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.

Why not? It'd make things like missile launchers in Tactical Squads make a lot more sense. (Bearing in mind a lot of legacy loadouts for units and vehicles date back to 1st ed where this was allowed)

It's entirely possible I've overlooked a very good reason for not doing this, but I can't think of one right now.

Mostly because a few specific units have a special rule letting them do this (Long Fangs, off the top of my head, and I believe there's a peice of Tau wargear) and you'd be stepping on their toes/making them less unique. It also makes bookkeeping easier in big games for a unit to shoot everything at the same target at the same time, and makes transports better because it takes a completely separate unit to shoot the passengers rather than a Tactical Squad popping the transport with the missile launcher and then the rest of the squad boltering the surviving passengers.

So there are reasons to just give everyone Split Fire, and reasons not to, and neither approach is really that much better than the other. It's down to personal preference more than anything else.

Yeah, the fact that a unit in a transport takes a minimum of two units shooting, or one unit a minimum of two phases, to destroy is a major component of the current metagame. (I'm ignoring freak things like vehicle explosions that kill all the passengers.)

Now, maybe if you could fire each different weapon at a different target, but they all had to be declared at once, that'd be OK. However, Split Fire and Tau Target Locks would probably have to be revised so that they still had some additional effect. (Maybe, you can have one model fire, and resolve it fully, before declaring where the rest of the unit will shoot?)

Yeah I think it would result in a lot more book-keeping trying to keep track of who's shot what at who, especially in a unit with multiple different types of special weapons.

I suppose if you want a more realistic game, then Kill Team lets you do this as well as having more realistic squad/unit mechanics (can split up and don't have to hold hands everywhere thy go on the battlefield).

HoR is even better

I like the idea - why not indeed!

I very much think game wide Split Fire if you have different types of weapons would be an improvement. As for the problem of blowing up a transport then shooting the guys inside with the same squad, thats easily fixed by the same ruling that prevents GMC's and Super Heavy's doing that, you have to allocate all the shooting for a unit first before rolling dice, and finish all the shooting for a single unit before moving on to the next.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
Yeah I think it would result in a lot more book-keeping trying to keep track of who's shot what at who, especially in a unit with multiple different types of special weapons.

I suppose if you want a more realistic game, then Kill Team lets you do this as well as having more realistic squad/unit mechanics (can split up and don't have to hold hands everywhere thy go on the battlefield).

HoR is even better

So, try it out and see if you really do that much more book-keeping.

The real question is what to do with Split Fire and Target Locks...

 Nazrak wrote:
Why not? It'd make things like missile launchers in Tactical Squads make a lot more sense. (Bearing in mind a lot of legacy loadouts for units and vehicles date back to 1st ed where this was allowed)

It's entirely possible I've overlooked a very good reason for not doing this, but I can't think of one right now.

That's an issue with Tactical Marines, not a core rule problem. Multitasking is crap, and very few units have this same issue as they're usually loaded up to take on singular targets.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
Yeah I think it would result in a lot more book-keeping trying to keep track of who's shot what at who, especially in a unit with multiple different types of special weapons.

I suppose if you want a more realistic game, then Kill Team lets you do this as well as having more realistic squad/unit mechanics (can split up and don't have to hold hands everywhere thy go on the battlefield).

HoR is even better

So, try it out and see if you really do that much more book-keeping.

The real question is what to do with Split Fire and Target Locks...

Possibly make it that all of a single weapon profile has to select a single target. So bolters all fire at one squad, and missiles at another. Split fire/target lock would allow the model to fire the same weapon profile at a different target.

I'm not a real fan of the rule as a whole still.

I kind of like the idea of splitting 40k up into different sub-categories based on points size. Something the size of Combat patrol, something in the 1k or 1500 point range, and something in the 2,000 points to full-fledged apocolypse range. Then add or subtract rules based on the scale you're playing at.

So something like army-wide splitfire might work really well in combat patrol or "medium" games, but it would be a pain to track in 2,000+ point games. Challenges could be a thing in smaller games but vanish in larger games for similar reasons.
Basically, you just make the game more abstract as you go up in size and more detailed as you go down in size, zooming in or out on the action as needed to facilitate a quick game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:That's an issue with Tactical Marines, not a core rule problem. Multitasking is crap, and very few units have this same issue as they're usually loaded up to take on singular targets.

It is not limited to Marines, but the Imperial Armies do represent this the most. Necron Destroyers have some capacity for it, and some of the Eldar Aspect Warriors as well.

Vilehydra wrote:Possibly make it that all of a single weapon profile has to select a single target. So bolters all fire at one squad, and missiles at another. Split fire/target lock would allow the model to fire the same weapon profile at a different target.

I'm not a real fan of the rule as a whole still.

Which rule are you not a fan of?

Personally, I've never been a fan of the concept that someone with an Anti-Tank weapon had to shoot at the same target as all his Anti-personnel weapon squad members. It's rather non-senseical.

Allowing things that make sense in a modern tactical war game, requires the rules for the game to support modern tactical game play.

GW s WHFB in space based rules rule have become so abstracted and confused ,(having to use special rules to achieve basic game functional requirements.)

That if all units were allowed to split fire between enemy units, it would cause issues for some players factions.This is an indicator that the rule set for 40k GW has mutated from WHFB, is no longer fit for the current game scale and scope.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:That's an issue with Tactical Marines, not a core rule problem. Multitasking is crap, and very few units have this same issue as they're usually loaded up to take on singular targets.

It is not limited to Marines, but the Imperial Armies do represent this the most. Necron Destroyers have some capacity for it, and some of the Eldar Aspect Warriors as well.

Vilehydra wrote:Possibly make it that all of a single weapon profile has to select a single target. So bolters all fire at one squad, and missiles at another. Split fire/target lock would allow the model to fire the same weapon profile at a different target.

I'm not a real fan of the rule as a whole still.

Which rule are you not a fan of?

Personally, I've never been a fan of the concept that someone with an Anti-Tank weapon had to shoot at the same target as all his Anti-personnel weapon squad members. It's rather non-senseical.

The proposed rule, although maybe not now that I think about it.

I'm mostly thinking from a balance perspective. As it makes some units (like tac squads) much more efficient. At the same time though, I'm trying to think of other infantry units that excel at their role without being specialized, (5 man grav devs, scat bikes, fire dragons, warriors even) . I generally run full Tac squads (weird right?) . The boltguns in those squads become more efficient if the Meltagun can target a seperate vehicle/IC/MC or whatever. Guardsmen with HWT's or Special weapons in squad also benefit immensely

If I was going to implement the rule though, it would have the following restrictions.
1: All shooting attacks must be declared before rolling hits.
2: All weapons of the same profile must fire at the same target
3: If a model may fire multiple shooting attacks (such as terminators or centurions) they must fire at the same target.

A model with split fire overrides rule 2

Vilehydra wrote:
The proposed rule, although maybe not now that I think about it.

Fair enough, it wasn't clear since you seemed to be talking about several things right before it, so I just wanted to make sure before directing any specific comments on it.

Vilehydra wrote:
I'm mostly thinking from a balance perspective. As it makes some units (like tac squads) much more efficient. At the same time though, I'm trying to think of other infantry units that excel at their role without being specialized, (5 man grav devs, scat bikes, fire dragons, warriors even) . I generally run full Tac squads (weird right?) . The boltguns in those squads become more efficient if the Meltagun can target a seperate vehicle/IC/MC or whatever. Guardsmen with HWT's or Special weapons in squad also benefit immensely

So, something cannot be more efficient? Are you concerned about unbalanced efficiency? The cost of most of these options are actually rather higher than they used to be, though the base cost of the initial model has gone lower, while those wholly dedicated units have largely gone down in price without much loss in efficiency.

This rule would also reduce the need for the Combat Squad rule, as that is basically a way to get around the nonsensical portion of the basic rules and allow a greater freedom of proper Weapon use.

Vilehydra wrote:
If I was going to implement the rule though, it would have the following restrictions.
1: All shooting attacks must be declared before rolling hits.
2: All weapons of the same profile must fire at the same target
3: If a model may fire multiple shooting attacks (such as terminators or centurions) they must fire at the same target.

A model with split fire overrides rule 2

Oddly enough, aside from #1, that is what is being suggested in the original post, and #1 has been accepted by most people in this thread for this. If we consider the FAQ for Super-Heavies to be the standard, then still would still be in use and a good standard.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:That's an issue with Tactical Marines, not a core rule problem. Multitasking is crap, and very few units have this same issue as they're usually loaded up to take on singular targets.

It is not limited to Marines, but the Imperial Armies do represent this the most. Necron Destroyers have some capacity for it, and some of the Eldar Aspect Warriors as well.

Vilehydra wrote:Possibly make it that all of a single weapon profile has to select a single target. So bolters all fire at one squad, and missiles at another. Split fire/target lock would allow the model to fire the same weapon profile at a different target.

I'm not a real fan of the rule as a whole still.

Which rule are you not a fan of?

Personally, I've never been a fan of the concept that someone with an Anti-Tank weapon had to shoot at the same target as all his Anti-personnel weapon squad members. It's rather non-senseical.

All Aspect Warriors are geared towards the same target bar specific examples, like the Dragon Exarch being able to take a Heavy Flamer. That's more for overwatch protection than anything though.

As well, all Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers end up having Shred and Sunder because they're only ever taken in a Cult, so outside the pure Heavy Destroyer squad they can all effectively handle the same targets, which is whatever they point at.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All Aspect Warriors are geared towards the same target bar specific examples, like the Dragon Exarch being able to take a Heavy Flamer. That's more for overwatch protection than anything though.

But the Heavy Flamer is not an AT Weapon that the rest of the Dragons have, and that is the point of the statement. Sure, it's a great Overwatch Weapon, but let's face the facts that the desired target of the Heavy Flamer, even in Overwatch, still isn't the same as the Dragon's Fusion Weapons. If the Dragons are Charged by a Dreadnought, that Heavy Flamer is pointless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
As well, all Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers end up having Shred and Sunder because they're only ever taken in a Cult, so outside the pure Heavy Destroyer squad they can all effectively handle the same targets, which is whatever they point at.

I'm looking at it just the units involved, not any detachments they may or may not be included in. And yes, some people still do not use Formations, if for no reason that their meta castigates using them.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All Aspect Warriors are geared towards the same target bar specific examples, like the Dragon Exarch being able to take a Heavy Flamer. That's more for overwatch protection than anything though.

But the Heavy Flamer is not an AT Weapon that the rest of the Dragons have, and that is the point of the statement. Sure, it's a great Overwatch Weapon, but let's face the facts that the desired target of the Heavy Flamer, even in Overwatch, still isn't the same as the Dragon's Fusion Weapons. If the Dragons are Charged by a Dreadnought, that Heavy Flamer is pointless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
As well, all Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers end up having Shred and Sunder because they're only ever taken in a Cult, so outside the pure Heavy Destroyer squad they can all effectively handle the same targets, which is whatever they point at.

I'm looking at it just the units involved, not any detachments they may or may not be included in. And yes, some people still do not use Formations, if for no reason that their meta castigates using them.

Then don't take the Heavy Flamer and stick with a Melta Gun variant like the rest have. It really is the only reason the option exists though.

Also I don't care what people think about formations. They get used in tournaments and the special snowflake attitude needs to stop.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All Aspect Warriors are geared towards the same target bar specific examples, like the Dragon Exarch being able to take a Heavy Flamer. That's more for overwatch protection than anything though.

But the Heavy Flamer is not an AT Weapon that the rest of the Dragons have, and that is the point of the statement. Sure, it's a great Overwatch Weapon, but let's face the facts that the desired target of the Heavy Flamer, even in Overwatch, still isn't the same as the Dragon's Fusion Weapons. If the Dragons are Charged by a Dreadnought, that Heavy Flamer is pointless.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
As well, all Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers end up having Shred and Sunder because they're only ever taken in a Cult, so outside the pure Heavy Destroyer squad they can all effectively handle the same targets, which is whatever they point at.

I'm looking at it just the units involved, not any detachments they may or may not be included in. And yes, some people still do not use Formations, if for no reason that their meta castigates using them.

Then don't take the Heavy Flamer and stick with a Melta Gun variant like the rest have. It really is the only reason the option exists though.

Also I don't care what people think about formations. They get used in tournaments and the special snowflake attitude needs to stop.

Then please drop it, you regualrly take "this is how I play it and everybody else should adopt that". This thread being a typical example.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then don't take the Heavy Flamer and stick with a Melta Gun variant like the rest have. It really is the only reason the option exists though.

Nevertheless, it is an option that exists and it is not a decision to be made mid-game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also I don't care what people think about formations. They get used in tournaments and the special snowflake attitude needs to stop.

And they don't get used in other tournaments. Be aware of everyone.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then don't take the Heavy Flamer and stick with a Melta Gun variant like the rest have. It really is the only reason the option exists though.

Nevertheless, it is an option that exists and it is not a decision to be made mid-game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also I don't care what people think about formations. They get used in tournaments and the special snowflake attitude needs to stop.

And they don't get used in other tournaments. Be aware of everyone.

1. Then decide before the game of you want focused squads or slightly better Overwatch. Like I said, it is the only reason the option exists. It is pointless otherwise even IF they had Split Fire standard.
2. Your locals don't count if that's REALLY what you're trying to use as justification for that statement.

I agree, that it seems odd from a realistic point of view, why shooting attacks can't be allocated to ideal targets, but from a technical point of view, isn't it a good rule to be forced to shoot at a single target?
You're given the opportunity to be effective against several types of enemies, but if you encounter all of those types of enemies at the same time, you have to choose which one to be effective against.
Essentially it's a rule which makes you take tactical choices, as it disallows you to be 100 % effective in critical situations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Then decide before the game of you want focused squads or slightly better Overwatch. Like I said, it is the only reason the option exists. It is pointless otherwise even IF they had Split Fire standard.

Why? Almost all their targets will be within the same range. And it's not just limited to the Aspect Warriors, they just happen to be taken a lot.

At this point, you are just saying "suck it up" in the Proposed Rules section instead of bringing up valid points. The amount of "paperwork" to keep track of something like this really isn't that much, over all, and even less than it would be for some Super-Heavies, and it can make the game more fun over all if you gave it a chance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. Your locals don't count if that's REALLY what you're trying to use as justification for that statement.

Locals always count as there is no such thing as a universally competitive ruleset. Most players here will only be playing against local players with this anyway, unless you think ITC and ETC use this forum to set up their rulesets.

The simple fact is that some people use Formations, some don't, and some cannot get a game if they do use them. Recognize the possibilities of your audience before making blanket assertions with your assumptions.

The Destroyer Cult is a good point as the Restrictions they have make it a very expensive option if you want to use something else or just simply do not have the models to field it.

How about a middle ground? You can split your shooting into two attacks, a primary target and a secondary target. Your primary target is what your squad is focusing on firing at, they're actively trying to take out whatever this target is; the squad fires with full ballistic skill against this target.

Your secondary target is what your other squad member/s are firing at, essentially some suppressing fire to cover the rest of the squad while they do their thing. These shots are resolved at BS1 (so you can still use templates/blasts).

Think of it as most of the squad or the special weapons guy lining up shots on what you want dead while the rest of the squad keeps an eye on it/spots for you takes some time to fire their own weapons at another threat. Melta fires at a tank while the rest of your squad pops some shots to scare away anyone that might get in the way. Main squad fires bolters at a tervigon while a flamer frantically cooks some gants.

Then, to keep split fire relevant, it'll let models fire at both targets with full BS.

We use something we call 'ordered movement' where once declared, a unit moves D3" and then takes a leadership test.
If passed, the unit may either split its fire OR shoot with moved heavy weapons. Otherwise the unit just counts as having moved and shoots normally.

You could make it if a unit fires at multiple units it cannot charge OR use "thrust moves" (or any such equivalent) during that turn (as they aren't all focusing so they can't organise such a thing properly)
Then have Split fire/ Target locks override that effect

I think people just need to accept that the heavy weapon in tactical marines makes no sense and never will. This rule disproportionately benefits marines, and I don't think it's needed.

Martel732 wrote:
I think people just need to accept that the heavy weapon in tactical marines makes no sense and never will. This rule disproportionately benefits marines, and I don't think it's needed.

As has been pointed out, Tactical Marines are not the only units with this issue. They are just the ones taken the most.

That makes the change too marine-centric to me.

Martel732 wrote:
That makes the change too marine-centric to me.

They are taken the most because Space Marines armies are generally taken more than most other armies over all. Few of the IoM armies do not have this issue as well. As I have also pointed out, even some of the other armies also have capacity for this issue, though it is not as pervasive so long as you ignore Independent Characters.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That makes the change too marine-centric to me.

They are taken the most because Space Marines armies are generally taken more than most other armies over all. Few of the IoM armies do not have this issue as well. As I have also pointed out, even some of the other armies also have capacity for this issue, though it is not as pervasive so long as you ignore Independent Characters.

Wouldn't just make more sense to fix the unit entry though?

Guard is a little more tricky but that's why Veterans exist I suppose.