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.

Insaniak, rigeld2: I don't see how you can so flippantly equate "the rest of the unit" with "the unit". At no point in Split Fire does "the unit" declare a Target. "One model" declares a Target, and "the rest of the unit" declares a Target, but "the unit" never does.

'The rest of the unit' is 'the unit' with the exception of the one model that's splitting its fire.

Pyrian wrote:
Insaniak, rigeld2: I don't see how you can so flippantly equate "the rest of the unit" with "the unit". At no point in Split Fire does "the unit" declare a Target. "One model" declares a Target, and "the rest of the unit" declares a Target, but "the unit" never does.

Follow the shooting process, which you must do for Split Fire to work.
The unit declares a target - required by the shooting process.
Split Fire is tested for and resolved. This does not (and cannot) affect the unit's target.

Pyrian wrote:
. "One model" declares a Target, and "the rest of the unit" declares a Target, but "the unit" never does.

The unit is the rest of the unit. Take a named group of people who are doing something, and then remove one of them to do something else... the main group is, in general usage, considered to still be the same group. For reference purposes, you simply ignore the lone group member who is currently not acting like part of the group.

As explained earlier with my biscuit analogy.

Lets make it more complex.
Terminators deep strike in, and land between necron warriors and lychguard with shields.
I've got 5 terminators, 4 with storm bolters, and 1 with a plasma cannon.

I opt to split firing, having the plasmacannon fire on the lychguard and have the bolters fire into the warriors.

I pass the Ld test.
The lychguard bounce the hits back by passing the invul save. My terminators are within 6", but the storm bolter terminators are the closest.

If the plasmacannon terminator didn't "Go on the cookie walk", can his squad get hit as a result of his shooting?

If the plasmacannon terminators overheats and dies, does the lychguard unit still count as being shot at for purposes of charging?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

If the plasmacannon terminator didn't "Go on the cookie walk", can his squad get hit as a result of his shooting?

Shooting at something different to what his unit is shooting at doesn't make him not a part of the unit. This would be no different to if only one model in the unit was shooting.

If the plasmacannon terminators overheats and dies, does the lychguard unit still count as being shot at for purposes of charging?

If they were shot at, then they were shot at.

If the unit shot at something else, then they would only be able to charge that something else.

Pyrian wrote:
Insaniak, rigeld2: I don't see how you can so flippantly equate "the rest of the unit" with "the unit". At no point in Split Fire does "the unit" declare a Target. "One model" declares a Target, and "the rest of the unit" declares a Target, but "the unit" never does.

rigeld2 wrote:
Follow the shooting process, which you must do for Split Fire to work.
The unit declares a target - required by the shooting process.
Split Fire is tested for and resolved. This does not (and cannot) affect the unit's target.

Your assertion contradicts the Split Fire rule. You select the firing unit, declare and test for Split Fire, pick a Target for the one model as part of resolving its shooting, then pick a different Target for the rest of the unit as part of resolving their shooting.

 insaniak wrote:
If I have an open packet of cookies, and I drop one cookie when I go to take my packet of cookies for a walk, the packet of cookies didn't miss out on the walk... just that one cookie did. The packet went for walkies.

Analogy fails on account of the fact that in this case the cookie did not leave the packet, meaning that your now very elongated packet is both on the ground and going for a walk.

 insaniak wrote:
The unit is the rest of the unit. Take a named group of people who are doing something, and then remove one of them to do something else... the main group is, in general usage, considered to still be the same group. For reference purposes, you simply ignore the lone group member who is currently not acting like part of the group.

Yes and no. In normal usage, the actions of any portion of a group are attributed to that group. For example:

Q: "Did the local police come to your house?"
A: "Yes, all but one of them."
A2: "Yes, but just one of them."

My take is it allows you to charge either. If you make the arguement that the solo split guy's target can not be chraged then he can't charge the unit the other guys fired at because he didn't fire at them. Its both or none IMO.

tgf wrote:
My take is it allows you to charge either. If you make the arguement that the solo split guy's target can not be chraged then he can't charge the unit the other guys fired at because he didn't fire at them. Its both or none IMO.

The unit fires at a target. The unit declares an assault.

Nothing is illegal.