Split fire and assaulting

[wolflold]

Hey,

I had a battle against Eldar and we got to someting where we didn't know what to do. My tactical squad was already in assault, his dark reapers with farseer had the split fire power, he wanted to assault my tacticals but before he did that he made his split fire leadership and shot with the reaper excharge on a diferent target. Now can his farseer and reaper unit charge the tacticals? Rules say you have to charge what you shoot, but split fire gives you the option to shoot at a diferent target, so...what happens then? Can he charge? Does he get the +1 for charging or is it considered a disordered charge. We decided that he could charge but didnt get the assault bonus. But im still unsure if this was correct. What are your thoughts?

[Wolfshade]

[see below]

There is a whole discussion about whether or not the model that split fires is part of the unit for shooting purposes but ho-hum.

[Aegwymourn]

If your tactical squad was already engaged in close combat they are not valid shooting targets. Therefore it doesn't matter if they had the split fire power since they cannot select the tactical squad as a target. So he can either shoot at something (or two somethings with split fire) or charge your tactical marines.

At our store the general consensus for split fire and charging is that it has to be one of the targets shot at.

[Wolfshade]

I skim read that. You are quite right Aegymourn.

You cannot assault what you do not shoot at (generally). It isn't a case of split fire since the non-split fired target is not a valid target so you can't shoot at it.

You can assault it but must forego your shooting. It might have been a more preferable option to detach the farseer and assault with them and leave the Dark Reapers to shoot at other viable targets.

[Angelofblades]

Well, wait, hold on a sec.

What does split fire rule have anything to do with the question...

From what the OP has described, the Farseer and Reapers fired on a target, but also wished to charge a squad already engaged in combat.

You could do this even without the split fire rule.

Charge what you shot at, multi- charge both units, but suffer a disordered charge.

Heck, the Farseer and Reapers could split fire to targets A & B, then charge into A, B, C.

What you can't do is shoot one target and only charge an entirely different target. IE, you can't shoot A, and only charge B, or with split fire, shoot A & B, but only charge C.

[Wolfshade]

Well it all depends if the unit that the reaper exarch wants to fire on is within charge range or no. If it is then you might be able to do what you suggest if the placement is helpful, otherwise you can't.

[Asuryan]

You cannot assault what you do not shoot at (generally). It isn't a case of split fire since the non-split fired target is not a valid target so you can't shoot at it.

Bad wording in that sentence because you don't have to shoot at something to assault it. Also with split fire it just says that one model immediately fires at a unit, then you resolve all the other shooting which if you wanted to assault an engaged unit then you can choose not to fire.

Personally I would have let the player split fire and then assault the marines normally.

[Nabterayl]

Angelofblades is right. If you shot, you may not declare a target you did not shoot at as your primary charge target. If you use Split Fire to shoot at two targets, either of them may be your primary charge target. If you fire at only one target, using Split Fire or not, only that target may be your primary charge target.

[Wolfshade]

Personally I would have let the player split fire and then assault the marines normally.
But the one "target" was already locked in assault so could not be shot at, regardless of split fire or no.

[chicop76]

I have to look and may be wrong. From what I remember you have fo declare a primary target and than the secondary for the splitfire. Your assault can only be directed at a primary target. It is possible to multi assault multiple units. However to do so yoou need to keep 2inch consolidation and you have to be base to nase with as many models as possible. Which means it would be r athed hard flr a typical 6 man unit to assault more than one squad. Even harder if you are trying to assault three units. This is another reason why big units is a good thing.

[Asuryan]

Angelofblades is right. If you shot, you may not declare a target you did not shoot at as your primary charge target. If you use Split Fire to shoot at two targets, either of them may be your primary charge target. If you fire at only one target, using Split Fire or not, only that target may be your primary charge target.

I don't like the way that works because it allows a squad of reapers w/ Maugan Ra to have a random model shoot at a squad and be your "primary charge target" then for Ra, the Exarch, and the rest of the squad to shoot at another squad potentially taking them out, and then charging the squad that only one guy shot at and then Ra can do some damage in CC.

Where as if the one model that split fired fires at the secondary target and the squad chooses not to fire, (because they want to charge a unit in CC, as said by OP), since you don't have to shoot at a target to charge it then the primary target (the unit in CC) gets charged.

[DarkLink]

I don't like the way that works because it allows a squad of reapers w/ Maugan Ra to have a random model shoot at a squad and be your "primary charge target" then for Ra, the Exarch, and the rest of the squad to shoot at another squad potentially taking them out, and then charging the squad that only one guy shot at and then Ra can do some damage in CC.


That's... kind of the whole point of the Split Fire rule. Letting you, y'know, split your fire.

[Asuryan]

That's... kind of the whole point of the Split Fire rule. Letting you, y'know, split your fire.

yea letting one guy shoot at a different squad. Not discounting one shot, but as a RAW and a RAI letting one model shoot at something then charge it with the whole squad after letting the rest of the squad decimates a second unit is just stupid.

[DarkLink]

I still don't see the problem. It's a rule that lets you ignore certain restrictions. Do you think being able to assault out of Land Raiders is stupid because you normally can't assault out of a vehicle?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

It was clearly never intended to be used as a "Unit kills two things rule", it was intended as a "1 Guy gets to shoot something else" rule.
But RAW as long as the "core" unit is assaulting the thing it shot I see no issue.

[Nabterayl]

It was clearly never intended to be used as a "Unit kills two things rule", it was intended as a "1 Guy gets to shoot something else" rule.
But RAW as long as the "core" unit is assaulting the thing it shot I see no issue.
I think you're overstating that. How many dreadnoughts is a unit "intended" to be able to kill, if the model with Split Fire has a lascannon?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I think you're overstating that. How many dreadnoughts is a unit "intended" to be able to kill, if the model with Split Fire has a lascannon?

I think we all know that 1 lascannon does not a dead dread make.
But I see your point.

[Asuryan]

I still don't see the problem. It's a rule that lets you ignore certain restrictions. Do you think being able to assault out of Land Raiders is stupid because you normally can't assault out of a vehicle?

But there is no ambiguity there, Rules say you can't assault out of a vehicle unless it is an assault vehicle. Here there is a lot of ambiguity thus the different opinions and different ways to read the rule's in question.