So first an explanation of the thread title. Whilst kind of hobby active, it’s been some years since I properly played the game. My knowledge isn’t just not current, but several editions out of date. Despite having been in the hobby longer than some Dakkanauts have been alive (33 years on Tuesday as it happens, if anyone cares that much) I am absolutely full of ignorance.
And I figured it could be fun for me to offer an opinion unabashedly uninformed. Whilst this is almost certainly going to be a learning experience for me, there is a possibility I might get something right, or get someone thinking along different lines.
The inspiration for this came from my unearthing a still sealed box of new Eldar Guardians for my currently hibernating 2nd Ed project. That set of course comes but with a single ranged squad option - but also a rather more flexible Grav Platform.
Now when I was last playing? Outside of pretty rare unit specific rules, squads couldn’t split fire. That in turn made certain squad upgrades a poor fit, or rendered the parent squad a “points tax” for a single desirable weapon. Guardian Defenders are a particular example of this, given their previous pathetic 12” range. The heavy weapon options at least gave them some kind of role, but the squad itself was very much a Points Tax to get that.
But….now you can split fire relatively freely (as I understand it, and I can’t be arsed to check you just need to declare your splits before you start resolving fire), having say a single Las Cannon or Bright Lance equivalent isn’t as restricting. Perhaps not something you’d build a strategy around (dedicated roles being preferable), they do at least offer a certain level of redundancy within your list, without forcing the rest of the squad to do nothing that particular turn.
I’m genuinely not seeing a particular downside here should someone shell out the points for the upgrade. As I said, it’s not necessarily an advisable strategy in itself, but as relative low-cost options for otherwise compulsory units, they’re useful backups, either as a general threat, or for plinking off the last wounds of something you really could do with not being around in your opponent’s next turn, they do have an appeal they lacked in previous editions (as in….3rd to 7th, I think?) They also offer more issues for your opponent should they be looking to neutralise your anti-armour options.
I appreciate this post is focussing on anti-armour weapons specifically but my opinion isn’t limited to them. I just got kinda side tracked!
Now, over to you Dakka. Politely address my ignorance. Offer your thoughts. Critique my own thinking. As ever be polite, even more so as I feely confess and am looking to challenge my ignorance.
The only part of your thinking that's wrong lies in viewing those earlier edition guardians as a pts tax of the grav platform.
They weren't a tax. They were the ablative wounds that kept that gun firing.
Otherwise? Yeah, you're right. There is no real downside to the current way everyone can split thier fire.
agreed. it suddenly made tactical squads make more sense, as suddenly the support or heavy weapon guy could shoot the tank while the rest of the squad attackd infantry. it's an endless source of amusement for me that Marines adopted specialist squads (primaris) right when the edition suddenly made mixed squads more useful
So first an explanation of the thread title. Whilst kind of hobby active, it’s been some years since I properly played the game. My knowledge isn’t just not current, but several editions out of date. Despite having been in the hobby longer than some Dakkanauts have been alive (33 years on Tuesday as it happens, if anyone cares that much) I am absolutely full of ignorance.
And I figured it could be fun for me to offer an opinion unabashedly uninformed. Whilst this is almost certainly going to be a learning experience for me, there is a possibility I might get something right, or get someone thinking along different lines.
The inspiration for this came from my unearthing a still sealed box of new Eldar Guardians for my currently hibernating 2nd Ed project. That set of course comes but with a single ranged squad option - but also a rather more flexible Grav Platform.
Now when I was last playing? Outside of pretty rare unit specific rules, squads couldn’t split fire. That in turn made certain squad upgrades a poor fit, or rendered the parent squad a “points tax” for a single desirable weapon. Guardian Defenders are a particular example of this, given their previous pathetic 12” range. The heavy weapon options at least gave them some kind of role, but the squad itself was very much a Points Tax to get that.
But….now you can split fire relatively freely (as I understand it, and I can’t be arsed to check you just need to declare your splits before you start resolving fire), having say a single Las Cannon or Bright Lance equivalent isn’t as restricting. Perhaps not something you’d build a strategy around (dedicated roles being preferable), they do at least offer a certain level of redundancy within your list, without forcing the rest of the squad to do nothing that particular turn.
I’m genuinely not seeing a particular downside here should someone shell out the points for the upgrade. As I said, it’s not necessarily an advisable strategy in itself, but as relative low-cost options for otherwise compulsory units, they’re useful backups, either as a general threat, or for plinking off the last wounds of something you really could do with not being around in your opponent’s next turn, they do have an appeal they lacked in previous editions (as in….3rd to 7th, I think?) They also offer more issues for your opponent should they be looking to neutralise your anti-armour options.
I appreciate this post is focussing on anti-armour weapons specifically but my opinion isn’t limited to them. I just got kinda side tracked!
Now, over to you Dakka. Politely address my ignorance. Offer your thoughts. Critique my own thinking. As ever be polite, even more so as I feely confess and am looking to challenge my ignorance.
Split fire is very healthy for the game, it is a great change for sure and makes sense to let the anti-tank guy shoot the tank. Not having Split fire in older editions just made you feel bad, you always wasted units of shooting, completely pointless and everyone hated it.
Many units do want to split fire, Kabals for Example can have a Blaster/Lance in a unit full of Poison guns, so for sure they will split fire and like it. Tactical marines, some vehicles, heck even Sisters, terminators, etc... its a lot more units than you think.
How do people feel it benefits vehicles with mixed or multi purpose fixed load outs?
I understand the Rukkatrukk Squig Buggy has gone up in estimation, but I can’t say if that’s because it generally just got better, or if splitting fire means it gets more out of its more flexible weapons.
Another example is the classic (as in original) Predator load of Autocannon and Lascannon sponsons. In lower point games of 2nd Ed, it like everyone else could split fire freely, and so where points were tight it offered a pretty decent option, as there was nothing in the game it couldn’t realistically threaten. Has splitting fire in the modern game made that a now desirable sort of load out, or do you find folk tend to keep their tanks and support role squads quite specialised?
Automatically Appended Next Post: On that wider note, has it made say, Devastators or Havocs with Missile Launchers a viable/desirable squad, as I could argue their flexibility really leans into splitting fire? Or is it perhaps just a bit too situational?
Natural squad split fire makes sense but it did sorta increase lethality due to every weapon being able to fire at the most optimal target within shooting range. You get a lot less of a "do I shoot this missile launcher, melta gun, and maybe throw a krak grenade at this deffdread but waste all the bolter shots or do I shoot at this squad of boyz with the melta being a bit overkill and boyz being a lower overall threat". Instead now its more about just mathhammering the best targets and doing your shooting.
Its one of the things that was a poor in design choice but sorta did work with helping temper one of 40k's bigger problems which is massive lethality (the all or nothing AP system combined with the separate cover save system is another example of a less logical design that helped avoid the bigger problem of massive lethality).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: How do people feel it benefits vehicles with mixed or multi purpose fixed load outs?
I understand the Rukkatrukk Squig Buggy has gone up in estimation, but I can’t say if that’s because it generally just got better, or if splitting fire means it gets more out of its more flexible weapons.
Another example is the classic (as in original) Predator load of Autocannon and Lascannon sponsons. In lower point games of 2nd Ed, it like everyone else could split fire freely, and so where points were tight it offered a pretty decent option, as there was nothing in the game it couldn’t realistically threaten. Has splitting fire in the modern game made that a now desirable sort of load out, or do you find folk tend to keep their tanks and support role squads quite specialised?
I personally wasn't a fan of how they didn't allow sponson type weapons on vehicles to shoot at other targets considering vehicles would be crewed by multiple people and it already had rules about movement restricting the number of weapons it could effectively fire. Weapons on those sorts of mounts (and/or any weapon below str 5) on a vehicle could fire at separate targets given that its a vehicle. Considering how weak most vehicles where in 6th/7th, it really wouldn't of been a negative and would of helped them differentiate between MCs/infantry/bikes/whatever more.
Someone will come in and argue how it felt much more realistic and like a "true wargame" to see your genetically engineered supersoldiers fire their bolters on full Auto uselessly at tanks round after round and game after game because of their missile launcher guy in the same squad.
In reality this was one of the changes where my whole gaming group just sat there and thought: Finally, thank you GW, why did it take you so long? The same applies to wound allocation.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: How do people feel it benefits vehicles with mixed or multi purpose fixed load outs?
For something like the Megatrakk Scrapjets which fires rokkits and big shoota shots splitting fire is a godsend. Same for SW flyers, with their heavy bolters and anti tank weapons. But also for something like a Land raider crusader, which now may finally consider taking that multi melta.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: How do people feel it benefits vehicles with mixed or multi purpose fixed load outs?
For something like the Megatrakk Scrapjets which fires rokkits and big shoota shots splitting fire is a godsend. Same for SW flyers, with their heavy bolters and anti tank weapons. But also for something like a Land raider crusader, which now may finally consider taking that multi melta.
Ignoring the fact all LRs have always been able to split fire...
Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
This. You put it far more eloquently that I would have. So much player agency and tactical thought has been removed and this is yet another example. You can play 40k on autopilot essentially.
I think splitting fire is one of this options that makes the game feel more like a game of war and you are the general. It will make the game more varied and and allow for more flexible responses to your opponents moves.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: How do people feel it benefits vehicles with mixed or multi purpose fixed load outs?
For something like the Megatrakk Scrapjets which fires rokkits and big shoota shots splitting fire is a godsend. Same for SW flyers, with their heavy bolters and anti tank weapons. But also for something like a Land raider crusader, which now may finally consider taking that multi melta.
Ignoring the fact all LRs have always been able to split fire...
Was it thanks to Power of the Machine Spirit? Yeah, totally ignored that then, I remember allowing the model to fire with an additional weapon at full BS, not the split fire thing.
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
This. You put it far more eloquently that I would have. So much player agency and tactical thought has been removed and this is yet another example. You can play 40k on autopilot essentially.
A lot of upgrades would be (and actually were) completely useless and never taken if their platform couldn't split fire though. I liked limitations/penalties on moving and firing instead. Wound allocation was one of the most stupid rules ever written: so a unit should be extremely sturider just because those guys are armed differently? Lol.
Always think discussions of old limitations are strange because they tend to turn to "it was great, unit X & Y got to ignore it and that made them feel special".
A rule that just encourages you to list build your way so it doesn't matter isn't a great rule.
There's a modest increase in lethality (although in practice I feel you just didn't take units that had multiple tools that would be wasted). 9th's lethality issues are due to upgraded guns/stat lines, chapter tactics, purity bonuses and so on stacking on top of each other. "A bunch of my stuff expects to do twice the damage it did in 8th.... I wonder why the edition seems much more lethal?"
How has it altered the appeal of guns such as the Autocannon.
In 3rd-7th, it was general purpose without really fulfilling a purpose, unless your unit had a boost of some kind. Heavy Bolters did more anti-infantry, Lascannon did more anti-vehicle, and Missile Launchers were better at both roles.
But 8th and 9th (we are on 9th, yeah?) I don’t know. As is the theme of my posts in this thread, I simply lack that knowledge.
It's popular, but I don't like it being so widely available myself.
I feel in the older editions, it allowed greater differentiation between specialist units[such as Eldar Fire Dragons] and generalist units[such as Tactical Squads].
Specialist squads had less wasted firepower against their preferred target, but less flexibility in terms of how many targets they could engage, and were intrinsically more fragile due to lacking the ablative wounds generalist units had.
To me, this created a paradigm where both types of units had a place in the game, without one being conceptually bettter than the other.
With the current Split Fire mechanic, I would say the generalist units have kept their advantages over the specialists, but mitigated their disadvantages, with the only means of making a specialist unit able to hold its own being increased points efficiency[which can too easily lead to one upmanship amongst game designers, similiar to what we see with the current constant power creep].
I understand and appreciate that others legitimiately feel different about this, so I'm being careful to make the point that this is my personal opinion rather than the be all and end all of game design.
The only minor negative to split fire is it can slow the game down with you making more decisions for more units. If you were a designer looking to speed the game up I think there are plenty of other areas you would look at first.
In 3rd-7th, it was general purpose without really fulfilling a purpose, unless your unit had a boost of some kind. Heavy Bolters did more anti-infantry, Lascannon did more anti-vehicle, and Missile Launchers were better at both roles.
But 8th and 9th (we are on 9th, yeah?) I don’t know. As is the theme of my posts in this thread, I simply lack that knowledge.
The autocannon is currently trash. An overpriced heavy bolter basically, since heavy bolters can be spammed easier at least.
I remember lootas being great in 4th-5th edition despite having a Heavy D3 profile, which was totally unreliable. Now they fire 2 shots minimum and 3 guaranteed shots within 24'', with no penalties ever if they moved and.... they hit like wet noodles. They're just a pale shadow of what they used to be, even considering that they gained better T in the meanwhile and some klan rules can improve their efficiency.
S7 was great in older editions, when vehicles didn't have saves and could be instant killed, wounded pretty much every infantry and biker on 2s, and units had 1-3 wounds typically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Always think discussions of old limitations are strange because they tend to turn to "it was great, unit X & Y got to ignore it and that made them feel special".
A rule that just encourages you to list build your way so it doesn't matter isn't a great rule.
Units X/Y that ignore basic rules for their category are always bad.
Just play Eldar, then every Shuriken weapon is anti-tank* and even before that the focussed nature of Eldar units meant split fire wasn't a worry, dont think my Guardian platforms ever had anything other than S-Cannons
(*well till Hail of Doom gets nerf batted but the Guard version gets left alone)
But its clearly good for the game as means Heavy Weapon toting dudes can do their job whilst their meat shield chums plink the opposing footsloggers
It also added decisions to the shooting phase which is never a bad thing. It's also better for the poor hobbyists that built their squads according to WD or the Box cover or just how it looks cool. Units with mixed special weapons, while based in real life, never made sense in 40K because no matter what, your super murder Killer elf from outer Space was too stupid to aim his anti infantry support gun at a different direction than his pal with the Dark lance.
ccs wrote: The only part of your thinking that's wrong lies in viewing those earlier edition guardians as a pts tax of the grav platform.
They weren't a tax. They were the ablative wounds that kept that gun firing.
Otherwise? Yeah, you're right. There is no real downside to the current way everyone can split thier fire.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Being able to split fire you can always choose the optimum choice for firing your squad. This boring because your not really making a choice instead your basically just following a flow chart to get the best results. Compare this to having to choose between several sub-optimal choices,(Like do I pass on my bolter fire so I can fire my heavy weapon on a target out of bolter range or do I rapid fire at a nearer target but not get the bang for my buck out of my heavy weapon?)
Your not able to get the best results for every weapon all at once. This makes more interesting choices. Or, at least , I think it does.
Just the other day I had a squad fire like "2 guys here, 3 guys there, 3 guys over there, one guy here, and the missile launcher here"
Trying to imagine how the sergeant/squad leader coordinated all that "shoot in every direction with optimal weapon numbers" effectively hurts my head.
In fact, that would be a good example of "eliteness" - not to summon the ghost of another thread, but more elite armies could split fire more times within a unit than less elite armies.
ccs wrote: The only part of your thinking that's wrong lies in viewing those earlier edition guardians as a pts tax of the grav platform.
They weren't a tax. They were the ablative wounds that kept that gun firing.
Otherwise? Yeah, you're right. There is no real downside to the current way everyone can split thier fire.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Being able to split fire you can always choose the optimum choice for firing your squad. This boring because your not really making a choice instead your basically just following a flow chart to get the best results. Compare this to having to choose between several sub-optimal choices,(Like do I pass on my bolter fire so I can fire my heavy weapon on a target out of bolter range or do I rapid fire at a nearer target but not get the bang for my buck out of my heavy weapon?)
Your not able to get the best results for every weapon all at once. This makes more interesting choices. Or, at least , I think it does.
Hopefully I got my point across.
you still have decisions, though. for example:
- Do you shoot all MMs at one target or do you split your fire, risking not killing any target?
- Do you add the small arms of your tac squad to the lascan to try to kill that light vehicle, or do you go for a better boltgun target?
These were choices you didnt have without split fire, so it kind of balances out in my opinion. It being more intuitive and fun to fire all your guns is the deciding factor that makes split fire for everyone the better choice to me.
ccs wrote: The only part of your thinking that's wrong lies in viewing those earlier edition guardians as a pts tax of the grav platform.
They weren't a tax. They were the ablative wounds that kept that gun firing.
Otherwise? Yeah, you're right. There is no real downside to the current way everyone can split thier fire.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Being able to split fire you can always choose the optimum choice for firing your squad. This boring because your not really making a choice instead your basically just following a flow chart to get the best results. Compare this to having to choose between several sub-optimal choices,(Like do I pass on my bolter fire so I can fire my heavy weapon on a target out of bolter range or do I rapid fire at a nearer target but not get the bang for my buck out of my heavy weapon?)
Your not able to get the best results for every weapon all at once. This makes more interesting choices. Or, at least , I think it does.
Hopefully I got my point across.
Most of the times you'd avoid those several sub-optimal choice since list building though. Now you can make those choices, and unless you play Power Levels they might be interesting choice. Do I pay more points for the optimal loadout, do I keep my squad cheap, do I make it versatile or do I make a compromise?
In older editions I flat out skipped a lot of combinations, always choosing the safest one, because without split fire they simply didn't worth it. Now they might do.
Just the other day I had a squad fire like "2 guys here, 3 guys there, 3 guys over there, one guy here, and the missile launcher here"
Trying to imagine how the sergeant/squad leader coordinated all that "shoot in every direction with optimal weapon numbers" effectively hurts my head.
In fact, that would be a good example of "eliteness" - not to summon the ghost of another thread, but more elite armies could split fire more times within a unit than less elite armies.
Depending on the circumstances of this split firing it could be as simple as:
“We’re surrounded. That simplifies the problem.”
“They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away now.”
Basically, the squad leader isn't coordinating the attack and the squad is firing as what each individual perceives as the biggest threat (i.e. Fire at Will/weapons free). This of course breaks down if individual squad members are ignoring a closer target to shoot at an enemy unit beyond that target. But you are never going to be able to iron out all the little wrinkles in an accessible tabletop game to fit everyone's Mind's Eye Theater.
I mean, at what level is the player role-playing? Are they the eye in the sky field commander? The on the table Warlord? Every unit leader? All of the above? If so, is there something inherently off by also role playing every squad member?
40k, as well as many war games, is pretty unclear exactly where the player's actions with their army are coming from. Well, except for maybe the Tyranids. If a player is allowed to micromanage the weapon load out of individual models (within the FoC designations set to be the game), I don't think it is too much of a stretch that they can't also micromanage their actions too.
Personally, I'd rather lose the ability to fire through friendly units than lose split fire. Nothing says maneuver matters like enfilade fire into the enemy, where the vast majority of the opposing army can't fight back since the target unit of the enfilade is in the way.
But the biggest difference is that the defender, rather than the attacker, should define targets in those scenarios you posit.
If the squad leader isn't coordinating the fire, how come out of the 13 or so individual targets, it happened to be the characters who were gunned down (the 3 man groups) and the lone special weapons from shattered squads. Somehow, the basic troopers, front and center, survived.
If a squad is splitting enough times to be considered "uncoordinated", the defender picking targets should be much more realistic than the attacker.
Plus, the risk for friendly fire increases dramatically if any given soldier is just engaging any target he deems fit, anywhere, at any time, without any attempt at coordination with his squaddies.
All I am saying is that level of uncoordinated fire should be dramatically less effective than it is. Reservicing the same targets (And therefore wasting shots), risk of friendly fire, no ability to direct the fire of troopers at specifically valuable targets...
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
I'd argue that Long Fangs didn't need some separate design space because they're just Devastators except with Split fire and one extra heavy weapon. That's not unique, let alone creative.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It also added decisions to the shooting phase which is never a bad thing.
Split fire removes necessary choices.
You fire the anti-tank guns at the tank, and the anti-infantry guns at the infantry. Whereas if you can't just shoot everything at once you need to prioritise your targets and evaluate the trade-offs of selecting one over another.
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
I'd argue that Long Fangs didn't need some separate design space because they're just Devastators except with Split fire and one extra heavy weapon. That's not unique, let alone creative.
Well, no, Codex: Space Wolves should be entirely removed. But that doesn't counter the fact that hairy Devastators were more unique when they had an additional rule which made them more flexible compared to the standard unit.
I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.
These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.
But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?
Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.
At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time. I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.
Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It also added decisions to the shooting phase which is never a bad thing.
Split fire removes necessary choices.
You fire the anti-tank guns at the tank, and the anti-infantry guns at the infantry...
...Except for you don't, because the fact that you have to waste portions of your shooting heavily disincentivizes bringing mixed units like that, so chances are your AT units are dedicated to AT and your anti-infantry units are dedicated to anti-infantry and never the twain shall meet. So technically, yes, you are removing "necessary" (side note: I'm not sure I've seen argumentation sufficient to justify the claim that forcing players to waste shooting is 'necessary') choices from the tabletop, but that's because those choices are getting pushed back to the list-building portion. You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
But that is not a reduction in design space, given such rules were a workaround for a bad default in previous rule sets where players had no agency over their own units. Shooting the AT gun at the tank while your squad mates take out infantry just makes sense.
I definitely like the addition of splitfire. Always seemed weird that my centuries old veterans couldn't figure out that it made sense for the guy with the lascannon to shoot the tank while the guys with the bolters shot the infantry squad.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It also added decisions to the shooting phase which is never a bad thing.
Split fire removes necessary choices.
You fire the anti-tank guns at the tank, and the anti-infantry guns at the infantry...
...Except for you don't, because the fact that you have to waste portions of your shooting heavily disincentivizes bringing mixed units like that, so chances are your AT units are dedicated to AT and your anti-infantry units are dedicated to anti-infantry and never the twain shall meet. So technically, yes, you are removing "necessary" (side note: I'm not sure I've seen argumentation sufficient to justify the claim that forcing players to waste shooting is 'necessary') choices from the tabletop, but that's because those choices are getting pushed back to the list-building portion. You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".
Indeed. It’s the reason why most Marine units were bad compared to the more specialized units Xenos had. Only 2 in 5 Marines had a useful gun and if it wasn't an anti-infantry gun the rest of the squad was reduced to being wounds. Plague Marines were okay because 3of 5 could take a Plasmagun and therefore you got a pretty specialized squad.
Arguably it's still the case today that you'll want more specialized squads, but at least it's possible to take a mixed squad and not have all guns wasted. There's also the risk management you'll have to do now in that you should split your heavy weapons if you fire at a wounded tank. Overall I find the shooting phase much more tactical than before and it made a lot of weapon choices viable finally, it's a shame that GW started to reduce options at the same time when some of these options became useful for the first time.
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
I can completely understand the sentiment here, but I think split fire is a case where relenting from the design-centric philosophy in favor of player freedom is the right way to go. 40k is aimed at bringing a wide array of people into it's fold, and non-split-fire is conceptually irksome to many. It feels artificial and winds up in the "too gamey" category. I feel about non-split-fire the same way I feel about just-one-grenade now. It's an artificial limit that hurts the tactical choices available to a squad.
On the flipside, I definitely agree that moving and firing with Heavy weapons is too easy to do these days. A mere -1 to hit isn't nearly enough.
Wound allocation on the other hand should be as abstract as possible. I hated the wound allocation rules where fiddly placement of models determined who was hit. That was a real burden on tge system, imo.
I do think split fire has been an overall improvement to the game. It was always a bit weird when a squad had small-arms fire plus one anti-tank weapon. Yet if it fired the anti-tank weapon at a tank, the rest of the squad aren't allowed to do anything but plink away uselessly at the same tank.
I could understand putting some sort of limit or potential downside on it. Maybe a unit has to pass a Ld test or else get -1 to hit against all secondary targets?
Gadzilla666 wrote: I definitely like the addition of splitfire. Always seemed weird that my centuries old veterans couldn't figure out that it made sense for the guy with the lascannon to shoot the tank while the guys with the bolters shot the infantry squad.
IMO there's some merit to restricting split fire, but the old system was too overbearing; it would be nice to have it where at least heavy weapons could choose a different target. As with the target priority system in 4th, I think you could leverage restrictions to differentiate elite armies- I wouldn't have any problem with a Guard heavy weapons squad having to fire on the same target, while Devastators could freely split fire. There's no reason it has to be either no split fire at all or the current totally freeform system.
waefre_1 wrote: You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".
Exactly. No one added a storm bolter to a razorback equipped with TL lascannon or las/plas, aka the most common loadouts, or to a predator, vindicator, etc... With split fire players do have a choice instead: do I pay 5 points for something that now has some value? Before split fire for everything those S4 shots were useless if not flat out harmless against the target of the main weapon. It's just a choice that happens during listbuilding, rather than during the game. But it's an actual choice, while firing both the anti tank and the anti infantry weapons against the same target, since no split fire, is not: there was always a move with better odds then.
The same was true for most units with possible different loadout and players didn't mix up anti tank and anti infantry weapons since listbuilding. Lord Damocles assumes everyone played multiple tactical squads equivalents with anti tank and anti infantry in the lot, but 99.9% of the units didn't mix up those kind of weapons unless they naturally came with that loadout or the anti tank option was ridicously cheap. Who was going to add a rokkit launcha to a squad of boyz in 4th-7th? No one. You only did that in 3rd since rokkits were extremely cheap (5 points on a 8-9 points platform in 3rd instead of 10 points on a 6 points platform during 4th-7th) and ork anti infantry shooting was crap anyway.
I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.
These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.
But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?
Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.
At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time. I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.
Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.
Chain of Command is a game written in the modern era that does not have this problem.
Do you know why?
Because the administrative division of the enemy force (30 men in one squad vs 10 men times three squads) has no impact on the shooter's firing. The shooter shoots at a target team, and the defender can spread those shots out over any teams within 4" - because the fact that Billy is safe 1" from Johnny because he is in a different squad doesn't make sense, when bullets hitting Johnny can kill Fred 10" away because they ARE in the same squad.
Or, yeah, you could just write a clunky and horrible 1990s era rule-set. I mean, 40k is the only way to streamline rules.
Split fire is one of the things I actively like from the newer editions. I can see some limitations being put on it as others have said. Like if I were to port it back for oldhammer I'd tie it to a Leadership test, or maybe a squad upgrade attached to the sergeant - pay a few points and the squad can split fire until the sergeant is lost, that sort of thing, or do both options. That way more elite units would be able to take advantage of it more, or maybe the upgrade would be cheaper for more elite units, etc.
Our 40K version is a hybrid of earlier editions with other wrinkles thrown in. A unit must declare the desire to split fire and then pass a Leadership test. If passed, the unit may shoot at two targets. If failed, it may only select one target and counts as having moved.
Vehicles may always split fire against two or more targets.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.
When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.
When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.
Yes, and? Some people always want their army buffed, and are always coming up with ways to justify it. That doesn't mean that bolters aren't still way more useful when you can shoot them at infantry, while you can shoot the AT weapon embedded in the squad at an actual tank.
Unless you want to promote MSU play, split fire is good for the game. It allows more models to participate in the game rather than a squad being cheerleaders for the weapon(s) that matter most that turn.
It wouldn't be a tragedy if split fire was more limited so that all of the same weapon in a unit had to target the same unit. That might speed up play since all Bolter would target units X, while the Meltagun target unit Y, and the Missile Launcher Unit Z is faster than some weapons free craziness targeting 10 different units.
But regardless, split fire makes taking larger units with mixed weapons less of a liability in the game. Now all they need to do is fix Morale so that more friends is an asset rather than a liability and so that performing actions isn't bad for large squads.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.
When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.
Well, in 7th we had people on this board who claimed they'd always skip firing bolters because they'd never achieve anything. Since 8th we have people claiming Land Raiders would die to Lasguns. Both opinions are rubbish of course but overall I'd say that basic weapons have gotten more useful since they can be fired at something else/ something they're more likely to hurt.
Next linked question, based on arguments made in this thread.
I earlier referred to Guardians being a points tax for the Grav Platform. A poster countered with them instead being ablative wounds for said Grav Platform, which I’d say is the natural flip side of my argument, and possibly more valid/persuasive.
And of course we have the discussion immediately above about Bolters actually being used now.
Do we take it that Split Fire has made compulsory selections (as in, Troops) actually more desirable when they can have mixed arms?
I ask because when I was playing, many Marine players would take Scouts to fill minimum FOC requirements. This from memory was due to their lower points. But I am starting to think if Tactical Marines could always have Split Fire, their greater flexibility, and indeed weapon options might’ve been worth the higher base cost, Combat Squads not withstanding,
I’m not sure I’ve explained and phrased this question right, but hopefully people can get the gist of it!
My observation from 8th and 9th was that even with split fire people took Scouts over Tactical when they were trying to unlock a Battalion to get CPs or fill the Troops tax of a Battalion to save CPs in 9th. Then, when Scouts went to Elites with the 9th Ed SM Codex they disappeared from sight. Like they were never there.
I like split fire and thought the restriction in earlier editions was not a good feature, but at the end of the day Tactical Squads are underwhelming.
I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.
These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.
Spoiler:
But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?
Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.
At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time.
I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.
Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.
Nice lecture. But more is happening than you seem to want to recognize. For one, this is a sort of nostalgia thread. For another, who cares what GW and gen Z fruit flies think about anything?
But the biggest difference is that the defender, rather than the attacker, should define targets in those scenarios you posit.
If the squad leader isn't coordinating the fire, how come out of the 13 or so individual targets, it happened to be the characters who were gunned down (the 3 man groups) and the lone special weapons from shattered squads. Somehow, the basic troopers, front and center, survived.
If a squad is splitting enough times to be considered "uncoordinated", the defender picking targets should be much more realistic than the attacker.
Plus, the risk for friendly fire increases dramatically if any given soldier is just engaging any target he deems fit, anywhere, at any time, without any attempt at coordination with his squaddies.
All I am saying is that level of uncoordinated fire should be dramatically less effective than it is. Reservicing the same targets (And therefore wasting shots), risk of friendly fire, no ability to direct the fire of troopers at specifically valuable targets...
Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.
3rd to 7th edition did not allow you to split fire. It wasn't uncommon to have one or two models firing a anti-tank weapon while the rest of the unit did a cheerleader routine because their weapons did not have a high enough Strength to Glance the target vehicle.
alextroy wrote: 3rd to 7th edition did not allow you to split fire. It wasn't uncommon to have one or two models firing a anti-tank weapon while the rest of the unit did a cheerleader routine because their weapons did not have a high enough Strength to Glance the target vehicle.
Today I learned that soldiers never ever provide covering fire for their anti-armor weapon whilst it engages a threatening vehicle, and instead dance like cheerleaders.
One might think tanks would be more effective with the enemy dancing so much right in view.
You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.
You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.
You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.
I know what it means. I just think people are being deliberately unfair to the abstractions laid out in earlier editions. It isn't like the designers just decided "no split fire" based on the outcome of that week's Wheel Of Fortune episode or something.
Stormonu wrote: Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.
2nd Edition definitely did. Heck, Imperial Guard infantry could permanently detach their Heavy Weapons team if they wanted.
Rogue Trader I’m not confident it was the case, if only because unless reading the fluff, reading those books gives me brain ache of the kind even a Gumby hasn’t seen. Here’s actual photographic proof in the form of an actual photograph of me having my photograph taken when trying to understand the Rogue Trader rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.
You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.
I know what it means. I just think people are being deliberately unfair to the abstractions laid out in earlier editions. It isn't like the designers just decided "no split fire" based on the outcome of that week's Wheel Of Fortune episode or something.
I don't think that anyone has suggested that the devs chose "no split fire" out of caprice or puckishness, but for my part I guess I'm just not sure what the abstraction is supposed to represent.
Stormonu wrote: Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.
2nd Edition definitely did. Heck, Imperial Guard infantry could permanently detach their Heavy Weapons team if they wanted.
Rogue Trader I’m not confident it was the case, if only because unless reading the fluff, reading those books gives me brain ache of the kind even a Gumby hasn’t seen. Here’s actual photographic proof in the form of an actual photograph of me having my photograph taken when trying to understand the Rogue Trader rules.
Not pictured: the bricks you had to bang together to feel better?
It was certainly an aspect of 3rd Ed I didn’t appreciate. Among many others. But that’s a whole different thread!
Mind you, during the Formations era, imagine Maureen’s getting all that free kit, and being able to freely split fire. All you’d see would be Las/Plas.
there was no real point in split fire anyway in 3rd
heavy weapons could not fire on the move and "normal" weapons had a limited range for rapid fire
so in most cases it was the choice between not moving and fire the heavy weapon at long range, or move and get in rapid fire range because not moving to shoot single shots at 24" was not really worth it (which made some heavy weapons bad of course, as a 3 shot heavy Bolter although it had longer range, was not worth it)
not adding a rule for a niche situation (enemy unit <12" away while a worthwhile target for heavy weapons >18" away) that takes away decisions on the table while contributes not much anyway but taking extra time to resolve was simple that, the decision to speed up the game and add decisions
How do people think of all weapons of one type having to fire at the same target?
On Sunday I had this dark angel player with a huge blob of helblasters shooting two of them at a different target each, killing four buggies and some warbikers in one turn.
Split fire coming back is very good and cool imo; always hated not being able to shoot, say, a missile launcher at a suitable target without wasting a load of bolter shots.
That said, I miss "pass a Ld test to not shoot the nearest unit" – a good rule.
Lord Damocles wrote: Being able to split fire is in the same ballpark as being able to move and fire heavy weapons, or not having wound allocation - it requires less thought and planning from the player(s), making the game more of an exercise in just throwing dice until the problem goes away.
It also reduces the design space for having units which can split fire when as standard it isn't possible (like Long Fangs or Land Raiders).
This. You put it far more eloquently that I would have. So much player agency and tactical thought has been removed and this is yet another example. You can play 40k on autopilot essentially.
Nazrak wrote: Split fire coming back is very good and cool imo; always hated not being able to shoot, say, a missile launcher at a suitable target without wasting a load of bolter shots.
That said, I miss "pass a Ld test to not shoot the nearest unit" – a good rule.
Another option / house-rule that blends the two is NOT allowing split fire by default, but instead require a leadership test to be passed before you can split fire (and limit splitting fire to only two targets max). Makes it a little uncertain at times whether you can split fire or not (and forces tough choices and reduces lethality when it fails). This also gives another use for the Ld stat. Also crates design space to bring older "split fire" rules back to certain units (or a split fire strat, etc.).
How does limiting squads to the same target increase player agency and tactical thought?
If one argued that Split Fire across the board was contributing to issues of overloaded game lethality, I could understand that. But having more flexibility in what your units can accomplish isn't reducing agency.
Old - Tac Squad with a heavy weapon, say as Lascannon. Stand and shoot at a vehicle, then not bother rolling your bolter dice. Move and shoot with your bolters, plinking at some enemy infantry.
Now - Stand and shoot with your bolters at their optimal target, and fire the lascannon at an optimal target. Move and shoot, letting you maybe get a better target, but taking a limited penalty on the lascannon, and maybe a penalty on your Bolters due to losing some special rules for moving.
I feel as thought the biggest difference between then and now, was allowing everything to interact with the game, in some way. Split Fire so your bolters can matter, performing actions with units that can't get sight, or sacrificing the opportunity to shoot to perform an action instead. A big difference also comes in the mechanics of shooting at vehicles. The old lascannon could pop a leman russ or big nasty vehicles in a single shot. Now, you're likely to need a hanful of lascannon shots to take one out
Edit: Mezmorki snuck in while I was writing. I don't know what I would think about that. Random Chance obviously has a place in the game, but there's certain ways that Random Chance can present itself. LD Roll to be allowed to split fire would fall on the bad end of RNGIMO. It's RNG to be permitted to attempt to do something, as opposed to Random chance in the effectiveness of what you're trying to achieve. Seeing if you can attempt to shoot at something worthwhile with bolters, vs just attempting to shoot with your bolters. Not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but I hope it does.
I would rather LD Roll to keep full effectiveness while Split firing. -1 to BS score if you fail, so it can be stacked atop other hit modifiers? Something along those lines.
Thadin wrote: How does limiting squads to the same target increase player agency and tactical thought?
The idea (in theory) is that it forces a "hard choice". E.G., you either do THIS or you do THAT, but you can't do both. By forcing a hard choice, you're requiring the player to evaluate trade-offs and the board state more deeply (gee, I really want to lascannon the tank because it's a threat, but I also need to move towards the objective and shoot their troops... what do I do?! If I stand and shoot the tank will my opponent beat me onto the objective first, or if I move will the tank try to block me or shoot my unit apart next turn?). You're creating agency by increasing the impact of the decision, which will lead to more variable outcomes.
Currently, you can just "do it all" (move, shoot lascannon, and shoot normal guns), albeit with some penalties for moving + shooting a heavy weapon. But there is far less of an impactful decision to make. Less impact, means the choices you make matter less, ergo agency is reduced.
My overarching gripe with 8th and 9th edition is that by giving players more freedom and choice, the system has eliminated a lot of hard choices and decreased the agency and depth in the game as a result.
Thadin wrote: How does limiting squads to the same target increase player agency and tactical thought?
The idea (in theory) is that it forces a "hard choice". E.G., you either do THIS or you do THAT, but you can't do both. By forcing a hard choice, you're requiring the player to evaluate trade-offs and the board state more deeply (gee, I really want to lascannon the tank because it's a threat, but I also need to move towards the objective and shoot their troops... what do I do?! If I stand and shoot the tank will my opponent beat me onto the objective first, or if I move will the tank try to block me or shoot my unit apart next turn?). You're creating agency by increasing the impact of the decision, which will lead to more variable outcomes.
Currently, you can just "do it all" (move, shoot lascannon, and shoot normal guns), albeit with some penalties for moving + shooting a heavy weapon. But there is far less of an impactful decision to make. Less impact, means the choices you make matter less, ergo agency is reduced.
My overarching gripe with 8th and 9th edition is that by giving players more freedom and choice, the system has eliminated a lot of hard choices and decreased the agency and depth in the game as a result.
This. 40k right now is simply an exercise of "Guns go Brrrrrrr!"
Thadin wrote: Random Chance obviously has a place in the game, but there's certain ways that Random Chance can present itself. LD Roll to be allowed to split fire would fall on the bad end of RNGIMO. It's RNG to be permitted to attempt to do something, as opposed to Random chance in the effectiveness of what you're trying to achieve. Seeing if you can attempt to shoot at something worthwhile with bolters, vs just attempting to shoot with your bolters.
That doesn't seem much different from psychic tests (make a RNG check to be permitted to cast, then roll for the actual effects), charge rolls (make a RNG check to be permitted to charge, then actually attempt to fight in combat), or random numbers of shots (RNG for how many attempts to shoot you may make). It's also a pretty common emergent element of gameplay- if you need an Advance roll to get into range of a target, then the outcome of that roll could mean whether you are allowed to shoot or not.
I'm generally in favor of removing rolling-to-see-if-you-can-roll when it's pointless or redundant, but in this case it's a mechanic that can be avoided through target prioritization (a player decision), rather than always necessary like rolling for random number of shots. But it does have to be handled delicately, because if it's too overbearing, the end result can easily be that nobody mixes weapon types (or takes units with mixed weapons).
I get what you mean, and I do understand that it's a rather flaky in terms of where the line is drawn. I suppose my stance would be, I'd prefer to have less of rolling-to-see-if-you-can-roll, which would be my issue with that proposed Splitfire LD check. I'd prefer a penalty for failing, but not outright preventing split fire.
When it comes to the previous 40k, where you couldn't scoot-n-shoot heavy weapons on infantry or use split fire, at least in my short time playing it, I always found myself thinking, "Well, why would I take heavy weapons on tactical marines/guardsmen"? It never seemed like the right choice, in any instance. You took the anti-infantry specials/heavies on your infantry squads, and left the anti-armor to other things. I feel like it begs the question, why would those options exist? This could come from my limited memory of prior editions, lack of experience, etc etc.
Nazrak wrote: Split fire coming back is very good and cool imo; always hated not being able to shoot, say, a missile launcher at a suitable target without wasting a load of bolter shots.
That said, I miss "pass a Ld test to not shoot the nearest unit" – a good rule.
When leadership and initiative etc. were more integral and less afterthought.
Possible other alternative for units whos thing was being able to split fire?
Replace it with Concentrate Fire, where each damage roll after the first gets a bonus in each shooting phase?
Or, for a less book keepy and swingy? Super specialists like Long Fangs can declare their splits in tranches. For purely arguments sake, let’s say I’ve got 4 Lascannons in that squad. At first, I aim two at a…I dunno…Dreadnought. But unlike other squads, I can hold off declaring the other two until I’ve resolved the first two shots. This means if the original target (here the Dreadnought) soaks the first two shots, or is left largely but irritatingly not quite dead, I can use the other two Lascannon on it. But if it’s all blown up and exploded, I can then declare a separate target entirely. Or do that if I feel it’s suitably messed up for now and something else is in equal need of a swift knee capping?
Thadin wrote: How does limiting squads to the same target increase player agency and tactical thought?
The idea (in theory) is that it forces a "hard choice". E.G., you either do THIS or you do THAT, but you can't do both. By forcing a hard choice, you're requiring the player to evaluate trade-offs and the board state more deeply (gee, I really want to lascannon the tank because it's a threat, but I also need to move towards the objective and shoot their troops... what do I do?! If I stand and shoot the tank will my opponent beat me onto the objective first, or if I move will the tank try to block me or shoot my unit apart next turn?). You're creating agency by increasing the impact of the decision, which will lead to more variable outcomes.
Currently, you can just "do it all" (move, shoot lascannon, and shoot normal guns), albeit with some penalties for moving + shooting a heavy weapon. But there is far less of an impactful decision to make. Less impact, means the choices you make matter less, ergo agency is reduced.
My overarching gripe with 8th and 9th edition is that by giving players more freedom and choice, the system has eliminated a lot of hard choices and decreased the agency and depth in the game as a result.
I agree with all of this, but the ability to split fire is one of the pieces where I think the 8th-9th paradigm gets it right.
That said there are places where 8th-9th went wrong in comparison to pre8th, and that's the ease of moving and firing heavy weapons, plus the other one I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, which is the ability to Assault after firing with Rapid-Fire/Heavy weapons. I think those are the places to put the "hard choices" back into the game, not split fire.
Occam's Razor. The game was heavily simplified. Split fire was removed as a result of that. I seriously doubt that split fire was removed to "simulate covering fire" or whatever.
As it happens, Las/Plas as a combo exists specifically because of the lack of split fire. They were the most matched weapons, with complementing ranges and identical AP values. If split fire were allowed, then you wouldn't need to match like with like weaponry. It would still be the more efficient choice, sure, but it wouldn't have been as necessary.
Thadin wrote: How does limiting squads to the same target increase player agency and tactical thought?
The idea (in theory) is that it forces a "hard choice". E.G., you either do THIS or you do THAT, but you can't do both. By forcing a hard choice, you're requiring the player to evaluate trade-offs and the board state more deeply (gee, I really want to lascannon the tank because it's a threat, but I also need to move towards the objective and shoot their troops... what do I do?! If I stand and shoot the tank will my opponent beat me onto the objective first, or if I move will the tank try to block me or shoot my unit apart next turn?). You're creating agency by increasing the impact of the decision, which will lead to more variable outcomes.
Currently, you can just "do it all" (move, shoot lascannon, and shoot normal guns), albeit with some penalties for moving + shooting a heavy weapon. But there is far less of an impactful decision to make. Less impact, means the choices you make matter less, ergo agency is reduced.
My overarching gripe with 8th and 9th edition is that by giving players more freedom and choice, the system has eliminated a lot of hard choices and decreased the agency and depth in the game as a result.
But the point is most players would avoid making that "hard choice" in the first place since it would lead to a not optimized build. Without split fire only units that can add anti tank for real cheap would mix those weapons with basic ones. Anyone else would just skip those option. I mean, who's gonna pay for a storm bolter on a vehicle that has an anti tank weapon and can't split fire? No one. Who's gonna mix big shootas and zaap guns in their battlewagons or rokkits on their boyz squads? Still no one.
If we're talking about "hard choice" split fire could come with a penalty. You either shoot everything at the same target and at full BS or split fire at -1BS (so even cumulative with an eventual -1 to hit), maybe just keeping one gun at full BS. That would force choices on players.
I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
I guess you can say, in some simplified situation, where your unit with a lascannon and boltguns faces precisely 1 tank, and one unit of troops, that you'd always do this split. But there are plenty of situations where this is not the case. You may have the option to shoot 3, 4, 5 different units. Boltguns can obviously hurt vehicles (which some posters seem to dislike but lets leave that aside). You may want to fish for that last wound on a tank by firing the bolters at them as well - especially since that lascannon could easily fail to find its mark.
I mean what was the option in the old days? "Well I could shoot my lascannon, and maybe take out/disable a fairly expensive vehicle in one shot. Or I could shoot my handful of bolters, and kill 1 chaff - or maybe, occasionally a marine. Hmmm. Tough one."
the choice in the past was move or don't move in the first place, the target for you weapons came 2nd
and this changed, not moving to do something was removed as an option not only because you now can shoot heavy weapons on the move but also because weapons and ranges changed
not having split fire in 3rd Edition is very different in not having split fire in 9th
with higher range, smaller tables and weapons being more deadly the chance of multiple units that are a worthy target being in range and the full unit on 1 target is overkill, happens more often than in the past
Originally, in RT and 2nd ed units could split fire. in RT each model could fire at a separate target. in 2nd ed special/heavy weapons could split fire, but the rest of the squad had to shoot at the same target, this concentrated fire was itself subject to some exceptions, like if some models in a unit didn't have LOS to what the unit was shooting they could shoot something else. This wasn't too oppressive as weapons were generally limited to 1 shot each (outside of following/sustained fire). There were also masses of other restrictions, like facing, whether a unit had moved etc that determined whether certain weapons could be used. Vehicles often had shooting arcs and could split fire accordingly.
But RT and 2nd Ed were closer to skirmish games than current 40k, and the lethality of the game was far below what it is now. Model count was a lot lower, and the speed of the game was a lot more sedentary. It would take an average infantryman, doing nothing but running flat out (no shooting, close combat or anything else) until his 4th turn to get into the enemy deployment zone. rather than, you know, half your movement phase like now.
3rd ed on wards are not skirmish games, they are squad based games, so a lot of the restrictions you would place on individual models, were now placed on squads. some restrictions remained.
I agree with the OP, but thats more due to the quite schizophrenic game that 40k is in its current incarnation. It has the customization of a skirmish game with cool faction rules, special wargear, character traits and special abilities (stratagems) you can use as if it was an RPG. The scale of the game is more akin to a company sized squad based game than it is to a skirmish based one, and there are plenty of rules that would support the game as simply a squad based one (split fire is not one of those rules) and its also an Epic scale game, with massive engines of destruction blasting or carving their way through enemy squads as if they were nothing.
GW really needs to pick what kind of game they want. As it is, 40k is an apocalypse scale, squad based skirmish CCGRPG, so yeah, split fire fits perfectly into the 'skirmish' bit
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.
With most books the armies come, there is often one way to play and that is it. Unit gets nerfed kiss fun with your army good bye. The few armies that are different, are mostly drasticly undercosted and with super efficient rules, where single nerfs don't fix the problems they create in the meta. We have seen this with DE and I think we will see it with tyranids too.
For the specific faction player, it is of course better to be in the second camp, because it keeps your army fun for longer. Even gives options or illusion of them to try out different builds, because either everything is good or the army can carry a bad unit choice or two.
With armies from the first cathegory you can't really do that. Often the difference between the army build , the way it should be played, and something someone likes is huge. To a point of one being a competen and powerful list and the other being a source of unending frustration.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.
Not all choices are created equal, though. IMO, forcing players to choose which-part-of-a-mixed-loadout-squad-does-nothing-for-no-clear-reason-this-turn isn't a choice worth preserving.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.
Does this not just switch up where the meaningful choice is though?
After all, the points limit forces such choices to begin with. Being able to freely split fire adds new information to that initial decision. I’d argue going for Las/Plas (to stick with an example) in hope they’ll be presented with suitable targets is still a potentially unsafe assumption. Because if, again purely for arguments sake, you come up against horde after horde of cheap basic infantry, and no particularly choice targets in the enemy force, your meaningful and purposeful choice of weapons becomes a poor one?
Yes, every post from me is coming from my own ignorance so again go easy if I’ve said something genuinely stupid to someone actually informed in the game.
Good lists have no such problems. Their units are at worse, good vs all targets. And often exeptional vs either a large part of the armies played or a super hard counter. For the best armies they often do both things at the same time, while ignoring crucial core rules like LoS, or being MW and ingnoring invs etc.
I know it is an entirely different kind of game, but Infinity doesn't have split fire. In fact, in a fireteam, only one model can fire at a time. This works because of how activations work, with orders going to any model/fireteam you'd like. What this means is that I can have a fireteam with a machinegun, a melee specialist, a medic, an engineer, and a hacker. This isn't the best fireteam, but if I run one like this, I can change the role the fireteam fills with any order. One order, it can be a shooting specialist with +3 to Ballistic Skill, a bonus to its burst value, and better reactions, or it can be a hacker specialist that can hack anything that enters its zone of control, or a melee specialist to take out big robots, or a medic or engineer to heal or repair anyone in the fireteam that gets hurt.
Basically, what I'm saying is, if 40k was a system that was built to support mixed units, rather than just having them, you could get rid of split fire and it might even end up being more fun.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I know it is an entirely different kind of game, but Infinity doesn't have split fire. In fact, in a fireteam, only one model can fire at a time. This works because of how activations work, with orders going to any model/fireteam you'd like. What this means is that I can have a fireteam with a machinegun, a melee specialist, a medic, an engineer, and a hacker. This isn't the best fireteam, but if I run one like this, I can change the role the fireteam fills with any order. One order, it can be a shooting specialist with +3 to Ballistic Skill, a bonus to its burst value, and better reactions, or it can be a hacker specialist that can hack anything that enters its zone of control, or a melee specialist to take out big robots, or a medic or engineer to heal or repair anyone in the fireteam that gets hurt.
Basically, what I'm saying is, if 40k was a system that was built to support mixed units, rather than just having them, you could get rid of split fire and it might even end up being more fun.
Except you can splitfire in infinity, if your gun shoots more than one shot, you can split them among any number of targets.
but yeah, you can't shoot more than one gun at a time
Jidmah wrote: How do people think of all weapons of one type having to fire at the same target?
On Sunday I had this dark angel player with a huge blob of helblasters shooting two of them at a different target each, killing four buggies and some warbikers in one turn.
Sometimes there are little scraps of units you are trying to polish off. You might just one guy to pop that lone spore mine, or try to allocate just enough fire to clean off an objective, while putting the rest of the squad into a more threatening target.
It’s one of situations where there are tactical decisions in splitting up a squad.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.
Meaningful choices are good, but forcing squads into situations where they're deciding between lousy choices that feel artificial . . . not so good. I say this as someone who thinks 4th ed was peak 40K too. Giving up all the bolter fire in order to fire the single Lascannon, while there are merits to that design, still always felt 'off'.
This is particularly the case when you're teaching the game to new people, which in my case was often kids. 40K is the first wargame of many people, and learning that their little dudes with guns and clear LOS to viable targets can't fire because of one model always felt awkward.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced you increase the number of "hard choices" (or... choices) by taking options away from the player.
Having meaningful choices (i.e. choices that lead to greatly different potential board states) is predicated on having distinct options available to the player. I'd argue that the older system presented the player with distinct options - whereas 8th/9th eliminated those distinct options. If anything, 8th/9th was the edition that took choices away from the player by eliminating an entire decision decision point in the first place.
Meaningful choices are good, but forcing squads into situations where they're deciding between lousy choices that feel artificial . . . not so good. I say this as someone who thinks 4th ed was peak 40K too. Giving up all the bolter fire in order to fire the single Lascannon, while there are merits to that design, still always felt 'off'.
This is particularly the case when you're teaching the game to new people, which in my case was often kids. 40K is the first wargame of many people, and learning that their little dudes with guns and clear LOS to viable targets can't fire because of one model always felt awkward.
One of the things that would work from 4th and now is to make the LD stat matter. If I recall, you had to take a LD test to fire at something not the closest. Something of that nature would be acceptable.
^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.
My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.
My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.
The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.
My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.
The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.
Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".
Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".
Well, sorta.
CSM could freely choose from Veteran Skills. Loyalists could choose Chapter Traits though, many of which allowed Veteran skills. They could be "equally veteran" in that way, but it was also thematically poigniant because loyalists were more regimented in their veterancy, bound by their chapter. Chaos got to choose willy-nilly, because they weren't inherently bound to any organization. (Then they could throw Marks on top of that). Iirc, loyalist Veterans had a small menu of traits they could inherently pick from too though.
I ran whatever trait gave me Elite Devastators, so I was able to have Lascannon Devs with Tank Hunter on them.
It is true that the current chaos is sorta garbage in comparison.
Oh yeah, completely agreed. But don't forget about Veteran Skills. A basic CSM could have more than an actual loyalist Veteran. More skill, less discipline. Now it's just "more spikes".
Well, sorta.
CSM could freely choose from Veteran Skills. Loyalists could choose Chapter Traits though, many of which allowed Veteran skills. They could be "equally veteran" in that way, but it was also thematically poigniant because loyalists were more regimented in their veterancy, bound by their chapter. Chaos got to choose willy-nilly, because they weren't inherently bound to any organization. (Then they could throw Marks on top of that). Iirc, loyalist Veterans had a small menu of traits they could inherently pick from too though.
I ran whatever trait gave me Elite Devastators, so I was able to have Lascannon Devs with Tank Hunter on them.
It is true that the current chaos is sorta garbage in comparison.
Yeah, "sorta".
What I was referring to was that every CSM infantry unit, except for Obliterators and Possessed, could freely select from a selection of Veteran Skills, and as long as they didn't take a Mark, could have as many as you were willing to pay for. Even basic CSM. Loyalist veterans got to choose 1 from a shorter list. My "basic" CSM usually had 3-4 Veteran Skills. Of course, Night Lords got one that no other Legion could have.(Stealth Adept).
And yes, the current state of CSM is..... not great.
^Oh I didn't realize you could stack them, ok that's different. I think some of the loyalist units could stack them in a very limited fashion through the Chapter Traits, but not the way Chaos apparently could. I'll have to take a look at my books again later
Like I think I could give units True Grit, through a trait. And then give a veteran unit (command/terminators/veterans) Tank Hunters. (At +6 ppm?). Something like that.
You could only take multiple Veteran Skills if you didn't take a Mark. If you took a Mark, you could only have one. And Night Lords worked the best with no Marks and lots of Veteran Skills. Stealth Adept was effectively their Mark.
Stacking Vet Skills was something you could do. Didn't do it often, as I liked what the Marks did, but if you were going for a more specialist renegade force rather than a more dedicated Chaos force, it could work.
Infiltrate + Furious Charge, things like that. Not cheap, mind - very quickly made your troops expensive - but still possible.
I used to love my 12-man Infiltrating units. Sadly that's not Codex compliant, so we can't do that anymore.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Imo that was a great mechanic. That also coupled with the Marine Captain's ability which granted his Ld to every Marine on the table, giving them excellent fire discipline but without requiring them to be comically close to the Captain like todays aura abilities.
My favorite part was that loyalists needed their captain to maintain that discipline, but CSM didn't, because they were already all L9-10. If their boss got ganked, they didn't care, and there was a new opportunity for advancement.
The difference between loyalists and CSM was fantastic then. Loyalists had more discipline and generally better equipment, but were more rigid in their organization. CSM had lower discipline (no ATSKNF), but WAY more freedom in their unit arrangements, and way more ways to pump their power levels (to sometimes ridiculous levels). Soo good.
Ah, the joy of the 4th edition Chaos Codex being released.
To the topic: Split fire, moving and firing heavies, and random charge distances, changed the game from one of opportunity cost to one of firing optimization. There aren't tradeoffs anymore.
Do I move? Do I take a potshot at that tank? Do I have an antitank squad to fire first?
I used to run a Dev squad with one lascannon, two missile launchers, and a plasma cannon. It was a good take all comers loadout. All aspects went into it- what do I take in my list, how do I spread out capability against a range of opponents, how do I use it- now it's "how much can I cram in" and "how can I concentrate it?"
Heck, combat squads meant something when you could by game determine if you had a five man fire team and an action team, or a slightly more expensive than necessary push forward team.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying either is better, just that the game emphasis has been deliberately changed.
