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.

Did a quick search and didn't find anything. So here goes. I'm wondering how now, in 7th edition, are units with multiple weapons able to affect transports and their occupants. Here's a scenario:

Landspeeder armed with multi-melta and heavy flamer runs up on a Trukk full of boyz and pops it with the 'melta. Can it use its 'flamer on the boyz that fall out of the now wrecked Trukk?

I ask because in previous editions would answer this question with a resounding "no." But in 7th, different weapons are fired in the order of the controlling player's choosing. Does it matter if the transport is dedicated or not? What say you, Dakkanauts?

EDIT: Grammar fix

 Rottooth wrote:
Did a quick search and didn't find anything. So here goes. I'm wondering how now, in 7th edition, are units with multiple weapons able to affect transports and their occupants. Here's a scenario:

Landspeeder armed with multi-melta and heavy flamer runs up on a Trukk full of boyz and pops it with the 'melta. Can it use its 'flamer on the boyz that fall out of the now wrecked Trukk?

I ask because in previous editions would answer this question with a resounding "no." But in 7th, different weapons are fired in the order of the controlling player's choosing. Does it matter if the transport is dedicated or not? What say you, Dakkanauts?

EDIT: Grammar fix

While the new Shooting Sequence has weapons fire at different times, it does not provide for shooting at multiple targets or changing targets during the process. The only time you can normally change targets is when changing Shooting units.

But to provide a change in strategy for this situation, use the Flamer first, it will be able to "hit" the Embarked units in the Trukk (if it is still Open-Topped), but less likely to blow up the Trukk. In this way you CAN hit both units with the same unit in the Phase.

Ah, yes. I forgot about that. Thanks for the response.

Charistoph wrote:

While the new Shooting Sequence has weapons fire at different times, it does not provide for shooting at multiple targets or changing targets during the process. The only time you can normally change targets is when changing Shooting units.
.

Specifically, you're required to declare what you're shooting with and the target before you start resolving any shots.

So by the time you roll the shooting for the first weapon, it's too late to declare any more targets, even if the unit does have the ability to split fire (which most don't).

 insaniak wrote:
Specifically, you're required to declare what you're shooting with and the target before you start resolving any shots.

Very true. I did not imply otherwise. I was going from the perspective of the unit had already performed the first shot that the OP had presented.

 insaniak wrote:
So by the time you roll the shooting for the first weapon, it's too late to declare any more targets, even if the unit does have the ability to split fire (which most don't).

Not quite true. Split Fire has the Split Firing model choose its target, and after it resolves, the rest of the unit chooses its target (which cannot be one disembarked from the first model's shot). However, this is the only case where this is explicitly written in this manner.

There are some other ways for some units to shoot at multiple targets, but they do not ever state how this is integrated in to the current Shooting Sequence. Many assume that these rules change the "Select a target" portion of the Shooting Sequence to "select all targets". This is a reasonable direction to take it, but it is never actually written as such.

Charistoph wrote:
Split Fire has the Split Firing model choose its target, and after it resolves, the rest of the unit chooses its target.

No they don't. After the split shot is resolved, you resolve the other shots. There is nothing in the rules that suggests that you wait until that point to choose your target.

 insaniak wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Split Fire has the Split Firing model choose its target, and after it resolves, the rest of the unit chooses its target.

No they don't. After the split shot is resolved, you resolve the other shots. There is nothing in the rules that suggests that you wait until that point to choose your target.

Then let's review it:
"Split Fire
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."

The statement disallowing the targeting of a disembarked unit, means that it would normally be possible. This is only possible if the unit selects its target after the model.

Charistoph wrote:

The statement disallowing the targeting of a disembarked unit, means that it would normally be possible.

No, it doesn't.

If I say that I can't fly on wednesdays, that doesn't mean that I can fly any other day... If other rules prevent me from flying anyway, it's simply a redundant statement to clarify a specific situation.

 insaniak wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

The statement disallowing the targeting of a disembarked unit, means that it would normally be possible.

No, it doesn't.

Then elaborate with the rules.

I already did. It's a redundant clarification, since the shooting process would already disallow the targeting of a unit that was in the transport.

resolve the shooting attacks made by the rest of the unit
- Split Fire.

Please tell me how a Shooting Attack is resolved, in particular why it doesn't involve resolving all 1-7 steps when we are informed it is time to resolve the Shooting Attack.

One thing to keep in mind is how this specific Restriction was added to the Game: It was added during Errata!
Someone pointed out the the Game Workshop development team that the wording used would allow others to interpret the 'shooting attack' as the whole shooting attack, including the process for selecting a Target. Instead of putting forth wording that would make it clear that the targeting process would still occur simultaneously, before any shots are fired, they created a Restriction that only makes sense if two 'shooting attacks' are resolved completely independently of each other....

JinxDragon wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is how this specific Restriction was added to the Game: It was added during Errata!
Someone pointed out the the Game Workshop development team that the wording used would allow others to interpret the 'shooting attack' as the whole shooting attack, including the process for selecting a Target. Instead of putting forth wording that would make it clear that the targeting process would still occur simultaneously, before any shots are fired, they created a Restriction that only makes sense if two 'shooting attacks' are resolved completely independently of each other....

What errata are you talking about?

 insaniak wrote:
What errata are you talking about?

6th edition I believe, added errata to Split Fire to make it pretty much what the 7th rule looks like. From memory at least, I could check I suppose...

Page 42 – Split Fire
Change the last sentence to “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 and may not be a
unit forced to disembark from any Transport that has been
Wrecked or suffered an Explodes! result due to the Split Firing
unit’s initial shooting attack.”

Indeed, it was added during 6th edition by Errata before being hacked and pasted into 7th.

While a foot note to any debate, when and why a Rule was modified is secondary to what the modifications do, it still is interesting to note that it was added in such a way to specifically deny targeting the now disembarked Unit. Regardless, the change in the Errata and the 7th Edition's version makes it obvious the Rule is talking about two different Shooting Attacks. One of these Shooting Attacks must be resolved completely before the rest of the Shooting Attacks are then resolved by the rest of the Unit, so there is nothing simultaneous about them. Thus it becomes very important to know how the rules define what a 'Shooting Attack' is, so my question is still open to the floor:

What does the Rules define a Shooting Attack as?

It doesn't really.

However, I took the wording of the 7th step (where it mentions going on to the next weapon after resolving the first) as a sign that 'resolving the attack' is referring to what happens from steps 3-6.


I can see how it could be taken the other way, and there's probably an argument for 'resolving the shots' and 'resolving the shooting attack' being taken as two separate things, but I don't personally think that's what was intended.

Then why add a clause that specifically addresses the outcome of treating them as two independent attacks instead of correcting the misconception?

My opinion on the matter is simple, Game Workshop still refuses to give us proper Game Mechanics when it comes to these situations. The players do have to make a lot of assumptions, particularly with pseudo-Split Fire Special Rules that have even less instructions then Split Fire does. The only time Game Workshop addressed the matter it was to create a restriction that was a band-aid designed to restrict the situation brought to their attention instead of giving us a revised mechanic that we can simply follow when it comes to any Rule allowing an individual Model, or multiple Models, the ability to fire at different Targets. Then in typical fashion they Hack-Pasted the band-aid into the main Rulebook without thinking twice about what they where doing or addressing the still existing problems within these situations.

Given that they changed the core Shooting Sequence one would think they would also update Shooting Sequence dependent Rules but....

JinxDragon wrote:
Then why add a clause that specifically addresses the outcome of treating them as two independent attacks instead of correcting the misconception?

Because someone thought it was a worthwhile clarification to add, because without it people would be asking if they could pop the transport and then split fire at the disembarked unit?

Agreed, without clarification people would be asking if it was possible but that doesn't answer the question...
Why did they respond with this particular answer?

Instead of putting forth an answer which 'corrected the misconception,' they put forth an answer which further reinforced it....

Yes, they do that from time to time.

Trying to analyse why GW write the rules the way they do rarely leads anywhere useful.

You where the one who brought up Authors Intent, when you stated you did not believe it was intended for Split Fire to generate separate Shooting Attacks. The only way to even come close to determining what the Authors may or may not intent is to take a look at the changes they made and question why they believed those changes where important. This change was deliberate, it was added by errata, and it only makes sense if the Authors intended for the 'Shooting Attack' generated by Split Fire to be a Shooting Attack completely independent from the rest of the Unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
You where the one who brought up Authors Intent, when you stated you did not believe it was intended for Split Fire to generate separate Shooting Attacks.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was that I don't believe it was the intent for 'shooting attacks' to be considered something different to 'shots'.

Regardless of why this specific rule was reworded last edition, the wording right through the shooting section backs up that interpretation, IMO.

Interesting little questions:
I have a single Shot... how to I Resolve it?
I have a single Shooting Attack... how do I Resolve it?

I have a Heavy 3 weapon (3 Shots)... how do I Resolve it?
I have three Shooting Attacks... how do I Resolve them?

Sorry to keep picking at what is clearly just going to be semantics in your mind, but I am honestly finding this to be a little bit of a problem. The two can not be synonymous as they don't appear to be interchangeable at all through out many of the Rules. I will give you this, quite a few of them the two words do swap out surprisingly well, but they don't at all appear to be identical. Shooting Attack must be referring to the entire 1-7 Step process that a Unit obeys to carry out an action that many know as a Shooting Attack, while shots are the individual components generated as part of that Shooting Attack process.

Unless you mean in this one specific situation you believe the intent is to for Shooting Attack and Shots to be synonymous?

JinxDragon wrote:
Shooting Attack must be referring to the entire 1-7 Step process that a Unit obeys to carry out an action that many know as a Shooting Attack, while shots are the individual components generated as part of that Shooting Attack process.

Except we're told in the 'Select a Weapon' section that we have to completely resolve all atacks from the same weapons before moving on to other weapons.

If we're taking 'resolving attacks' to mean the entire 7 step process, that's going to be problematic. It would mean that you would have to go back to step 1 for each weapon.. which is clearly not the case.

Step 1 nominates the unit that is shooting.
Step 2 nominates the target
Steps 3-6 involve actually resolving the attacks.

The terminology being discussed is 'Shooting Attacks,' Select a Weapon does not use this terminology at all.

Which other attacks are you resolving using the shooting process?

We are discussing what the Rules are referring to when we see the words 'Shooting Attack,' as in both words together meaning something specific within the Rule-set.

Not only would the Authors single use of the word 'attack' during the Shooting Sequence be meaningless in such a discussion, as it is not a reference to Shooting Attacks as a whole, it is even more so when it comes to discussing the Warhammer 40K Shooting Sequence. This is a sequence that refers to the 'shot' as different things during each individual step of the process, it is a Wound during the To Wound step for example. All I can conclude is the lone use of the word 'attack' in this Step is just another example of that, referring to the object being resolved in an ever changing way.

Likewise, given that the word 'attack' is also used differently throughout other parts of the Rulebook, it is even more obvious that this is a 'common word' and not 'terminology...'

I believe I might now have the ability to explain why I have a problem with your interpretation:
You have separated the Shooting Sequence into two parts: Nominate and Resolve!

If Steps 3-4 are the 'Resolution' part of the Shooting Attack then Steps 1-2 have to be something different, more so if it is going to be exempt from instructions specifically telling us to resolve a Shooting Attack. Ignoring that we have nothing informing us that Steps 1 and 2 are somehow different then steps 3 through 7, we encounter the second problem I have with this concept: Why is Step 3 part of the Resolution? If Nominating a Unit and Nominating a Target are not part of, and I quote, actually resolving the attacks then it stands to reason that nominating a Weapon Group is also something done before trying to Resolve the attacks generated by that Weapon.

JinxDragon wrote:
We are discussing what the Rules are referring to when we see the words 'Shooting Attack,' as in both words together meaning something specific within the Rule-set.

Ah. So you've made the rookie mistake of assuming that GW rules are written using consistent keywords.

For shame.

I believe I might now have the ability to explain why I have a problem with your interpretation:
You have separated the Shooting Sequence into two parts: Nominate and Resolve!

I haven't done that. The rules have done that, by refering to resolving attacks as involving those specific steps.

If Nominating a Unit and Nominating a Target are not part of, and I quote, actually resolving the attacks then it stands to reason that nominating a Weapon Group is also something done before trying to Resolve the attacks generated by that Weapon.

Yeah, that would follow.

Please quote the Rules specifically splitting 1-2 and 3-7...

You're looking for a level of specificity that just isn't there.


Either resolving the attacks just includes those steps that actually involve resolving the attacks, or they include the entire shooting sequence, at which point you have to go back to step 1 for each different weapon.

Only if you want to take a single use of the word 'attack,' a general common word with many meanings, to always represent 'the entire shooting attack...'

We both know nothing in the Rules states that step 1 and 2 are 'nomination steps' that have nothing to do with resolving a shooting attack, and that the entire Shooting Sequence is presented as the shooting attack in question. If another Rule came along and told us to "Resolve a Shooting attack with the Selected Unit" we would not automatically jump to Step 3 in the process, but would still be required to process Step 1 and 2 before we can proceed with Step 3. Step 1 would come with an additional requirement that the Unit in question is Selected, so we only have the one choice and must make a choice, but would still be resolved before moving onto Step 2 and so forth....

That is why Split Fire is presented to us in the format it is in, as resolving Steps 1-7 with the individual Model allows us to chose a different target at Step 2, while jumping straight to Step 3 or 4 under the assumption they are the 'Resolving Steps' does not.