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, had an issue come up in a game yesterday that my opponent and I weren't completely sure how to handle.

My opponent had a unit of DA terminators with split fire and elected to have one model fire at a portal glyph while the remainder of the squad fired on a goup of plague drones. During the assault phase, the question came regarding whether or not the portal glyph was a valid assault target, or if he could only assault the plague drones since that's what the rest of the squad fired at. After a quick look through the rules and online faq's, we ended up using "the most important rule" to resolve the issue.

Just curious if anyone knows where in the rules this is address, if it even is.

It was. If you fired at two targets because of split fire both are legal assault targets. Note that you still have to make a disordered charge to attack both in a single assault.

The restriction is that you can only order an assault onto the same target you fired on in the shooting phase. Which is fulfilled for both units that were shot.

 Mywik wrote:
It was. If you fired at two targets because of split fire both are legal assault targets. Note that you still have to make a disordered charge to attack both in a single assault.

The last time this question came up, that was my take on it as well. But I find myself coming around to the opposing interpretation - Split fire allows certain models to fire at a different target to the unit. However, the unit declares an assault, and so the charge target would have to be the target that the unit shot at. The alternate target would not be legal for assault.


It's a bigger problem for the Space Wolves' Fire Control rule, which is different to Split Fire... but how often do you want to assault with Long Fangs?

 insaniak wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
It was. If you fired at two targets because of split fire both are legal assault targets. Note that you still have to make a disordered charge to attack both in a single assault.

The last time this question came up, that was my take on it as well. But I find myself coming around to the opposing interpretation - Split fire allows certain models to fire at a different target to the unit. However, the unit declares an assault, and so the charge target would have to be the target that the unit shot at. The alternate target would not be legal for assault.


It's a bigger problem for the Space Wolves' Fire Control rule, which is different to Split Fire... but how often do you want to assault with Long Fangs?

I agree with this, split fire is done on model basis, charging is done on a unit basis, whatever the unit shot at is the only possible target to charge.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
It was. If you fired at two targets because of split fire both are legal assault targets. Note that you still have to make a disordered charge to attack both in a single assault.

The last time this question came up, that was my take on it as well. But I find myself coming around to the opposing interpretation - Split fire allows certain models to fire at a different target to the unit. However, the unit declares an assault, and so the charge target would have to be the target that the unit shot at. The alternate target would not be legal for assault.


It's a bigger problem for the Space Wolves' Fire Control rule, which is different to Split Fire... but how often do you want to assault with Long Fangs?

This is how I interpret it as well, but I was curious how others see it.

Split fire allows certain models to fire at a different target to the unit. However, the unit declares an assault

If the wording is the same or similar to this, than I would be lead to believe the unit can only declare charge on the initial unit.

However, if this is the correct ruling for charging is as Mywik said:

The restriction is that you can only order an assault onto the same target you fired on in the shooting phase

Then I would argue that it is possible to declare charge on either one but not both.

To find out the absolute certainty of this you'd have to look up the rule for charging and find out the proper wording. If it is worded as Mywik has said, then yes, if it is worded as insaniak said, then no.

AFAIK Split Fire does not permissively allow a charge to be declared on either, so that's why it comes down to the Assault ruling and why wording is so important for this particular question.

(I personally think that it sounds a little dodgy to be able to choose from two targets, but I'm gonna ask my friends the same question to find out what they think as well, it's a good question)

EDIT: For post clarity

Split fire only allows a charge on the target that the unit shot at, and not at the target the model shot at.

Fire Control would allow a charge at either

I disagree.

We had the same discussion a while back.

From what I remember, (BRB not on hand) if you shoot in the Shooting Phase, you can only assault whatever the unit targeted.

So the steps are:

1) Target the portal glyph.
2) Invoke Split Fire.
3) Pass the leadership test and have the one model shoot the glyph.
4) The unit now has to target something else as they can't shoot at the glyph now. So target the Plague thingies.

Assault rolls around, he unit targeted both the Glyph and the Plague Drones, so they can assault either.

Except in your example, the 'unit' didn't target the glyph. The unit can't have two different targets, just one and that's the unit that they shoot at and that was the Plague Drones.

Except that... They did in step 1.

Heres a question about this that came up in a tournament I was in a while back. There was a group of CC termies (I think they were SS/TH) and one in the group w/ a cyclone launcher and no special CC stuff. He declared split fire and shot that at a unit and charged a different unit.

My question is that since he only fired at one unit because of having only one shooting guy, how does that interact with the assault/split fire rules about who he has to charge? TO ruled he could shoot the one guy at whatever and charge whatever else. Wondering how dakka views this.

Split fire says one model may fire at a different target to his unit. Therefore the unit is not targetting the portal the one model is.

Baktru wrote:
Except that... They did in step 1.

Except your step one can't exist if the unit doesn't shoot at it. Your unit doesn't 'target' an enemy unit unless they shoot at it.

Split Fire, page 42, emphasis mine:
"choose one model and immediately make a shooting attack with it. ...(then)...resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit, which must be at a different target.

Then consider Choose A Target, page 12 - which is part 2 of the Shooting sequence, in other words what you must follow in order to make a shooting attack.

Finally Declare Charge from page 20:
"a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase."


All of this together means that the model carrying out the split fire is actually choosing a target, which fulfils the charging requirement. While Declare Charge only refers to a single unit, this context can be ignored because it's a basic rule, and we've already overridden that in using Split Fire itself, which is an advanced rule. If you want to argue on this point, note that the rule doesn't state "entire unit" - this argument would mean that you're not counting that model as being part of the unit.

Oh something happened here since yesterday.
Since there seems to be confusion lets look at the actual rules.

The important phrase in the split fire rule is "One model can shoot at a different Target to the rest of his unit."

So we learn here that the model is actually targeting something.

The next phrase is "once this shooting attack has been resolved, resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit, which must be at a different target"

So we learned the rest of the unit is also targetting something.

Then we look at the restriction of assault.

BRB. p20
This rule states that "a unit that fired in the shooting step can only charge the unit that it targeted during that turns shooting phase."


Thats what i argumented in the beginning. I agree that my first interpretation isnt as 100% clear as i thought.

So as has been quoted several times now, if the unit shoots, it can only charge what the unit shot at.

The split fire rule is quite clear that the model splitting off, while shooting first, is shooting something different to the rest of the unit.

The assault rules don't care about who shoots first, just what the unit shot at.

I argue that the rule on page 20 assumes there is only a single target, and by following the advanced rule Split Fire you're already breaking that assumption. For comparison a Disordered Charge also breaks that assumption.

 Super Ready wrote:
I argue that the rule on page 20 assumes there is only a single target, ...

and split fire doesn't change that. It just allows one model to fire at something other than that target.

Just because of interest. Space Wolves long fangs can split their fire without "split fire". Their special rule "fire control" is quite different to the split fire special rule. It allows "to target two different units instead of one" C:SW P 28. Would both be a legal assault target in the assault phase (assuming they had relentless when with logan grimnar)?

Fire Control has already been mentioned. I suspect that most players would take it as either unit being valid.

But having said that, I can't recall having ever declared a charge with my Long Fangs.

 insaniak wrote:
Fire Control has already been mentioned. I suspect that most players would take it as either unit being valid.

But having said that, I can't recall having ever declared a charge with my Long Fangs.

Had some fun with logan bomb. I actually had that situation a few times . But that was in 5th anyway.

 insaniak wrote:
So as has been quoted several times now, if the unit shoots, it can only charge what the unit shot at.

The split fire rule is quite clear that the model splitting off, while shooting first, is shooting something different to the rest of the unit.

The assault rules don't care about who shoots first, just what the unit shot at.

It's worth noting the part in split-fire that classifies rest of unit. That alone is stating that the model is in fact part of the unit, which means the unit did indeed shoot 2 separate targets.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So as has been quoted several times now, if the unit shoots, it can only charge what the unit shot at.

The split fire rule is quite clear that the model splitting off, while shooting first, is shooting something different to the rest of the unit.

The assault rules don't care about who shoots first, just what the unit shot at.

It's worth noting the part in split-fire that classifies rest of unit. That alone is stating that the model is in fact part of the unit, which means the unit did indeed shoot 2 separate targets.

BRB 42 wrote: one model in the unit can shoot at a different target to the rest of his unit.

So he didn't shoot the same target as his unit, meaning the unit only shot one target.

In my eyes the unit shot at 2 targets. Otherwise you're not including that model as part of the unit. That's considering the unit as a whole, rather than "majority of the unit" or the unit having a "primary target".

 Super Ready wrote:
Otherwise you're not including that model as part of the unit.

For the purposes of split fire, he's not.

The unit shot at one target. One model from the shot shot at something else.

 Super Ready wrote:
In my eyes the unit shot at 2 targets. Otherwise you're not including that model as part of the unit. That's considering the unit as a whole, rather than "majority of the unit" or the unit having a "primary target".

The unit has a target. Split Fire allows a model to fire at something other than the units target.

I get the perception, but the RAW doesn't support that standpoint. Split Fire twice uses the wording "one model in the unit" - so Split Fire still treats the model as being in the unit - and the words "must be at a different target", indicating that the unit we've just confirmed the model is still part of has separate targets.

At no point is either target referred to as primary, main or anything else making one target more important than the other. So we look back to the assault rules, which say "the unit's target" - which according to Split Fire, all the models are still part of, that one Split Firing model isn't excluded...

 Super Ready wrote:
I get the perception, but the RAW doesn't support that standpoint. Split Fire twice uses the wording "one model in the unit" - so Split Fire still treats the model as being in the unit - and the words "must be at a different target", indicating that the unit we've just confirmed the model is still part of has separate targets.

So we agree that "the unit" and "the model" have different targets, yes?

At no point is either target referred to as primary, main or anything else making one target more important than the other. So we look back to the assault rules, which say "the unit's target" - which according to Split Fire, all the models are still part of, that one Split Firing model isn't excluded...

There is a unit of Hormagaunts and a Carnifex. A unit of <something> fires on the Hormagaunts, but Sam Specialguy uses Split Fire to fire on the Carnifex.
Who was the unit's target?

 Super Ready wrote:
Split Fire twice uses the wording "one model in the unit" - so Split Fire still treats the model as being in the unit -

Well, yes, of course it does. Because he is still a member of the unit. But he is shooting at a different target to the unit.

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.

Same thing here. The Split model is a member of the unit... but he is a member who is doing something different to the unit's declared action.

The unit's target is the target that the unit shot at. The other target is just something that one member of the unit shot at.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is meant by the wording. Tomayto, tomahto etc. *exits stage right*