Signals from the Frontline #383

You wouldn’t be able to split fire the Stormsurges since the Hunter Contingent bonus can only be used if all of the units fire at the same target. Sure, you could make an order of operations argument – they declare an attack at one guy, then split fire using GC rules to everyone else – but that’s pretty absurd if you ask me.

That is 100% the argument im making Reece. You wanted something for Tau to Counteract Deathstars, here it is.
when it says ” resolving their shots as if they were a single unit” with the “Include” part in there, it means that they share buffs aswell.

unfortunately reecius, that’s exactly what the rules mean as they are written right now.

Of course in that situation you’re describing, you have what is it 1.5k worth of points shooting at one unit?

“as if they were a single unit. –This includes markerlights” markerlights are an exception in some cases, because it removes cover from the target from shots from a unit. without saying “this includes markerlights, it’s not perfectly clear they would get the remove cover part.

quoting that the “includes markerlights” as saying “clearly they don’t benefit from rules that affect a unit” is not correct. as anything that affect a unit would affect them “as if they were a single unit” for that shooting.

You make a good point about what “resolve as if they were one unit” means. When you break it down like that it does seem more vague, sicne it does seem to simply reference the main rulebook instructions for how to shoot a unit at a unit, not how to share USRs among a unit. I can see it both ways, really.

Just to clarify, I’m not a fan of my interpretation, either, it’s just how I see it and how most people I’ve read on the interwebz have been reading it as well. Like you say, it does open up a LOT of problems for randomly buffing other units on the other side of the table by saying “we’re attacking the same dude” even if only one model in the unit of the buff-er can see the target of the buff-ee.

I also don’t even like the Hunter Contingent that much because Hunter Cadre just feels kind of bloated. The Retaliation Cadre and Optimised Stealth Cadre are already so good that you honestly don’t even need the extra detachment rule. A 3-model Ghostkeel unit in the OCS gets BS5, Ignore Cover and always hits rear armor – and they can still get Target Locks and split fire – without any need for MLs, Buffmanders or anything else. Plus, they can boost their cover save up to 2+ without even trying to toe-in-cover just by backing away enough. Who needs synergy when you bring all the rules inherently in the same unit, eh? Now that double formations are a thing I totally expect to see people run a double OCS list.

I read it like Reece. “Resolve their shots as if they were one unit”, meaning you determine prior to rolling dice which units are going to shoot (as one unit) the desired target. The implication being that if you eliminate the target before all the units combining their fire get an opportunity to shoot, they lose the ability to shoot at a different target. So get the trade-off of sharing marker lights but risk losing efficiency due to overkill.

It seems a little silly to interpret it the other way. Why wouldn’t GW just say, “they share all special rules and marker lights if the shoot at the same target” if the meant for that to be the case?

Just my $0.02!

I think a good vote might be to make all instances of “ignore cover” instead just apply a -2 or reroll successes of something. With ignore cover everywhere, we might as well not have terrain.

I aint trolling. If we ban wargear for having something we dont like, than I got tons of ideas.

There are lots of things in this game that are ridicolous, like free points, like the hunter contingents, like allies sharing transports. I think we maybe need to let go of the reigns and lets it all come in.

Agreed. More restrictions not less please. I like having some sort of boundary that stops me from facing the magic the gathering equivalent of “20 channels 20 fireballs 20 black lotuses.”

I 100% agree, this is not the same thing as other nonsense. This is next-level fun-killing stuff that’s going to breed frustration and a sense of helplessness.

everytime you mention this doomsday scenario, you’re referring to storm surges and other things… which is literally a 1.5k points titan worth of shooting

100% agree, I feel more pressured to play death stars than ever with this stuff in the game.

No it doesn’t work against invisible deathstars but that’s a problem with invisibility. 2+ reroll is another issue. But for more common threats to tau like thunderstars and centurion stars this is just want tau needed. We would have killed other units just the same with or without the formation rules. It really only benefits tau against key problem deathstars.

The same way scat bikes, endless d weapons, thunderstars, endless reanimsting necrons, mass relentless dropping teleporting grav, psychic spam, summoning isn’t good for the game?

This is Taus trick. It’s good against 1 unit a turn and a few split firing units. It’s takes quite a bit of tax to achieve. I’ve tried building a list and could realistically only for 1 stormsurge and one optimised stealth cadres + Buffmander and the essential for the hunter cadre in a 1850 list. It’s not like loads of stormsurge will benefit form this in an average game.

I honestly do think that’s exactly the way it’s intended.

When you do that bat rep. Please make sure it’s a balanced fight against another of the top teir codex. Necrons, eldar, super friends, SM mixing their chapter tactics (because that’s so different?) or some equally broken SM formation. Can you also make it quite clear your hypothesis, what you will be testing, what makes it broken and the actual results from an objective stand point.

So your going to demonstrate it in a vaccume? Without a full game in a balaced setting? Yep, fantastic way to test the realistic properties and workings of the rules.

Reece, I’d say that both the Tau stuff and the White Scars *stunning* and totally uncalled-for buffs fall into the category of wrecks average 40k event-goer’s experience”. I know there are other things that can arguably fall into that category as well, however this stuff (Tau more than SM) are really in the category of unreasonably I think. I see a recipe for frustration here, big time.

I don’t see why this new stuff would be enjoyable to play as or play against really. If I was running S10 “ignores-everything” & “everything-bane” shots that never missed… resulting in models being put back into the foam in large quantities where my opponent had next to nothing to say about it, I’d feel bad.

On a related note, if Tau can do all this then there’s no reason to ban Titans. They’re not as bad as Tau. And Tau will just kill them anyway so it would be “balanced”. Ugly and not enjoyable at all but “balanced” in the most absurd sense of the word.

I agree mercury, though probably from another angle. Is this new stuff really any worse than it already is?

There was recently an event recently that allowed unrestricted access to Lords of War, Reavers, Warhounds, Revenants, multiple WK’s and all. The armies that took first and second were ITC legal, so the bigger question is, what are the ITC comp restrictions actually solving if the most powerful armies in the game are not being affected?

I don’t think the new stuff is going to dissuade casual players from enjoying an event anymore than they probably already are.

And costs over 1200 points with reasonable wargear. When you demo this Friday PLEASE for the love of god incorporate a valid points costed list into the ratio and not just vacuum it. Also the markerlight bonus still only applies to the original target so the extra s5 shooting the surges split into other units will be bs3 as its not targeting the combined fire target. ALSO gotta remember the stormsurges shoot twice in two full cycles so the second round of firepower will not be valid with the buffmanders combined fire.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t mention benefits at all. It mentions that it fires as one unit, and it mentions markerlights.

So, resolve their shots as one unit. It doesnt not say they are one unit.
But if they fire as a single unit, how do they not gain benefits of being in a unit?

I’m not sure what your point is.

To me, it’s fairly clear, you resolve their shots all together, pooling the resulting dice, and getting a tidy BS bonus, plus markerlights across all the units in one go. It doesn’t mention USRs, which is a massive omission if we are expected to take it as included. It does specifically mention markerlights, which is a good indicator that the intended scope of combination is actually more narrow than you favour.

Your choice of interpretation, is that for the purposes of firing, it literally acts for all rules and purposes like a single unit. Logically, that means that all rules and restrictions that would apply to one large unit, such as having to be in coherency, apply in this case.

Pick one interpretation. Either it is one unit in the shooting phase (warts and all) or it’s not. But don’t pretend that it gives you carte blanche to include every benefit of being a unit that you like, and none of the downsides.

To me, if they were going to make such a sweeping deviation from a core mechanic, they’d have included a pretty exhaustive list, like an exclusion for coherency, and probably some things that don’t carry across from the USR like slow and purposeful. I know what conclusion I choose to draw from the omission of any such text.

It happens at the same time actually. In your argument no unit would ever have to run to get into coherency as long as you declare them firing first.

That’s an incredibly selective reading of the book. In my BRB, it doesn’t state anywhere that you can’t run after declaring a target. It says you may run, instead of firing. Shooting happens in the select a weapon stage, which is after you declare the units that are “in the unit”.

So you can absolutely run.

I love the bald-faced audacity of it. Of COURSE the designers decided that it’s one unit, that the USRs propagate, etc, etc. But of course none of the restrictions apply. It’s such a blinkered view of a rule, that it would somehow gift you only advantages.

What’s ridiculous about them having to be in coherency? is it unfluffy to buff tau for castling up, or is it just that it represents a downside??

It’s different for “gets hot” weapons, because they are already resolving the weapon firing. In this case, it’s all occurring before the weapons “fire”. As per the run rule.

True, but also think how this works for other armies too. Put a chaplain with the eye in a unit of artillary in IG. You now have 3 Ignores cover blasts on a fearless unit. Think of how good that will be fore IG. now you can have two. or with Lascannons with Tankhunter AND ignores cover.