Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry guys , if you guys know what page explains this, the page # would be fine :"P

For example, for a Russ , can they split fire lascannon at tanks , hvybolter sponsons at infantry etc etc

thanks.

Don't know the page but a vehicle must fire all its weapons at a single target. Yeah its really lame but thats 40k rules for you. You would think you could fire a battle cannon / las cannon at a tank and then heavy bolters at infantry but you can't.

Its a rule totally not supported by the fluff.

ONLY one land raider weapon may do this, due to the Machine spirit rule.

No other (imperial) tanks may split fire (unsure of tau).

Tanks in general (in the game) haven't been able to split fire like this since 2nd ed.

While they've brought back some goodies from 2nd ed, this is one thing i'm quite happy for them not to have done.

Tau can, with a Target Lock. I think a Baneblade can too.

Super heavies can (i.e baneblades, stormlords, shadowsword variants etc...), but none of the "normal" tanks can do that.

With the above mentioned exception of Power of the Machine spirit and Target Lock.

That is a particularly ridiculous rule.

Not really if you stop to thin about it for a second. It keeps weapon heavy vehicles from becoming ridiculously powerful. It'd be a mighty scary landraider that could fire one sponson at one target, the other at a different one, and then hit a third target with the multi-melta. Or an Executioner that could target one unit with it's turret, two others with each sponson, and a fourth with it's hull mounted lascannon.

Bookwrack wrote:Not really if you stop to thin about it for a second. It keeps weapon heavy vehicles from becoming ridiculously powerful. It'd be a mighty scary landraider that could fire one sponson at one target, the other at a different one, and then hit a third target with the multi-melta. Or an Executioner that could target one unit with it's turret, two others with each sponson, and a fourth with it's hull mounted lascannon.

In a game dominated by infantry, a tank SHOULD be scary. What is the justification for only shooting one target? You have multiple crew members, and multiple weapons.

If there aren't multiple crew members, then THAT is ridiculous instead.

Well i was thinking , the other threads people talking about mixing tanks for allocating damage taken.

But because they all fire on same target, wouldnt that hamper their effectiveness by alot, even if the allocation save them alittle longer?

Mattlov wrote:In a game dominated by infantry, a tank SHOULD be scary. What is the justification for only shooting one target? You have multiple crew members, and multiple weapons.

If there aren't multiple crew members, then THAT is ridiculous instead.

According to the latest Imperial Guard Codex a Leman Russ with sponson weapons has 6 crew members, spread between 4 weapon systems, so presumably each weapon is crewed by a single person, and there's also a driver and commander.

I think it would be fun to be able to target weapons seperately but the fact of the matter is tanks aren't costed with that in mind so they would probably be extremely imbalanced if you were to use a rule like this without some significant modification like "each vehicle costs an additional 15 points per seperately targetted weapon system" allowing the cheaper stuff with few weapons like tau piranhas and sentinels to remain cheap while the heavier tanks that gain significant advantages go up in cost.

Either way it's going to be a house rule that has this happen.

Mattlov wrote:What is the justification for only shooting one target? You have multiple crew members, and multiple weapons.

If there aren't multiple crew members, then THAT is ridiculous instead.

Because you only have ONE Tank Commander telling those multiple crew members what to shoot at.

The only imperial guard tanks i know of the split fire the super heaveys aka baneblade its variants respectivly

Technically Tau can with a Target Lock, but its often of little use. Tau secondary weapons are very limited in number and choice: you'll either have one SMS or two Burst Cannons, each of which is a "primary" weapon (as in 'not defensive'), though what I'm working on aims to fix that... but that's for another section.

So a target lock will allow you to fire burst cannons at a different target than your railgun, which is not bad, IF something's in range of each (something in range of your bursts is potentially extremely bad news given what happens to a hammerhead in melee). SMS gets a little more use out of that, certainly, but overall, its not like we've 3 plasma cannons, dark lances or twin-linked lascannon sponsons to chuck around. We have basic infantry gun. basic infantry gun that isn't even defensive.

oh. almost forgot: a skyray can put it to okay use with its markerlights.

Mattlov wrote:In a game dominated by infantry, a tank SHOULD be scary.

And they are scary. However they also need to be balanced.

LunaHound wrote:But because they all fire on same target, wouldnt that hamper their effectiveness by alot, even if the allocation save them alittle longer?

That's the drawback you have to bear for having the ability to take up to nine tanks in three Heavy Slots.

Bookwrack wrote:

Mattlov wrote:In a game dominated by infantry, a tank SHOULD be scary.

And they are scary. However they also need to be balanced.

LunaHound wrote:But because they all fire on same target, wouldnt that hamper their effectiveness by alot, even if the allocation save them alittle longer?

That's the drawback you have to bear for having the ability to take up to nine tanks in three Heavy Slots.

Yes , just making sure im not missing anything xD

If you made it so tanks could Split Weaponry, you would have to blanace it by either giving infantry more and cheaper anti vehicle weaponry or also allow THEM to split their fire (So all my lascannons can PewPew your Leman Russes while my bolters shred your infantry). As it is things are pretty balanced IMO.

I agree with GWAR. Although it doesn't make sense, if a Russ could seperate its fire, or a land raider take out two/three targets per turn of shooting well then it would just be ridiculous!

You'd have to double to points cost of all tanks to make it worthwhile, or else they'd be too powerful!

Ghaz wrote:Because you only have ONE Tank Commander telling those multiple crew members what to shoot at.

This is a poor argument. "Uh, boss, there are 436 orcs running at the side of the tank with stikkbombs. Permission to open fire?" Not likely.

Liquidwulfe wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Because you only have ONE Tank Commander telling those multiple crew members what to shoot at.

This is a poor argument. "Uh, boss, there are 436 orcs running at the side of the tank with stikkbombs. Permission to open fire?" Not likely.

You clearly have no idea how the Imperial Guard Work:
Private: ....
Orks: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
Private: ....
Sergeant: Shoot Now!
Private: Kay -Dakkadakkadakka-
Private 2: Hey sarge, err, I think th... -Freem-
Sergeant: Thinking is a Crime.

Liquidwulfe wrote:This is a poor argument. "Uh, boss, there are 436 orcs running at the side of the tank with stikkbombs. Permission to open fire?" Not likely.

They are clumsy green apes with no grasp of technology. What harm could they possibly do to the armed might of the Imperium?
No, the gunner would rather follow orders.

Ignorance and arrogance is in the fluff for most 40K races.

Not to mention, with Lord Commisar's being as good shots as Space Marine Chapter Masters, he could probably execute the wavering Tank Sergeant through a viewing slit from 6 kloms away.

Mattlov wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Not really if you stop to thin about it for a second. It keeps weapon heavy vehicles from becoming ridiculously powerful. It'd be a mighty scary landraider that could fire one sponson at one target, the other at a different one, and then hit a third target with the multi-melta. Or an Executioner that could target one unit with it's turret, two others with each sponson, and a fourth with it's hull mounted lascannon.

In a game dominated by infantry, a tank SHOULD be scary. What is the justification for only shooting one target? You have multiple crew members, and multiple weapons.

If there aren't multiple crew members, then THAT is ridiculous instead.

Because we used to be able to fire every weapon at a different target (way back in 2nd ed) and along the line it got changed, probably something to do with game balance. Lots of silly rules exist, and that is what many of them boil down to, the necessary compromise between the way it should work and what is needed for a balanced game.

Liquidwulfe wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Because you only have ONE Tank Commander telling those multiple crew members what to shoot at.

This is a poor argument. "Uh, boss, there are 436 orcs running at the side of the tank with stikkbombs. Permission to open fire?" Not likely.

Actually a pretty good argument. Armies have a strong dislike for soldiers that think too much or do things without permission. Some of the less flexible ones don't allow you to learn anything beyond your own function even if it makes sense.

Gwar! wrote:Not to mention, with Lord Commisar's being as good shots as Space Marine Chapter Masters, he could probably execute the wavering Tank Sergeant through a viewing slit from 6 kloms away.

I feel a disturbance in the Force...as if one voice cried out in terror and said "Fall back, men!" BLAM!

Personally, I agree with the view that for tanks to split fire they should be up-costed or given more methods of countering. Think of the Green Tide that would be wiped out in one turn by the LR Redeemer rolling up and throwing out heavy flamer templates in all directions. Ew.

Gwar! wrote:

Liquidwulfe wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Because you only have ONE Tank Commander telling those multiple crew members what to shoot at.

This is a poor argument. "Uh, boss, there are 436 orcs running at the side of the tank with stikkbombs. Permission to open fire?" Not likely.

You clearly have no idea how the Imperial Guard Work:
Private: ....
Orks: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
Private: ....
Sergeant: Shoot Now!
Private: Kay -Dakkadakkadakka-
Private 2: Hey sarge, err, I think th... -Freem-
Sergeant: Thinking is a Crime.

I have to disagree 100%

Argument for balance is fine.

Argument for fluff is way off. GW's subcompany ( BL ) does cover imperial guard tanks completely different.
1 commander = yes. Several gunners aiming at their given target = yes. All targetting the same = No.

It's just a game balance thing. Like others have said, back in 2nd edition squads used to be able to split fire however they wanted. Presumably that was taken out to speed up play and give people reasons to not just take huge squads of guys and tanks with a billion guns.

And then the feature comes back as a special ability.