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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just fyi.

When you start a quote with ellipsis (...) - it indicates that there is a part of the quotation being omitted to that point (nothing dishonest about it.)

I'm aware of that. But you deliberately left out the part of the quote that proves your argument wrong. Having the ellipsis there demonstrates that it was deliberate.
That's what I was pointing to as dishonest - I do partial quotes with ellipsis all the time, but I leave all of the relevant rules in the quote.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just fyi.

When you start a quote with ellipsis (...) - it indicates that there is a part of the quotation being omitted to that point (nothing dishonest about it.)

I'm aware of that. But you deliberately left out the part of the quote that proves your argument wrong. Having the ellipsis there demonstrates that it was deliberate.
That's what I was pointing to as dishonest - I do partial quotes with ellipsis all the time, but I leave all of the relevant rules in the quote.

Nothing is proven. Your interpretation requires a lot of assumptions. IE you assume that all targets must be chosen at the same time (there is no ruling on this), you assume that "subject to the normal rules for shooting" implies this. Other conclusions can be drawn such as my interpretation that assumes the normal rules for shooting start by selecting another target in the shooting steps. Maybe you are stuck on it because until this edition pulling off the feat of blowing up a transport and opening up on them with the same unit has been strictly impossible. With the change to the shooting phase and all weapons NOT firing at the same time from the same unit - this opens up the possibility. The fact that other split fire type rule strictly forbid it makes for a pressing argument. Is there any reason to assume that you can't? Other than the fact that in previous editions you couldn't do it?

Furthermore what does the part I omitted have to do with this? It states nothing of sequence, or targets, just grants permission to fire another weapon than normally permitted at normal ballistic skill?

I've scoured the internet searching for more opinions. Haven't found a forum that has a real consensus on the matter as it is a very poorly written rule that leaves too much in the air.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nothing is proven. Your interpretation requires a lot of assumptions. IE you assume that all targets must be chosen at the same time (there is no ruling on this)

Where in the rules do you have permission to declare targets? I only see step 2 in the shooting phase. Have you found another place?

, you assume that "subject to the normal rules for shooting" implies this.

No, it states it. Unequivocally. Because the normal rules for shooting require targeting in step 2.

Other conclusions can be drawn such as my interpretation that assumes the normal rules for shooting start by selecting another target in the shooting steps.

What's step 1 in the shooting steps? Can you repeat step 1 on a unit that has already fired? Actual rules to back up your statements please.

Maybe you are stuck on it because until this edition pulling off the feat of blowing up a transport and opening up on them with the same unit has been strictly impossible. With the change to the shooting phase and all weapons NOT firing at the same time from the same unit - this opens up the possibility. The fact that other split fire type rule strictly forbid it makes for a pressing argument. Is there any reason to assume that you can't? Other than the fact that in previous editions you couldn't do it?

Because the rules don't allow it. And, as I said before, Split Fire operates explicitly differently from PotMS and therefore requires *gasp* different rules.

Furthermore what does the part I omitted have to do with this? It states nothing of sequence, or targets, just grants permission to fire another weapon than normally permitted at normal ballistic skill?

It says "an additional". Additional to what?

I've scoured the internet searching for more opinions. Haven't found a forum that has a real consensus on the matter as it is a very poorly written rule that leaves too much in the air.

Only for people who refuse to actually read all of the involved rules and wish to pretend it lets them do something it doesn't.

All targets are picked at the same time and resolved simultaneously. The guys in the transport are not a valid target because they do not exist on the table until the transport is blown up, therefore they cannot be chosen as a target of POTMS.

How is this still a thread?