Split fire and Assaults

[Mr.Gold]

If a model has the Split fire special rule and shot at a target the squad can charge, but the remainder of the squad shot at a different target, can that squad charge the unit that only the model with split fire shot?

[Charon]

You can charge any unit that your squad shot at. So you can either charge the unit the squad shot at or the unit the splitfire model shot at.

[Mr Mystery]

And potentially charge both, provided you do so within the normal assault rules.

About the only time I can think of this is when a Character who isn't IC has a 'bubble' of infantry around them, and you expose said model through casualties.

[Charistoph]

You can charge any unit that your squad shot at. So you can either charge the unit the squad shot at or the unit the splitfire model shot at.

You can charge any unit the UNIT shot at. The UNIT did not shoot at a second target, it shot at one. A model is the only thing that shoots at another target.

From Declare Charge:
"(A) unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn’s Shooting phase."

From Split Fire:
"Split Fire
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack."

This is not quite the same thing as Super-Heavy targeting.

[Chris*ta]

You can charge any unit the UNIT shot at. The UNIT did not shoot at a second target, it shot at one. A model is the only thing that shoots at another target.

From Declare Charge:
"(A) unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn’s Shooting phase."

From Split Fire:
"Split Fire
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack."

This is not quite the same thing as Super-Heavy targeting.

Umm, I'm not convinced. What you're saying is that the one model doesn't count as part of the unit, effectively.

While the rule for Declaring a Charge says "the unit", (implying only one option is available as a target) I'd say that it's worded that way because 95% of the time, you can only shoot one target.

To put it another way, whether only one model in a unit fires on a target, or several, that unit has fired on that target.

[Charistoph]

Umm, I'm not convinced. What you're saying is that the one model doesn't count as part of the unit, effectively.

While the rule for Declaring a Charge says "the unit", (implying only one option is available as a target) I'd say that it's worded that way because 95% of the time, you can only shoot one target.

To put it another way, whether only one model in a unit fires on a target, or several, that unit has fired on that target.

No, you're taking it the wrong way. I'm saying that when the model is making its shooting attack, it does not represent the unit while doing so. You have already chosen a target for the unit at this point, and that is the target of the unit's Charge. Split Fire does not grant permission to charge this second target.

[Chris*ta]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's correct. I don't see the difference between one member of the unit shooting at a target, or all of them shooting at the target. Either way, it's a target that they shot at during the shooting phase and so one they're allowed to charge.

Truth be told, the RAW is way too vague on this. The rule says "the unit that it targeted during that turn’s Shooting phase" when it targeted more than one unit in the shooting phase ...

But, I'm not convinced on the idea that the model that is split firing doesn't count; I don't see anything in the rules to support this.

[SnakeChisler]

The Split Fire one is a bit strange to the Normal sequence in that it allows you to choose a target after the the split firing guy has unloaded (with restrictions).

In all other cases you need to declare all targets and how your going to split your shots at the start of the units shooting phase (Super Heavies, POTMS, Target Lock (Tau)).

Before reading this discussion I'd have said you can charge what you fire at but going over the split-fire rule in the BRB I don't think that's the case with the guy whose done the split-fire.

Obviously intended by GW for some reason otherwise they would have just left it to follow normal shooting rules
Select Target
Select Weapon
Fire weapon
Resolve wounds
If more weapons Go to Select Weapon
Else
End

[LCS]

"one model in the unit"

Yes, only one model may shoot at another target, but that model is still part of a unit. How is this a hard concept?

[xilton]

I don't get why is this even a question. As always, the unit shot 2 targets. It can charge either one. Even if a model is an individual, when we say a unit, it's always the unit as a whole and not a unit -1, in which case it shot at 2 targets, not 1. There is absolutely nothing that says the second target is not a valid charge target. The rule has been like this from the start and we never had any trouble with it. After a few years of existence there is suddenly someone that has a problem with it? Why is someone trying "again" to find a fault in a rules? It happened to you and you lost the game??

[Discoking]

If a model has the Split fire special rule and shot at a target the squad can charge, but the remainder of the squad shot at a different target, can that squad charge the unit that only the model with split fire shot?

What if the character with split fire was in a unit that didn't/couldn't shoot at an enemy;
And the character shot at 2 viable charge targets??

Brain melt!

;)

[Charistoph]

I don't get why is this even a question. As always, the unit shot 2 targets. It can charge either one. Even if a model is an individual, when we say a unit, it's always the unit as a whole and not a unit -1, in which case it shot at 2 targets, not 1. There is absolutely nothing that says the second target is not a valid charge target. The rule has been like this from the start and we never had any trouble with it. After a few years of existence there is suddenly someone that has a problem with it? Why is someone trying "again" to find a fault in a rules? It happened to you and you lost the game??

What a unit shot is not the condition for the charge, though. It's what the unit targeted. And Split Fire is very specific as to which one the unit is targeting, as opposed to the model.

[Leviticus Stroud]

You can charge either targeted unit.

Split Fire allows a single model within a unit to fire at a different target.
That model is still part of the unit, and the unit still counts as having fired in every other way (can't run, can't charge if a non-relentless heavy weapon fired etc). If you want to argue that the split fired model doesn't count as being part of the unit in terms of one thing in the shooting phase (targeting) then you have to also make the case that a split fired heavy weapon marine can stay behind whilst the rest of the unit does an assault without him. Good luck with that one.


The most argument that could be made for picking which target you will be able to charge before resolving the actual shooting (taking into account that at no point is such a requirement stated, or even implied, in the shooting or split fire rules) is the term 'the unit that was targeted' in the charge rules. However, that word choice is negated later in the multiple assaults section, so not the strongest bargaining point...


For more amusing fun, consider the implications when Psykers with Witchfire are also present in the unit- each witchfire power can target a separate enemy unit.
Theoretically a unit could have dozens of allowed charge targets!


Personally I think the entire 'only charge who you shot at' rule is bunkum.
Imagine a unit of marines is faced with a unit of Orks, and a unit of Gretchin in the way blocking their charge path. They open fire on the Gretchin to clear a path through to the Orks, and successfully do so by wiping out the Gretchin.
Why the hell would they then stand around going "Well that small arms fire did well, cleared us a direct path through to those Orks. Better stand around and compose ourselves for a few minutes lads, it's not like we are in the middle of a war and already heading in that direction with our chainswords drawn or anything." ?!?

[Charistoph]

You can charge either targeted unit.

Why?

One was targeted by a model in the unit, one was targeted by the unit. A unit can only charge what it targeted.


Split Fire allows a single model within a unit to fire at a different target.
That model is still part of the unit, and the unit still counts as having fired in every other way (can't run, can't charge if a non-relentless heavy weapon fired etc). If you want to argue that the split fired model doesn't count as being part of the unit in terms of one thing in the shooting phase (targeting) then you have to also make the case that a split fired heavy weapon marine can stay behind whilst the rest of the unit does an assault without him. Good luck with that one.

The simple fact is that the unit actually has a target declared by the time it is ready to charge. And the unit is never stated as targeting what the model targeted. And because it is just one model and not the unit targetting, it is not a valid primary target for a charge.


The most argument that could be made for picking which target you will be able to charge before resolving the actual shooting (taking into account that at no point is such a requirement stated, or even implied, in the shooting or split fire rules) is the term 'the unit that was targeted' in the charge rules. However, that word choice is negated later in the multiple assaults section, so not the strongest bargaining point...

Really? From Declare Charge:
"(A) unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn’s Shooting phase."

Yeah, it's not in the Shooting Phase rules or Split Fire Rules, because the Shooting general rules are not concerned with what happens afterward, and neither does Split Fire (though, it should address it, one way or the other, but that's GW for you). It's not even until we get past the Shooting Phase rules that we get to the Weapons that the rules concern themselves with the consequences afterward (i.e. Rapid Fire, Heavy, etc).


For more amusing fun, consider the implications when Psykers with Witchfire are also present in the unit- each witchfire power can target a separate enemy unit.
Theoretically a unit could have dozens of allowed charge targets!

Declaring a charge does not care what you Witchfired, though, only what the unit shot at, as I referenced above.


Personally I think the entire 'only charge who you shot at' rule is bunkum.

Good, because that is not the rule. If it was a rule, this wouldn't be much a discussion. It's what you targeted.


Imagine a unit of marines is faced with a unit of Orks, and a unit of Gretchin in the way blocking their charge path. They open fire on the Gretchin to clear a path through to the Orks, and successfully do so by wiping out the Gretchin.
Why the hell would they then stand around going "Well that small arms fire did well, cleared us a direct path through to those Orks. Better stand around and compose ourselves for a few minutes lads, it's not like we are in the middle of a war and already heading in that direction with our chainswords drawn or anything." ?!?

I think it's pretty stupid that a Lascannon Heavy Weapon Team can't concentrate fire on Tanks while the rest of his squad is using their Markerlights Lasguns on Infantry. But those are the rules.

[LCS]

One was targeted by a model in the unit, one was targeted by the unit. A unit can only charge what it targeted.



Are you trolling, or just honestly this dense? The model using split fire is part of the unit, not a separate entity. The model chooses a separate target from the unit to fire at, then the unit fires at a different target. Both times the shots are coming from the same unit, and both times require the unit to target something. What about this is hard to understand?

[Charistoph]

Are you trolling, or just honestly this dense? The model using split fire is part of the unit, not a separate entity. The model chooses a separate target from the unit to fire at, then the unit fires at a different target. Both times the shots are coming from the same unit, and both times require the unit to target something. What about this is hard to understand?

Are you trolling, or just honestly this dense?

While the model is part of the unit, a model's actions do not always represent the unit when it does it. You even repeat the situation and then deny it. The Shooting Attacks are coming FROM the unit, but only one is targeted by the unit, the other is targeted by a single model in the unit. That is literally what the rule states. One model targets X unit, the rest of the unit target Y unit. Y unit is the target of the unit, not X unit.

Remember, there is a difference between targeting and shooting, and the unit, as a whole, only targets one unit as normal.

[Alaric]

Are you trolling, or just honestly this dense?

While the model is part of the unit, a model's actions do not always represent the unit when it does it. You even repeat the situation and then deny it. The Shooting Attacks are coming FROM the unit, but only one is targeted by the unit, the other is targeted by a single model in the unit. That is literally what the rule states. One model targets X unit, the rest of the unit target Y unit. Y unit is the target of the unit, not X unit.

Remember, there is a difference between targeting and shooting, and the unit, as a whole, only targets one unit as normal.

You are wrong.

[Charistoph]

You are wrong.

Thank you for extolling on just your opinion while not demonstrating as to any legitimate reason.

[LCS]

This is a perfect example of basically every rules question that comes up on this site. Some clown has an extreme view about a rule that is based off ignoring every precedent in the rules and willfully twisting how the game works, then defends said bad ruling adamantly against everyone. Even when (especially when) they are shown the actual text from the book, they double down on their position. Then someone (we all know who) posts it to the main blog as if it's a real problem that players are facing at tournaments and gaming tables. Rinse and repeat.

[Charistoph]

This is a perfect example of basically every rules question that comes up on this site. Some clown has an extreme view about a rule that is based off ignoring every precedent in the rules and willfully twisting how the game works, then defends said bad ruling adamantly against everyone. Even when (especially when) they are shown the actual text from the book, they double down on their position. Then someone (we all know who) posts it to the main blog as if it's a real problem that players are facing at tournaments and gaming tables. Rinse and repeat.

And then that clown starts calling people trolls and dense. Not nice. Pretty bold to call yourself a clown, though.

[LCS]

And then that clown starts calling people trolls and dense. Not nice. Pretty bold to call yourself a clown, though.

Literally everyone in here except one person think you're wrong. And that one is not sure you are right. This also got posted to a thread and everyone disagreed with you. All tournaments disagree with you. Everyone I've ever met and gamed with disagrees with you. You're wrong. We know you. You know it. But you can't admit it, because you're probably trolling. Anyway,have fun trolling I guess?

[Charistoph]

Literally everyone in here except one person think you're wrong. And that one is not sure you are right. This also got posted to a thread and everyone disagreed with you. All tournaments disagree with you. Everyone I've ever met and gamed with disagrees with you. You're wrong. We know you. You know it. But you can't admit it, because you're probably trolling. Anyway,have fun trolling I guess?

No, I do not know it. Nor do I care what tournaments declare because tournaments are nothing but a collection of House Rules, i.e. local determinations which may or may not care about what is written, but care about creating a game the organizers feel are balanced and will attract more.

What I do know is what is written and what I discuss with my opponent.

What is Written is: A Model selects a Target and resolves its Shooting. The rest of the Unit selects a Different Target to shoot at. The unit is restricted to Charging what the Unit targeted, not what it shot at. In the process as described, the UNIT only targets one unit, not two, even though it SHOT at two units.

And reported for trolling and using abusive language. You apparently cannot provide evidence to counter so you resort to name calling. Not restricting yourself to once, but at least twice, and I can also assume three times since most people do not talk about themselves so poorly. So, who is the clown?

[Path Walker]

Yeh but really, I think the intention of the rule and the wording both support the idea that if a Unit (and any models in a Unit are a part of that Unit, that's clear) targets a Unit in the Shooting Phase, it can select them to Charge at.

As I understand it, your argument is that an individual model is not part of a Unit? Not sure where you're drawing that idea from.

What about Units of one model that can target two Units in the Shooting Phase, where do they sit?

[Alaric]

No, I do not know it. Nor do I care what tournaments declare because tournaments are nothing but a collection of House Rules, i.e. local determinations which may or may not care about what is written, but care about creating a game the organizers feel are balanced and will attract more.

What I do know is what is written and what I discuss with my opponent.

What is Written is: A Model selects a Target and resolves its Shooting. The rest of the Unit selects a Different Target to shoot at. The unit is restricted to Charging what the Unit targeted, not what it shot at. In the process as described, the UNIT only targets one unit, not two, even though it SHOT at two units.

And reported for trolling and using abusive language. You apparently cannot provide evidence to counter so you resort to name calling. Not restricting yourself to once, but at least twice, and I can also assume three times since most people do not talk about themselves so poorly. So, who is the clown?


You are wrong.

[Charistoph]

Yeh but really, I think the intention of the rule and the wording both support the idea that if a Unit (and any models in a Unit are a part of that Unit, that's clear) targets a Unit in the Shooting Phase, it can select them to Charge at.

How do you arrive at that "intention"?

And unfortunately, "intention" is only useful for discussing House Rules with game organizers. Since this forum is not set up as such, discussing it from only an "intention" perspective is pointless since so many people see many things differently.


As I understand it, your argument is that an individual model is not part of a Unit? Not sure where you're drawing that idea from.

I did not say that. What I am saying is that when the model targets the first unit for Split Fire, it is not the unit doing the targeting. This is outside the normal rules since normally targeting is always done unit by unit, not model by model.

And as can be pointed out throughout the rules, unless the model is being considered as part of the unit for actions (which it is in most cases), it only affects that unit. For example, if a model fails a Save, one only removes the model, not the entire unit.

It is this level of distinction between model and unit that people tend to forget.

This is a different case, too, from if just one model fires at a unit, since that model is representing the unit when it fires. Split Fire separates the model's targeting from the rest of the unit before it resolves the Attack.

Also interestingly enough, many people push this model's targeting as the unit's targeting, but still will not recognize a model is part of the unit when other rules affect it, such as the Skyhammer Annihilation Force. An interesting study could be made from this, I think.


What about Units of one model that can target two Units in the Shooting Phase, where do they sit?

First off, there is no distinction that a model is targeting something different from the rest of the unit that Split Fire makes. Second of all, that model IS the unit. Both (or all) are targets of the unit, so qualify to be Charged.


You are wrong.

How? Why? Specifics Man! Other than that, you would make a great politician or lobbyist.

[LCS]

No, I do not know it. Nor do I care what tournaments declare because tournaments are nothing but a collection of House Rules, i.e. local determinations which may or may not care about what is written, but care about creating a game the organizers feel are balanced and will attract more.

What I do know is what is written and what I discuss with my opponent.

What is Written is: A Model selects a Target and resolves its Shooting. The rest of the Unit selects a Different Target to shoot at. The unit is restricted to Charging what the Unit targeted, not what it shot at. In the process as described, the UNIT only targets one unit, not two, even though it SHOT at two units.

And reported for trolling and using abusive language. You apparently cannot provide evidence to counter so you resort to name calling. Not restricting yourself to once, but at least twice, and I can also assume three times since most people do not talk about themselves so poorly. So, who is the clown?

Seriously? Trolling and name calling? Grow up. Also, how does a model in a unit shoot at a target, without selecting a target? The model is part of a unit, and is shooting at a target. Therefor, the unit shot at that target. Therefore, the unit targeted that target. It's really simple. But I guess I hurt your feelings earlier by calling you a clown once. Which you're now throwing it back in me (I'm super triggered btw, slick burn!), while reporting me for calling you a clown? Clearly, you must be trolling.

- - - Updated - - -



How? Why? Specifics Man! Other than that, you would make a great politician or lobbyist.

Everyone here has gone into specifics. Which you choose to ignore. Then you backpedal when called out on.

[Alaric]

- - - Updated - - -



Everyone here has gone into specifics. Which you choose to ignore. Then you backpedal when called out on.

This.

Also.

You are wrong Christoph.

[Wolfshade]

I understand where Christoph is coming from, though I do disagree with him.

Essentially, I think Christoph is saying that the Unit targets Unit A, but a Model fires at Unit B. Since the Unit fired at A and not B it must assault A and not B.

Everyone should agree that a unit consists of one or more models.

There is precedent for both resolving things on a unit level, but also on the model level. E.g. A unit might have 3 models within shooting range and 3 out, the unit fires but only those models within range can fire. Or, a movement on a model by model basis.

Important rules to remember "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic one".

Possibly not terribly relevant example:

Unit has 10 models, 9 fire assault weapons at Unit A, 1 uses split fire and fires a rapid fire weapon at Unit B. The whole unit would be prohibited from charging Unit A as the unit fired a rapid fire weapon. Even if they could engage Unit A and maintain coherency with a non-moving rapid fire man.

So in this example the rapid fire man is still part of the unit even though his special rules allow him to be treated separately.

Key rule: "a unit that fired in the shooting phase can only charge a unit that it targeted during that turn's shooting"

I think Path was on to something with his 1 man example, but as Christoph rightly points out the unit shot at both units so can charge both.

What happens in an example where the unit is two models, if it can split fire which is the unit targeted and which is the unit which the model targeted?
Clearly the unit must have targeted either unit A or B. Though which one? In the cases where it is majority of the unit vs one model it is a clear Unit A is targeted by the unit and Unit B is targeted by the individual, but in the case where it is 1 vs 1 which is the primary and which is the secondary?

Consider a squad of 13 models, 12 have either a BS 0 or no ranged weapon. Clearly, the unit cannot shoot as they are prevented from doing so by the rules, but a model in it can. The whole unit counts as shooting and must charge the unit it shot at.

By the time we get to the assault phase it doesn't matter what the individual models within the unit have done, their effects apply to the whole unit.
If a model fired a rapid fire - the unit cannot charge
If a model fired a heavy weapon - the unit cannot charge
If only 1 model fired at a unit - the unit must charge that unit (if it charges)

In the same way if two or more units are targeted by shooting both count as being shot at so both must be valid targets to assault.

I think that this gets needless complicated when people start considering "primary" targets and "secondary" targets which is a distinction that the BRB does not make.

- - - Updated - - -

Also,

let's keep it civil

[Charistoph]

Seriously? Trolling and name calling? Grow up.

Yes, seriously. Grow up and keep the discussion civil and on task. If you cannot make your point without resorting to name calling, you are not making any point at all.


Also, how does a model in a unit shoot at a target, without selecting a target?

Where did I say it did not? I am saying that a model Split Firing is not targeting for the unit. It never states that it is. It specifically states that the model is targeting the unit. The unit is brought in later.


The model is part of a unit, and is shooting at a target. Therefor, the unit shot at that target. Therefore, the unit targeted that target. It's really simple.

The model is part of the unit, not in dispute. The model shot at the target. Not in dispute.

At no point is the unit ever stated to have selected that target unlike the normal Shooting Sequence, though. Only a single model is targeting the other target, and not as a representative of the unit.


But I guess I hurt your feelings earlier by calling you a clown once. Which you're now throwing it back in me (I'm super triggered btw, slick burn!), while reporting me for calling you a clown? Clearly, you must be trolling.

Hurt my feelings? No. Why should I care if you call yourself a clown while attempting to title someone else with it. But I wonder why you need to resort to such tactics. Was it your deliberate intention to be hurtful?

The report was because you were repeatedly attempting to do so for three posts in a row. It shows attempts to try to "win" through bullying rather than facts. It is abusive and counter-productive, so you should desist.


Everyone here has gone into specifics. Which you choose to ignore. Then you backpedal when called out on.

I also have gone in to specifics. Where did I backpedal? With the 1 model units which can fire at multiple targets? It is a completely different situation relying on different rules and which never could apply to Split Fire anyway.


Essentially, I think Christoph is saying that the Unit targets Unit A, but a Model targets and fires at Unit B. Since the Unit targeted A and not B it may only assault A and not B.

Aside the slight corrections for specific clarity highlighted in red, you are essentially correct, Wolfshade.


I think Path was on to something with his 1 man example, but as Christoph rightly points out the unit shot at both units so can charge both.

Indeed. Split Fire is pointless for a 1 model unit, since it doesn't allow weapons to be directed at different targets, just one model in the unit to direct their shots elsewhere.

For example, a Carnifex Brood of 3 models with two guns each receives Split Fire somehow. Carnifex 1 is selected to Split Fire and does so and may only fire both weapons at Target A. Carnifex 2 & 3 then fire 4 guns at Target B. Carnifex 1 would not be able to shoot 1 gun at Target A and then the other gun at Target B. The Tau Target Lock works on a similar basis, I believe.

Super-Heavy rules, Power of the Machine Spirit, and other rules, do not operate in this fashion, though. The weapons are being directed at different targets, not the models.


What happens in an example where the unit is two models, if it can split fire which is the unit targeted and which is the unit which the model targeted?
Clearly the unit must have targeted either unit A or B. Though which one? In the cases where it is majority of the unit vs one model it is a clear Unit A is targeted by the unit and Unit B is targeted by the individual, but in the case where it is 1 vs 1 which is the primary and which is the secondary?

Considering the order of operations that Split Fire provides (but the tau Target Lock does not), the first target is the target of the Split Firing model, the second target is the target of the unit. "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit." * bold emphasis mine.

This is only specific to Split Fire, though.


Consider a squad of 13 models, 12 have either a BS 0 or no ranged weapon. Clearly, the unit cannot shoot as they are prevented from doing so by the rules, but a model in it can. The whole unit counts as shooting and must charge the unit it shot at.

Incorrect. Only models are forbidden from shooting if they do not have a weapon or are BS 0, not the unit. The UNIT does not have a BS, just the models. In this case, if you put a Chaos Lord in a unit with Chaos Spawn, the Lord can shoot the pistol, Bike Bolters, or whatever he has, but unless he does it under the auspices of Split fire, does so as a member of the Unit.


By the time we get to the assault phase it doesn't matter what the individual models within the unit have done, their effects apply to the whole unit.
If a model fired a rapid fire - the unit cannot charge
If a model fired a heavy weapon - the unit cannot charge
If only 1 model fired at a unit - the unit must charge that unit (if it charges)

In the same way if two or more units are targeted by shooting both count as being shot at so both must be valid targets to assault.

But being shot at and targeting are two slightly different things, mostly from perspective.

Also keep in mind that the Split Fire rule does not give permission to treat this model's target as an eligible Charge Target, either, even while forbidding to shoot at a unit just Disembarked by the Split Fire's results. Of course, it doesn't disallow Charging the model's target, either. And that is the only case I can find for being able to Charge "target A".


I think that this gets needless complicated when people start considering "primary" targets and "secondary" targets which is a distinction that the BRB does not make.

It still does when doing a Multiple Charge. The Primary Target of a Multiple Charge would be the same as the target of the Charge if it wasn't doing a Multiple Charge. Secondary Targets are targets you may be able to Charge at the same time you Charge the unit you targeted. It's mentioned right at the beginning.

Or were you meaning primary and secondary targets as associated with Shooting?

[LCS]

So wait... I call you a clown... that's bad. You call me a clown back.. totes fine. I call you a troll... bad. You call me troll back... totes fine. I maintain that you're trolling... and that's name calling and a personal attack so you report me (then brag about it)? You're something else bro, I'm out. No point arguing with a wall. I'm happy I've never had to play with someone that refused so adamantly to understand the basic rules.

[Wolfshade]

Shooting, in assault there is a distinction and the rules do then specify primary and secondary targets.

There is nothing in the split fire rule that stops the model being part of the unit and as already established if one model targets something then it is the same as the whole unit.

From the split fire rule ..."made by the rest of the unit."

Made by the rest of the unit, the model firing is still part of the unit and therefore the unit must have fired at both targets.

[Charistoph]

So wait... I call you a clown... that's bad. You call me a clown back.. totes fine. I call you a troll... bad. You call me troll back... totes fine. I maintain that you're trolling... and that's name calling and a personal attack so you report me (then brag about it)? You're something else bro, I'm out. No point arguing with a wall. I'm happy I've never had to play with someone that refused so adamantly to understand the basic rules.

Actually, I was redirecting what you called me back at you, more to let you know you were being childish. Apparently that was wasted. I just reported because you continued to perpetuate the habit. If you continue badgering on this point in this thread, you will be reported for spamming.

And I would probably not like to play a game with someone who cannot tell the difference between model and unit. Talk about your basic rules.


Shooting, in assault there is a distinction and the rules do then specify primary and secondary targets.

I thought as much as I thought about it. But considering I'm not using those terms, I wonder why you bring them up?


There is nothing in the split fire rule that stops the model being part of the unit and as already established if one model targets something then it is the same as the whole unit.

I'm not saying he stops being part of the unit, in fact I've stated such at least once, if not more times on this. What I am saying is that when the model targets the first target, it is doing it on its own and nothing actually states that this is included in the unit's normal shooting sequence as part of the unit's targeting. In fact, it takes to call it out that it is not the part of the standard sequence.


From the split fire rule ..."made by the rest of the unit."

Made by the rest of the unit, the model firing is still part of the unit and therefore the unit must have fired at both targets.

The unit may have fired at both units, but it is only the model targeting the first unit. The rule simply does not state anything else.

[LCS]

Shooting, in assault there is a distinction and the rules do then specify primary and secondary targets.

There is nothing in the split fire rule that stops the model being part of the unit and as already established if one model targets something then it is the same as the whole unit.

From the split fire rule ..."made by the rest of the unit."

Made by the rest of the unit, the model firing is still part of the unit and therefore the unit must have fired at both targets.

Apparently Split Fire is a speshul circumstance, and the model doing the targeting doesn't count as part of the unit, even though the text of the rules clearly says the model doing the shooting is still part of the unit. So even though a model in a unit is by definition part of that unit, the model stops being part of the unit for the purpose of targeting. I can't even wrap my head around this, that's how far the rules are being twisted.

[Wolfshade]

The unit may have fired at both units, but it is only the model targeting the first unit. The rule simply does not state anything else.

The unit fired at both units, glad we are agreed ;)

It doesn't matter how many target it, the unit is counted as targeting it.

If one model in a unit fires at a squad, you wouldn't disallow it from charging that squad because only 1 model targeted it and not the squad.

You are trying to create a dichotomy here that doesn't exist and make the rule more complicated. The rules work without needing your extra line of "a unit may not assault a squad that it split-fired at".

Even if we do go down your idea, it creates problems.

So, a unit fires at unit a and another part of the unit uses split fire and fires at unit b.
The unit then assaults unit a, however, as part of the unit didn't fire it it cannot charge unit a.
This then means that they can't take part in the charge subphase which means that you end up with models not being able to move their full distance in order to main squad coherency.

It makes problems.

[Charistoph]

It doesn't matter how many target it, the unit is counted as targeting it.

But the unit is not. The unit is never stated to have targeted that unit, only the model. And since it is the targeting that is important when Charging, it becomes a vital distinction.


If one model in a unit fires at a squad, you wouldn't disallow it from charging that squad because only 1 model targeted it and not the squad.

The key differences is how the rules state how the process occurs. If one model alone shoots from a unit, then it is part of that unit's Shooting Sequence.

In the normal Shooting Sequence, the UNIT selects a target, selects a weapon group, etc.

With Split Fire, the MODEL selects a target, selects a weapon group, etc. THEN the UNIT goes through its normal Shooting Process.

That is what Split Fire states. I don't see the word "unit" in that first sentence, and that is what is the cause of this.


You are trying to create a dichotomy here that doesn't exist and make the rule more complicated. The rules work without needing your extra line of "a unit may not assault a squad that it split-fired at".

Not a dichotomy, per se, but recognizing a case of levels of interaction. A model is always a part of the unit. But that doesn't mean everything the model does is as part of the unit. If a model is removed as a casualty, is the whole unit? No, because it is only the model that is having that action/interaction.


Even if we do go down your idea, it creates problems.

So, a unit fires at unit a and another part of the unit uses split fire and fires at unit b.
The unit then assaults unit a, however, as part of the unit didn't fire it it cannot charge unit a.
This then means that they can't take part in the charge subphase which means that you end up with models not being able to move their full distance in order to main squad coherency.

It makes problems.

No, it does not. The model who shot at unit b, is still part of the unit that shot at unit a, and it the eligibility of the Charge is based on which target the UNIT shot at, not the model. You are creating problems that do not exist because because you are trying to lump model and unit in to the same category of interaction. Sure, it applies in some cases where the whole unit is one model, but then Split Fire is pointless in those situations anyway.

[LCS]

The actual rules of Split Fire, with the relevant keywords capitalized: When a UNIT that contains at least one MODEL with this special rule shoots, one MODEL in the UNIT can shoot at a different TARGET to the rest of his UNIT. Once this SHOOTING ATTACK has been resolved, resolve the SHOOTING ATTACKS made by the rest of the UNIT. These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

So yeah, that pretty much stops any argument that the model using split fire does not count as the unit targeting said model's target.

[Alaric]

But the unit is not. The unit is never stated to have targeted that unit, only the model. And since it is the targeting that is important when Charging, it becomes a vital distinction.



The key differences is how the rules state how the process occurs. If one model alone shoots from a unit, then it is part of that unit's Shooting Sequence.

In the normal Shooting Sequence, the UNIT selects a target, selects a weapon group, etc.

With Split Fire, the MODEL selects a target, selects a weapon group, etc. THEN the UNIT goes through its normal Shooting Process.

That is what Split Fire states. I don't see the word "unit" in that first sentence, and that is what is the cause of this.



Not a dichotomy, per se, but recognizing a case of levels of interaction. A model is always a part of the unit. But that doesn't mean everything the model does is as part of the unit. If a model is removed as a casualty, is the whole unit? No, because it is only the model that is having that action/interaction.



No, it does not. The model who shot at unit b, is still part of the unit that shot at unit a, and it the eligibility of the Charge is based on which target the UNIT shot at, not the model. You are creating problems that do not exist because because you are trying to lump model and unit in to the same category of interaction. Sure, it applies in some cases where the whole unit is one model, but then Split Fire is pointless in those situations anyway.

You are wrong.

And a piece of work. You just wont face the facts. You even have one of the nicest members spoon feed you the reasons why and you still hold onto your reasons. I bet gw Corp could send you an email with official font and official sounding reasons and you would STILL argue.

Is it that you just cant admit you are wrong? Here ill tell you again.

You are wrong.

Move along, nobody on the face of the planet is right aboot everything, thanks for the laughs tho ;)

[Charistoph]

The actual rules of Split Fire, with the relevant keywords capitalized: When a UNIT that contains at least one MODEL with this special rule shoots, one MODEL in the UNIT can shoot at a different TARGET to the rest of his UNIT. Once this SHOOTING ATTACK has been resolved, resolve the SHOOTING ATTACKS made by the rest of the UNIT. These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

So yeah, that pretty much stops any argument that the model using split fire does not count as the unit targeting said model's target.

You are correct, because it does not say that the unit is targeting this first target mentioned, just the model.

Shall I deconstruct it for you?

"When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots..."

If one model in a unit has the Special Rule, it can benefit the whole unit. It can do this special action when the unit is selected to shoot.

"...one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit."

One model is granted permission to shoot at a different target, not the unit, just one model.

"Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit."

After running out of Weapons the model can shoot, the rest of the unit proceeds with to perform its Shooting Attacks as normal.

"These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack."

These Attacks must be a separate target. At this point, this is the second target being processed since the unit was selected to shoot.

Can you demonstrate any portion of the italicized sections where it says the unit targets the first unit?

[LCS]

The actual rules of Split Fire, with the relevant keywords capitalized: When a UNIT that contains at least one MODEL with this special rule shoots, one MODEL in the UNIT can shoot at a different TARGET to the rest of his UNIT. Once this SHOOTING ATTACK has been resolved, resolve the SHOOTING ATTACKS made by the rest of the UNIT. These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

Once this SHOOTING ATTACK has been resolved, resolve the SHOOTING ATTACKS made by the rest of the UNIT. These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK.

[Charistoph]

one MODEL in the UNIT can shoot at a different TARGET to the rest of his UNIT

And what is doing the targeting for the initial attack, unit or model?

[LCS]

You have to be trolling. The last sentence of the rule (and reading comprehension) shuts you down hard. "These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK."

The only way that a unit can have a different target and an initial shooting attack, is if the unit initially had a shooting attack, which requires it to have a target. Note that is says "unit's initial shooting attack," and not "a model in the unit's special split fire attack." There is literally no evidence to support what you are saying. Absolutely none, you're reaching so hard. This is a very simple rule.

[Charistoph]

You have to be trolling. The last sentence of the rule (and reading comprehension) shuts you down hard. "These must be at a different TARGET, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing UNIT'S initial SHOOTING ATTACK."

The only way that a unit can have a different target and an initial shooting attack, is if the unit initially had a shooting attack, which requires it to have a target. Note that is says "unit's initial shooting attack," and not "a model in the unit's special split fire attack." There is literally no evidence to support what you are saying. Absolutely none, you're reaching so hard. This is a very simple rule.

Yes, it is very simple. The Model is the one targeting with the initial Attack, not the unit, but the Attack comes from the unit.

And will you quit the childish name-calling. It is rather pointless.

[Alaric]

Yes, it is very simple. The Model is the one targeting with the initial Attack, not the unit, but the Attack comes from the unit.

And will you quit the childish name-calling. It is rather pointless.

You are wrong.

[LCS]

Yes, it is very simple. The Model is the one targeting with the initial Attack, not the unit, but the Attack comes from the unit.

And will you quit the childish name-calling. It is rather pointless.

Calling you a troll isn't childish when you are trolling. Which you have to be. No one is this dense when it comes to rules. In all honesty the only one acting childish here is you. You ignore all facts, even when explained in a way that a 5 year old could understand, and you've threatened to report me as a way to shut me down. The rules clearly state that the unit is targeting both of the targets. The unit. Not the model. You know exactly why you're wrong. Thankfully, no one else that plays 40K thinks this rule works the way you do, or if they do, they are open to having the rule explained to them. Sadly, people have probably given in to you before at a table, rather than argue. Although if I'm being honest, neither of those sounds like a fun option. You're just wrong, and hopefully the mods will just lock this thread and take a good, long look at your posting history.

[Wolfshade]

Ok, last warning, stop the name calling, it doesn't actually help all it does is get's each other's backs up and entrenches view points. I will close the thread.


Yes, it is very simple. The Model is the one targeting with the initial Attack, not the unit, but the Attack comes from the unit.

See the part I don't understand is this line of reasoning.

I would say that the model does indeed target the unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the unit.
In the same way, the models not split firing does indeed target another unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the other unit.

at Some point and this is the point I don't get, is if the model attack comes from the unit how that doesn't count as being a target of the unit.

Since we know that the unit cannot target it anything as the unit has no characteristics, it is the individual models within the unit that do the targeting.

And going down to the two man unit we see how weird this is. One model counts as being the unit and then the other model doesn't count as being the unit, even though they might be identical and both make up the same proportion of the unit.

[LCS]

I really don't see how calling out a troll is name calling, but OK. Charistoph is ignoring every explanation we give him. The last line in the Split Fire rules explicitly states that unit has already targeted and shot at a unit, but he never once acknowledges or tries to refute that point, because he can't. Instead he just repeats that only one model is shooting and targeting something, and because of this the unit as a whole is not targeting said model's target. That's not even close what Split Fire says. There is no precedence or evidence in the rules to support this.

[Charistoph]

See the part I don't understand is this line of reasoning.

I would say that the model does indeed target the unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the unit.
In the same way, the models not split firing does indeed target another unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the other unit.

at Some point and this is the point I don't get, is if the model attack comes from the unit how that doesn't count as being a target of the unit.

It's a matter of perspectives. The Shooting Attack comes from the unit, since the model is part of the unit, but the act of targeting that first unit is only performed by the model.

Remember, not everything a model does is representative of the unit. When a model is removed, do we remove the whole unit, or just the model?


Since we know that the unit cannot target it anything as the unit has no characteristics, it is the individual models within the unit that do the targeting.

But they do so on behalf of the unit. The Split Fire Attack is not stated as such, but only the model doing the shooting at this point.


And going down to the two man unit we see how weird this is. One model counts as being the unit and then the other model doesn't count as being the unit, even though they might be identical and both make up the same proportion of the unit.

So, it's weird with two, but not for 10?

Look at it this way, one is looking out for the unit's interests from directions from the commander, but that one Split Firing model is doing a little side action not at the unit's direction.


I really don't see how calling out a troll is name calling, but OK. Charistoph is ignoring every explanation we give him.

You are assuming intentions and then name-calling by that as a way of trying to bully people to accept your point of view or give up, and you keep doing it. I have not ignored what you said, I have actually answered it. Just because you cannot accept or recognize the paradigm does not mean I am trolling. So, keep to the written facts and quit acting like a cyber-bully.

[LCS]

You are assuming intentions and then name-calling by that as a way of trying to bully people to accept your point of view or give up, and you keep doing it. I have not ignored what you said, I have actually answered it. Just because you cannot accept or recognize the paradigm does not mean I am trolling. So, keep to the written facts and quit acting like a cyber-bully.

Fine, I won't call you a troll, although it's funny you accuse me of cyber bullying when you are ignoring the things we say and all of your replies to me just ooze condescension. And you are ignoring what we say. You might quote us, but you don't directly deal with what we say and instead just repeat yourself. Once again, here is the the exact wording of the Split Fire rule:

"When a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split firing unit's initial shooting attack."

Now, let's focus on that last sentence:

"These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split firing unit's initial shooting attack."

Note that the wording is Split Firing unit's initial shooting attack. What that means, is that the unit used the Split Fire rule earlier in the turn to perform a shooting attack. To perform a shooting attack, the unit must have a target. Let's back up a sentence:

"Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit."

What this means is that once the model in the unit using the Split Fire rule has made it's shooting attack, the rest of the unit picks a different target and performs their shooting attacks. Note the wording of this sentence, "rest of the unit." This implies that the model using the Split Fire rule is still part of a unit. Now let's take a look at the first sentence:

"When a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit."

That, like the rest of this rule, is pretty self explanatory. One model may use the Split Fire rule to shoot at a different target from the rest of his unit. But let's examine the wording of "one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit" a little closer. Clearly, the model performing the first attack is still considered part of his unit. Nowhere in this rule does it specify that the model using Split Fire stops being considered part of the unit for the purposes of targeting or shooting. In fact, the language of the rule clearly implies that the model is still part of the unit, and that the unit has performed a shooting attack against the Split Firing model's target. Which as we've covered earlier, the only way that a unit may make a shooting attack is to choose a target. So tell me, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the unit performed a shooting attack without targeting another unit (which is the second thing you do when performing a shooting attack after first nominating a unit to shoot with)? How do you believe that the model performing the Split Fire does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of targeting, but is still part of unit?

[Wolfshade]

Throughout the rules it is the models on behalf of the unit. THe unit is a collective noun for any models that are joined together through rules of squad coherency. If a model in a squad has a bolter then the unit has a bolter. If that individual model dies the unit doesn't have it any longer. But it doesn't stop the unit having it.

Consider a situation through model placement and terrain, the end of the charge phase is resolved and only one model is in base to base contact with the other unit. Now despite the majority of the unit not being in base to base and only one model being in base to base, the whole unit is considered to be locked in combat. Not just the one model.


Yes it's weird for two, so by extension it is weird for 10 or 30. With the other interpretation it's not weird for 1, 2 or 30.

So when a model split fires he ceases to be part of the unit? Since that is the only way that the unit cannot have targetted something.

I could understand this debate if we were talking about can non-shooting models "target" something for split fire purposes or how split fire interacts with shooting at transports but this seems very simple and straightforward, unless you stop a model that is part of a unit being part of the unit in the shooting phase then magically at the end of it it becomes back part of the unit.

I mean a one man unit can split fire, so by Christoph's interpretation it couldn't then charge what it shot at. Now why you would choose to split fire if you are on your own I don't know but ho-hum.

[Mr Mystery]

Yep. Splitting Fire does not, however temporarily, create a second unit at any point.

Therefore, when it comes to assault, either unit shot at is a valid recipient for a charge.

[Kirsten]

Ok, last warning, stop the name calling, it doesn't actually help all it does is get's each other's backs up and entrenches view points. I will close the thread.



See the part I don't understand is this line of reasoning.

I would say that the model does indeed target the unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the unit.
In the same way, the models not split firing does indeed target another unit, and therefore the attack must come from the unit and since an attack must have a targeting so the unit targeted the other unit.

at Some point and this is the point I don't get, is if the model attack comes from the unit how that doesn't count as being a target of the unit.

Since we know that the unit cannot target it anything as the unit has no characteristics, it is the individual models within the unit that do the targeting.

And going down to the two man unit we see how weird this is. One model counts as being the unit and then the other model doesn't count as being the unit, even though they might be identical and both make up the same proportion of the unit.

if one unit fires at another, the firing unit has a clear target, unit A fires at unit B. there is no argument there. Split fire specifies that a model with split fire picks a different target to the unit. 'the unit' has fired at a target, the split fire model has fired at something else. It doesn't matter how many models are in the unit, a two model unit still has a target for 'the unit' and a target for the model with split fire. Charistoph is correct up to that point. as to which can be assaulted, I will have to get home and read the assault rules unless someone posts them here. if you consider why the rule exists from a fluff perspective, one unit has focussed its' attention on one enemy unit, and is not as aware of other enemy units and so cannot charge them. the model with split fire is able to focus his own attention separately to the rest of his comrades. the rest of the unit doesn't know what he is looking at, and carries on focussing on their chosen target, and so charges them.

[Charistoph]

Throughout the rules it is the models on behalf of the unit. THe unit is a collective noun for any models that are joined together through rules of squad coherency. If a model in a squad has a bolter then the unit has a bolter. If that individual model dies the unit doesn't have it any longer. But it doesn't stop the unit having it.

Concussive, is it on behalf of the unit, or behalf of the model? Which is I1 next turn?

Furious Charge, is it on behalf of the unit, or behalf of the model? Is it the model or the unit that has +1 Str on the Charge?

Relentless, is it on behalf of the unit, or behalf of the model? Is it the model or the unit that can fire a Heavy Weapon without a Snap Shot after moving, and still be allowed to Charge?

Not every case of a model interaction will be on behalf of the unit. In fact, it is only when the rules include the unit that it qualifies. And the unit is not involved, as such, in shooting that one target, just the model.

And if that one model is the only who has a bolter and is removed from the unit, the unit stops have a bolter.


Consider a situation through model placement and terrain, the end of the charge phase is resolved and only one model is in base to base contact with the other unit. Now despite the majority of the unit not being in base to base and only one model being in base to base, the whole unit is considered to be locked in combat. Not just the one model.

Correct. And do the rules specify that only the model is Engaged, or the unit? Is it the model that is Charged, or the unit? Is it the model or the unit that makes the first Attack with Split Fire?


So when a model split fires he ceases to be part of the unit? Since that is the only way that the unit cannot have targetted something.

No, he does not cease to be a part of the unit, as I have said numerous times now. And it is not the only way. The unit just does not participate with him. The model is acting indendently for the duration of his Shooting Attacks, and it is the model that is doing the targeting for the first Attack. The unit will be targeting something else.


I could understand this debate if we were talking about can non-shooting models "target" something for split fire purposes or how split fire interacts with shooting at transports but this seems very simple and straightforward, unless you stop a model that is part of a unit being part of the unit in the shooting phase then magically at the end of it it becomes back part of the unit.

Why do you have to stop the model from being inside the unit? You have not explained this very well, and I have never supported such a concept.


I mean a one man unit can split fire, so by Christoph's interpretation it couldn't then charge what it shot at. Now why you would choose to split fire if you are on your own I don't know but ho-hum.

I don't know why you would do it, either, but there are a lot of rules which would be stupid if you enacted them. Remember the Heldrake when Jink provided 5+ Cover Save? It already had a 5+ Invulnerable Save, but you could still Jinik. If you Jinked, though, you could not use the Baleflamer.

I know a lot of people have tried attributing Split Fire to Super-Heavies, but that never really works, and pointless as well.


Yep. Splitting Fire does not, however temporarily, create a second unit at any point.

Who said anything about a second unit? You are assuming something I have never stated nor supported. In fact I have repeatedly stated otherwise. It is just that only that one model is doing this shot, not the unit, nor on behalf of the unit.


Therefore, when it comes to assault, either unit shot at is a valid recipient for a charge.

If being shot was the prerequisite for being Charged, than you would be correct. That is not the condition, it is being targeted.


if one unit fires at another, the firing unit has a clear target, unit A fires at unit B. there is no argument there. Split fire specifies that a model with split fire picks a different target to the unit. 'the unit' has fired at a target, the split fire model has fired at something else. It doesn't matter how many models are in the unit, a two model unit still has a target for 'the unit' and a target for the model with split fire. Charistoph is correct up to that point. as to which can be assaulted, I will have to get home and read the assault rules unless someone posts them here. if you consider why the rule exists from a fluff perspective, one unit has focussed its' attention on one enemy unit, and is not as aware of other enemy units and so cannot charge them. the model with split fire is able to focus his own attention separately to the rest of his comrades. the rest of the unit doesn't know what he is looking at, and carries on focussing on their chosen target, and so charges them.

That is a good way of putting it.

[Charon]

That is not the condition, it is being targeted.

You can not shoot without targeting first. It is step 2 in the shooting sequence, split fire does not go around that.

[Charistoph]

You can not shoot without targeting first. It is step 2 in the shooting sequence, split fire does not go around that.

Correct. But it is the model targeting the first target shot, not the unit. Who is the unit allowed to Charge? That which the unit targeted.

As I said, it is a matter of perspectives. The shooting comes from the unit, but it is only the model that is targeting. The unit is not involved in this process aside from being around and being adjacent to their part of the Shooting Phase.

[Path Walker]

A model is part of a Unit. That's it, that's as simple as it is.

[Charon]

Which is irrelevant. Assault does not make a distinction between model and unit.
If you just fire your flamer and not your bolters in order to assault it is only a single model which went through the shooting sequence. Still the whole units is allowed to assault.
The rest of the unit does not have to be involved, it is a unit and acts as one. It is always "the unit" no matter which rule.
Is "the unit" allowed to assault when everyone but a single model has relentless and they fired their storm bolters? No, the "unit" is not allowed because a single model from "the unit" not allowed.
Same here with split fire. 9 models shoot an infantry unit and one model shot a tank? "The unit" shot (and targeted) 2 different targets and is allowed to assault everything they targeted.

[Mr Mystery]

Beware of the Horsemen....Charon and I are in agreement!

[LCS]

Once again Charistoph, you have ignored what I said because it shuts you down. You have no ground to stand on here. The wording in the Split Fire rule clearly states that the unit fired at and targeted both of it's targets, and that the model doing the firing is acting as part of the unit. To believe the rule works the way you do, one has to make a pretty large assumption about the intent of the rule, while ignoring what the rule actually says.

"No, he does not cease to be a part of the unit, as I have said numerous times now. And it is not the only way. The unit just does not participate with him. The model is acting indendently for the duration of his Shooting Attacks, and it is the model that is doing the targeting for the first Attack. The unit will be targeting something else."

The model is not acting independently of the unit (at no point do the rules for shooting attacks or Split Fire say or even imply this), and he is not doing some sort of speshul targeting that doesn't count as the unit targeting. Read the rules. "Split Firing unit's initial shooting attack." The unit performs two shooting attacks using the Split Fire rule, and therefore has targeted two units. Now, either refute that point with actual rules, or just admit that you are wrong. Because you are.

[Charistoph]

Which is irrelevant. Assault does not make a distinction between model and unit.

Actually, it does in many cases. The unit may charge any unit it targeted. Models must be base to base. Models may add their Attacks depending on their distance to any base to base models. The unit is engaged depending on the model's distances.


If you just fire your flamer and not your bolters in order to assault it is only a single model which went through the shooting sequence. Still the whole units is allowed to assault.

And the unit is was did the target selection during the normal sequence.


The rest of the unit does not have to be involved, it is a unit and acts as one. It is always "the unit" no matter which rule.

Quite incorrect. Read up on Concussive and Blind. Note the differences.


Is "the unit" allowed to assault when everyone but a single model has relentless and they fired their storm bolters? No, the "unit" is not allowed because a single model from "the unit" not allowed.

Why not? Relentless would mean nothing. Storm Bolters are Assault Weapons and do not interfere with Charging. Care for a better example.


Same here with split fire. 9 models shoot an infantry unit and one model shot a tank? "The unit" shot (and targeted) 2 different targets and is allowed to assault everything they targeted.

No, quite different. In the normal shooting sequence, the unit is selected and the unit "selects" a target. With Split Fire, a unit is selected, Split Fire is declared, a model is selected, and the model "selects" a target and shoots, then the unit "selects" a target and shoots.

[Path Walker]

This is the most dedicated trolling over a 40k rule I've ever seen.

[LCS]

This is the most dedicated trolling over a 40k rule I've ever seen.

Yeah. Charistoph is clearly trolling. He can deny it, but we all know he is. And when called out he accuses others of name calling and acting childish, when in reality.... Mods, maybe close this thread and take a look at Charistoph's post history and see if this is how he usually behaves?

[Charistoph]

This is the most dedicated trolling over a 40k rule I've ever seen.

Is it trolling when I have established the standards I am running by and have not been adequately proven wrong?

At this point I am ignoring comments made by someone who things standing by his beliefs is trolling and believe calling them other names is justifiable if they do not agree with them.

The Split Fire rule does not state the unit targets the unit that was shot first, or even considers it as happening, nor specifically allows it to charge this first target. Many actions and resolutions are performed on a unit level in the game, but there are also many that are performed on a model level in the game. If a model fails to Save a Concussive Wound, is the whole unit at I1, or just the model? When a model's Wounds are gone, is just the model removed or the unit? When a model has Relentless, does the whole unit have it, or just the model?

[Charon]

You are free to use your houserule, but if I was your opponent I would apply "your standards" to everything. That will lead to a lot of dumb situations where you are not allowed to do anything.

[LCS]

Is it trolling when I have established the standards I am running by and have not been adequately proven wrong?

At this point I am ignoring comments made by someone who things standing by his beliefs is trolling and believe calling them other names is justifiable if they do not agree with them.

The Split Fire rule does not state the unit targets the unit that was shot first, or even considers it as happening, nor specifically allows it to charge this first target. Many actions and resolutions are performed on a unit level in the game, but there are also many that are performed on a model level in the game. If a model fails to Save a Concussive Wound, is the whole unit at I1, or just the model? When a model's Wounds are gone, is just the model removed or the unit? When a model has Relentless, does the whole unit have it, or just the model?

You have been proven wrong with the rules. No one cares "about perspective" as you claim, or your made up portion of the rule that does not actually exist. As Charon says, houserule away, but don't expect anyone to agree with you, and expect to be laughed at if you go to club and try to convince people to play this way. You probably didn't come to this thread as a troll, but you certainly are one now. Also, you are wrong.

[Alaric]

Is it trolling when I have established the standards I am running by and have not been adequately proven wrong?

At this point I am ignoring comments made by someone who things standing by his beliefs is trolling and believe calling them other names is justifiable if they do not agree with them.

The Split Fire rule does not state the unit targets the unit that was shot first, or even considers it as happening, nor specifically allows it to charge this first target. Many actions and resolutions are performed on a unit level in the game, but there are also many that are performed on a model level in the game. If a model fails to Save a Concussive Wound, is the whole unit at I1, or just the model? When a model's Wounds are gone, is just the model removed or the unit? When a model has Relentless, does the whole unit have it, or just the model?

You are wrong.

[Charistoph]

You are free to use your houserule, but if I was your opponent I would apply "your standards" to everything. That will lead to a lot of dumb situations where you are not allowed to do anything.

Expand and explain please?

If I used the standard applied here by others, I would require the unit removed when a model loses its last Wound. A model with Relentless would allow the entire unit to be Relentless, and so on.

[LCS]

He's not even talking about Split Fire anymore lol. His standards are impossible to meet, as his version of the rule is completely made up. Wrong troll is wrong.

[Charon]

If I used the standard applied here by others, I would require the unit removed when a model loses its last Wound. A model with Relentless would allow the entire unit to be Relentless, and so on.

It would not and you know that damn well as the rules are here surprisingly accurate when it comes to which rules confer and how to allocate wounds. If you want to ignore this go on but it does not make you right.
"than the rest of the unit" from the splitfire rule should give you a hint that the model is still considered part of the unit and nothing ever changes that. This is not about if a special rules confer or not, this is just if the firing model is still part of the unit or not and as a fact, it is.

[Haighus]

At this point I am ignoring comments made by someone who things standing by his beliefs is trolling and believe calling them other names is justifiable if they do not agree with them.

The Split Fire rule does not state the unit targets the unit that was shot first, or even considers it as happening, nor specifically allows it to charge this first target. Many actions and resolutions are performed on a unit level in the game, but there are also many that are performed on a model level in the game. If a model fails to Save a Concussive Wound, is the whole unit at I1, or just the model? When a model's Wounds are gone, is just the model removed or the unit? When a model has Relentless, does the whole unit have it, or just the model?
Whilst ignoring insults can be helpful, this has also caused you, I believe, to ignore the most coherent argument for the Split fire rule allowing two assault targets:

Once again, here is the the exact wording of the Split Fire rule:

"When a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split firing unit's initial shooting attack."

Now, let's focus on that last sentence:

"These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split firing unit's initial shooting attack."

Note that the wording is Split Firing unit's initial shooting attack. What that means, is that the unit used the Split Fire rule earlier in the turn to perform a shooting attack. To perform a shooting attack, the unit must have a target. Let's back up a sentence:

"Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit."

What this means is that once the model in the unit using the Split Fire rule has made it's shooting attack, the rest of the unit picks a different target and performs their shooting attacks. Note the wording of this sentence, "rest of the unit." This implies that the model using the Split Fire rule is still part of a unit. Now let's take a look at the first sentence:

"When a unit contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit."

That, like the rest of this rule, is pretty self explanatory. One model may use the Split Fire rule to shoot at a different target from the rest of his unit. But let's examine the wording of "one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit" a little closer. Clearly, the model performing the first attack is still considered part of his unit. Nowhere in this rule does it specify that the model using Split Fire stops being considered part of the unit for the purposes of targeting or shooting. In fact, the language of the rule clearly implies that the model is still part of the unit, and that the unit has performed a shooting attack against the Split Firing model's target. Which as we've covered earlier, the only way that a unit may make a shooting attack is to choose a target. So tell me, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the unit performed a shooting attack without targeting another unit (which is the second thing you do when performing a shooting attack after first nominating a unit to shoot with)? How do you believe that the model performing the Split Fire does not count as part of the unit for the purposes of targeting, but is still part of unit?
Personally, I think this is the correct reading of the rule.

I guess this shows why getting frustrated about these things and name-calling doesn't help resolve the argument- as Wolfshade stated, it perpetuates it instead by entrenching views.

[Charistoph]

It would not and you know that damn well as the rules are here surprisingly accurate when it comes to which rules confer and how to allocate wounds. If you want to ignore this go on but it does not make you right.

I am not the one ignoring the written rules.


"than the rest of the unit" from the splitfire rule should give you a hint that the model is still considered part of the unit and nothing ever changes that. This is not about if a special rules confer or not, this is just if the firing model is still part of the unit or not and as a fact, it is.

And this goes to show that you do not understand what I've been saying, which is not really surprising. Why does everyone keep insisting that I am presenting this model as not part of the unit?

When a rule references a model doing something, is it always on behalf of a unit? The answer is no.

When the rule is talking about the first attack, is it the unit or the model that is performing it? The answer is the model. This is outside the normal realm of shooting considerations where when a model shoots, which is as the inclusion of a unit's attack directive.

As noted before, while Split Fire does not exclude the ability to charge this first target, it does not INCLUDE the ability to do so. As the first target is not noted as having the unit target it for the attack, then it is not considered normal for them to have it as their Charge Target.

[Haighus]

These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split firing unit's initial shooting attack.
I feel like this, the last line of the Split fire rule, shows that it is the unit making both attacks. If that is the case, then both should be valid assault targets also. Whilst it is not explicit endorsement of being able to use both shooting attacks, it is endorsement of the model being counted as the unit for it's initial shooting attack in the same way as a normal shooting attack.

[LCS]

Guys seriously, Charistoph is trolling. I'm not calling him out to name call, but to hopefully stop other people from bothering to respond. He's so colossally wrong in his arguments that to even debate with him is a waste of time. We all know the correct ruling here, and so does he. Ignore him and let this die. He is wrong.

[Charon]

And this goes to show that you do not understand what I've been saying, which is not really surprising. Why does everyone keep insisting that I am presenting this model as not part of the unit?

Because that is all that matters. If the model is still part of the unit, the uit took a shooting sequence. Case solved.


When a rule references a model doing something, is it always on behalf of a unit? The answer is no.

It is not on BEHALF of the unnit, it is a PART of the unit. Which is all that matters.