerful? Not cool.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Sorry for the delayed response. Lots of activity on this one!

 FlingitNow wrote:

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...

I brought this up because in every argument I've seen going against the RAW interpretation that the buffs are shared the penalties aren't mentioned. All the focus is on all the goodies the coordinated units receive and how powerful that is. What's not mentioned is how the penalties should also be shared. When that's brought into the equation the benefits are mitigated, either by forcing the coordinated units to be less effective or reducing the number of units that participate in Coordinated Firepower.

I sincerely believe the "nerfing" of the rules against what RAW would permit actually strengthens CF rather than weakens it. I personally find it extremely cheesy that I cause a small squad of 3 Fire Warriors to run away but it can get LoS on a unit 48" away and be a throwaway third unit in a CF blob to give the other two units +1BS. To me, that is a gross exploitation of rules. There's no way that fleeing unit should be permitted to provide a bonus. Though the other buffs aren't shared amongst the other joining units, this makes CF more powerful than buff sharing would be while minimizing the number of units that can contribute. I strategically load my list with Pinning and/or focus fire on smaller units to force Morale checks, but it's negated because of a knee-jerk belief that the RAW is too powerful? Not cool.

delete

Tropic Thunder wrote:
I brought this up because in every argument I've seen going against the RAW interpretation that the buffs are shared the penalties aren't mentioned. All the focus is on all the goodies the coordinated units receive and how powerful that is. What's not mentioned is how the penalties should also be shared. When that's brought into the equation the benefits are mitigated, either by forcing the coordinated units to be less effective or reducing the number of units that participate in Coordinated Firepower.

I sincerely believe the "nerfing" of the rules against what RAW would permit actually strengthens CF rather than weakens it. I personally find it extremely cheesy that I cause a small squad of 3 Fire Warriors to run away but it can get LoS on a unit 48" away and be a throwaway third unit in a CF blob to give the other two units +1BS. To me, that is a gross exploitation of rules. There's no way that fleeing unit should be permitted to provide a bonus. Though the other buffs aren't shared amongst the other joining units, this makes CF more powerful than buff sharing would be while minimizing the number of units that can contribute. I strategically load my list with Pinning and/or focus fire on smaller units to force Morale checks, but it's negated because of a knee-jerk belief that the RAW is too powerful? Not cool.

the solution seems to be fairly straightforward to me. a unit that is falling back that contributes to a Combined Firepower shot is resolved as a snap fire normally (pg.58 of the rulebook), when 3 or more units contribute, it would be at BS2.

at the same time, debuffs would apply to the entire unit as well. From the Tau Empire codex, there is the Neuroweb System Jammer. make one unit fire its weapons with Gets Hot. If it contributes its fire, then the entire fire group gets it on their weapons as well. In addition such things as Blind or Dominate would affect the entire Coordinated Firepower fire group, no?

Blind would not confered to the group. reread the rules for Blind and you see why not. Tip: blind is a set modifier to the models values. after the failed test the modifiers are set. thats not sharable

carl BS modifiers cannot raise snap shot bonuses. Thats why invisibility is so powerful. The only thing I know of that can increase shap shooting odds are markerlights, because they specifically say so. snap shooting at BS 1 is applied after all the + to hit modifiers are added.

Dark angels battle company.

carldooley wrote:the solution seems to be fairly straightforward to me. a unit that is falling back that contributes to a Combined Firepower shot is resolved as a snap fire normally (pg.58 of the rulebook), when 3 or more units contribute, it would be at BS2.

BS 1, the Coordinated Attack is not noted as modifying a Snap Shot like a Markerlight does.

carldooley wrote:at the same time, debuffs would apply to the entire unit as well. From the Tau Empire codex, there is the Neuroweb System Jammer. make one unit fire its weapons with Gets Hot. If it contributes its fire, then the entire fire group gets it on their weapons as well. In addition such things as Blind or Dominate would affect the entire Coordinated Firepower fire group, no?

Blind would only affect all the models if one of the models fired it and hit one of the models with it. At any other point, they are not a cohesive unit. If it was Tau v Tau, and one used the Neuroweb System Jammer, then yes, it would affect them.

If the Lychguard still had reflective shields, it would make for some very interesting mechanics as well.

_ghost_ wrote:Blind would not confered to the group. reread the rules for Blind and you see why not. Tip: blind is a set modifier to the models values. after the failed test the modifiers are set. thats not sharable

It would if they shot itself. If the unit is hit and the Test fails, then all models in the unit are affected. But they would have to shoot one of the models in the Coordinated Attack to do it. At no other point would they all be considered one unit.

Since debuffs like blind or snapshooting from jink or gone to ground or rallying or gets hot from psychic shenanigans happen on the enemy turn, its real easy to just not include that unit in the coordinated fire. And if you make a mistake and fire at a ghostkeel with your big giant unit and he forces snap shooting, well, thats nobodys fault but yours. I have no issues with the downsides of coordinated fire, but everyone seems to have issues with the upside to it.