Signals from the Frontline #383


Join us for the LIVE show on Twitch, today at 11:00am PST by following this link!

Show Notes



  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at or visit our webstore at


  • Big news! GW announces that Horus Heresy in plastic will be up for pre-order Novemeber 7th! Awesome, that is going to be very popular!
Hours, the Warmaster

Hours, the Warmaster

  • We’ve also got our pre-order special going right now for the new releases and they look awesome! Tau Crisis Suits, Commander and the Codex as well as War Zone Damocles: Kauyon


  • Heavy Gear shows off some more of their new Norther faction plastic gears and they are looking quite cool. This is a Mountaineering Squad with a Leopard gear!


  • We were out in Vegas this past weekend working out the logistics of the LVO 2016 and got to tour the hall, it is massive! It’s going to blow people’s minds when they walk in. Grab those tickets while you can!

BLV_EventCenter1_18x12_ 300dpi

  • New Warmachine releases! Cryx Soul Trappers, Swamp Gobber River Raiders, Extreme Feral Warpwolf, and the Farrow Brigand Warlord.

34123_SoulTrappers_WEB 41127_SwampGobberRiverRaiders_WEB 72093_ExtremeFeralWarpwolf_WEB1 75060_FarrowBrigandWarlord_WEB_0

  • Puppets War shows off some new walkers and they look awesome.

pw1 pw2 pw3 pw4

  • Toughest Girls in the Galaxy reveal a new mini, Lupita.


  • Be sure to check out our newest video bat rep, a narrative battle report! Let us know what you think!

  • Be sure to join us on Twitch, tomorrow night at 7pm PST for a live game of 40k and a chance to win a brand new Ghostkeel! KDK vs. White Scars Battle Company!


Upcoming ITC Events


Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

  • New Tau rumors:
    • It looks to indeed be essentially a reprint with some minor changes. Pros and cons to that.
    • Their Decurion Style formation looks pretty solid.
      • Units can share Marker Light benefits, and if 3 or more units shoot at the same target, they gain +1 BS! Nice.
      • Hunter Cadre gains 12″ Supporting Fire, and units within 12″ of the commander can run or flat out and shoot.
    • Destroyer missiles deliver the D!
    • Tons of formations, some of which look quite good, particularly the Hammerhead Formation
  • Raven Guard, you don’t suck anymore! The Talon Strike Force is legit.
    • Their new formations and detachment is money: anything in reserves can come in on turn 1 on a 4+, reroll the die for deployment zones and first turn, and can always fail morale checks if you want to…wow!
    • All kinds of reserves manipulation, movement and deployment trickery. Entire formations can skyleap off of the table!
    • They have some great Warlord traits, such as adding or subtracting 1 to the end of game roll, which is huge.
    • Pretty cool Relics, nothing too crazy, though. Very characterful.
  • White Scars got even better…lol, because they needed it!
    • Their Decurion style detachment isn’t going to win people over from a Battle Demi Company or Battle Company, but it has some cool benefits such as rerolling failed Initiative tests for Hit and Run and the ability to twin link vs. units on an objective or move after shooting. Very powerful, but better than ObSec and free vehicles?
    • Excellent Warlord traits such as +1 Jink, +/-1 to reserves.
    • And ridconulous Relics. My goodness, 12″ Fleet and Furious Charge banner, Master Crafted super glaive, a special bike and of course, the crzy Hunter’s Eye. Lol, this was so not needed, it gives the bearer and his unit Ignores Cover. Le sigh, GW.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

Completed Commissions

20150924_132616_Richtone(HDR) 20150924_132415_Richtone(HDR) 20150924_132255_Richtone(HDR) 20150924_132200_Richtone(HDR) 20150924_132130_Richtone(HDR) 20150924_132050

List Review

Hello Frontline Gaming,

I wanted to send you guys the following list for review for your show of the Space Marine Battle Company:

++ Space Marines: Codex (2015) (Gladius Strike Force) (1325pts) ++

Chapter Tactics * [Ultramarines]

‘Battle Demi Company * (585pts)

Assault Squad x 5, 2x Flamer

Drop Pod

Captain (Warlord) Power Armour [Bolt Pistol, Chainsword]

Devastator Squad x 5, 2x Grav-cannon and Grav-amp, Rhino

Tactical Squad x 5, Plasma Gun, Drop Pod

Tactical Squad x 5, Grav-cannon and Grav-amp, Rhino

Tactical Squad x 5, Plasma Gun, Drop Pod

‘Battle Demi Company * (575pts)

Assault Squad x5, 2x Flamer, Drop Pod


Devastator Squad x 5, 2x Grav-cannon and Grav-amp, Rhino

Tactical Squad x 5, Meltagun, Combi-melta, Drop Pod

Tactical Squad x 5, Meltagun, 4x Space Marines, Drop Pod, Combi-melta

Tactical Squad x 5, Plasma Gun, Drop Pod

+ Auxiliary (165pts) +

’10th Company Task Force * (165pts)

Scout Squadx 5

Scout Squadx 5

Scout Squadx 5

++ Inquisition: Codex (2013) (Inquisitorial Detachment) (134pts) ++

Inquisitor Coteaz (100pts)

Ordo Xenos Inquisitor (34pts) [Bolt Pistol, Carapace Armour, Chainsword, 3x Servo Skulls]

++ Space Marines: Codex (2015) (Allied Detachment) (390pts) ++

Chapter Tactics * [Ultramarines]

Sergeant Telion (50pts)

Scout Squadx 5


Drop Pod (35pts)

Centurion Devastator Squad x 3, Omni

Coteaz would go with centurions, captain goes with devestators, while the chaplain can ride with a squad of assault marines. Xenos Inquisitor goes with other devestators. 7 drop pods as that is what I have to play with, and 3 rhinos for the other squads to move up and give armour to devestators.


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

147 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #383”

  1. ehegner1 October 26, 2015 11:02 am #

    So the hunter cadre doesn’t benifit from buffmandar when they do the combined shooting?

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 11:20 am #

      No, we do not read it that way. They shoot at the same time, but nothing indicates buffs overlap except for Marker Lights, which are specified.

      • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 11:55 am #

        Actually yes reece. It says they fire as if they are the same. Even sharing rules

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:09 pm #

          No, it does’t. It says they fire as one unit, including the use of Marker Light abilities. It specifies where the overlap occurs, it does not say they become one unit and that all USRs overlap. They all fire at the same time, that’s it.

          Garret, think about this scenario under the reading of the rule you are proposing. A unit of 3 Stormsurge fire 1 weapon at the same unit as Buffmander and another unit. All 3 Stormsurge then become BS5, Twin Linked, Ignores Cover, Monster/Tank Hunter and can fire every weapon at a different target….twice. Just think about that for a hot second, lol, you could shoot the entire other army with 97% accuracy, and rerolling wounds/armor pen. That is beyond absurd, it shouldn’t even require explaining as to why that doesn’t belong in organized play. And again, I do not think that was the intent of the rule, either, nor what it actually says.

          • Narfwak October 26, 2015 12:17 pm

            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.

          • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 12:37 pm

            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.

          • Kevin Lantz October 27, 2015 6:32 am

            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.

          • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:13 am

            No, it is not. That is how you read the rule (which is totally fine, I see how people are getting there) but that is not absolutely what it means.

            And no, again, it is not all shooting at one target. It is firing at the entire other army that is in LoS. Reread the rules for shooting, GMCs and Splitfire.

        • Narfwak October 26, 2015 12:14 pm #

          Here’s the full text of the rule from the codex Black Library so generously let me get a week early by mistake:

          Coordinated Firepower: 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 firepower to the attack. These units must shoot the same target, resolving their shots as if they were a single unit – this includes the use of markerlight abilities. When 3 or more units combine their firepower, the firing models add 1 to their Ballistic Skill.

          I’m with Hotsauce on this one – sort of. “Resolving their shots as if they were a single unit” is not that vague by itself. If someone else has a USR that applies to an entire unit, it would get shared since they’re resolving their shots together “as if they were a single unit.”

          HOWEVER: while this would apply for things like a Cadre Fireblade or a generic Commander with the Puretide Engram, I can see an argument for why it would not apply for a Buff Commander using the MSS Suite/CnC Node combo. There’s a bit of a Catch-22 going on here. “These units must shoot at the same target” is the problem; for the Buffmander to work, he uses a target lock to not shoot at all and activate the bonuses from the MSS and CnC Node. Since the Buffmander isn’t shooting at the same target, he can’t be included at all in this kind of attack in the first place.

          What this really comes down to is whether or not you decide that the Commander must use a Target Lock or not; the concept being that when a unit fires at another unit, every model must fire, but since the Commander cannot fire, the unit cannot fire – unless he uses a Target Lock to “not fire” at something else. Personally, I’ve always found that interpretation to be a little bizarre (what about models in the same unit that are out of range, or out of line of sight?) but I’ve rolled with it anyway.

          In any case this should probably go to a community vote.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:32 pm

            You make a reasoned argument, and I actually do have the complete text, too (but thanks for sharing!). It really breaks down to how you interpret the wording “resolve their shots as if they were one unit.” I read that as they all fire at the same time, at the same target. So, you resolve it using order of operations presented in the book for shooting, going through each various weapon type at a time. However, I do not read it as they become one unit for the purposes of anything else other than the use of Marker Lights, which the specifically state as being an exception or inclusion, depending on how you look at it.

            And we could vote on this, but the next vote is months away, unfortunately.

            Another consideration here, too, is that last edition, GW specifically took away the ability for ICs to join MCs (such as Buffmander+Riptide). I imagine that is because they realized it was a mistake to let that overlap occur. That was incredibly powerful with just a single unit benefiting from the overlap, here’re talking about theoretically all of them getting the overlap.

            One model is standing on a Skyfire nexus objective, they all get skyfire, even on the opposite side of the table? I honestly don’t see that as the intent.

            Anyway, we’ll wait to get the book in our hands before going further on it, but I really do not read it as everyone gaining every overlapping USR from every model in each unit/

          • Narfwak October 26, 2015 12:43 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:54 pm

            Yeah, I totally see the argument for it working in the more powerful way, 100%, I just don’t agree with it. And, generally speaking, when a rule is ambiguous, we almost always go with the more conservative reading of the rule. With GMCs in the mix, and the ability to fire at different targets, the ability to give three of them all of those mega powerful USRs is just too crazy, beyond not being RAW as I read it. If you make the argument that they do actually become one unit despite not being in unit coherency, and gaining every buff that every other unit has it goes to crazy town at warp speed.

            If you read it as they all shoot at the same time as if they were a unit sharing USRs, you then also have to accept that GMCs can fire normally, with every weapon at a different target. That is just too much.

          • Chaplain Sam October 26, 2015 2:03 pm

            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!

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 2:06 pm

            Precisely, if they really were 1 unit sharing everything, you wouldn’t need to specify that marker Lights worked for all of them, it would already be implied. Marker Lights are the one thing they all share.

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:39 pm

            I think you’re overthinking the Markerlight thing- it’s an _example_, not a restriction. If it ONLY worked for Markerlights, there would be no need for the “including” text or the hyphen; they could just say (as they do for vehicle Drones) that they all benefit from the same expenditures of Markerlight counters.

            It really seems pretty simple- the ability says they shoot as though they were part of the same unit. The Signature Systems (as well as other “echo” abilities, like Tank/Monster Hunter, Preferred Enemy, etc) affect all models in the same unit.

  2. Jp October 26, 2015 11:31 am #

    And now every space marine army will be packing the hunters eye…. That relic is game changing stupid

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 11:45 am #

      Agreed 100%. So, so dumb. This is something I could see bringing up for consideration on an ITC poll. Other armies can get it (like Tau) but nothing puts out the raw firepower of Grav weapons right now, and obviously Space marines get that in spades.

      • Narfwak October 26, 2015 12:31 pm #

        With all this new access to Ignore Cover it would seem that GW’s answer to “toe-in-cover is stupid” is “ALL COVER IS STUPID COWER IN YOUR GRAVES BWAHAHA!”

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:32 pm #

          I know right, lol

          • Mike October 26, 2015 12:59 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 1:06 pm

            Yeah, I feel the same way in some regards. -2 means it still works, but greatly reduced. Something to discuss at the least, see if other community members agree.

      • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 12:33 pm #

        OH OH. if we are gonna star banning wargear I got a list
        Ghost Helm
        Psychic Powers in general
        Wing Upgrades on Hive Tyrants.

        • White925 October 26, 2015 1:52 pm #

          You’re such a troll, Hotsauce, lol.

          • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 2:42 pm

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

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:45 pm

            Dude has a point. Hunter’s Eye is stupid-good, no argument about it, but how is it any more powerful than the Grimoire of True Names, which was so powerful it necessitated a change to the rules of the game?

  3. Jax October 26, 2015 12:13 pm #

    Speartip strike, hf sitting in the corner deathstars. Thanks GW.

  4. messy0 October 26, 2015 12:31 pm #

    Why would the rule say “– this includes the use of markerlight abilities.” If it didn’t indicate more than one ability other than markerlights is transferred to all units (which are rendered 1 unit by the phrasing “as if they were a single unit”. The buff commander transfers his benefits to his “unit” due to them being USR or a special rules related to his wargear like twin linked or ignore cover. As such everyone considered part of the unit has his abilities. I don’t know what’s vague abilities about that?

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:36 pm #

      You can read the Markerlight addition to it as an inclusion or an exception. I read it as the exception, as in, you get this bonus that overlaps. I do see how you could read it both ways, though.

      I understand the argument, but I do not believe the RAW or RAI is that they overlap with the USRs between every unit.

      Think about the implication of that, too. That is stupidly overpowering, lol. That is the kind of thing that ruins games for people.

      • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 12:38 pm #

        So is your opponent getting more points than you.

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:44 pm #

          Not quite the same thing, buddy. Seriously, just think about a unit getting hit by 6 Strength 10, AP2, BS5, twin linked, ignores cover large blasts with monster/tank hunter for a minute, in addition to every other gun that fires. That is beyond ridiculous. Most Titans don’t have that kind of firepower. And when you have split fire everywhere, it just goes to absolutely insane places, haha.

          • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 12:50 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:55 pm

            No. Lol, you can go rock Unbound with no points AoS style if you want to, and play “true” 40k, but I think you will be doing so with a very small group of people.

          • Mike October 26, 2015 1:01 pm

            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.”

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 1:09 pm

            Yeah, this would be madness. We will bust out a video battle report on Friday showing what the implications are if this rules interpretation where to go through.

          • C-Stock October 26, 2015 1:06 pm

            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.

          • Kevin Lantz October 27, 2015 7:02 am

            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

          • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:11 am

            Yes, and that is exactly what will happen. We’ve seen time after time that the most exploitative/powerful iteration of a rule interpretation is precisely what we get. You will have a unit of 2-3 Stormsurg shooting at 16-24 units a turn with every USR and bonus on every target. It’s insane.

      • messy0 October 26, 2015 1:50 pm #

        It good against deathstars (which admitted was thus previous problem) but it’s only good against a single unit. Against everything else it’s the same as it ever was.

        The way I see it. This is Taus counter to deathstars and what’s wrong with that?

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 2:03 pm #

          It really isn’t a counter to Deathstars, though. A unit that is Invis, 2+ reroll save, and FnP, will still walk right though that firepower (as they do currently). In fact, the irony of this is that it ENCOURAGES people to bring Deathstars to the table as they are the only thing that can hope to withstand that kind of firepower. To defeat Deathstars you need to bypass their hyper-durability with something like a 6 result on a D weapon or a stomp.

          • C-Stock October 26, 2015 2:16 pm

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

          • messy0 October 26, 2015 2:24 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 2:42 pm

            How does this help against a Thunderstar with a 2++? Twin Linking helps for sure, but none of the other benefits kick in.

            If you read it that the USRs translate to the units, then you build an army with as many things having split fire as possible or are GMCs that can fire each weapon at a different target, you fire everything at one unit and then split fire off to other units and most of your entire army gets all the USRs, that is seriously madness. That is not good for organized play at all.

          • messy0 October 26, 2015 3:22 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 3:26 pm

            I really think you are not seeing how crazy this is. You can shoot at like, 20+ different unit’s, every turn, with every unit getting all those USRs and +1 BS, lol, that is on an entirely different planet than a Scat Bike (which I admit, is stupid).

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:52 pm

            I would strongly disagree, Reece. Concentrating most or all of your firepower into a single unit like that is suicide- unless that one unit is such a huge part of the enemy army that they have practically nothing else, as in the case of a deathstar. And with the +1BS from the formation as well as potential Markerlights and rerolls, you’re going to carve up most deathstars pretty badly with your combined firepower. It is EXACTLY what you were wanting Tau to have.

            Using it to buff units that otherwise couldn’t be joined by the Commander (e.g. the Stormsurge) is certainly something to think about, but realistically speaking that is not as big a deal as you make it out to be. You could already use Markerlights to achieve essentially the same effect (ignoring cover and mitigating scatter) for a much lower cost. Against most targets, firing the Stormsurge and one to three other units (including the Commander) at a single target is hilariously-inappropriate overkill; you’re looking at easily 800+pts of your army shooting at a single target, which is very rarely worth it.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:58 pm

            I’m not talking about the effects of just shooting a single unit (although that will be absolutely brutal, just think about the old Buffmander/Riptide combo), I am talking about the implications of splitfire and GMCs firing at 8 targets a turn per Stormsurge. That is 24 separate units a turn getting hit with 97% accuracy, no cover, reroll AP and wounds vs. MCs with no need for marker light support. Plus, Marker lights have a limited amount of targets they can fire on, are often easily destroyed, and can miss, etc. That is well and truly out of control and I do not believe that was the intent of this rule. I do understand 100% that the rule can be read that way, but it is not the intent, IMO. YMMV of course, but the implications of the more aggressive reading of the rule are devastating and not good for organized play. As it is, with +1 BS and overlapping Marker Lights it is still very powerful, and still wrecks any deathstars that are going to be hurt by it. Things like Screaerstars, for example, still don’t care with or without Buffmander’s buffs. We’ll play it out in practice, though.

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 8:57 pm

            You could easily read it as long allowing the units not to split their shots (either by Target Lock or by the GC ability), though- and I think that allowing unit buffs but disallowing split fire would be a perfectly reasonable and not game-breaking interpretation.

          • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:22 am

            How do you read it that way? Nothing in the text disallows you from following normal shooting rules for a unit.

          • abusepuppy October 27, 2015 3:12 pm

            “These units MUST shoot at the same target” (emphasis mine) would be the most relevant part of the text. It’s certainly not an absolutely clear-cut restriction, as you could also read it as the _unit_ being forced to shoot at the target (but the special rules of TLocks/etc allowing them to split as normal), but I think you can make a solid case for it.

        • messy0 October 26, 2015 3:38 pm #

          Yes you can shoot 20 units a turn…with a few shots each. Even at high BS that won’t do much when you have at low model count army to begin with which will be the case here due to the high tax of the formation and the high cost of units like the buff manner and stormsurge. If a player wants to split fire a few measly shots at 20 different units good luck to them. I’ll be using this how it was intended to be used…concentrating fire power

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:02 pm

            You know what? We’ll make a video of it to show how it works in practice assuming mega buffs all over the place, that way we can all see it first hand, that is easiest. Considering the Storsurge have Strength D missilies, lol, and so much firepower, I think it will change folk’s opinions when they witness what it actually does. I honestly do not think anyone intended for an entire army to get all the USRs the various IC grant.

          • messy0 October 26, 2015 4:07 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:26 pm

            We won’t play an entire game, we’ll just set it up and show how it works, no need to play a full game. We’ll set up a few turns vs. Frankie’s White Scars battle company which is top tier. It won’t need to go past a few turns, I assure you.

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:53 pm

            If you shoot 5+ units at one model in Franky’s Battle Company every turn, you’re gonna lose. Combining fire is at its worst against MSU armies.

          • messy0 October 26, 2015 5:31 pm

            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.

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 5:57 pm

            I think you misunderstand. We’re going to set up a “real” game of 40k, just not play through the entire thing (unless it feels like we should). We will set up a game exactly as if we were playing it for real, and then show how it functions assuming maximum power. That will be sufficient to demonstrate the rule in effect. Then, we will show it with the more conservative reading of the rule to show the difference.

  5. RyanTSG October 26, 2015 12:40 pm #

    Looks like you may need to do polling more often than quarterly on this set of changes! If you do a blanket change for the rest of the quarter how will people prep for LVO being a month after the latest quarter change.

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 12:45 pm #

      That was the last poll until after the LVO, that is why we don’t do it more frequently, so folks have time to prepare for events.

  6. EmbraceYourInnerGeek October 26, 2015 1:00 pm #

    I’m with Hotsauce. No doubt its horribly broken, but there is little doubt that’s what the rule says. All special rules that transfer to a unit, benefit all units firing at the target – dumb, but so are battle companies, summoned demons, invisibility, 2+ re rollable saves etc etc.

    Im not saying don’t change it, but let’s just face up to the fact that make 40k fun in competitive play, you need to make substantial changes to the rules.


    • Reecius October 26, 2015 1:08 pm #

      Thanks for your input, and I agree that it is horribly broken, but truly, I do not read the rule that way. I do not see them becoming one unit for all rules purposes. The shoot, you resolve their firing as if it were one unit with multiple different weapons, each with their own special buffs/debuffs, and the overlap is the Marker Lights, not also the Marker Lights. I see the other reading for sure, I just don’t think it is accurate in this case, nor intent.

      However, it may be better just to address it in other terms to avoid long winded rules debates, lol.

      • Julien October 26, 2015 4:20 pm #

        You could, instead, enforce unit coherency if you want them to be able to have Rules Overlap?

        Meaning if they want to go “LOL LOOK AT ALL OUR GUNS EVERYWHERE” they all have to be in a tightly packed rather immobile blob of “Lob Templates at me”.

        It wouldn’t 100% fix the issue but it would avoid your previous example of “I’m gaining all these buffs from units across the table LOLOLOLOLOLOL”

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:27 pm #

          Lol, that would be true RAW, haha, so true, lol

  7. C-Stock October 26, 2015 1:01 pm #

    Honestly I don’t know what to say about this. Reece, this stuff is every bit on par with rolling a ‘6″ on the D chart as far as point-click-take models off the table. This is dumb, un-fun stuff that won’t be enjoyable to play or play against.

    • C-Stock October 26, 2015 1:02 pm #

      (except it doesn’t require having to roll a 6)

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 1:05 pm #

      What are you referring to, C-Stock?

      • C-Stock October 26, 2015 1:10 pm #

        The Tau stuff mostly. This:

        “Seriously, just think about a unit getting hit by 6 Strength 10, AP2, BS5, twin linked, ignores cover large blasts with monster/tank hunter for a minute, in addition to every other gun that fires. That is beyond ridiculous. Most Titans don’t have that kind of firepower. And when you have split fire everywhere, it just goes to absolutely insane.”

        100% agree.

        And now White Scars are getting furious charge and fleet with a large radius?

        Maybe I’m hoping for too much but how is this theme of such automatic, reliable mass destruction supposed to lead to a fun match, let alone one with any element of strategy? GW is trying to make matches have completely predictable results it seems.

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 2:04 pm #

          Yeah, it is bonkers at times, but most of this stuff is manageable, we just need to choose to town things down a bit to keep things reasonable.

          • mercury14 October 26, 2015 2:30 pm

            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.

          • Adam ( October 27, 2015 11:20 am

            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.

  8. Novastar October 26, 2015 1:24 pm #

    Obligatory Add Warhound Titan comment ;))

  9. Pyrrhus October 26, 2015 3:06 pm #

    If you can’t share special rules I’m not sure what the point of the Hunter Cadre is. You might as well just take extra markerlights instead of the formation requirements.

    To me the only way to read it is that all units that fire together share special rules. I think it’s very powerful, but so is everything in the Eldar codex and so are Space Marines.

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 3:24 pm #

      You multiply the impact of Marker lights over multiple units and gain +1 BS, lol that is amazingly good! 1 Marker light can impact every unit in your army.

      • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:56 pm #

        Sure, as long as you only want to kill a single unit per turn. Most armies contain more than the 5-7 units that you would get to shoot at in a game.

        • Reecius October 26, 2015 5:00 pm #

          A unit of 3 Stormsurge can shoot 24 targets a turn.

          • Tetrisphreak October 26, 2015 6:40 pm

            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.

          • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 9:01 pm

            Yeah, that’s kinda a point. You need 1100 minimum for the Stormsurges, 150 for the Commander, 150 for the minimum Troops, and then another 100 for the EL/FA choices.

            At that point, you have 350pts to spend on upgrades for the above units, something for the Commander to join, and any other tools you want. And if the enemy kills the Commander- which isn’t gonna be that hard overall- you’re in HUGE trouble because all of your points are locked into a single 1100pt unit that suddenly got drastically less effective.

  10. jy2 October 26, 2015 3:08 pm #

    When you buff a unit, I don’t mind. It is after all, just 1 unit. But when you buff an army-wide rule, it starts to get out of hand really, really quickly. Most of the people just don’t realize how nasty an army is when you start to amplify its force-multipliers. It becomes beyond broken. Tell me, how many of you seriously would like to play against an army where every single unit can get 2+ re-rollable saves (a la Ravenwing)? And now a Tau army where they can dole out Increased BS, twin-linkage, Ignores Cover and Monster Hunter/Tank Hunter to practically the entire army like giving candy to a baby? It boggles my mind beyond reason.

    Just say No.

    • Pyrrhus October 26, 2015 3:23 pm #

      Yeah but if you suddenly draw the line at Tau it means the current top armies have an unfair advantage.

      I think it’s very tricky to pick on one army as overpowered, I’m not sure new Tau are any worse than the other recent Codexes.

      • Jy2 October 26, 2015 4:28 pm #

        Tau is the beginning of another trend that started with ravenwing. I have nothing against the Tau army. I just don’t like the direction GW is going with their over-the-top rules. I don’t think they’ve really put enough thought into it. There is literally no downside to the new Tau dex. The previous dex was already very strong and the only changes GW has actually done is to add on heaps of very, very good rules on top of them. Heck they might be even more broken than Eldar right now the way the majority of players are interpreting their rules.

    • messy0 October 26, 2015 3:26 pm #

      Shooting at one unit or being inefficient with split fire. Try and make a list that contain 1 hunter cadre and any other formation including a buff commander and 1 stormsurge. You will be hard pressed to optimise anything else

      • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:37 pm #

        You don’t need any other formations. Take 3 Stormsurge, Buffmander, the units you need in the Cadre + a Riptide and a single Auxiliary unit and you have points to spare.

  11. TinBane October 26, 2015 4:18 pm #

    Umm, really we want to go full RAW on this?

    Okay…. They resolve shooting as if they are the same unit, therefore any models outside of coherency have to run towards coherency? The rules are very clear on this point.

    Secondly… You have to nominate every unit that is going to fire, before you nominate a target. No opting a unit in or out after you declare a target. The rules are very clear on this point.

    You need to completely resolve each weapon type, across all the units, no going back to a weapon because you forgot there were some in another unit. The rules are very clear on this point.

    Personally, I see it as a pretty stupid interpretation. It’s likely, they just want you to resolve it as one big shooting attack, and get a little benefit. It’s likely, that they would specifically mention how to resolve other implications, if the rule was suppose to do something super complicated. Hand on your heart, tau players, do you really think that’s how it supposed to work? I know it would help you with death stars, but the buffmander was bad enough when you could bind it to riptides.

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 4:28 pm #

      That is funny with unit coherency, haha. And yeah, they mention Marker Lights as the exception to the rule, as the thing that overlaps, IMO.

    • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 4:36 pm #

      *Puts hand on heart
      Yes, I do think that is how it is worded.

      • TinBane October 26, 2015 4:46 pm #

        So, the coherency stuff applies, and anything else negative, also applies? If the commander get debuffed, then for the duration of the shooting phase everything else is debuffed too, if they link to the buffmander?

        Also, you can’t put the buffmander in a unit with vehicle or monstrous/gargantuan creatures.

        • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 5:00 pm #

          No where does it say they have to remain in coherancy.
          But it does say they gain benefits

          • TinBane October 26, 2015 5:20 pm

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

          • Reecius October 26, 2015 5:30 pm

            If your argument hinges on the fact that they are a unit that share USRs they way a normal unit does, then unless it states that they do not have to be in unit coherency, you would have to abide by ALL of the rules for a unit. You can’t cherry pick which rules apply, you see? It either is a unit for that phase in all respects or it is not.

          • Hotsauceman1 October 26, 2015 7:11 pm

            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?

          • TinBane October 26, 2015 8:15 pm

            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.

      • TinBane October 26, 2015 4:48 pm #

        Also, I asked if you thought that was how it was supposed to work, not whether it was worded that way 😛 Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference, when you are talking about a RAW interpretation.

    • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 4:57 pm #

      >They resolve shooting as if they are the same unit, therefore any models outside of coherency have to run towards coherency?

      That isn’t how shooting or coherency work.

      • TinBane October 26, 2015 5:21 pm #

        “models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option”

        • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 9:03 pm #

          They aren’t considered a single unit until they begin shooting, at which point it is too late to run. So even by the stupidest possible interpretation, that still doesn’t happen.

          • white925 October 27, 2015 9:06 am

            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.

          • abusepuppy October 27, 2015 3:16 pm

            No, because a unit that is out of coherency _before_ shooting is not allowed to shoot (they have to Run instead, as per the BRB text.) A unit that has already begun shooting and then loses coherency is not allowed to retroactively go back and choose to Run instead- this can actually happen in “normal” rules with Gets Hot weapons and the like.

          • TinBane October 28, 2015 6:55 pm

            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??

          • TinBane October 28, 2015 6:55 pm

            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.

    • Narfwak October 26, 2015 5:26 pm #

      Hah, I hadn’t even considered that. That’s actually hilarious.

      Yeah, I concede. Reece is right.

      Of course, I wasn’t going to use it in the first place. OSC (which sounds like an acronym for a community college…) all the way.

    • Kevin Lantz October 27, 2015 7:08 am #

      “Okay…. They resolve shooting as if they are the same unit, therefore any models outside of coherency have to run towards coherency? The rules are very clear on this point.”

      except you resolve coherency in the move phase not shooting phase.

      “Secondly… You have to nominate every unit that is going to fire, before you nominate a target. No opting a unit in or out after you declare a target. The rules are very clear on this point.”

      yeap, gotta declare all the units firing at once… no one has said anything differently.

      “Hand on your heart, tau players, do you really think that’s how it supposed to work? I know it would help you with death stars, but the buffmander was bad enough when you could bind it to riptides.”

      it’s what’s needed these days for deathstars, and you reference to the buffmander was before formations and soo many benefits to everyone else.

      • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:10 am #

        Read the rules for unit coherency in the shooting phase, it states a unit out of coherency must run to get back into coherency in the shooting phase, pg.19 of the BRB.

  12. Narfwak October 26, 2015 5:22 pm #

    So here’s a question: is the Contingent Headquarters a formation, or is it specifically part of the Hunter Contingent? It doesn’t get rules later on like the rest of the formations, but on the page where it’s listed (where the Hunter Contingent is being explained) it does refer to the Contingent Headquarters as a “datasheet listed to the right,” and also notes that “you can also include any of the Formations presented in this section as part of a Battle-forged army.”

    The thing is, it doesn’t have an specific special rules – it’s just a way to take extra commanders and bodyguard units outside of normal forge org requirements. It’s basically a Suitstar In A Box.

    Oh, I should also mention that Crisis Teams and Crisis Bodyguard Teams are both 1-9 now, so you don’t even need Farsight to do it anymore (although you need some way to prevent scattering or they’re never coming on the board).

    • Narfwak October 26, 2015 5:31 pm #

      By the way, when I ask if it’s a formation what I’m really asking is if you can take it OUTSIDE the Contingent Headquarters – say, if I want to take a Retaliation Cadre, load it up with dudes, but need some cheap units to start on the table so the bulk of the army can start in reserves.

    • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 9:05 pm #

      It is not a formation, as it has no datasheet. Like many of the inclusions in the other Decurion-style formations, it is simply a choice you have access to.

  13. OdBoX October 26, 2015 5:38 pm #

    So from what I can tell, the main issue with the alternate and seemingly more popular interpretation is the ability for models to split fire thus spreading the USR buffed shooting across multiple targets.

    So why not come to a compromise.
    I suggest that a model split firing from the main target, which is not directly part of the unit which is conferring the special rule, not gain the special rule. Instead only models firing at the main designated target would benefit from the rule.

    Any thoughts?

    • Reecius October 26, 2015 6:01 pm #

      Compromise is almost always the best path, however in this instance that would actually be more of a divergence from the rule. So, if all units ARE treated as one unit for the phase, you then have all the various pros and cons. If the unit is NOT treated as a single unit for the phase, then they would not get any of the overlapping benefits outside of Marker Lights. So, saying you get the USRs only for the “main” unit you shoot at would actually be adding verbiage to the rule that was not there.

      Assuming one reading of the rule is correct, you’d be compromising with a misreading of the rule. It would be like me saying a unit has a 4+ save, you saying it has a 2+, and so we say hey, screw it, it has a 3+ save. We just made something up. Now, that isn’t always a terrible thing (we’ve done it before) but it is actually the largest divergence from the rule in this case.

      • fruitloops October 26, 2015 6:20 pm #

        Reece was that meaningless tangent actual rant or a not so subtle attempt to filibuster the discussion? Because the obvious and intended interpretation is that they are treated as a single unit for shooting and USR’S do in fact confer to all units participating in the Concentrated Firepower.

        Just saying.

        • TinBane October 26, 2015 7:05 pm #

          And coherency?

          Just saying.

        • white925 October 27, 2015 9:07 am #

          And MC / GC cannot join the unit.

        • Reecius October 27, 2015 9:10 am #

          I understand you are having an emotional reaction to this, I did too, but no need to accuse me of something silly like that. Look, I am going to write up a reasoned presentation of what the rules state in this case and the implications. We’ll try and break this down logically. You are reading the rule one way, but others read it another. There are no absolutes in this.

    • messy0 October 26, 2015 6:14 pm #

      Well put and I would agree with that comprimise as an ITC ruling because it aknowledges that special rules are carried over but puts reasonable limits on it. RAW I still think it would it would work with target lock but I can see where comprimise here would be appropriate.

  14. Tetrisphreak October 26, 2015 6:45 pm #

    The portion of the rule that reads MUST shoot at the same target is being overlooked by everyone here. In a permissive rule set is it not law that a specific restriction overrides a general permission unless explicitly stated? Therefore units carrying out a combined fire attack may not use target locks or split firepower as a GMC at all. I feel that interpretation May in fact be most RAW of all and prevent the entire army shredding a battle company via 1 buffmander.

    • Narfwak October 26, 2015 6:49 pm #

      That’s what I thought as well.

    • OdBoX October 26, 2015 8:51 pm #

      Would this also override the forced consolidation run which is being used as a counter argument?

    • abusepuppy October 26, 2015 9:06 pm #

      ^ This.

      Coordinated Fire isn’t a problem when it’s all at one unit, and I think it’s a valid reading of the rule to say that it forces you to all shoot at a single target (even if you otherwise could split shots.)

      • messy0 October 27, 2015 1:41 am #

        I swear recently puppy seems to be talking the most sense out of everybody

      • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:18 am #

        Not entirely. Read the rules for shooting: Choose a target: “Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at.”

        It’s the same wording. The rules for Split Fire and GMCs is the exception to this rule. There’s nothing in the rule for coordinated fire that changes this that I am reading.

        • Tetrisphreak October 27, 2015 9:49 am #

          Ok, one more example to illustrate why I think it’s RAI to be only 1 target. 3 tau units of 2 xv8s each decide to coordinate their firepower. To help represent their sharing of target position, markerlight data, etc they’re getting +1 BS. Now if each unit has a target lock suit that shoots another, different unit they’re also benefitting from the BS boost as well. But how is that justified thematically? The unit being focused on is the reason for the boost in the first place. It just doesn’t make sense to work like that RAW or not. I have emailed the GW FAQ email with these questions and I recommend everyone else do as well. If we flood their inbox regarding a specific topic we might actually see a clarification.

        • abusepuppy October 27, 2015 3:18 pm #

          The difference being that the BRB rule is part of the general shooting rules and is thus overriden by the more-specific special abilities of GMCs/etc, whereas the Coordinated Firepower ability is a detachment special rule that selectively applies and thus is certainly more specific than the GMC/Split Fire rules and arguably more specific than the Target Lock rules.

    • Tetrisphreak October 27, 2015 4:26 am #

      By my reading it’s simply “must” overrides “may” regarding the targets that can be chosen.

      • Tetrisphreak October 27, 2015 4:31 am #

        Consider a trio of mon’at crisis suits all with target locks. If they declare combine fire on a rhino, get +1 BS, then each shoot separately at a different rhino have they combined their fire? No – there’s no way that’s the intention for the rule to work.

      • Rolling thunder October 27, 2015 9:07 am #

        This seems correct to me as well… Everyone MUST shoot at the same target… which overrides the rules for TL and GMC (in this situation). Buffmander would in this case help all units shooting. Deathstars cry, MSU, not so much

      • white925 October 27, 2015 9:11 am #

        But if you target a unit with one weapon and shoot the other weapons at 3 different units are you not targeting any of those units? And if so does that mean they cant jink because you are not targeting them?

  15. Killswitch October 27, 2015 2:42 am #

    Hi guys. As an overseas traveller coming from the UK to Las Vegas for this tournament, I’m getting more and more concerned about all this biased judgment calls. At the present moment of time all I see is a “I don’t like this so it’s banned” approach which is wrong.

    Can we at least have a vote on whether the ruling should be used or not rather than a straight up ban?


    • Reecius October 27, 2015 9:13 am #

      Banning? What are we discussing banning? This is a rules interpretation debate due to once again, a poorly worded GW rule. The next vote is months away, unfortunately, we have to sort this one out in the meantime.

      • Hotsauceman1 October 27, 2015 9:20 am #

        I think maybe he was talking about banning wargear, ALA The Hunters Eye.

        • Reecius October 27, 2015 9:31 am #

          Ah, fair enough, but, when we see a million ignores cover centstars and bike command squads running around, ignoring cover, folks will change their turn a bit, I imagine, lol.

          • Hotsauceman1 October 27, 2015 9:35 am

            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.

  16. Kevin Lantz October 27, 2015 7:27 am #

    I’ve loved all the examples so far of “this can’t work this way because of if you had 1500pts of stuff all shooting at one target and benefiting from all the special rules it’d suck for that one unit! Hermergerd!

    seriously to make this work, you have to have either a buffmander and three units shooting at one, or a markerlight squad and three units then shooting, (or both even)… wow… sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s placing tau into a position where they can actually have a chance at handling some of the deathstars out there

    • Reecius October 27, 2015 8:06 am #

      You’re missing the point. These units can fire at 20+ units a turn, gaining the benefit of any overlapping USRs.

      And for the true deathstars it doesn’t do that much. Overlapping Marker Lights on the units does help quite a bit, though, as increasing accuracy is what you want vs. units that have high invul saves.

      • Adam ( October 27, 2015 9:26 am #

        20+ units a turn is quite a hyperbole, it’s like saying that the Crusader is a threat to 6 units a turn, because it could fire it’s heavy stubbers at different units…

        • Reecius October 27, 2015 9:30 am #

          It’s not hyperbolic in the slightest, it is the literal truth. The efficacy of each individual shot varies though, of course.

  17. Eldar lief October 27, 2015 9:15 am #

    Reecius is going to look very red when he goes back on this opinion

    • Reecius October 27, 2015 9:29 am #

      I am going to look very red? Is that a figure of speech I am unfamiliar with?

      • Eldar lief October 27, 2015 3:29 pm #

        Sorry English is not my mother tongue.
        I mean that you will be very embarrassed when you must go back on your opinion

  18. ehegner1 October 27, 2015 9:43 am #

    Anyway. The Heavy Retribution Cadre is band in ITC correct? Cause last time i check you cant take 2 LOW.

    • abusepuppy October 27, 2015 3:20 pm #

      Correct. It specifies that you have to take two units of Stormsurges, which is not legal.

      (Reece is talking about a single unit of 2-3 Stormsurges, though, so it’s not specifically relevant to the discussion.)

  19. BeeCee October 27, 2015 10:09 am #

    I truly feel like the intent of this rule was that the tau can share targeting data with each other when targeting the same unit.

    I wish they would have just spelled out that all attacks must be directed to the same target unit so we wouldn’t have to fight about GC’s split firing and target locks.

    • abusepuppy October 27, 2015 3:21 pm #

      I definitely think that’s what they intended, and I think there is a legitimate reading of the rule that supports that interpretation- I just don’t understand why Reece is fighting against that interpretation so hard when he is opposed to the alternative.

  20. Chosen of Khorne October 27, 2015 10:33 am #

    Have you looked into the new game “Beyond the Gates of Antares”? Some of the things you commented on my be solved in this new game. D10 system with pseudo alternating unit activations, and condesigned by Rick priestly. All of these horrible GW rules are piquing my interest in trying out another system.

    • Chosen of Khorne October 27, 2015 10:34 am #

      *co-designed by Rick priestly.

  21. Hulksmash October 27, 2015 12:29 pm #

    Here is my view on the Tau special rule:

    I does allow transfer of special abilities to everyone shooting as one unit against a single target. They count as one unit and so abilities that affect the entire unit affect the entire unit.

    That said if you are so concerned with stormsurges why not change the rules again. Only shots against the designated unit benefit from the special rules? Done. Simple. And probably what was actually intended.

    And we still get the help vs. deathstars. And if you don’t think that this is something that’s effectively going to hamstring most deathstars you’re crazy. And the death of deathstars would be so good for the game. Remember when we used to play with lots of stuff and not just super units with 1-2 other models?

    Either way that’s how I’d view it and handle it. But I can’t do Vegas this year so the non-voting and any ruling until after Vegas aren’t going to affect me.

  22. Dogberry1982 October 28, 2015 8:15 am #

    I will add another vote for allowing the buffs to apply, but only for shots that target the initial unit. I.E. GC’s can still shoot multiple units, but only the shots that target the “designated” enemy unit benefit from all the buffs.

    • Reecius October 28, 2015 9:17 am #

      Fair to see people willing to compromise, but NOTHING in the rules indicate that that is the case.

      • Hulksmash October 28, 2015 6:30 pm #

        As in NOTHING indicates all the buffs apply? Outside of the english language you mean? 😉

        You can’t honestly tell me Reece you can’t see how the rules indicate the UNIT benefits from the rule when everything counts as a single UNIT.

        What I’m saying is if you think the RAW of it (and that is the RAW whether you choose to acknowledge it or not) is wrong then simply change the rules like you’ve done for re-roll invuls, D, and a multitude of other items. The noted change is simple and falls into RAI.

        But like I said, it doesn’t affect me till you likely put it up for a vote. So to each their own. Just don’t pretend like the reading of all rules applying to all units shooting together is coming from nowhere.

  23. Francois Leclerc October 28, 2015 10:56 am #

    This is a repeat message as I’m no sure you read it the first time. I’m currently listening to Signals #379 and the psyker limitation came up again (with a little bit of my argument by someone else). And I don’t agree with your logic. The number of Warp Charge points and the limitation on not casting a power twice (p.24) are the limits to psychic power not the mastery level.

    For the psyker level, you mention that it’s in the rule book that a psyker can’t cast more power than its master level and that this is in the rule book. I haven’t found that information. It’s written that the number of powers that a psyker can cast is dependent (not equal) to its mastery level. Then the rules say that the powers that a psyker knows is equal (equal) to its mastery level.

    It further states if there are warp charges left, a psyker can cast a power. There are no mention of levels. Otherwise, it would be impossible for a Lvl 1 psyker with a force weapon to activate its Force weapon and cast a known psychic power. Because both of these have to use warp charges to activate, they are both psychic powers.

    Since “no unit can manifest attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase” (p.24, first column, last sentence), the number of powers that it can cast IS DEPENDENT on its mastery level. I’m using the rules under “Manifesting Psychic Powers” a lot more than the actual one liner from first paragraph of the Mastery level rules.

  24. Ragnulf October 29, 2015 8:09 am #

    The conservative interpretation of the rule is still plenty powerful against deathstars. Get a couple of markerlight hits. That plus the +1 BSfrom the formation applied to snapshooting (against invis deathstar for example), would allow a large number of units to hit the invis unit for the cost of the couple of markerlights. The Tau weaponry is plenty good to devastate the invis deathstar with just that bonus. Same thing with 2+ re-rollable jink. A couple of markerlight hits and now all of the units coordinating firepower get to ignore that jink save.

    If the purpose of the rule is to allow Tau to handle deathstars better (which many people think it is), the conservative reading of the rule still accomplishes that without going haywire with spreading USRs.

Leave a Reply