Split fire and Assaults

[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.