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.

@Unit1126PLL
I don't know what to tell you.

I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.

These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.

But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?

Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.

At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time. I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.

Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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...

...Except for you don't, because the fact that you have to waste portions of your shooting heavily disincentivizes bringing mixed units like that, so chances are your AT units are dedicated to AT and your anti-infantry units are dedicated to anti-infantry and never the twain shall meet. So technically, yes, you are removing "necessary" (side note: I'm not sure I've seen argumentation sufficient to justify the claim that forcing players to waste shooting is 'necessary') choices from the tabletop, but that's because those choices are getting pushed back to the list-building portion. You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".

 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).

But that is not a reduction in design space, given such rules were a workaround for a bad default in previous rule sets where players had no agency over their own units. Shooting the AT gun at the tank while your squad mates take out infantry just makes sense.

I definitely like the addition of splitfire. Always seemed weird that my centuries old veterans couldn't figure out that it made sense for the guy with the lascannon to shoot the tank while the guys with the bolters shot the infantry squad.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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...

...Except for you don't, because the fact that you have to waste portions of your shooting heavily disincentivizes bringing mixed units like that, so chances are your AT units are dedicated to AT and your anti-infantry units are dedicated to anti-infantry and never the twain shall meet. So technically, yes, you are removing "necessary" (side note: I'm not sure I've seen argumentation sufficient to justify the claim that forcing players to waste shooting is 'necessary') choices from the tabletop, but that's because those choices are getting pushed back to the list-building portion. You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".

Indeed. It’s the reason why most Marine units were bad compared to the more specialized units Xenos had. Only 2 in 5 Marines had a useful gun and if it wasn't an anti-infantry gun the rest of the squad was reduced to being wounds. Plague Marines were okay because 3of 5 could take a Plasmagun and therefore you got a pretty specialized squad.
Arguably it's still the case today that you'll want more specialized squads, but at least it's possible to take a mixed squad and not have all guns wasted. There's also the risk management you'll have to do now in that you should split your heavy weapons if you fire at a wounded tank. Overall I find the shooting phase much more tactical than before and it made a lot of weapon choices viable finally, it's a shame that GW started to reduce options at the same time when some of these options became useful for the first time.

 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 can completely understand the sentiment here, but I think split fire is a case where relenting from the design-centric philosophy in favor of player freedom is the right way to go. 40k is aimed at bringing a wide array of people into it's fold, and non-split-fire is conceptually irksome to many. It feels artificial and winds up in the "too gamey" category. I feel about non-split-fire the same way I feel about just-one-grenade now. It's an artificial limit that hurts the tactical choices available to a squad.

On the flipside, I definitely agree that moving and firing with Heavy weapons is too easy to do these days. A mere -1 to hit isn't nearly enough.

Wound allocation on the other hand should be as abstract as possible. I hated the wound allocation rules where fiddly placement of models determined who was hit. That was a real burden on tge system, imo.

I do think split fire has been an overall improvement to the game. It was always a bit weird when a squad had small-arms fire plus one anti-tank weapon. Yet if it fired the anti-tank weapon at a tank, the rest of the squad aren't allowed to do anything but plink away uselessly at the same tank.

I could understand putting some sort of limit or potential downside on it. Maybe a unit has to pass a Ld test or else get -1 to hit against all secondary targets?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I definitely like the addition of splitfire. Always seemed weird that my centuries old veterans couldn't figure out that it made sense for the guy with the lascannon to shoot the tank while the guys with the bolters shot the infantry squad.

IMO there's some merit to restricting split fire, but the old system was too overbearing; it would be nice to have it where at least heavy weapons could choose a different target. As with the target priority system in 4th, I think you could leverage restrictions to differentiate elite armies- I wouldn't have any problem with a Guard heavy weapons squad having to fire on the same target, while Devastators could freely split fire. There's no reason it has to be either no split fire at all or the current totally freeform system.

 waefre_1 wrote:
You're not asking "is it more efficient to lose AT or anti-infantry firepower on this unit this turn", you're asking "is it worth the points to bring an AT gun in this unit in the first place, knowing that I may be artifically prevented from firing it at ideal targets".

Exactly. No one added a storm bolter to a razorback equipped with TL lascannon or las/plas, aka the most common loadouts, or to a predator, vindicator, etc... With split fire players do have a choice instead: do I pay 5 points for something that now has some value? Before split fire for everything those S4 shots were useless if not flat out harmless against the target of the main weapon. It's just a choice that happens during listbuilding, rather than during the game. But it's an actual choice, while firing both the anti tank and the anti infantry weapons against the same target, since no split fire, is not: there was always a move with better odds then.

The same was true for most units with possible different loadout and players didn't mix up anti tank and anti infantry weapons since listbuilding. Lord Damocles assumes everyone played multiple tactical squads equivalents with anti tank and anti infantry in the lot, but 99.9% of the units didn't mix up those kind of weapons unless they naturally came with that loadout or the anti tank option was ridicously cheap. Who was going to add a rokkit launcha to a squad of boyz in 4th-7th? No one. You only did that in 3rd since rokkits were extremely cheap (5 points on a 8-9 points platform in 3rd instead of 10 points on a 6 points platform during 4th-7th) and ork anti infantry shooting was crap anyway.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
@Unit1126PLL
I don't know what to tell you.

I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.

These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.

But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?

Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.

At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time. I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.

Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.

Chain of Command is a game written in the modern era that does not have this problem.

Do you know why?

Because the administrative division of the enemy force (30 men in one squad vs 10 men times three squads) has no impact on the shooter's firing. The shooter shoots at a target team, and the defender can spread those shots out over any teams within 4" - because the fact that Billy is safe 1" from Johnny because he is in a different squad doesn't make sense, when bullets hitting Johnny can kill Fred 10" away because they ARE in the same squad.

Or, yeah, you could just write a clunky and horrible 1990s era rule-set. I mean, 40k is the only way to streamline rules.

Split fire is one of the things I actively like from the newer editions. I can see some limitations being put on it as others have said. Like if I were to port it back for oldhammer I'd tie it to a Leadership test, or maybe a squad upgrade attached to the sergeant - pay a few points and the squad can split fire until the sergeant is lost, that sort of thing, or do both options. That way more elite units would be able to take advantage of it more, or maybe the upgrade would be cheaper for more elite units, etc.

Our 40K version is a hybrid of earlier editions with other wrinkles thrown in. A unit must declare the desire to split fire and then pass a Leadership test. If passed, the unit may shoot at two targets. If failed, it may only select one target and counts as having moved.

Vehicles may always split fire against two or more targets.

Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.

When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.

When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.

Yes, and? Some people always want their army buffed, and are always coming up with ways to justify it. That doesn't mean that bolters aren't still way more useful when you can shoot them at infantry, while you can shoot the AT weapon embedded in the squad at an actual tank.

Unless you want to promote MSU play, split fire is good for the game. It allows more models to participate in the game rather than a squad being cheerleaders for the weapon(s) that matter most that turn.

It wouldn't be a tragedy if split fire was more limited so that all of the same weapon in a unit had to target the same unit. That might speed up play since all Bolter would target units X, while the Meltagun target unit Y, and the Missile Launcher Unit Z is faster than some weapons free craziness targeting 10 different units.

But regardless, split fire makes taking larger units with mixed weapons less of a liability in the game. Now all they need to do is fix Morale so that more friends is an asset rather than a liability and so that performing actions isn't bad for large squads.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Split fire lets basic weaponry take part in the game, as opposed to just being bullet catchers for the heavy/special weapons.

When I saw this post, it was right above a thread that said essentially:
"Buff bolters, currently they aren't anything but bullet catchers for the heavy weapons"
In so many words.

Well, in 7th we had people on this board who claimed they'd always skip firing bolters because they'd never achieve anything. Since 8th we have people claiming Land Raiders would die to Lasguns. Both opinions are rubbish of course but overall I'd say that basic weapons have gotten more useful since they can be fired at something else/ something they're more likely to hurt.

Next linked question, based on arguments made in this thread.

I earlier referred to Guardians being a points tax for the Grav Platform. A poster countered with them instead being ablative wounds for said Grav Platform, which I’d say is the natural flip side of my argument, and possibly more valid/persuasive.

And of course we have the discussion immediately above about Bolters actually being used now.

Do we take it that Split Fire has made compulsory selections (as in, Troops) actually more desirable when they can have mixed arms?

I ask because when I was playing, many Marine players would take Scouts to fill minimum FOC requirements. This from memory was due to their lower points. But I am starting to think if Tactical Marines could always have Split Fire, their greater flexibility, and indeed weapon options might’ve been worth the higher base cost, Combat Squads not withstanding,

I’m not sure I’ve explained and phrased this question right, but hopefully people can get the gist of it!

My observation from 8th and 9th was that even with split fire people took Scouts over Tactical when they were trying to unlock a Battalion to get CPs or fill the Troops tax of a Battalion to save CPs in 9th. Then, when Scouts went to Elites with the 9th Ed SM Codex they disappeared from sight. Like they were never there.

I like split fire and thought the restriction in earlier editions was not a good feature, but at the end of the day Tactical Squads are underwhelming.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
@Unit1126PLL
I don't know what to tell you.

I suppose make your own pre-90s era tabletop game full of charts, tables, subsystems, sub-subsystems and a 1001 edge case rules. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like you are going to be happy.

These things are going to happen in every game that is going to have accessible rules to sustain a decent player base. The 1980s and 90s rules for every little thing just don't get traction anymore in tabletop games from what I have seen.

Spoiler:

But I get what you are saying. However, do you get just how far into the weeds you are?

Split fire is pretty uncommon in my experience. It happens, but not so much that it chaps my hide. Exponentially so, the more times a unit splits their shots beyond two targets. With exceptions such as with units like Primaris Repulsor which is just burdened with too many weapon systems. You aren't wrong that uncoordinated 'Fire at Will' isn't as effective. And there's a reason why I mentioned 'Weapons Free'. At the same time, I absolutely don't think that 40k would be enriched by adding a subsystem to deal with this sort of thing. It's just not that kind of game.

At the end of the day, you either have a game chock-full rules that come up rarely for things like this. Or when it does happen, you grin-and-bear-it and/or secretly hope that splitting fire dramatically under performs so your opponent reconsiders next time.

I am glad 40k only has the rules it does, as I don't want to be concerned about additional effects should a player decide to split fire or similar.

Clearly you don't. So feel free to complain about it. I just don't ever see GW coming around to your way of thinking again. So do understand all you are doing it getting that issue off your chest.

Nice lecture. But more is happening than you seem to want to recognize. For one, this is a sort of nostalgia thread. For another, who cares what GW and gen Z fruit flies think about anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

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...

Agreed.

Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.

3rd to 7th edition did not allow you to split fire. It wasn't uncommon to have one or two models firing a anti-tank weapon while the rest of the unit did a cheerleader routine because their weapons did not have a high enough Strength to Glance the target vehicle.

 alextroy wrote:
3rd to 7th edition did not allow you to split fire. It wasn't uncommon to have one or two models firing a anti-tank weapon while the rest of the unit did a cheerleader routine because their weapons did not have a high enough Strength to Glance the target vehicle.

Today I learned that soldiers never ever provide covering fire for their anti-armor weapon whilst it engages a threatening vehicle, and instead dance like cheerleaders.

One might think tanks would be more effective with the enemy dancing so much right in view.

You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.

You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.

You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.

I know what it means. I just think people are being deliberately unfair to the abstractions laid out in earlier editions. It isn't like the designers just decided "no split fire" based on the outcome of that week's Wheel Of Fortune episode or something.

 Stormonu wrote:
Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.

2nd Edition definitely did. Heck, Imperial Guard infantry could permanently detach their Heavy Weapons team if they wanted.

Rogue Trader I’m not confident it was the case, if only because unless reading the fluff, reading those books gives me brain ache of the kind even a Gumby hasn’t seen. Here’s actual photographic proof in the form of an actual photograph of me having my photograph taken when trying to understand the Rogue Trader rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to be intentionally stubborn about it, Unit.

You know exactly what Alex means, and what a lot of us mean when we say we like being able to split fire as it means that the basic troopers in our units have more of a role in the game beyond being ablative wounds for the 'important' squad members.

I know what it means. I just think people are being deliberately unfair to the abstractions laid out in earlier editions. It isn't like the designers just decided "no split fire" based on the outcome of that week's Wheel Of Fortune episode or something.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that the devs chose "no split fire" out of caprice or puckishness, but for my part I guess I'm just not sure what the abstraction is supposed to represent.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Am I missing something? I thought older editions (at least back to 2E) always had rules for the heavy weapon to target a different enemy - or at least that was how we'd always played.

2nd Edition definitely did. Heck, Imperial Guard infantry could permanently detach their Heavy Weapons team if they wanted.

Rogue Trader I’m not confident it was the case, if only because unless reading the fluff, reading those books gives me brain ache of the kind even a Gumby hasn’t seen. Here’s actual photographic proof in the form of an actual photograph of me having my photograph taken when trying to understand the Rogue Trader rules.

Not pictured: the bricks you had to bang together to feel better?

I think they chose it because they were heavily simplifying the game after 2nd Ed.

Possibly, who knows.

It was certainly an aspect of 3rd Ed I didn’t appreciate. Among many others. But that’s a whole different thread!

Mind you, during the Formations era, imagine Maureen’s getting all that free kit, and being able to freely split fire. All you’d see would be Las/Plas.

there was no real point in split fire anyway in 3rd
heavy weapons could not fire on the move and "normal" weapons had a limited range for rapid fire

so in most cases it was the choice between not moving and fire the heavy weapon at long range, or move and get in rapid fire range because not moving to shoot single shots at 24" was not really worth it (which made some heavy weapons bad of course, as a 3 shot heavy Bolter although it had longer range, was not worth it)

not adding a rule for a niche situation (enemy unit <12" away while a worthwhile target for heavy weapons >18" away) that takes away decisions on the table while contributes not much anyway but taking extra time to resolve was simple that, the decision to speed up the game and add decisions