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.

Warhammer Community wrote:

If a unit of firewarriors targetted a unit of Nurglings and dealt a wound then this stratagem was used, followed by a Hammerhead firing its main gun at a Demon Prince, whilst firing its Smart Missile System at those same nurglings would the Hammerhead's main gun add 1 to wound rolls?

Drager wrote:
If a unit of firewarriors targetted a unit of Nurglings and dealt a wound then used this stratagem, then a Hammerhead fired its main gun at a Demon Prince, whilst firing its Smart Missile System at those same nurglings would its main gun reroll to hit?

Why would the Hammerhead guns re-roll to hit? The stratagem doesn't do anything to hit rolls, I don't know where you're getting that idea.

All that will happen is that the SMS will get +1 to wound on any hits they cause to the nurglings. If you meant "Does the gun shooting at the Daemon Prince get +1 to wound?" then I am not 100% sure, it's very sloppy writing because the +1 to wound is not EXPLICITLY tied to the weapon shooting at the same unit, only that the model targets it. You can argue that "Did I target 'the same enemy unit' aka the Nurglings?" is yes, so all weapons get +1 to wound regardless of what units you use the other weapons on.

I would put it down to sloppy, vague wording that can be read in multiple ways because English is the Ubisoft of Languages and to use the "sensible" interpretation to avoid bitterness if nothing else.

Because I mistyped I meant add 1 to the wound roll, I was thinking of something else and wrote nonsense. Corrected now!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
If a unit of firewarriors targetted a unit of Nurglings and dealt a wound then used this stratagem, then a Hammerhead fired its main gun at a Demon Prince, whilst firing its Smart Missile System at those same nurglings would its main gun reroll to hit?

Why would the Hammerhead guns re-roll to hit? The stratagem doesn't do anything to hit rolls, I don't know where you're getting that idea.

All that will happen is that the SMS will get +1 to wound on any hits they cause to the nurglings. If you meant "Does the gun shooting at the Daemon Prince get +1 to wound?" then I am not 100% sure, it's very sloppy writing because the +1 to wound is not EXPLICITLY tied to the weapon shooting at the same unit, only that the model targets it.

That's what I meant, you are seeing the same thing I did and I'm really not sure. Pretty sure this is going to come up when people want to kill my Hive Tyrants, so am trying to work out what the rule says. Further I don't thinks it even requires the model target it, only the unit so if a unit of broadsides were to fire one gun at the nurglings the whole unit could get +1 to wound, by the reading I see.

Reroll to hit? I think you mean "would the Hammerhead get +1 to wound rolls against the Demon Prince?"

Man I just weighed in on this and I completely misunderstood the claim that I think Galas was making

RAW I see no objection against this actually, though it clearly isn't the intention lol. It'll be one for the '2 weeks later FAQ' I suspect.

Better edit my other post!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
because English is the Ubisoft of Languages

Lol what? There is nothing wrong with the English language and the fix is a simple addition; "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase."

Easy.

Drager wrote:
That's what I meant, you are seeing the same thing I did and I'm really not sure. Pretty sure this is going to come up when people want to kill my Hive Tyrants, so am trying to work out what the rule says.

Yeah it's one for the 2-week FAQ alright. But at least it should get fixed or clarified almost instantly, no more 12 year waits!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Further I don't thinks it even requires the model target it, only the unit so if a unit of broadsides were to fire one gun at the nurglings the whole unit could get +1 to wound, by the reading I see.

Good point, the stratagem only cares if the unit targets it, so even a single gun on the nurglings will technically allow +1 to wound on anything the unit fires at.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Lol what? There is nothing wrong with the English language and the fix is a simple addition; "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase."

Easy.

Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Lol what? There is nothing wrong with the English language and the fix is a simple addition; "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase."

Easy.

Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

No but you really shouldn't be able to transfer the nurglings' wound to punish the GUO. So probable wording should be:

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for all attacks that target the same unit for any other T'au SEPT unit this turn."

Wow, another win for "badly phrased rules". I mean, its pretty flippin obvious the intent is +1 to wound for attacks targeting that unit, but the way its written suggests that only one weapon of a unit needs to target said enemy unit.

Result, strategem named "Focused Fire" invariably gets used to do exactly the opposite!!

As an aside, I can`t think of anyone I know who`d try and pull this in a game, though its fun pointing out that Gw seems to have forgotten units can fire weapons at multiple targets in this edition already.

Simple fix is to change to wording to “T’au Sept weapons” rather than “units”. This would remove the issue of split firing, and still allow you to clearly define what gets the bonus and what doesn’t

topaxygouroun i wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Lol what? There is nothing wrong with the English language and the fix is a simple addition; "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase."

Easy.

Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

No but you really shouldn't be able to transfer the nurglings' wound to punish the GUO. So probable wording should be:

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for all attacks that target the same unit for any other T'au SEPT unit this turn."

Yes but just noting his wording wasn't actually giving likely "intended result"(what they intended can be arqued of course). Not as easy as it might be at first thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kdash wrote:
Simple fix is to change to wording to “T’au Sept weapons” rather than “units”. This would remove the issue of split firing, and still allow you to clearly define what gets the bonus and what doesn’t

Problem then comes they don't have clear definition of "T'au sept weapons".

Topaxygouroun(what a name to type!)'s version looks to do the trick.

Unless trying to read in unreasonable advantage, it seems clear to me from the wording that the +1 to wound only applies to shots at that one enemy unit. If you feel differently Fire the FAQ hotline an email. ;-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Unless trying to read in unreasonable advantage, it seems clear to me from the wording that the +1 to wound only applies to shots at that one enemy unit. If you feel differently Fire the FAQ hotline an email. ;-)

The wording quite literally says the opposite.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Unless trying to read in unreasonable advantage, it seems clear to me from the wording that the +1 to wound only applies to shots at that one enemy unit. If you feel differently Fire the FAQ hotline an email. ;-)

The wording quite literally says the opposite.

Yes, the RAW of it is that it applies to the unit that's targeting the wounded unit, not just the shots targeted at the enemy unit. I'm sure they intended for it to affect only the shots on the one unit. I don't know why they wouldn't think about split fire when creating stratagems like this for the Tau. If they had thought of split fire and wanted all the unit's shots to be +1, then I would think they would have said something along the lines of "any other T'AU SEPT units from your army that has the same enemy unit as one of its targets this phase."

tneva82 wrote:
Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

I think you need to reread what I said and try again.

My version does exactly what we all assume GW meant - other SEPT units get +1 to wound against the victim of the stratagem for shots fired only at that unit.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

I think you need to reread what I said and try again.

My version does exactly what we all assume GW meant - other SEPT units get +1 to wound against the victim of the stratagem for shots fired only at that unit.

Actually, it doesn't. Your version does not allow for a unit using split fire to get the +1 against the Nurglings in this example if they target that unit and something else. Most people would say that you would get the +1 to wound againt the Nurgling unit but no bonus to wound for split fire against any other unit also targeted. "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase." is not the same at all as "You can add 1 to wound rolls from any T'AU SEPT unit against that same enemy unit", which is what just about everyone would expect.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Your version does not allow for a unit using split fire to get the +1 against the Nurglings in this example if they target that unit and something else. Most people would say that you would get the +1 to wound againt the Nurgling unit but no bonus to wound for split fire against any other unit also targeted. "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase." is not the same at all as "You can add 1 to wound rolls from any T'AU SEPT unit against that same enemy unit", which is what just about everyone would expect.

It seems clear enough to me and my interpretation is exactly as your own but would this make it nice and crystal for you?

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit's weapons that target the same enemy unit this phase."

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Your version does not allow for a unit using split fire to get the +1 against the Nurglings in this example if they target that unit and something else. Most people would say that you would get the +1 to wound againt the Nurgling unit but no bonus to wound for split fire against any other unit also targeted. "You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit that only target the same enemy unit this phase." is not the same at all as "You can add 1 to wound rolls from any T'AU SEPT unit against that same enemy unit", which is what just about everyone would expect.

It seems clear enough to me and my interpretation is exactly as your own but would this make it nice and crystal for you?

"You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au SEPT unit's weapons that target the same enemy unit this phase."

That's better. What you had before wouldn't allow a T'AU SEPT unit using split fire to get the +1 bonus against that enemy unit because it wasn't targeting only that unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Unless trying to read in unreasonable advantage, it seems clear to me from the wording that the +1 to wound only applies to shots at that one enemy unit. If you feel differently Fire the FAQ hotline an email. ;-)

The wording quite literally says the opposite.

Colour me entirely not surprised you've adopted that stance. I do hope you've emailed in?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which is then nerf compared to what others could think of intent which is +1 to wound against units wounded. Ie in this case missiles vs nurglings would get +1 to wound. your version changes that. You think that +1 to wound vs nurglings is so brokenly good it needs to be nerfed?

I think you need to reread what I said and try again.

My version does exactly what we all assume GW meant - other SEPT units get +1 to wound against the victim of the stratagem for shots fired only at that unit.

By your wording unit only gets it if it shoots ONLY that one unit. If it splits fire it thus does not get +1 to wound with your wording because it's not targeting ONLY that unit.

You claimed it's easy yet managed to write rule that still wasn't doing what you seems to have wanted. GJ.

tneva82 wrote:
By your wording unit only gets it if it shoots ONLY that one unit. If it splits fire it thus does not get +1 to wound with your wording because it's not targeting ONLY that unit.

You claimed it's easy yet managed to write rule that still wasn't doing what you seems to have wanted. GJ.

Again, I maintain that it is worded to operate in exactly the way people believe. The bonus ONLY applies on the target unit. Not it applies if the attacker targets only that unit.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread or are you going to insult me as per normal?

This rule interpretation invites some cheesehead to fire weapons at a low level, low toughness target to justify making it easier to wound a high toughness target. Is that how you think it was intended?

Techpriestsupport wrote:
This rule interpretation invites some cheesehead to fire weapons at a low level, low toughness target to justify making it easier to wound a high toughness target. Is that how you think it was intended?

Not at all, but I do think that is what it says, so when I play against someone using it, I'll let them get bonuses to wound against my tyrants. If I pick up Tau (unlikely) I'll not use it that way.

I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Literally couldn't agree with this any more.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Literally couldn't agree with this any more.

Who is trying to twist it für advantage?

Drager wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Literally couldn't agree with this any more.

Who is trying to twist it für advantage?

Possibly the T'au players you seemed worried about wanting to kill your hive tyrants by having a unit wound some gaunts (or whatever you have for low toughness) , then using split fire to target them and your hive tyrants with one of their nastier units?

I don't think any of them are here and I wouldn't mind letting them really. Until its fixed.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I love it. Patently obvious what the rule means, yet people are trying to twist it for clearly unintended advantage. This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Literally couldn't agree with this any more.

Also agree. It's (yet another) quite interesting insight for me into how different people are able to read the same piece of text and derive different meanings. I genuinely struggled to understand how you can interpret the rule in that way.

I am clearly not devious enough to twist things in such a way!

Must be so hard to be a rules writer.

The issue is, the rule is written poorly. The intent is reasonably clear, what with the name and such, but the RAW does not match. Which leads to issues.

There's a lot of those in GW products.

This rule is written worse than some laws out there.

It's RAW is way too much the opposite of what RAI is supposed to be.

Insted of being "You target this unit, you get a +1 to wound for only tht unit. It's written as "If you give just 1 shot to this unit, all ur guns get +1 to wound, even if their targetting other things.