Switch Theme:

Argument from Ignorance. Squads splitting fire is good for the game.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






How do!

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 My knowledge isn’t just not current, but several editions out of date.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.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/28 23:42:48


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




This was definitely one of the changes that made the most sense with 8th-9th.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





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

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do!

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.

   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 00:10:12


   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 00:27:40


"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Split fire is a good move. It's more accessible.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 05:34:19


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 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.

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Blackie wrote:
 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...


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






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).
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 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.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

Otherwise it feels a bit like a 3d card game.

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Grimtuff wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/29 08:40:59


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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?"
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






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.

   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




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.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.


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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 11:01:14


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





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


"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





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.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I like split fire but you do get some weirdness.

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 12:21:23


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

Tresson wrote:
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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/29 12:42:05


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Tresson wrote:
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.

 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like split fire but you do get some weirdness.

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/29 13:55:50


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

You say that "it's a little wrinkle"

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...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: