Split fire and Assaults

[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.