Split fire and Assaults

[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.