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.

So can one model or many models fire at a different target?
Does the model have to have the wargear that confers split fire to be able to fire at a different target?

BRB pg. 172 "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit. Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit. These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing unit's initial shooting attack."

So in the instance of say, a chapter master attached to a devastator centurion squad with an omniscope, the chapter master can choose to split fire because at least one model has the split fire rule so at least one model can target a different unit without regards to having the rule themselves. Am I reading that correctly?

My main concern to this rule was tau Target Locks, but upon further inspection their codex only says: "this unit can fire at a different target than the rest of the unit." So it doesn't actually have split fire, just a special rule allowing the specific model to target another unit.

AB and C are in a unit with grunts D
AB and C have split fire.
A fires at X.
They the rest of B and C and D shooting occurs.
C then shoots at Y.
B shoots at Z.
D then shoots.

Basically, the Split Fire rule lets you take a model out of the unit for their shooting phase and then put them back in after shooting. I'd assume that only the Split Firer gets the special rule, but RAW I'm not seeing a restriction to that.

Note that if A B and C are all using their split fire rule, then D can NOT shoot at any of those targets.

These must be at a different target, which cannot be a unit forced to disembark as a result of the Split Firing unit’s initial shooting attack.

Split Fire allows one model in the unit to shoot at a different target, and it does not have to be the model with the special rule (so the Chapter Master in your example can target a different unit).

Note that multiple models in the same unit all with Split Fire has no additional effect - only one model can target a different unit. This is why Tau Target Locks are worded differently rather than just granting the Split Fire rule.

 Quanar wrote:
Split Fire allows one model in the unit to shoot at a different target, and it does not have to be the model with the special rule (so the Chapter Master in your example can target a different unit).

Note that multiple models in the same unit all with Split Fire has no additional effect - only one model can target a different unit. This is why Tau Target Locks are worded differently rather than just granting the Split Fire rule.

Respectfully, re-read the rule. The first part says that but the second part negates it.

A has SF and fires, then the rest of the unit fires normally. Does B still have the rule? Yes. Split fire away. C? Yes.
D? No, no more split fire.

It's worded poorly, but both RAI and RAW is that 1 split fire doesn't let 10 guys target 1 units.

@RAWRAlrobblerobble : Split fire is worded quite precisely actually. ONE model from the unit may fire at a different target, not each model with split fire. One, and only one, model from a unit that contains at least one model with split fire may fire at a different target than the rest of the unit.

Which model in the unit fires at a different target is up to the controlling player.

Rorschach9 wrote:
@RAWRAlrobblerobble : Split fire is worded quite precisely actually. ONE model from the unit may fire at a different target, not each model with split fire. One, and only one, model from a unit that contains at least one model with split fire may fire at a different target than the rest of the unit.

Which model in the unit fires at a different target is up to the controlling player.

Second sentence:

Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit.

RAW it does not state that:
1) "one and only one" model can use split fire
2) the firing model must have the split fire rule
3) or that the firing model can be one other than the one with split fire.

It's all ambiguous, but (IMO and HIWPI) the most narrowly constructed reading is that you treat the first split fire guy as a distinct unit for those purposes, then the rest of the unit fires. Hwo do they fire? I'll assume normally, including the use of any special rules explicitly present and not explicitly denied elsewhere. In fairness, I can see a different interpretation, but I wouldn't agree with it RAW. FWIW, I think I used split fire in 6th with my 5th Ed Eldar reaper on a quad gun, but that's it. I don't have a dog in this fight.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
RAW it does not state that:
1) "one and only one" model can use split fire

Yes, it does.

One model fires at a different target to the rest of the unit. That's the result of the Split Fire rule being present in the unit.

It's all ambiguous,

It's really not.

If there is at least one model with the Split Fire rule in the unit, then one model (any one model) in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of the unit. It's that simple.

Please don't get into an argument with a Tau player over this, aka Target Lock

Rorschach9 wrote:
Target lock is an entirely different rule to split fire.

QFT. but the similarity is what will cause the arguments.

 carldooley wrote:
Please don't get into an argument with a Tau player over this, aka Target Lock

Target lock is an entirely different rule to split fire.

The argument for multiple "spitfire-ers" being able to activate this rule separately breaks down when you look at a unit like Long Fangs. The unit has the rule, so can they all do it? No, of course not.

The One or More clause is pretty straight forward, it prevents a Rule from triggering multiple times in any given scenario. It is also the only thing that prevents multiple Blinds, Concussive, Pinning, Soul Blaze and a great deal more Special Rules from triggering multiple time in a single Shooting Sequence. Should it be possible to get around Split-Fire simply by stating multiple Models have the Rule, therefore it can be evoked multiple times even with a 'or more' clause, then this clause becomes entirely meaningless.

If three IC fireblades are chilling together, I see no reason why (on the outline and reading I gave above) could not fire at 3 separate targets. I understand you disagree, but there is more than one legitimate reading as I pointed out.

Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule? If a unit has it, that's 1 model as I'd tend to read it and then your interpretation makes less sense.

So if I inflict Wounds with three Weapons containing the Pinning Special Rule you will roll three Moral tests?

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
If three IC fireblades are chilling together, I see no reason why (on the outline and reading I gave above) could not fire at 3 separate targets. I understand you disagree, but there is more than one legitimate reading as I pointed out.

Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule? If a unit has it, that's 1 model as I'd tend to read it and then your interpretation makes less sense.

When a unit with at least one model means that if an IC with Split Fire joins a unit, it can split fire.
It has to be worded like this because units make shooting attacks, not models.

So when a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule shoots, one model (not any number of models) may shoot at a different target. If you fire at 3 different targets, that's not one model shooting at a different target.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule?

Yes, Long Fangs.

JinxDragon wrote:
So if I inflict Wounds with three Weapons containing the Pinning Special Rule you will roll three Moral tests?

Why wouldn't I, assuming I pass the first two? You'd need to have three different firings units doing it though because the RAW is:

If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must take a Leadership test once the firing unit has finished its shooting attacks for that phase

(emphasis added) and

As long as the test is passed, a unit can be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn, but only once for each unit shooting at them.

Is an IC shooting with split fire a separate unit? I think not, but that is an argument used by Psykers to get extra WC and cast extra powers after all. Either way, it is not really relevant to pinning since split fire requires each SF shooter be directed at a different unit anyway.

CountCyrus wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule?

Yes, Long Fangs.

Please provide a RAW quote to justify that. I'm looking for wording that gives it to every model in a unit, not one that grants it the unit itself, otherwise the "remainder" of the unit doesn't have it and the one or more restriction clearly applies:

Once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit.

otherwise the other split fire ICs (etc) then takes their turns until finally only the non-split fire unit (or portion of it if it had SF) goes. I'm not saying this is the only valid interpretation but I'm not seeing a clear rebuttal.

There is a clearer a stronger basis for double split fire than getting WC from multiple IC psykers (seer council, GK characters in their units, etc), much less the explicit prohibition on multiple casts of the same power from "a unit". That doesn't have a clear RAW answer that anyone accepts, so why think Split Fire is open and shut - and please don't quote "one or more" again and dismiss the "remainder of the unit" portion and act as if QED and is done. If you want to RAI and HYWPI that's fine, but don't think you are convincing anyone with a different perception by repeating the same chant.

GW writes poor rules, why pretend otherwise?

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

CountCyrus wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule?

Yes, Long Fangs.

Please provide a RAW quote to justify that. I'm looking for wording that gives it to every model in a unit, not one that grants it the unit itself, otherwise the "remainder" of the unit doesn't have it and the one or more restriction clearly applies:

Ok...

SW codex-Heavy Support-Long Fangs-

“SPECIAL RULES:
• And They Shall Know No Fear
• Acute Senses
• Counter-attack
• Split Fire”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Space Wolves.” Games Workshop Ltd, 2014-07-03. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

... if you have 2 Long Fangs still standing, they can each shoot at different targets, because 1 grants Split Fire to the other. So LF A shoots at something, and then LF B shoots at something else.

If there were 50 LF in this unit, LF A shoots at something, and then LFs B through LF ZY shoot at one other thing together.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

CountCyrus wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Are there any RAW examples of a multi-model unit that gives every model that rule?

Yes, Long Fangs.

Please provide a RAW quote to justify that.I'm looking for wording that gives it to every model in a unit, not one that grants it the unit itself, otherwise the "remainder" of the unit doesn't have it and the one or more restriction clearly applies:

So if a model is removed as a casualty, how do you determine if the unit still has the 'Split Fire' rule? Anyway, there's the explanation of the army list entries which states the following:

10. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix section or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

'Split Fire' applies to the models in the unit. If it's a model in the unit, then it has that rule. Otherwise it would be worded like the rules for the Swiftclaws entry:

SPECIAL RULES:
• Acute Senses
• And They Shall Know No Fear
• Counter-attack
• Rage (Swiftclaws only)

Since there is no exception listed, all of the models in the Long Fang unit have the 'Split Fire' rule.

The point, RAWRAIRobbleRobble, is that many Rules contain One or More clauses and none of them allow for multiple versions of itself to resolve in any one situation.
I was trying to highlight that ignoring a single One or More clause in any Rule means the terminology can be ignored for every Rule, and that will lead to undesired consequences at some point. If you have a problem with the Pinning Special Rule for this purpose, then please select any number of Special Rules with the 'One or More' clause and try to apply that Rule multiple times to a single scenario. I won't demand you create a list of which ones work and which one's do not, not my place to demand you to do Research for me, but feel free to try.

However, as you highlighted in your reply, It isn't just because of the One or More clause that these Rules fail to function. These Rules contain the 'One or More' terminology because they are formatted in such a way that only a single application of the Rule can work on a Rule as Written level. Even Split Fire is not immune to this as it's own internal wording is designed to Restrict us to a single action regardless how many instances of the Rule might be present on the Unit as a whole.

For Example these two parts of Split Fire make it very difficult to Resolve two instances of the Rule sequentially:
One model in the unit can, in a Unit which would already contain a Model that has done so still lacks permission for a second Model to do so.
Resolve the Shooting Attacks made by the rest of the unit is part of the Split Fire Special Rule's instructions, so until the rest of the Unit has Resolved their attacks the first instance of Split Fire is still incomplete
Sequentially is important, for without very specific instructions to interrupt a Rule mid-Resolve we must finish the Rule completely as per the Core Concepts of Sequencing.

I would also point out that referencing a House Rule which players are putting into place to fix a completely unrelated problem does nothing to support your stance. It isn't even a good argument to take if we where discussing the generation of Warp Points, being that it is 'How I would Play It' and lacks all Rule as Written Support! To try and apply someone's House Rule to a completely different scenario as justification to ignore the Rule's actual written instructions... I don't even know where to really begin with that one.

Deathwing Terminators also have this rule. Its one model in the unit that can choose a different target than the rest of the unit (and Im almost certain it needs to be resolved 1st before the rest of the unit).

So 5 Termies.....Term 1 with Assault Cannon chooses to split fire and fires at a skimmer. After thats resolved, the remaining 4 Termies shoot at another target.