In fairness to prior discussions and to play devil's advocate, that's a big downgrade from the current system.  It greatly increases the chance of a Tau player picking an inappropriate action and effectively losing it.  That could be either because something went really well or really poorly.  A lucky salvo allows the enemy to bug out before the other Tau formations activate and an unlucky salvo means the double move meant to chase the broken enemy now just means -1 to hit.

Most people I've played against will choose not to use an ability if it has a substantial downside potential and in previous incarnations of the discussion Tau players lobbied hard for the ability to decide individually because the ability was so limiting.

I find it hard to think Coordinated Fire is especially "unfair" in feel.  Personally, I think the triple Farsight activation is worse in that respect.  Farsight requires multiple activation rolls, but it is completely free as to what action is required and we all know the devastating effects of either a rolling assault or that Turn 2 "I fire everything before you get to act" wave of firepower that pounds multiple formations into inactivity.  In contrast, the Tau are ganging up on a single target.

Coordinated Fire takes a certain kind of situation, one that is not easy for the Tau to create.  They have to be able to do enough damage that the burst of activations doesn't end up crushing their count for the rest of the turn and that means there better be a lot of Sustain Fire and/or crossfire involved.  They have to have multiple formations in position, usually dangerously close, or it's not worth it.  In practice, it's more of a defensive measure, giving the Tau a threat for approaching forces parallel to other forces' assault threat when the opponent gets too close.

I think this is amply proven by the fact that Coord Fire is rare.  Look through all the batreps you want.  You won't see more than about one per game on average - a few with more and many with none.  Even way, way back, when Jaldon was building entire armies around the ability he wouldn't manage but 3 or 4 in a game.

If it were really effective to the point of being "unfair" then there would be a lot more people focused on setting up coord fire and a lot more of it in battles.

_________________
Neal

Yep, all fair points Neal.

As to the possibility of "over committing" to an attack, no one is forced to always use three formations in a co-ordinated fire attack, you can just choose to use two...

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I see no need to change the present rule at all.

I don't want simultaneous movement or to have to pick which 3 action my formations will use before I roll the first dice.

Any changes like this will see a reduction in how much CoFire is used. How often is Commander used?

KISS.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Agree with Neal. Basically, CoFire sounds really scary until you have to pull it off and as pointed out, I've never managed more than two in a game and I like to use the rule.

This obviously bears watching, but I don't think that it is broken as currently phrased.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Oh for sure. No argument there. But you can over commit with two sometimes as well. My point was that over committing means you can end up wasting an activation(or more)and that you don't get to drop that overcommittment as it's locked in when declaring CoFi. That is the balance in the choice you make with CoFi.

That is fine that no-one sees a major issue with it.

I would however like to highlight my belief that if someone was to build up an army (imagine the Tau did not exist) from scratch, and tried to incorporate these new 'funky' rules (that Tau have), they would get little to no support and be ignored or told that the abilities were too powerful.

My belief that it is only due to active posters and people that want to play Tau that such rules are acceptable - juxtaposed to adopting established examples from official lists would handle the same situations. This would however then have them branded as the same as *blah*.

I guess the fact that they have to concentrate on the same unit is a balance and possibly a waste of activations in the long term. It is however a bitter pill to swallow if it is the BTS that gets the barrell end of the deal...

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I understand where you're coming from. The Tau have had many years of development so far and their rules have changed widely in that period. In terms of the WEs however(if you're referencing them in your post above), if you look at how many people actually shouted down the World Eater rules you have designed (and in my list also) there are very few actual strong dissenters(no one screaming "that is broken!" etc over and over). Most people, when they argue, argue for balance in a special rule and asking for changes to a new rule is most likely aimed at that. That's why floating new special rules out there before incorporating them is the wisest route - a route we've both been down so far(and others too) I'd like to think.  

I used to only use the ability to double an ML formation up to the target, fire a bit, then GM it with the other formation.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

@Frogbear: I don't want you to think that I'm just blowing off your comments. I don't disagree that the capability, properly employed, provides a devastating response. It can be very brutal on the receiving end.

What I would like you to consider is the other side of the equation:

1. The rule in and of itself has to be managed carefully. It is very easy to overuse the rule and a clever opponent will capitalize on that opportunity to the Tau's detriment. If the Tau is at an activation disadvantage, using the CoFire rule will magnify the deficit and severely hamper your (i.e. Tau) remaining options.

2. Using the CoFire rule early in a turn (piggybacking on #1), tends to turn the initiative over to your opponent in the latter stages of the turn. Because the Tau are not a "stand up and take it" kind of force, attrition in the latter stages tends to really hamper you in the next turn because Tau forces are rather fragile. So the rule does not provide equal benefits throughout the length of a turn.

3. The results can be a gamble. As pointed out by others, you "might" break the target too early, thus stranding or greatly reducing the overall effect of the CoFire. There is also the other side of the coin, the Tau player dedicates three formations to kill one of yours and in spite of the odds, it survives. Bummer for the Tau, been there, done that. It's just part of the game.

4. It's not as easy to set up as it might seem (try it sometime   ), which is why you tend to only see it once or twice a game...unless everything is rolling the Tau's way, in which case it doesn't matter what the Tau do, you're just going to die. I've also experienced the converse as well ("No Shas'el, I do not know why I missed. Yes Shas'el, the Gue'la tank was only one meter away").

5. The Tau community is not that insular a group that we only play one army and it is our goal to make it superior to all others. Personally, I play Space Marines, Tau, IG, Elysians, and Necrons. I know others in the community play multiple armies as well.

Over the past year, the challenge has been to get the list to a point where it does fit in and play "nice" with all the other lists. We've had our share of bumps and detours, but it does seem to look like we are on the right path and that in the very near future we can finally put a wrap on this list.

So hang in there, please do express concerns, but let's also remember that it is in playtesting that we discover whether our concerns were founded or not. We don't claim to be perfect (I know I certainly am not), but we do strive to base our decisions on as much evidence as we can to ensure consistency in our decisions.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Hey Honda

All points noted. My responses (I hope) have been phrased to be helpful and non-combative whilst getting a point across. I am happy to keep playing games against the Tau to help develop the list. Like most things however, I cannot help but play the 'devil's advocate', especially when I see so much agreement.

I am glad that I can make points/observations and not have my thoughts trashed or ignored by egotistical assumptions of my character or agenda, so I thank you (and the others on the Tau lists) for that. It means I will always be there to assist the list along, even if it is just to make people see a different point of view.

Cheers....  

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats