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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Sorry, but I don't buy that I'm not allowed to consider a rulebook's mention of the word "firepower" in proper context just because it doesn't have a glossary entry saying, "firepower means shots".

It's much more than not having a glossary entry. There's a different word for shots: "SHOTS". Or "shooting attacks". The game consistently refers to firing a weapon in those terms and never uses "firepower" outside of fluff descriptions of what a rule is representing.

Even if that's the case though, you've got zero argument to say that combining firepower means simply shooting (but not actually shooting, because no models in the unit are permitted to shoot at all that phase, at one point in the shooting sequence or another) the same target, either. Shooting the same target is a restriction on units which are combining their firepower, but that doesn't define what combining firepower is. For example, to legally drive a car you must have a driver's licence, but having a driver's licence does not define legally driving a car.

No, but taken in context the reference is obvious: combining firepower means participating in the process described in the previous sentence. You commit to the same target and resolve all of the combined shooting as a single unit.

So the following reference to models and unit in the same portion of rules (which is, 'Nominate a Unit to Shoot' is meaningless, then?

"Who Can Shoot?

Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running.

This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit’s ability to shoot – this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."

It's evident that models' ability to fire affects a unit's ability to shoot. Otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in the explanation of nominating a unit to shoot.

That quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere in there does it say that the model's ability to fire has any effect on the unit's ability to shoot. In fact, it says the exact opposite. The MODEL can not shoot because the UNIT is locked in close combat or running. You have this completely backwards.

So you're saying a player can say, "Unit A is going to shoot your Unit 1. I am going to elect not to shoot with all models," and the unit has shot? Please provide rules which say a unit has shot without any shots having been made or rolled for.

You selected a unit to shoot with and resolved the entire sequence (from declaring a target to finishing and moving on to the next unit). The fact that no models fired weapons just means that some of the steps went by very quickly. The burden of proof here is on you to provide some support for your claim that "shooting with a unit" means something other than the process described in the shooting rules.

If there's no definition of firepower, how are you telling when three or more units have combined their firepower?

Because the sentence, when read as part of the complete CF rule instead of in isolation, is clearly saying "if you do this thing in the previous sentence and meet this additional condition then you get a bonus". When it says "combines their firepower" it's nothing more than a reference to what was just described in the previous sentence.

col_impact wrote:The CF rule has the requirement that the units shoot at the same target unit. This is not a model-based requirement. For a unit to shoot only line of sight is required. The unit completes its shooting by going through the shooting process. The rules do not care whether or not any shots are fired.

And zero quotes to support your assertion that a unit that has no models shooting is still shooting.

Every single independent use of the word "shoot" involves a Weapon performing a To-Hit roll, or at least its equivalent. There is no evidence that a unit can shoot without at least one model being able to pass its LOS and Range check somehow. That it can make an attempt, is not in question nor ever in argument. But that it actually SHOOTS is a different story.

col_impact wrote:In any shooting situation, a player can freely opt for all models to not fire any shots of any weapon whether in range or not. A player that opts for all models in a unit to fire no shots (whether in range or not) still has a unit that has gone through shooting at that target unit and that unit can no longer opt to shoot again or to run.

No, it has gone through the Shooting Sequence and attempted a Shooting Attack, it has not shot. Please provide a properly referenced quote to support this assertion.

Peregrine wrote:No, but taken in context the reference is obvious: combining firepower means participating in the process described in the previous sentence. You commit to the same target and resolve all of the combined shooting as a single unit.

Wait, on the second page (on default posts/page) you stated that the second sentence tells you how to combine firepower, now you are stating the reverse because it doesn't fit what you want?

Now, it has yet to be properly justified that just targeting by a unit counts as shooting OR combining firepower.

Peregrine wrote:

So the following reference to models and unit in the same portion of rules (which is, 'Nominate a Unit to Shoot' is meaningless, then?

"Who Can Shoot?

Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running.

This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit’s ability to shoot – this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."

It's evident that models' ability to fire affects a unit's ability to shoot. Otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in the explanation of nominating a unit to shoot.

That quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere in there does it say that the model's ability to fire has any effect on the unit's ability to shoot. In fact, it says the exact opposite. The MODEL can not shoot because the UNIT is locked in close combat or running. You have this completely backwards.

More importantly, there is nothing to state that otherwise. More to the point, there is nothing to state that when a unit nominates a target it is considered as actually shooting, even if no models shoot.

Peregrine wrote:You selected a unit to shoot with and resolved the entire sequence (from declaring a target to finishing and moving on to the next unit). The fact that no models fired weapons just means that some of the steps went by very quickly. The burden of proof here is on you to provide some support for your claim that "shooting with a unit" means something other than the process described in the shooting rules.

The Attack is Resolved, but that still do not mean the unit has shot. No support for this statement has been provided.

Now, this has been asked for a lot, but can you provide the actual quote that if no model fires the unit still counts as shooting?

Peregrine wrote:

If there's no definition of firepower, how are you telling when three or more units have combined their firepower?

Because the sentence, when read as part of the complete CF rule instead of in isolation, is clearly saying "if you do this thing in the previous sentence and meet this additional condition then you get a bonus". When it says "combines their firepower" it's nothing more than a reference to what was just described in the previous sentence.

Fascinating.

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The first sentence says "any other units may add their firepower".

Let's see: "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot can add their fire power to the attack."

Okay, no argument there so far.

 Peregrine wrote:
The second sentence tells you what it means to add their firepower.

Now, let's see: "These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities."

So, it is defined as the units shooting the same target and resolving their shots... If you are out of range, the weapons are not shot. If the weapons are not shot, then the unit is not shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:
The third sentence tells you that if three units do what was just described you get another bonus.

Let's see: "When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill."

So, when they combine firepower, which is the units shooting the same target, they add 1 to their Ballistic Skill, so only units who are in range of this target can participate and so only the units are in range will gain the BS bonus.

Quite fascinating.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The CF rule has the requirement that the units shoot at the same target unit. This is not a model-based requirement. For a unit to shoot only line of sight is required. The unit completes its shooting by going through the shooting process. The rules do not care whether or not any shots are fired.

And zero quotes to support your assertion that a unit that has no models shooting is still shooting.

Every single independent use of the word "shoot" involves a Weapon performing a To-Hit roll, or at least its equivalent. There is no evidence that a unit can shoot without at least one model being able to pass its LOS and Range check somehow. That it can make an attempt, is not in question nor ever in argument. But that it actually SHOOTS is a different story.

col_impact wrote:In any shooting situation, a player can freely opt for all models to not fire any shots of any weapon whether in range or not. A player that opts for all models in a unit to fire no shots (whether in range or not) still has a unit that has gone through shooting at that target unit and that unit can no longer opt to shoot again or to run.

No, it has gone through the Shooting Sequence and attempted a Shooting Attack, it has not shot. Please provide a properly referenced quote to support this assertion.

Peregrine wrote:No, but taken in context the reference is obvious: combining firepower means participating in the process described in the previous sentence. You commit to the same target and resolve all of the combined shooting as a single unit.

Wait, on the second page (on default posts/page) you stated that the second sentence tells you how to combine firepower, now you are stating the reverse because it doesn't fit what you want?

Now, it has yet to be properly justified that just targeting by a unit counts as shooting OR combining firepower.

Peregrine wrote:

So the following reference to models and unit in the same portion of rules (which is, 'Nominate a Unit to Shoot' is meaningless, then?

"Who Can Shoot?

Certain situations prevent a model from firing. The most common are:

• Their unit is locked in close combat with the foe.
• Their unit is running.

This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit’s ability to shoot – this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."

It's evident that models' ability to fire affects a unit's ability to shoot. Otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in the explanation of nominating a unit to shoot.

That quote doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere in there does it say that the model's ability to fire has any effect on the unit's ability to shoot. In fact, it says the exact opposite. The MODEL can not shoot because the UNIT is locked in close combat or running. You have this completely backwards.

More importantly, there is nothing to state that otherwise. More to the point, there is nothing to state that when a unit nominates a target it is considered as actually shooting, even if no models shoot.

Peregrine wrote:You selected a unit to shoot with and resolved the entire sequence (from declaring a target to finishing and moving on to the next unit). The fact that no models fired weapons just means that some of the steps went by very quickly. The burden of proof here is on you to provide some support for your claim that "shooting with a unit" means something other than the process described in the shooting rules.

The Attack is Resolved, but that still do not mean the unit has shot. No support for this statement has been provided.

Now, this has been asked for a lot, but can you provide the actual quote that if no model fires the unit still counts as shooting?

Peregrine wrote:

If there's no definition of firepower, how are you telling when three or more units have combined their firepower?

Because the sentence, when read as part of the complete CF rule instead of in isolation, is clearly saying "if you do this thing in the previous sentence and meet this additional condition then you get a bonus". When it says "combines their firepower" it's nothing more than a reference to what was just described in the previous sentence.

Fascinating.

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The first sentence says "any other units may add their firepower".

Let's see: "Whenever a unit from a Hunter Contingent selects a target in the shooting phase, any number of other units from the same Detachment who can still shoot can add their fire power to the attack."

Okay, no argument there so far.

 Peregrine wrote:
The second sentence tells you what it means to add their firepower.

Now, let's see: "These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit - this includes the use of markerlight abilities."

So, it is defined as the units shooting the same target and resolving their shots... If you are out of range, the weapons are not shot. If the weapons are not shot, then the unit is not shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:
The third sentence tells you that if three units do what was just described you get another bonus.

Let's see: "When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill."

So, when they combine firepower, which is the units shooting the same target, they add 1 to their Ballistic Skill, so only units who are in range of this target can participate and so only the units are in range will gain the BS bonus.

Quite fascinating.

I love how your only argument is constantly "give me a quote", How about YOU give a quote that says following the exact shooting sequence and opting not to shoot at a target isn't considered completing a shooting sequence.

Ok, let's try another approach here.

Go back to 5th edition and earlier. There was no controversy at all that a unit was considered to have shot once it declared a target, even if all of its weapons were out of range. You had to guess if you were in range before measuring, and if you fell short you just missed the opportunity to fire. You didn't get to pick another target and try again, you didn't get to run, you did your shooting and you just didn't accomplish anything with it.

Now in 7th edition nothing has changed to remove this scenario. So why is it suddenly assumed that a unit has not shot until some of its models roll to hit? Can you cite specific rules that changed between 5th edition and 7th edition to make this work differently? Before you answer, remember that the ability to measure before committing is not a valid answer since it just helps to keep you from making stupid decisions, it's not mandatory to take advantage of the opportunity.

So again any rules at all that support the stance that a unit that hasn't fired a single shot has shot? We don't have to prove the contra position as English supports that position, you are claiming the rules give a different definition for having shot thus you need to prove it. So finally now page and paragraph for such proof or you are conceding.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So again any rules at all that support the stance that a unit that hasn't fired a single shot has shot? We don't have to prove the contra position as English supports that position, you are claiming the rules give a different definition for having shot thus you need to prove it. So finally now page and paragraph for such proof or you are conceding.

There are no such rules that support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, it is not needed. A unit is counted as having shot when it has finished its shooting phase, it can do this without its models firing a single shot.

X078 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So again any rules at all that support the stance that a unit that hasn't fired a single shot has shot? We don't have to prove the contra position as English supports that position, you are claiming the rules give a different definition for having shot thus you need to prove it. So finally now page and paragraph for such proof or you are conceding.

There are no rules to support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, it is not needed. A unit is counted as having shot when it has finished its shooting phase, it can do this without firing a single shot.

You are going to need to provide some clear rules to backup an argument like that.

 Peregrine wrote:
Go back to 5th edition and earlier. There was no controversy at all that a unit was considered to have shot once it declared a target, even if all of its weapons were out of range. You had to guess if you were in range before measuring, and if you fell short you just missed the opportunity to fire. You didn't get to pick another target and try again, you didn't get to run, you did your shooting and you just didn't accomplish anything with it.

Unless you have a rule from 5th edition that says otherwise, missing the opportunity to fire and actually having shot are two different things. I can't accept your proposition based on 5th edition rules, either, because I'd have to simply take your word for it without being able to check the reference.

Now in 7th edition nothing has changed to remove this scenario. So why is it suddenly assumed that a unit has not shot until some of its models roll to hit? Can you cite specific rules that changed between 5th edition and 7th edition to make this work differently? Before you answer, remember that the ability to measure before committing is not a valid answer since it just helps to keep you from making stupid decisions, it's not mandatory to take advantage of the opportunity.

Once again I'd have to take your word for it without being able to check any reference that the rules are consistent between 5th and 7th, but once more having failed to shoot by being told models cannot shoot at all this phase due to out of range and actually having shot are two different things.

As Charistoph pointed out, no one is arguing the unit has not attempted to make a shooting attack. But no one has proved that simply attempting suffices as shooting, or that simply attempting suffices as adding the unit's firepower to the attack.

X078 wrote:There are no such rules that support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, it is not needed. A unit is counted as having shot when it has finished its shooting phase, it can do this without its models firing a single shot.

If there are no such rules that support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, how on earth are you claiming it counts as having shot? Make sense, man!

You're basically saying, "There are no rules to support a unit has shot or not, but a unit has shot when it has finished its shooting phase. Even though I just said there are no rules to support that."

In fact there are rules to tell us when a unit definitely has shot: once To Hit rolls have been made. At that point you know models have been in range with weapons they have chosen to fire, and have fired.

 Nilok wrote:

You are going to need to provide some clear rules to backup an argument like that.

I do not since it is not needed. The game turn sequence explains it all perfectly fine. Like i mentioned there are no stages/phases/flags whatever in the way you are asking for that marks a unit having done anything. The only criteria is that it follows the phases and sequences as laid out in the BRB.

E.G. can you provide a rule that says all your units are finished with what they are doing and you are now ok to end your turn?

If the interpretation the Tau players endorse is taken seriously, that would mean that units without guns and only melee would qualify as shooting. I can't actually find somewhere that actually explicitly disqualifies the Tau formation from exploiting this loophole. RaW they are right as GW left phrasing from 5th edition in the 7th ed. ruleset. It just is a poorly written rule.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

If there are no such rules that support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, how on earth are you claiming it counts as having shot? Make sense, man!

You're basically saying, "There are no rules to support a unit has shot or not, but a unit has shot when it has finished its shooting phase. Even though I just said there are no rules to support that."

In fact there are rules to tell us when a unit definitely has shot: once To Hit rolls have been made. At that point you know models have been in range with weapons they have chosen to fire, and have fired.

Simple, by going through each phase and resolving them.

This discussion needs to stop being a RaW discussion, as it IS actually clear, and move onto being a RaI one. X078 would you use this in a game against an opponent.

 Quickjager wrote:
If the interpretation the Tau players endorse is taken seriously, that would mean that units without guns and only melee would qualify as shooting. I can't actually find somewhere that actually explicitly disqualifies the Tau formation from exploiting this loophole. RaW they are right as GW left phrasing from 5th edition in the 7th ed. ruleset. It just is a poorly written rule.

Exactly, i myself am not arguing any intent just that by RAW this is allowed, intended or not.

I know I agree completely. RaW this DOES work due to left over 5th ed. rules being present. It really highlights (along with at LEAST 5 other issues) why a FAQ is needed; it is just we will never get one.

Yay.

At the end of the day discuss with your opponent, worst that can happen is no game.

 Quickjager wrote:
This discussion needs to stop being a RaW discussion, as it IS actually clear, and move onto being a RaI one. X078 would you use this in a game against an opponent.

Agree on the discussion part. My gaming group is pretty much by the book, allow everything by RAW. So normally yes i would use it unless agreed upon otherwise with a house-rule.

In return i get to face invisible titans on skyshield pad

Ok, three questions for those who think that a unit has not shot until at least one model in the unit has rolled to hit. A unit declares a target, but because of careless measuring before committing is found to be out of range of all of its weapons during step 3 of the shooting sequence.

1) May the unit declare a different target instead and start the process over? Step 1 of the shooting sequence is to select a unit that has not shot yet.

2) May the unit choose to run instead of shooting, even though it has already started the shooting sequence? Running happens instead of shooting.

3) Which unit(s) may the unit charge in the following assault phase? A unit that fired in the shooting phase may only charge the unit that it targeted.

Can't be bothered to quote a ton of messages with a mobile device.

To clarify something, I combine 3 units of crisis suits with different weapons to shoot at a single target unit. Enough models die to take my unit of plasmas out of range. You are actually saying that I now do not have three units to participate in the shooting attack, so cannot claim the +1BS? ..or what??

X078 wrote:
Simple, by going through each phase and resolving them.

That makes no sense. By going through and resolving the Shooting phase your units count as having shot, even if no shots were fired?

Okay, if you say your Heavy weapon-armed unit shot and therefore cannot charge in the Assault phase even though they didn't fire any shots, feel free to play it that way. I won't stop you bizarrely gimping yourself, but don't expect me to do the same.

Peregrine wrote:Ok, three questions for those who think that a unit has not shot until at least one model in the unit has rolled to hit. A unit declares a target, but because of careless measuring before committing is found to be out of range of all of its weapons during step 3 of the shooting sequence.

The problem is you are equating any part of The Shooting Sequence with having actually fired, when we know this is not necessarily the case (based on models in a unit, and potentially thus an entire unit, being forbidden from shooting at all that phase if found to be out of range). But to answer your questions...

1) May the unit declare a different target instead and start the process over? Step 1 of the shooting sequence is to select a unit that has not shot yet.

If the models in the unit are found to be out of range of the same target as the rest of the unit (which would be the case if all models were out of range) we are told they cannot shoot at all that phase, so per RAW no, they may not. I would almost certainly allow them to target another unit out of sportsmanship though, and discounting the first shooting attempt.

2) May the unit choose to run instead of shooting, even though it has already started the shooting sequence? Running happens instead of shooting.

Units may choose to run instead of firing. If the unit has not fired, as it would not have if not in range, then it may run.

3) Which unit(s) may the unit charge in the following assault phase? A unit that fired in the shooting phase may only charge the unit that it targeted.

The restriction on charging is based on targeting, rather than firing/shooting. If they targeted a unit but failed to shoot at it as above, then of course they may still charge only that unit.

Naw wrote:To clarify something, I combine 3 units of crisis suits with different weapons to shoot at a single target unit. Enough models die to take my unit of plasmas out of range. You are actually saying that I now do not have three units to participate in the shooting attack, so cannot claim the +1BS? ..or what??

Presumably if you were foolish or unfortunate enough to resolve your weapon groups with the longer ranged weapons first, yes. In the same way as if you had three Riptides resolving different weapon groups and one died due to Nova Charge failing you would no longer have three Monstrous Creatures in the unit for Fire Team's bonus.

Or in the reverse if you had a unit in 6+ cover being shot by Skitarii Phosphor Weapons with the Luminagen special rule (unit suffering one or more unsaved wounds counts their cover save as one point worse) and they suffered one wound and subsequent wound pools then left them with no cover save.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
If the models in the unit are found to be out of range of the same target as the rest of the unit (which would be the case if all models were out of range) we are told they cannot shoot at all that phase, so per RAW no, they may not. I would almost certainly allow them to target another unit out of sportsmanship though, and discounting the first shooting attempt.

But I thought the unit hasn't shot yet? If it hasn't shot then I can select it as my next unit to shoot with.

The restriction on charging is based on targeting, rather than firing/shooting. If they targeted a unit but failed to shoot at it as above, then of course they may still charge only that unit.

The restriction only applies to units that have fired. A unit that hasn't fired is free to charge any unit you want. So you've just conceded defeat on this point, once a unit commits to shooting as part of the CF attack it is considered to have shot, contributes to the 3+ unit count, and may only charge the unit that was targeted with CF (if, for some reason, you want to charge as Tau).

Presumably if you were foolish or unfortunate enough to resolve your weapon groups with the longer ranged weapons first, yes. In the same way as if you had three Riptides resolving different weapon groups and one died due to Nova Charge failing you would no longer have three Monstrous Creatures in the unit for Fire Team's bonus.

Wrong again. The rule says that if 3+ units contribute, not if 3+ units are currently contributing. Once you have passed the "3+ units declared" requirement the bonus is assigned and not checked continuously.

Understood. You are following your own house rule and not rules as written. No one has died, the weapons are just out of range in the unit and therefore cannot shoot, but they have participated to the shooting attack.


Now that this is out of the way there's nothing to prevent a coldstar commander choosing a target in line of sight and actually shooting, because as established the new unit for this shooting attack shoot at the same target. It is just that some of them do not choose to use their weapons or are out of range.

We have shown that this is permissible by the rules but you neep clinging to must shoot at the same target and completely ignoring the context. We have satisfied the rule of choosing the same target, we have satisfied the rule of choosing weapon(s), rolled to hit, rolled to wound etc, ie. all models in the single unit have had a chance to either shoot or not shoot as the rules allow.

You really do not have basis for your argument. It's really very simple. We are not forced to shoot a specific weapon if we don't want to, why do you think we must? You seem to handle the unit in CF as separate units somehow.

X078 wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

You are going to need to provide some clear rules to backup an argument like that.

I do not since it is not needed. The game turn sequence explains it all perfectly fine. Like i mentioned there are no stages/phases/flags whatever in the way you are asking for that marks a unit having done anything. The only criteria is that it follows the phases and sequences as laid out in the BRB.

E.G. can you provide a rule that says all your units are finished with what they are doing and you are now ok to end your turn?

Whether you feel it is needer or not is irreverent. You need to provide a clear logic and evidence in order to show that your strong style argument is valid. A strong argument is defined as being an absolute.

Please explain in the permissive ruleset, how your argument is valid and true.

 Peregrine wrote:
But I thought the unit hasn't shot yet? If it hasn't shot then I can select it as my next unit to shoot with.

You must select a unit that is able to fire, though. If the unit's models "cannot fire at all that phase" due to being out of range then the unit itself cannot be said to be able to shoot.

The restriction only applies to units that have fired. A unit that hasn't fired is free to charge any unit you want. So you've just conceded defeat on this point, once a unit commits to shooting as part of the CF attack it is considered to have shot, contributes to the 3+ unit count, and may only charge the unit that was targeted with CF (if, for some reason, you want to charge as Tau).

Oh indeed, my mistake - I noted only the last part of the sentence and missed the first bit. I've not automatically conceded defeat, but I must of course change my response. If the unit was found not able to shoot for being out of range then it would be free to charge a unit other than the one it targeted, because it did not fire.

Wrong again. The rule says that if 3+ units contribute, not if 3+ units are currently contributing. Once you have passed the "3+ units declared" requirement the bonus is assigned and not checked continuously.

You're saying I'm wrong because the rules say if 3+ units contribute, then claim that the point to pass is 3+ units having declared they will do so. You're trying to satisfy something requiring apples with oranges, my friend.

The requirement is for three or more units to combine their firepower, so perhaps if you want to delve that deeply into it you must check at each weapon selected step whether three or more units are combining or have already combined their firepower.

I don't think it's necessary for this discussion though, as the point we're arguing is whether an out of range unit to start with can contribute.

Oh hey, now that I think about it a little more, my minor point there turns out to be the decisive and indisputable conclusion that units which are out of range still count. Let's read the CF rule again:

When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill.

Note the tense on the highlighted verb: when units combine their firepower. Not when units have combined, are combining, etc. This is indisputably a one-time check: have 3+ units combined their firepower? If so, +1 BS. You do not check it multiple times as the attack is resolved because then the appropriate tense would be "are combining" instead. So, when do we check to see if the +1 BS bonus is applied? For simplicity we'll assume that exactly three units participate in the attack.

If the bonus is applied once 3+ units have each fired at least one weapon then the the rule is either broken or useless, depending on how you define "resolved as a single unit". Arguably it is impossible to meet the condition, since by the time any to-hit rolls are made the units all count as a single unit and by definition can not be 3+ units at the same time. In this case the +1 BS bonus will never be granted. But even counting the units individually for this purpose while still rolling dice as a single unit doesn't help much. Remember that all weapons of the same type are fired simultaneously, so weapons from multiple sub-units will be fired at the same time. Now you've created the awkward mess where you fire each class of weapons (fusion guns, pulse rifles, etc), and somewhere in that sequence of weapon types you will start adding +1 BS because weapons from 3+ sub-units have fired.

If the bonus is applied once 3+ units have been found to be in range and able to have at least one weapon fire a model then nothing changes. Range is not measured officially until you declare a weapon type and measure range from all models that wish to fire that weapon.

If the bonus is applied once 3+ units are declared to be participating in the CF attack then everything works just fine. You declare 1-2 units and resolve the shots as one unit but with no BS bonus, or you declare 3+ units and get +1 BS. Once the declaration is made the bonus is set and there's no arguing over the precise definition of "as a single unit".

I'll let you decide which of these interpretations appeals to you the most, but I'm going to go with the one that has the +1 BS rule actually do something instead of being a broken rule that can never apply.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Okay, if you say your Heavy weapon-armed unit shot and therefore cannot charge in the Assault phase even though they didn't fire any shots, feel free to play it that way. I won't stop you bizarrely gimping yourself, but don't expect me to do the same.

Even for Tau which this primarily concerns, this situation would be very rare and probably only occur when using CF, and only when the tradeoff of giving +1BS by not firing from another unit would be worth it. Like in the OP's first post.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh hey, now that I think about it a little more, my minor point there turns out to be the decisive and indisputable conclusion that units which are out of range still count. Let's read the CF rule again:

When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill.

Note the tense on the highlighted verb: when units combine their firepower. Not when units have combined, are combining, etc. This is indisputably a one-time check: have 3+ units combined their firepower? If so, +1 BS. You do not check it multiple times as the attack is resolved because then the appropriate tense would be "are combining" instead. So, when do we check to see if the +1 BS bonus is applied? For simplicity we'll assume that exactly three units participate in the attack.

Except that's not how the present simple tense works. It's used for expected repeated future or habitual actions.

"When you leave the house and lock the door properly, you are given a treat."

Are you granted a treat every time you lock the door, even if you only locked it one time? No.

More important to focus on is the conjunction "when" which connects the cause and effect clauses of the sentence. Thus in fact it is a more-than-once check for the cause (or requirement in this case) to have occurred to trigger the effect, if you wish to use that effect (i.e. +1 BS).

 Mr. Shine wrote:

1)If the models in the unit are found to be out of range of the same target as the rest of the unit (which would be the case if all models were out of range) we are told they cannot shoot at all that phase, so per RAW no, they may not. I would almost certainly allow them to target another unit out of sportsmanship though, and discounting the first shooting attempt.

2)Units may choose to run instead of firing. If the unit has not fired, as it would not have if not in range, then it may run.

I hate multiquote.
1. the second sentence of Coordinated Firepower says to resolve the shooting as though it was coming from a single unit. It doesn't matter if the supporting units are out of range. Presumably, the first squad is in range and as such they all (the guns in range) get to shoot.
2. This is Tau. unless you are playing by ITC which specifically disallows it, you can run AND shoot. You can snap fire when within 12" of an Ethereal employing Zephyr's Grace (pg.77, Tau Empire Codex), or shoot normally when within 12" of a Commander or Fireblade from a Hunter Cadre thanks to Ambushes and Feints (p.105, Tau Empire Codex).

about 2. it is a shame that GW isn't doing FAQs or erratas anymore. what happens when a heavy weapon doesn't move in the movement phase but runs under Ambushes & Feints in the shooting phase? it didn't move in the movement phase, so does it get to fire at full BS after running?

X078 wrote:
A unit is counted as having shot when it has finished its shooting phase, it can do this without its models firing a single shot.

So a unit that Runs in the shooting phase now count as having shot? What target did they shoot at, so if they have a special rule that allows them to charge after Running I know who they can charge?

X078 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So again any rules at all that support the stance that a unit that hasn't fired a single shot has shot? We don't have to prove the contra position as English supports that position, you are claiming the rules give a different definition for having shot thus you need to prove it. So finally now page and paragraph for such proof or you are conceding.

There are no such rules that support a unit being in a "stage" or whatever that "marks" it as having shot or not, it is not needed. A unit is counted as having shot when it has finished its shooting phase, it can do this without its models firing a single shot.

So we KNOW by English if any models in the unit have fired one or more shots then the Unit has shot. You're saying that merely targeting is enough to qualify as having shot and have admitted that no rules support your stance. Thus by the tenets you must mark your post clearly has HYWPI. Thank you for conceding on the RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Can't be bothered to quote a ton of messages with a mobile device.

To clarify something, I combine 3 units of crisis suits with different weapons to shoot at a single target unit. Enough models die to take my unit of plasmas out of range. You are actually saying that I now do not have three units to participate in the shooting attack, so cannot claim the +1BS? ..or what??

If you do this you have broken the CF rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So we KNOW by English if any models in the unit have fired one or more shots then the Unit has shot. You're saying that merely targeting is enough to qualify as having shot and have admitted that no rules support your stance. Thus by the tenets you must mark your post clearly has HYWPI. Thank you for conceding on the RaW.

I am not saying anything, the rules are and they are quite clear. You are of course free to house-rule this together with your friends if you agree on that.

X078 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So we KNOW by English if any models in the unit have fired one or more shots then the Unit has shot. You're saying that merely targeting is enough to qualify as having shot and have admitted that no rules support your stance. Thus by the tenets you must mark your post clearly has HYWPI. Thank you for conceding on the RaW.

I am not saying anything, the rules are and they are quite clear. You are of course free to house-rule this together with your friends if you agree on that.

What rules? Please quote as we've been asking for since page 1. Where in the rules does it state merely targeting a unit counts as shooting that unit? Page and paragraph.