GW to FAQ the Tau Coordinated Firepower Conundrum?

isolated faq button

Hey everyone, Reecius here from Frontline Gaming to continue the ongoing discussion on how to read the “Coordinated Firepower” command benefit for Tau, and GW may actually say something about it?

You all may have read my article form last week wherein we discussed the new Tau Hunter Contingent Detachment and the Coordinated Firepower command benefit it gives. In it, we explored how the units in the detachment joined together to contribute their firepower to one another and what the implications where. It turned out to be quite a hot topic! Thanks to everyone that contributed to the conversation. What we saw with certainty is that there are some strong opinions on both sides of the line with this topic.

Some intrepid gamers reached out to GW to ask for input and apparently, someone got a reply! Now, to preface this, please don’t take this as official or RAW or what have you (we don’t even know if it is authentic), this is someone apparently from the UK White Dwarf staff giving their opinion on the matter. We don’t want to throw anyone under the bus or put them on the hook for anything, so let’s all just take this as what it is: what appears to be a friendly customer service email from a GW employee.

GW FAQ

So first of all, good on this individual for taking the time to answer some questions. We often get the feeling with GW that the rules of their game are there to simply drive sales of models and are purely fire and forget, leaving their customers to sort out how to deal with ambiguities.

Now, to actually look at what is said, it appears that they do actually intend for the models to share special rules which is shocking to some (non Tau players), and pleasing to others (Tau players! haha). Despite not agreeing that that would be the best way to run with it, I am fine with getting a response at all (assuming this ever gets an FAQ or some form of official recognition, which it doesn’t seem like it will). What is a bit alarming is the dismissal of the second part of the question which is what really makes the Coordinated Firepower command benefit potentially no fun: can units with the ability to fire on multiple targets do so and still get all of the various bonuses?

That is the real issue here. Being able to nuke a single unit to high heaven will be a real bummer for players with single model, high value targets (Knights, expensive tanks, MCs, etc.) as they will likely be picking their models up with no recourse, but the ability to link an army of models together into 1 super unit that fires at every enemy unit on the table with the aggregate of every special rule of every model contributing is–to put it lightly– a concern.

a-great-disturbance-in-the-force-i-sense

So, for example, you have Darkstrider and Buffmander in your army. They form a Coordinated Firepower team with a unit of Stormsurge and a large number of suit units, all of whom have Target Locks. They are able to target every unit in your army with at least a single model or group of models. One unit is on a Skyfire nexus and the entire army potentially has Skyfire? Seems odd when you consider the ability for Tau units to so easily target multiple units. A single Crisis suit unit of 9 models can target 9 different targets, for example.

The “Must” Clause.

A lot of folks are looking to the wording of “these units must shoot the same target,” in the Coordinated Firepower command benefit to somehow override the Target Lock/Split Fire/GMC shooting rules. However, I don’t see it (as much as I’d like too, lol). The Coordinated Firepower rule is referencing units, not models or weapons. The normal rules for units shooting have the same verbiage:

All models in the unit must shoot the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in its unit then it cannot shoot at all in that phase. -Pg. 31 BRB

If the word “must” somehow overrides all other clauses, then Target Lock, Split Fire and GMC shooting rules would never work in the first place. These rules allow specific models or weapons in a unit to fire at a different target than the rest of the models/weapons in a unit.

The only issue with that, is that it becomes hideously overpowering to run with that reading of the rule. You simply write a list that takes maximum advantage of it and every time you shoot, every model in your army gets every special rule of every other model in your army, and you fire on every enemy target you can see, which is silly. Considering how out of proportion that is with anything similar in any other faction in the game, you have to question if that was intent? The GW employee’s response doesn’t answer it at all but at least does indicate that they have a response coming for the “how many weapons can a GMC shoot?” question that some people struggle with. (And as an aside, I will bet dollars to donuts they didn’t give the Stormsurge 5 different weapons systems so that he could only shoot 2!). So, while I applaud any effort GW makes to support the rules portion of their products, if they do so, I simply ask them to please consider all of the implications of a ruling and fully answer the question. If they don’t answer the more important part of the question (can they shoot multiple target units?), we don’t really have the answer we need and are left in the same spot we started.

super sayan

In the end, RAW, RAI, etc. are not what matters, anyway. What matters is how you choose to interpret a rule when you play with your friends. I like Jervis’ statement to choose the less powerful interpretation of a rule when there is confusion on how to read it, but the temptation to go maximum power is certainly real. We can all understand that. This is also the design team that quite clearly invented the 2+ rerollable invulnerable save, the 1+ Feel no Pain save, etc. etc. etc. Choosing as a community to go with a rule interpretation that provides the most fun for the most members of your group is the right call to make.

My suggestion would be to play test it with friends with the various interpretations of the rule. From maximum overload, to the more conservative reading and see what works for you! Perhaps in your meta the mega powerful version isn’t so bad because everyone plays at that level. Or, your group is more fluff oriented and you find that an army of twin-linked, ignores cover, +6″ range, tank/monster hunting units wherein almost every single model fires at a different unit is a tad bit much, lol. That will ultimately be up to you.

For organized play, we have to have a common set of rules in place before everyone shows up so that you have a level playing field. For our tournament system, the ITC, we tend to go with the more conservative reading of rules, but leave it up to the community to decide. In this instance, we’ll have to work out how we want to play it. It can be difficult to strike a balance between fun for the player with something and the player facing it, but we have dealt with these type of situations many times in the past and will continue to do so going forward.

How are you all playing Coordinated Firepower and how has it impacted your meta?

sale-left-red

Also, get pumped for the upcoming Horus Heresy boxed set! As seen in the awesome GW YouTube video, pre-orders go up on the 7th. You can order yours from Frontline Gaming for 25% off of retail! Send your orders into Orders@FrontlineGaming.org

Tags:

About Reecius

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

87 Responses to “GW to FAQ the Tau Coordinated Firepower Conundrum?”

  1. Darkraptor November 4, 2015 12:22 am #

    I read the rule as saying it applies to only the single enemy unit being targeted and not being able to benefit with target locks or the GC rules. Playing it like this gives the Tau the leg up they need to fight off battle company, and death stars. Without being able to share special abilities the contingent becomes anemic.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:10 pm #

      Being able to share USRs on a single target doesn’t help that much vs Battle Company though, as it is an MSU army. It does help vs high value, single unit targets like Wraithknights and some Deathstars though, for sure.

      • tag8833 November 4, 2015 4:56 pm #

        Tau already have good solutions to battle company, and MSU armies. They struggle against unkillable deathstars, so a rules interpretation that helps them there is a more balanced one even if it isn’t the best RAW one.

        I think long term the best solution would be the fix buffmander so that he can only hand out benefits to models shooting at a single unit. Even in the old codex, buffmander attached to 5 suites and 8 drones was able to fire at 6 different units and ignore cover, twin link, monster hunter/Tank Hunter against all 6 of them, and it was not fun.

  2. Dayone916 November 4, 2015 12:34 am #

    Great article and thanks for all the effort and time put into this subject to properly discuss both sides and arguments. I look forward to the vote and dropping my two cents in the bucket that way.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:10 pm #

      Yeah, this will have to come down to a vote, so many people read it with so many different interpretations.

      • Pain4Pleasure November 4, 2015 4:08 pm #

        Where can we vote? I’d love to keep the tau buffidiot as restricted to what he can help and do as possible

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 4, 2015 4:10 pm #

          Nowhere to vote just yet, but we will address it, soon.

  3. Greg November 4, 2015 12:49 am #

    It doesn’t matter at all weather they can split fire or not you’ve now got the commander ignores cover twin linked buffs getting attached to a super heavy. For your average player it’s a 2 turn auto loose.

    The addition of units which have an invisibility switch & hit in rear armour + a 2+ cover save

    Then all the arguments over does coordinated fire power apply to snap shots.

    Tau may not have graced the top tables at comps but they were always top tier at gaming club level

  4. Daytona November 4, 2015 1:10 am #

    @Reecius in the mail he actually says he will forward the question to the rule team and just chimes in with his own opinion so its not really an official statement.
    I would also raise a flag as to considering these legit since they can easily be faked and there has been numerous previous posts with people posting claimed responses “sometimes multiple responses within a day”. When in reality GW rarely ever responds to any such query so the legitimacy of any of these mails is questionable.
    I would say If/When GW Faq’s it we can see it as a official response, until then i belive you and the ITC are in a much better position to see/decide what makes sense and what dosent.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:11 pm #

      Good points and I did note in the article that this was not official or even necessarily real.

  5. bigpig November 4, 2015 1:32 am #

    Cool. Thanks for sharing.

    As always, an email from a random FW/GW intern doesn’t equate to company policy… but in light of AoS silliness and the “go for it” attitude of GWs rules writing of late, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was their intent.

    Ultimately, it will come down to the competitive community to police ourselves and design our own set of balances. i don’t think our English overlords care much for that sort of thing so we are probably spending too much too much effort arguing over what the “meaning of ‘is’ is”. …and the more baby steps we take towards lunacy the more herculean the effort will be when the time come to introduce a system of comp or rules gerrymandering. I enjoy competitive play, but imbalance just kills it and factional arguing is a component.

  6. X078 November 4, 2015 2:17 am #

    How is this still up for debate? It’s pretty clear:

    The adhoc combined units fire as one unit in that one moment of shooting sharing all buffs.

    Units firing must consist of more than one model and that model must have a Target Lock to be able to split fire away. (Atleast one model must fire at the orginal target). To simplify, if this wasnt suppose to work then how would a normal buffmander plus crisis unit with Target Locks work today? They share his buffs and can split their fire with via Target Locks with buffs intact.

    And Yes a Gargantuan (as per GC rules) can split their fire by shooting e.g. the SMS at the original target and then any other weapon at any other target or vice verca etc.

    And only units/models bought with a detachment/formation can use the rules for it. Units/models outside of the Hunter Contingent e.g. CAD cannot share the rules even if they join each others units etc. If specific Detachment/Formation rules could be shared by just joining models/units together then there would be no need for Detachments/Formations with special rules in the first place.

    Fluffwise and quite fitting for a Tau army they can basically be thought of as one giant Deathstar instead of just a small one e.g. Farsight bomb. Now sharing telemetry data and target coordinates between units for optimal efficiency.

    • X078 November 4, 2015 6:12 am #

      Further, you only get the Hunter Contingent bonus on another target by using Target Locks IF 3 or more models split fire at the same target. If you also want e.g. the Buffmander buffs on that secondary target then a model from the Buffmander unit must combine fire with them using a Target Lock.

      • bigpig November 4, 2015 9:58 am #

        Lol, just because you say something is clear doesn’t make it clear. Obviously it isn’t or there wouldn’t be so much debate about this

        • X078 November 4, 2015 11:08 am #

          It’s pretty clear, but I messed up the wording: “If you also want e.g. the Buffmander buffs on that secondary target then a model from the Buffmander unit must combine fire with them using a Target Lock.”

          should read

          “If you also want e.g. the Buffmander buffs on that secondary target then a model from the COMBINED unit must combine fire with them using a Target Lock.”

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 4, 2015 12:13 pm
            #

            It’s as clear as mud, lol. I have heard nearly a dozen subtly different readings of the rule. It may be clear to you, which is cool, but it certainly is not clear to the community at large.

          • X078 November 4, 2015 12:53 pm
            #

            Hmm my copy pasting Fu is weak, sorry about that, 2nd try:)

            “Further, you cannot get the Hunter Contingent bonus on another target by using Target Locks even IF 3 or more models split fire at the same target. If you also want e.g. the Buffmander buffs on that secondary target then a new Buffmander unit must combine fire again.”

            copy from below

            And it’s actually not that mega-powerful since a model that Target Locks another enemy unit doesn’t get +1BS and you can’t reapply or re-chain the buffs since the starting sentence of the rule says that a “Unit” selects a target. Therefore a model with a Target Lock from a unit that has already selected its target does not count as a new “Unit” when Target Locking another. Basically you need a “fresh” unit to start the Coordinated fire buff again.

            Anyway seems clear to me but I understand that it can be read in many different ways.

  7. Adam Abramowicz November 4, 2015 3:42 am #

    As a Tau player, and a hesitant fan of this new ruling, I cannot see Target Locks (Spit Fire) manipulating this rule. It says the entire unit must fire at designated target. If you Target Lock, you lose the ability to use the rule. Plain and simple.

    This is already very powerful, let’s not break it.

    • Messy0 November 4, 2015 4:07 am #

      Tanks for continuing the discussion Reece. I’ve been pretty vocal on the matter but i’m really glad to see that you are looking at all the evidence on the subject, including emails from GW that don’t exactly agree with your previous hypothesis.

      I actually believe the USR’s and special rules should spread to the new “Mega Unit” created from coordinated fire power when shooting as the designated coordinated firepower target. That said, I do think that any model that chooses to split fire/target lock onto a different unit shouldn’t retain the benefits when not shooting at the original coordinated fire power target (unless they were originally in a buffmanders squad for example, then they would still retain his benefits).

      • Reecius
        Reecius November 4, 2015 12:16 pm #

        We always strive to be honest and fair about these things even when people accuse us of the exact opposite, lol.

        This one will come to a vote, it has to. The rule is terribly worded and doesn’t give us enough information to figure out what to do with it without player interpretation coming into play.

  8. Kevin Lantz November 4, 2015 3:56 am #

    Always fun to see my opinion validated. I’m with you on the target locks do work as well. I think though and ITC rule change to make it not confer the special rules beyond that unit would be well thought.

    ie buffmander/darkstrider in another unit would have zero effect if shooting at some other unit unless they were present in the unit with the target lock user.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:17 pm #

      I wouldn’t pop the champagne just yet, lol. We don’t know if tha temail is real, or represents GW policy, etc. However, it does seem to indicate that the more powerful reading of the rule is accurate if this is indeed, authentic.

      We’ll have to vote on it, this is descending into deadlock.

  9. Sam November 4, 2015 5:20 am #

    Is 1980s font really how gw answers emails?

    • Daytona November 4, 2015 5:44 am #

      As I previously said, any such mail claiming that GW has answered rules questions authenticity is questionable at best since GW rarely answer anything, and they are not to be considered official stance. Only a FAQ or official post from them is. This is no exception and can easily be a forgery give me 10 minutes with photoshop and i can post a similar picture claiming the opposite. Many similar mails that have previously surfaced regarding other rules have been shown to be forgeries.

    • 1PlusArmour November 4, 2015 6:10 am #

      Many, many, email clients will default to this format called “Internet style history” for email responses.

  10. DevianID November 4, 2015 6:19 am #

    As ive said elsewhere, tau already do the whole buff a unit and split it 7 ways to sunday even without coordinated fire power from the formation. A broadside unit with buff commander split 4 ways with drones, the old farsight bomb split 8 ways with crisis suits. The formation just lets you lose ob sec and do what tau already did a little easier. When you consider that the buffs add up to 50 points with twin link, ignore cover, and puretide, we see that the formation is like gladius almost point for point with how you get free 55 point transports in battle conpany or free 50 point wargear buffs in hunter tau.

    • Kevin Lantz November 4, 2015 6:46 am #

      not sure about you but I havent’ seen ob sec there yet….

    • WestRider November 4, 2015 3:59 pm #

      A few issues with that. One, the Razorbacks you get from a Battle Company are substantially overpriced as-is, so the actual practical value of the free stuff is less than its nominal value.

      Two, the Battle Company has some hefty Tax Units, and forces you into a very specific Build. The Hunter Cadre is far more flexible in its construction.

      Three, part of the reason that the Buffmander’s gear is so cheap Points-wise is that it’s Unique, so there’s normally no option to allow every Unit to have it, at any price. Breaking a 0-1 restriction is a major balance shifter.

      • DevianID November 4, 2015 9:42 pm #

        The tau core formation is more flexible, yes, but the buffs often dont always give valuen while a razorback is a guarenteed unit. Twin linked and ignores cover already come stock on smart missiles, marker lights already give ignores cover, hymp are twin linked, fire support already gets tank hunting. So yeah, while you may not have normally bought a razorback in marines, you may not have needed the 50 points in buff gear either. Doesnt change that both formations give units about 50 points in free value.

  11. BrutishCard November 4, 2015 6:54 am #

    In RAW it’s pretty hard to argue against the utterly savage application.. I can’t believe that’s what they intended as it is stupidly overpowered though.

    • Vercingatorix November 4, 2015 7:40 am #

      I don’t mind their power level going up. I just find it frustrating how incredibly rock paper scissor it will still be. They still won’t have the firepower to kill wraiths/lynchguard but you can bet any other army that doesn’t rely on re-rolling dice for armor save is going to have trouble getting across the table.

  12. Colinsherlow November 4, 2015 7:18 am #

    I was was assuming that the Tau share USRs plus +1 BS when firing at a targeting a specific enemy unit. But not with all the split fire stuff…

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:18 pm #

      Yeah, that is where it gets really gnarly.

  13. RyanTSG November 4, 2015 7:30 am #

    Its funny if this rule goes down this way my normal Buffmander, Markerlight drones and Target locked Missile suits squad will have to be rethought. I use the buffmander to give the Twinlinked BS5 to the markerdrones, but they are not networked so would not be able to add to coordinated fire.

    I really think that GW did mean that special rules and USRs would be shared, I do not think that they realized the full implications of target locks or some of the other craziness. Just like 2+ rerollable, Warconvocation Fortifications scouting with tons of free upgrades, Invis etc. ITC will likely need to steer the final direction of the rules.

    I think at this point the RAW/RAI doesn’t matter, its really going to be up to the polling on how everyone wants to play. It is also important that everyone remembers that ITC has rulled heavily in favor of the way Tau suits can shoot 2 weapons in all phases not just the RAW shooting phase.

    • Kevin Lantz November 4, 2015 8:02 am #

      I’m not sure how you can say “rulled heavily in favor of the way Tau suits…” when it’s clearly written they can fire one more than normal for shooting, it’s raw and rai, I didn’t think this was ever an issue lol.

      also, just what “crazy” situation will you at most get? lay out your doomsday scenario.

      • RyanTSG November 4, 2015 8:34 am #

        Multi tracker rules “A model with multi-tracker can fire an additional weapon in each shooting phase”

        Note, Over watch happens in the Assault Phase, Intercept happens in the Movement Phase – Both do not happen in the shooting phase but ITC FAQ allows the system to be used when ever the model is making a shooting attack.

        “Rules that allow a model to shoot more than one weapon in the shooting phase apply to shooting attacks made in other phases of the game, such as overwatch and interceptor shooting.”

        That is a huge boost to Tau, I have always enjoyed it but it definitely is not RAW.

        I play Tau, and they need help against fast tough Assault armies, and cant wait to coordinate fire on some Necron wraiths with monster hunter and the combined Pulse bomb from the Fireblade Cadre and Etherial. It will be a great answer to that weakness. I just think that some fairness needs to be applied, Tau can cause a lot of feel bad experiences with their shooting phase and overwatch phase.

  14. Kwodd November 4, 2015 7:48 am #

    That Tau……. So hot right now!

  15. Hotsauceman1 November 4, 2015 8:58 am #

    This is no more powerful than Free points, Dscythe wraithguard,scat packs and any number of OP gak. Why not let tau have something point and click like other armies do?

    • Mike November 4, 2015 11:40 am #

      Have you playtested it personally? We have. A fleet of Razorbacks filled with tactical marines absolutely do not compare. A bunch of random free upgrades on skitarii alphas and the like do not compare.

      The version of the rule where you can target lock and still have all the abilities (which I believe is correct by RAW,) is earth-shattering. This is the kind of thing that ruins tournament scenes. I reserved my judgement until after I ran a few playtests, but I definitely won’t be attending anything competitive if that is a legal and working combo.

      • Reecius
        Reecius November 4, 2015 12:19 pm #

        Yeah, I agree. The other buffs are simply not in the same league as this, assuming the more powerful reading of the rule.

        • Hotsauceman1 November 4, 2015 1:16 pm #

          So, its fine if an opponent can have like 500 pts more than the opponent. but someone putting buffs on units isnt? How is this different from say, a psyker buffing certain units?

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 4, 2015 1:30 pm
            #

            Try them in application, my friend. We’re comparing apples and oranges here, so direct comparisons are going to be difficult.

          • Hotsauceman1 November 4, 2015 1:34 pm
            #

            I disagree OP shit is OP shit.
            Why allow one OP thing and not another.
            And I wish I can. But I dont have the book yet lol. went to the shop to buy one, and yall where out 😛 Gonna have to wait until thanksgiving to get mine.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 4, 2015 1:58 pm
            #

            Well, we can agree to disagree on that, then. I firmly believe their are varying degrees of OP stuff, you do not simply cross some line in the sane and become OP. For example, a special rule that said “my army wins the game on a 2+” is not the same as a free Rhino. But, YMMV.

          • tag8833 November 4, 2015 5:21 pm
            #

            It is a matter of scale to some degree, but not a matter of apples and oranges. One OP formation invalidates 70% of possible builds. Another OP formation invalidates 85% of possible builds. One is worse than the other, but the central problem is the same. Rock-Paper-40K.

  16. winterman November 4, 2015 9:32 am #

    “If the word “must” somehow overrides all other clauses, then Target Lock, Split Fire and GMC shooting rules would never work in the first place. These rules allow specific models or weapons in a unit to fire at a different target than the rest of the models/weapons in a unit.”

    That is not true. The must in the generic targeting rules are overriden by specific special rules and codex rules. That is spelled out and clear in the main rulebook. In that case the must has no bearing.

    However when dealing with two codex rules, the must has to override the may in my opinion. To me the unit (which by definition of a unit includes all models) must fire at that target. Target Locks and such are ‘may’ rules, so have to be overidden by an equally weighted (eg codex) rule.

    • Adam
      Adam (thediceabide.com) November 4, 2015 10:25 am #

      Exactly, you work from generic to specific.

      Generic shooting rules say “must”. More specific wargear rules override must with “may”. But finally, you have the detachment rule, which only operates under even more specific conditions, which puts may back to must. A little confusing, but as long as you remember that the more specific the rule, the higher priority it is, it should be no problem.

      • X078 November 4, 2015 11:51 am #

        I believe the “must” is there so you don’t abuse it without actually buying Target Locks. Because then you could just declare that I am adding my firepower, but I’m gonna hit that unit over there instead.
        Also note the wording “units” not “models”, since a model with a Target Lock can shoot at a different unit to rest of his unit.

        • X078 November 4, 2015 12:06 pm #

          And it’s actually not that mega-powerful since a model that Target Locks another enemy unit doesn’t get +1BS and you can’t reapply or re-chain the buffs since the starting sentence of the rule says that a “Unit” selects a target. Therefore a model with a Target Lock from a unit that has already selected its target does not count as a new “Unit” when Target Locking another. Basically you need a “fresh” unit to start the Coordinated fire buff again.

          • Karvala November 5, 2015 10:07 am
            #

            the lack of +1BS is not a huge loss considering you still keep the commander buffs: twin-linking, ignores cover, PEN-chip buffs, etc. It’s still vastly powerful.

      • tag8833 November 4, 2015 5:22 pm #

        I think you have it right Adam. This is how I read it too from a RAW perspective.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:20 pm #

      That depends. If you go with general overriding specific, the more general rule is referring to a unit while the more specific rule is referring to models or weapons within that unit.

  17. Codi November 4, 2015 10:05 am #

    If a model with target lock targets enemy unit A while his unit targets enemy unit B, does the unit count as having fired at both enemy unit A and enemy unit B?

    I would say no.

    I played against this detachment last weekend using the stronger version of the rules and I really don’t think it is as broken as people make it out to be. I think it is difficult to optimize your fire against multiple units with your entire army, while making use of this rule (especially if I am right about the above question).

    Although to be fair I wasn’t playing against any storm surges…

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:21 pm #

      Yeah, this is the issue. The rule is far too ambiguous as written, everyone is applying it differently.

  18. Arrias November 4, 2015 10:10 am #

    It’s not the ruling, but the smiley faces from a corporate rep that make think this is suspect…

  19. Dbiesto November 4, 2015 10:40 am #

    Maybe I misread the explanation but if they email is true, they really are going to faq it as 3 units combine into one superior shooting unit. Maybe they are tired of these unbound deathstar lists and want a gun line army to be just as superior? Meh, faq or vote will hopefully happen before next big tournament. Ill be going to Equilobrium games tournament this month so hopefully won’t see a super combo one shot kill 2+ units with split fire. They need to faq it, I would prefer if they’re going to kamahaneha a unit, they can’t spread it out to 2 units. I have a feeling the faq won’t explain any loopholes tho, like split fire before combining attack. It’s prob going to come down to us casting a vote cause GW faqs don’t always answer the problem.

  20. Moridan November 4, 2015 10:41 am #

    This has impacted my meta quite simply. We refuse to play a Tau player that every 10-15 point upgrade he has in his army works for all 2K points (when properly filled with Target locks, ect).

    Simple. Plain. Insanity.

    Sure, Scat bikes are good. Ad Mech and Battle Companies can get free stuff, so your new codex comes out and of course you insist and expect the power creep to continue. I dare you to argue this to a Chaos player to their face. hahaha

    • Dbiesto November 4, 2015 10:57 am #

      I’m a pure chaos only player. I’m confused what you are implying? That they pay 15 pts and they’re whole army will table mine? This is the reason I have 7 units that can reach combat, and they are all fast enough and made them fearless and some with FNP towards shooting. Average chaos build tho? I dunno how they would deal with the overwhelming firepower. If I keep even one unit by turn 4 I’ll be satisfied I guess….I think I heard outflanking units get intercepted tho…I’m a casual so I’ll just laugh at the tournament when I get tabled turn 3( probably)

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 12:22 pm #

      Lol, poor Chaos =/

      • Thejughead November 4, 2015 1:27 pm #

        Reece,

        I hope middle ground is the winner in a vote, “Buffs work for all, but only when shooting the CF target”.

        Although there is another worse feel bad experience out there no one is addressing. Loth + Triparte Lance + Void shield combo. It can be beaten, but it can curb stomp so many armies.

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 4, 2015 1:31 pm #

          Yeah, I think the middle road is most likely to be the way it goes down.

          And yeah, an Invis unit of Knights is crazy, too.

          • Dbiesto November 4, 2015 2:02 pm
            #

            I think enough Str. 10 blasts could nullify invisible Knights. I think that’s where FW has the answer? Don’t have any of their books but I remember a few Str 10 blasts are somewhere.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 4, 2015 3:11 pm
            #

            Yeah, Str10 blasts are a good answer to Knights, no doubt.

          • Joshua Hodges November 4, 2015 3:12 pm
            #

            You can’t shoot blasts at Invisible Units.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 4, 2015 6:08 pm
            #

            You can in the ITC, that was a community vote to treat units shooting at them as BS1 instead.

          • Dbiesto November 4, 2015 5:39 pm
            #

            Wow, invisible is the stupidest thing in the game. It’s going to almost always go off, even if the opponent gets turn 1. I’m not fond of it but looks like now I must max out Psykers just to get this power/ counter opponents. Now there’s really no point in taking my blastmasters if you can’t even use their weapons smh. So I guess 2 heralds of Slaanesh Lvl 2 with 8 fiends and a Lvl 3 Sorceror with 9 bikes 2 mg and a lord of Slaanesh for outflank…and maybe a Lvl 3 DP of Nurgle in daemons section. I’m sorry but USR psyker powers really are game breaking shrouded is ok, but now that I read up on invisible this is the stupidest thing GW has ever made. Most armies are trying to shoot but can’t hit Jack crap cause of invisibility. That’s just game breaking, GW should dispose of this power next edition.

  21. Alex Yuen November 4, 2015 3:00 pm #

    The debate should not focus on what the rule really said. I don’ think that matter at all. lets focus on how we should play with this rule. i think every should get ready to vote on this issue and let that be the outcome.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 3:24 pm #

      Agreed.

    • Bigpig November 4, 2015 5:10 pm #

      Agree. The rule is poorly written and we modify raw in some cases anyways when it breaks the environment comepletely. We should be discussing what is best for the competive community as a whole. If it is too op, then it us nit healthy and should be modified. 2++ reroll is an excellent example of this

  22. Mipps November 4, 2015 3:01 pm #

    Final time I’m gonna stick my oar in here. Are people forgetting that target lock means that model must shoot a different target to the rest of the unit? So the moment you split fire and shoot a different target, the rest of the models in that super blob now can’t shoot that new target (gmc’s not withstanding) So no whole army getting all the buffs and shooting a whole opponent army off the table turn 1.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 3:23 pm #

      The argument is that USRs confer onto the various member models regardless of what unit they target. I could see your argument for them not getting the +1BS bonus though, for sure.

  23. Joshua Hodges November 4, 2015 3:11 pm #

    You guys have got to quit using Darkstrider as evidence of how ridiculous it is. Darkstrider CANNOT be taken in a Hunter Contingent and therefore can never confer the -1T buff to other units.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 4, 2015 3:23 pm #

      Take a CAD to get him, and If he is attached to a unit of Firewarriors in the Hunter Contingent, they do gain his benefit. Now, as for everyone else, only those shooting at the unit he targeted get the bonus, but it still works.

      • Joshua Hodges November 4, 2015 3:33 pm #

        Oh yea I didn’t think about that

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 4, 2015 3:49 pm #

          All good, it’s easy to miss stuff in this crazy complicated game.

          • DevianID November 4, 2015 9:51 pm
            #

            Darkstrider only gives one unit -1 toughness, and only if he is not snapshooting. So its antideathstar tech at best, it wont help versus gladius 5 man squads.

      • tag8833 November 4, 2015 5:30 pm #

        One solution is a more structured army Comp.
        0-3 detachments, but if you take a warhost you get unlimited formations inside of it, but it counts as all 3 detachments.

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 4, 2015 6:09 pm #

          We actually voted on that one and as technically, they Decurion style detachments are actually 1 detachment, the community went with them counting that way in the 1-3 Detachment limit.

          • tag8833 November 4, 2015 11:07 pm
            #

            I know. I voted the other way.

            The game plays best when there are restrictions and you can build a Take All Comers list. The current trend of army comp votes has been more and more permissive which leads to a favoritism to meta chasers, and eventually there will be something of a realignment.

            Either that or some other tournament format with a more restrictive army comp will rise up and start siphoning off the disaffected group of players.

          • tag8833 November 4, 2015 11:21 pm
            #

            Just to be clear. I’m a meta chaser too, but I stick to one of two factions (Orks and Nids), and take several months to build, paint and practice a list, and I don’t want my list to look just like everyone else’s (Flyrant Spam).

            Necron Decurion invalidate the build I had worked for months perfecting. Then I got a new one that I was happy with that auto loses to scat-bike spam. So I change it up again, and battle company walks all over that list assuming the guy playing it knows what they are doing.

            I’m a meta chaser, but I’m not an extreme enough meta chaser to keep up with the wild swings inside the ITC, and the trend towards more permissive army comp greatly exacerbates the problem.

  24. Narfwak November 5, 2015 9:07 am #

    Clearly the answer is to just run Retaliation Cadre and Optimised Stealth Cadre outside of a Hunter Contingent so it never comes up in the first place. ;D

  25. GreyDragoon November 5, 2015 9:32 am #

    Hey Reecius,

    I’m pretty familiar with both the comp and FLGS side of things. I would say that the best middle ground decision would be that unit-wide USRs are only shared if the model is within the initial unit that sources the USR (no different from how the rules worked in the past) OR for shots being fired at the target of the coordinated firepower. So essentially tau can still be tau with their target locks during this big coordinated firepower, but they don’t have access to USRs they wouldn’t have anyway if they are attempting to resolve shots at a different target via GMC/Target Lock rules whist in an instance of Coordinated Firepower usage. This is still extremely strong and makes coordinated firepower one of the most flexible army-wide rules out there, but does keep it from turning every shooting turn into the entire tau army getting BS 5, TH/MH, Ignore Cover, and Re-roll to hit. Just what focuses in on the main target, and what would have had it anyway (say the unit that has the buffmander in it to begin with.)

  26. Marandamir November 5, 2015 10:08 am #

    The question here is RAI vs. RAW. There is no way to convince everyone that your opinion is better or more ‘correct’ than someone elses. That is why arbitrating rules by RAI typically doesn’t work. Everyone has an opinion on how they think it works and if you don’t lock down the criteria on how to arbitrate, then you will never come to a resolution. Especially because opinion has even more external factors affecting it (like game balance, like mood of the person at the time of the reading, or how biased someone is to the topic at hand).

    This is why RAW is the best method to try to arbitrate something like this. You read the rule and interpret it as its written (like a lawyer), not as what you think they intended. The language is at that point the only thing in question. You will eliminate a magnitude of options (basically opinion what how people ‘feel’ it should be) and narrow the scope of what you need to factor in, making it way easier to come to a reasonable solution.

    RAW doesn’t always work as language still have some ambiguity to it (especially GW rules…), but it still provides a narrow scope with which to arbitrate. Just look at the major tourney polls. There typically split by a large percentage (50/50, 60/40, etc) and when you pick one way or another based off popularity or opinion you are arbitrarily screwing over the minority group.

    Just my 2 cents, which of course is an opinion 😛

    • IronCaptain November 5, 2015 9:24 pm #

      Well said Marandamir. Tau have enough neat shennanigans, they don’t certainly need a new super-uber-op special rule either.

    • Greg November 6, 2015 12:24 am #

      RAW to me works as just for resolving the shooting, the buffs don’t cascade I just don’t see in the language used that creates a super unit.

      Once you merge everything together for anything else the BRB falls apart to a degree and not just with Buffmander.

      I would like to point out that key changes to the main rule book where made to tone down Buffmander with everything. Allies being a main one and removing MC’s from being able to be joined by him was another. Allowing cascading buffs re-introduces this on a horrific scale because it’s not a couple of MC’s it’s a squad of super heavies with unlimited independent fire.

      Using the argument that it will help counter invisible deathstars just means your going to get more polarisation and less diversity in builds, just mission engineer the invisible deathstars out of it.

      GW’s move with SM was huge bringing troops back to the party and necrons for all its powerful feels like a single force as does Kdk

      Let’s face it the 3 imperial Knight thing + invisibility is pretty obscene by anyone’s standards, my problem with multiple super heavies has always been they really don’t fit o a 6*4 board. Double the board size & the points and your into a nice Apocalypse game.

  27. Damon November 26, 2015 9:22 am #

    I’m a bit late to the discussion, but I read the rule pretty simply (aside from the superheavy…) as a unit has a declared target, target lockers then get to fire away from that, but they don’t change the target of the Unit itself which is supported by the wording in target lock that they fire at a different target than the Unit, never mentioning that the count as a separate unit or anything (which is why PEN still works for them for example). Via this reading, I understand that they don’t benefit from the extra rule, nor increase the units available to it simply because they are not actually a unit, and are not targeting the unit’s target.

Leave a Reply