Split fire and Assaults

[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.