Yes I agree, I think that it really comes down to how people view how the rules "should" be played, not how it is written/not written
N18 Rapid Fire Rules
- Thread starter Ravensmane
- Start date
Just wanted to thank everyone for the help with my questions, it really has been helpful in sorting this out
As an arbiter for my campaign, I am not running a gang as I am focusing on helping those taking part in the campaign, these questions have come up from our last game and the rules for some are not clear
Because of my position it doesn't effect me either way how these rules work, but more to clarify for others
One thing I have told our group from the start is Necromunda is full of holes and grey areas, somethings will need to be dealt with as it happens and maybe house rules will have to be made
I will be playing my original questions as follows
If a Sidearm has Rapid Fire you can use Rapid Fire in Close Combat
If you have more than one bullet on the Firepower Dice, you can allocate addition rapid fire bullets to eligible targets (those who are also engaged, within 3" (not outside of engagement) and in the vision arc)
This rule will also be allowed in reaction attacks and reaction attacks from retreating
Stray shots, are not a thing in close combat and stray shots at range are only one shot, not the result of the fire power dice
So how have I got to this
Stray shots are actually in the rule book so that is pretty straight forward
The rest of the rules, to be honest, there is nothing that states you can not do this but rather using the rules as written
The replies that I have gotten have been very helpful but very clear that there are no rules to back up peoples understanding of them, rather more to do with how the rules are interpreted and how people feel these should be played
Once again thank you for all you input, very much appreciated
As an arbiter for my campaign, I am not running a gang as I am focusing on helping those taking part in the campaign, these questions have come up from our last game and the rules for some are not clear
Because of my position it doesn't effect me either way how these rules work, but more to clarify for others
One thing I have told our group from the start is Necromunda is full of holes and grey areas, somethings will need to be dealt with as it happens and maybe house rules will have to be made
I will be playing my original questions as follows
If a Sidearm has Rapid Fire you can use Rapid Fire in Close Combat
If you have more than one bullet on the Firepower Dice, you can allocate addition rapid fire bullets to eligible targets (those who are also engaged, within 3" (not outside of engagement) and in the vision arc)
This rule will also be allowed in reaction attacks and reaction attacks from retreating
Stray shots, are not a thing in close combat and stray shots at range are only one shot, not the result of the fire power dice
So how have I got to this
Stray shots are actually in the rule book so that is pretty straight forward
The rest of the rules, to be honest, there is nothing that states you can not do this but rather using the rules as written
The replies that I have gotten have been very helpful but very clear that there are no rules to back up peoples understanding of them, rather more to do with how the rules are interpreted and how people feel these should be played
Once again thank you for all you input, very much appreciated
The more you start to question things, the more the game breaks apart in my experience. The rules simply aren't written robust enough. There are different categories to this, where some are more debatable.
For the purpose of spreading rapid fire shots in close combat, I am absolutely certain that's not RAI and most likely not RAW. It is a very original idea I haven't seen discussed by anyone else. IMO it just complicates things further. But you are of course free to house rule it how you wish.
If you read between the lines it's clearly about shooting attacks, not close combat. This is in the limitation, "not harder to hit", how does that work in close combat? It is clearly referencing cover modifiers. And further, the example "if in the open", not relevant for close combat.
Last edited:
This is the first time I've gotten this impression from you and narrows it down to what we're talking about. Now that any confusion of 'Stray Shots' and assigning hits beyond Engagement range are off the table, we can now look at some examples.
This statement largely depends on how you're resolving the attacks on different models and the attacking model only has 1 Autopistol. I run dual Autopistols on mine so I don't see things the way you might.
The attacking model has a +S melee weapon and an autopistol with 1A on his profile. When charging, he has a total of 3 attacks to assign (1 Base, 1 for Charging, 1 for having dual weapons). The autopistol gets it's 1 attack die, and the melee weapon gets the other 2. If he didn't charge, then each weapon would get 1 Attack die assigned to them following the 'Split as evenly as possible' rule.
When dealing with Rapid Fire, it doesn't matter where he assigns it, since it's going to generate the additional hits when he actually rolls. We pick the first target and roll off of WS. Now that we know 'Stray Shots' is off the table, if a miss happens then you only need to check the ammo dice to see if the ammo might run out. If it is a hit, then we check the ammo dice for possible Rapid fire hits. If it's more than 1, then the 2nd/3rd can be assigned to the other model.
A) I believe that it's played where the hits are resolved before moving on to the next model. Unless the attacking model has an Autopistol, there would be no reason NOT to and the outcome is unaffected since all of the attacks have been assigned at this stage. For Simplicity AND Tactical reasons, it would be wise to resolve ALL of the Rapid Fire hits against the target assigned to reduce the Reaction attacks. This might be the cause of confusion on my end, because this is how I play it. Can't speak for the others, but if I had to guess, I'd go with this way as well.
B) Following all the steps in order in the book, players SHOULD be pausing here before resolving any of those hits. This might be a good habit to get into going forward. The attack rolls, if any, are then made for the second model, determining any hits. After all hits on both models have been determined we move on to resolving them. Rapid Fire kicks in here, and the additional hits get assigned before moving on. If the autopistol hits on the first model and generates 2+ Rapid hits, they'd have to be assigned at this stage.
If the Autopistol was assigned to the first model any Rapid Fire hits should be assigned to the second model before rolling for any attacks assigned to the second model. The first 'abuse' is getting to see the results of the other attacks BEFORE assigning the Rapid Fire dice, especially if all of the attacks were assigned to the first model. You're already going to know if the melee attacks and single pistol attack are going to hit, but have this stray Rapid Fire hit which you're then assigning to the second model a hit that may or may not be needed because you haven't seen the result on the seconds attacks. If all the attacks were assigned to the one model, then waiting to see if you have a spare left over to hit a model not assigned ANY attacks, while not necessarily illegal, creates a 'Gotcha' moment. Since Rapid Fire hits are chosen, relying on it to spread attacks to 2 models while focusing on the one is counter-intuitive.
The second 'abuse' happens when you assign the Autopistol to the second model. You're already AWARE of any hits, if any, that have hit the first model. Should the second model be hit and you generate 2+ Rapid Fire hits, you're using that to make up for the fail to hit on the first model. An advantage you have because you've seen the result of an attack that should be happening simultaneously. Again, since the Rapid Fire hits are chosen, then assigning them to a different model in melee after the fact is counter-intuitive.
If the Autopistol is the ONLY thing to hit, the potential is there to assign more hits to the other model after the assigned attack has receive his one. Tactically there is ZERO reason to do that, just noting that the potential is there. Arguing that this is allowed from a narrative standpoint is a face-palm moment asking why assign attacks to the off model in the first place.
The third potential 'abuse' is rolling to hit on both models before assigning any of the Rapid Fire hits. I doubt this would actually be done by any decent player, but choosing to do this would be an intentional work around of the Rapid Fire rule. Especially when you get into dual Autopistols.
The last 'abuse' isn't really an abuse, but more of a 'Wait until you see THIS' situation. When a model has a higher WS than his BS, (or acquires it through advancements), he becomes better with autopistols in Combat than actually trying to shoot them. Outside of 1" and he's one step away from qualifying as a stormtrooper. 1" closer and suddenly he's in the Matrix. After learning how autopistols work in Combat, I've been tempted to run a Nacht-Ghul with dual Autopistols to create a Grammaton cleric. His 2+ WS with no penalty for firing both in melee should generate quite a few hits.
-----
ALL of this seems like it's too much work to spread the odd S3 hit (haven't seen any way to boost it), when you're already taking a -1 to hit for having the 2nd defender eligible to take the Rapid Fire hits, on the chance that it MIGHT remove a second Reaction attack isn't the greatest use. Since we're trying to find the rule to use, this provides an opportunity to have that 'Fortune Favors the Bold' moment.
House Rule Suggestions:
A) Do what most of us suggest, both from a Rules, Tactical, and Narrative point of view and limit the Rapid Fire hits to the model that was assigned the Autopistol attack die. There are no rules to bend, and accommodations aren't needed to be made to resolve how Rapid Fire hits are used in Combat. This will make the game flow smoother and makes it more likely that people will play against you. (and keep the friends you have)
B) If you still want the ability to spread Rapid Fire attacks to that 2nd model, then I'd recommend that you house rule the Autopistol attack be against it's target first. This will minimize any perceived abuses if the above statements are taken into account . The only accommodation needed would be for dual Auto pistols, which could still create all of the issues above.
This was my original question
2) If you had more than one bullet, would you be able to declare extra hits on other models also engaged in close combat?
If it was duel auto pistols, I would make the player attacking make all hit rolls first, allocate all rapid fire shots, then do all the wound rolls,
My point is the use of the word "single" in the Side Arm trait. The trait description does not need it.
If it says "An attack" then it it would act as normal but it says "Single" as in Singular.
I don't think GW meant to write it like that however but since the games reinception they have not ever removed that word lack of editing on thier part.
Also there are many Traits that weapons have that have no bearing on a attack. If you are caught in a Radphage effect for example you fully resolve the hit then apply the trait. THe same applies for Blaze. Just having a trait does not mean it applies to an attack although many do (Yay GW consistancy...).
I am not saying you are not right RAI (Rules As Intended) but because they wrote the word "single" RAW (Rules as written) the Sidearm trait does not allow it.
If it says "An attack" then it it would act as normal but it says "Single" as in Singular.
I don't think GW meant to write it like that however but since the games reinception they have not ever removed that word lack of editing on thier part.
Also there are many Traits that weapons have that have no bearing on a attack. If you are caught in a Radphage effect for example you fully resolve the hit then apply the trait. THe same applies for Blaze. Just having a trait does not mean it applies to an attack although many do (Yay GW consistancy...).
I am not saying you are not right RAI (Rules As Intended) but because they wrote the word "single" RAW (Rules as written) the Sidearm trait does not allow it.
Then you tied in Stray Shots. Once that got cleared off the table it still wasn't clear what you were trying to accomplish. No worries.
This goes back to what I said before. You're wanting to use Rapid Fire to split the HITS adding in a loop following them like a shooting attack. You're looking for a reason that prevents them from working that way.
Shooting
Each weapon makes a SINGLE roll to hit as part of a Shoot(B) action. Rapid Fire can potentially allow you to automatically hit additional targets if you hit the first.
You want to convince us that this process remains when using Autopistols in Combat.
Close Combat
- Unlike shooting where you only have the 1 attack per action, a single Fight(B) can generate more than one attack.
- Assign your attack dice pool to the weapons, limit 1 if it's a Sidearm, then assign those dice to opposing fighters before rolling attacks.
This is where we differ. When we use an autopistol attack, we've already committed the attack to the specific model. When you get to an autopistol attack, you're still treating it as a mini-shooting attack which you want to use to assign any additional Rapid Fire hits to the other model where the attacks weren't committed. Makes sense as long as you treat the Fight(B) Sidearm attack as if was still a shooting attack.
For that logic to make sense I need to questions. Going back to shooting into combat we follow a slightly different process.
Determine the target. There are 3 models engaged (1 Enemy, 2 Friendly). You roll to hit and the Ammo Die. You MISS, but you manage to generate 2 or 3 hits from Rapid Fire. The 'Stray Shots' rule instructs us to roll for the next model closest to the firing model (friend or foe).
A1) If the initial hit misses, do all the Rapid Fire hits generated also miss and allow the Stray Shots rule to potentially affect one model with one hit? (RaW)
A2) If the initial hit succeeds, how do you determine who gets hit by the Rapid Fire rule?
B) If the Stray Shot hits, do you House Rule it and trigger the Rapid Fire rule off of any hit, then select where the additional hits go?
C) Do you House Rule it to where that 2nd model takes one of the Rapid Fire hits and the 3rd model rolls for a Stray shot on the next Rapid Fire hit?
D) Do you House Rule it to where that 2nd model makes a Stray Shot roll for each Rapid Fire attack, removing 1 from the Rapid Fire pool for each Stray Shot before moving on to see if the 3rd model in the combat determines if the last Rapid Fire hit Stray Shots to him or not?
E) Not that there would be a situation that you'd need to, but how would you resolve the Rapid Fire shot if it was 2 Friendly models and 1 Enemy model?
The potential problems still exist in the Shooting phase when resolving Engaged models and Rapid Fire. You've targeted the original model with the lone assigned shooting attack die, just like using a pistol in combat. If you hit the initial target, then nothing in the Stray Shots rule prevents you from also assigning the second (or 3rd hit) to the model you didn't even target while avoiding your own. If you play option B, there is nothing in the Stray Shots rule preventing you from assigning one of those hits BACK to the original model that you missed. You can't be pinned in combat, so spreading the hits in both situations is purely hoping to score an actual injury. Not illegal, but it comes across as abusing the Rapid Fire Rule to get around the Stray Shots rule, much like using the Rapid Fire rule to get around assigned attack dice in Combat, and optimize the chances of getting the most injury rolls.
This changes affects the outcome in Combat even further that, while not illegal, puts a bad taste in everyones mouth. With Dual Autopistols, you're eliminating the need to EVER split the attack dice against the different targets. Simply roll, then take all the hits, Rapid Fire and Unarmed, then split them evenly between both models. You want to House Rule it so that statistically, this will give you the best chance at taking down both targets every time. Limiting Rapid Fire hits to their assigned attack die eliminates this manipulation.
Late to the party.
The rule as written is sufficiently ambiguous (thanks GW!).
However, the rule as intended I think it is pretty clear that close combat attacks need to be assigned to single targets.
In my opinion, dividing rapid fire hits/stray shots was intended to be for shooting attacks, not close combat. (Rapid fire is strong enough already, it doesn't need help being stronger).
That said people are free to play it however they want
.
The rule as written is sufficiently ambiguous (thanks GW!).
However, the rule as intended I think it is pretty clear that close combat attacks need to be assigned to single targets.
In my opinion, dividing rapid fire hits/stray shots was intended to be for shooting attacks, not close combat. (Rapid fire is strong enough already, it doesn't need help being stronger).
That said people are free to play it however they want
.Guys the Xenarch Death-Arc is a close combat weapon and has Rapid Fire. Saying that the RF trait and all that comes with the RF trait only applies to shooting is just your own interpretation of the rules.
It's ok that you make it a house rule. It is a rare instance of the rule that doesn't come up very often, but RF is a trait that triggers when the weapon is used, plain and simple. Nothing limits it to just Shooting. Reading between the lines is just interpreting the rules. It's ok to make it a house rule that extra RF shots can't be allocated to other enemies, but rules as written, you can. The rules are muddy, but they are there. The more you start reading between the lines on them, the more they start to break down.
It's ok that you make it a house rule. It is a rare instance of the rule that doesn't come up very often, but RF is a trait that triggers when the weapon is used, plain and simple. Nothing limits it to just Shooting. Reading between the lines is just interpreting the rules. It's ok to make it a house rule that extra RF shots can't be allocated to other enemies, but rules as written, you can. The rules are muddy, but they are there. The more you start reading between the lines on them, the more they start to break down.
No one is saying that it is limited to shooting attacks. There is nothing stopping Rapid Fire from being used in Combat.
The question is HOW to apply Rapid Fire in combat.
One group treats it just like a shooting attack allowing to you to assign hits after assigning the attack, just like shooting.
The other group is restricting all of the Rapid Fire Hits to the model that the attack was assigned to, because unlike shooting, you have more than one attack to account for.
Both are valid arguments. Treating them as shooting attacks gets around the point of assigning attack dice. If this were true, then we should be seeing more autopistols on lists and used in games.
All we've suggested is that he House Rule it to allow Rapid Fire to redistribute the hits and let us know. I even gave my predictions of what he'd see. Allowing it opens up the rule to be exploited. If he's fine with that, then no issue.
Last edited:
Just for my points. Mine was based on the Sidearm trait wording not Rapid fire. And the annoying constant inclusion of the word "single"
That's the thing, it sounds like you're saying that part of Rapid Fire is limited to shooting attacks which it is not. The part about allocating multiple hits from Rapid Fire is just part of the Rapid Fire trait. As the rules are written, any weapon with the Rapid Fire trait gets to use all of the Rapid Fire trait when it is triggered. To say that part of Rapid Fire doesn't trigger because you are in close combat is making a house rule.
I don't understand the "unlike shooting you have more than one attack to account for" part because you can use Twin Guns blazing with two autopistols and have 2 attacks to count for with ranged or Fast Shot.
My issue is not that you're house ruling Rapid Fire. It's perfectly fine to alter the rules to say you can't allocate more shots in close combat, but that's not rules as written.
I don't think anyone is saying RF doesn't apply to close combat?
That's an oversimplification. RAI clearly goes the other way.
Here's the thing with rapid fire.
To allocate the extra shots outside the intended target, they need to be no harder to hit than your actual target.
Since we're in close combat we used weapon skill.
Therefore, anything outside of engaged isn't an eligible target. i.e. weapon skill attacks cannot hit them.
That said I'll reiterate my opinion that the rule as intended for close combat is to have all the shots hit the model you've targeted with the attack.
Want to hit a different model? Allocate the attack at that model.
To allocate the extra shots outside the intended target, they need to be no harder to hit than your actual target.
Since we're in close combat we used weapon skill.
Therefore, anything outside of engaged isn't an eligible target. i.e. weapon skill attacks cannot hit them.
That said I'll reiterate my opinion that the rule as intended for close combat is to have all the shots hit the model you've targeted with the attack.
Want to hit a different model? Allocate the attack at that model.
I believe we've covered all the bases at this point and the horse is dead. It shouldn't come up that often because the Rapid Fire rule can't be abused to hit a harder target, and I it would be rarer still to choose to hit the harder target specifically to spread Rapid Fire hits.
I simply don't like it because of the potential to get around other mechanics that might modify the hit roll, or affect the outcome. Even when conditions are ideal, 'Parry' would probably be the most common rule that Rapid Fire would get around. Say you're up against 2 models and one, or even both can 'Parry'. You can allocate the attack dice to the one w/o 'Parry' and he can't use parry to force the re-roll, and will still take hits from Rapid Fire. If both have 'Parry' then you'd still assign both Autopistols to the same dude, so only 1 successful hit will be re-rolled and direct any Rapid Fire hits to the original model anyways. Sure, it's RaW, but I find it difficult to believe this is the intent.
'Step Aside' is a skill that would need to be House ruled going strictly off the RaW. Unlike 'Parry' which can be provided by the weapon, it would be even more unlikely that the model with this skill would also be involved in a multiple combat, meet the conditions to take a Rapid Fire hit before it would even trigger.
These are just two examples I found that Rapid Fire in Combat causes problems, so there are probably more. Rule it how ever you want though. Personally, I'm going to stick with the Rapid Fire hits must be assigned to the same model for the simple fact that we don't see more Autopistols on lists especially Combat focused ones.
I simply don't like it because of the potential to get around other mechanics that might modify the hit roll, or affect the outcome. Even when conditions are ideal, 'Parry' would probably be the most common rule that Rapid Fire would get around. Say you're up against 2 models and one, or even both can 'Parry'. You can allocate the attack dice to the one w/o 'Parry' and he can't use parry to force the re-roll, and will still take hits from Rapid Fire. If both have 'Parry' then you'd still assign both Autopistols to the same dude, so only 1 successful hit will be re-rolled and direct any Rapid Fire hits to the original model anyways. Sure, it's RaW, but I find it difficult to believe this is the intent.
'Step Aside' is a skill that would need to be House ruled going strictly off the RaW. Unlike 'Parry' which can be provided by the weapon, it would be even more unlikely that the model with this skill would also be involved in a multiple combat, meet the conditions to take a Rapid Fire hit before it would even trigger.
These are just two examples I found that Rapid Fire in Combat causes problems, so there are probably more. Rule it how ever you want though. Personally, I'm going to stick with the Rapid Fire hits must be assigned to the same model for the simple fact that we don't see more Autopistols on lists especially Combat focused ones.
Sorry if I have read this wrong...
Surely making a house ruling because of something you don't want isn't the right reason to make that ruling! (again sorry if I have misunderstood)
One thing that I always do with Necromunda is look at it in as close to real world situations as possible,
When I discus this with my group I will be looking at it from all angels, how skilled a fighter could be with that gun, how the gun would fire!
Just looking how a gun works would be a deciding factor for me, is it rapid fire because of how fast the gun fires, three bullets as burst fire (that would make me lean towards all hits on one target)
Or is it just how fast someone can pull the trigger and their own skill in using the gun (this would lean more towards the ability to assign shots to other models)
At the end of the day the rules are not clear, I think in a game like Necromunda to have every possible outcome covered would make the rules twice as big as they are, and lets face it, in this edition of the game the rules are a mess
Grey areas need to be discussed (as we have all been doing) within the group, cases made for why a rule would work either way and then a agreement on which way fits
If that doesn't work, either the Arbiter needs to make a ruling or just simply roll a dice to decide until such time the rules are made clearer
When I discus this with my group I will be looking at it from all angels, how skilled a fighter could be with that gun, how the gun would fire!
Just looking how a gun works would be a deciding factor for me, is it rapid fire because of how fast the gun fires, three bullets as burst fire (that would make me lean towards all hits on one target)
Or is it just how fast someone can pull the trigger and their own skill in using the gun (this would lean more towards the ability to assign shots to other models)
At the end of the day the rules are not clear, I think in a game like Necromunda to have every possible outcome covered would make the rules twice as big as they are, and lets face it, in this edition of the game the rules are a mess
Grey areas need to be discussed (as we have all been doing) within the group, cases made for why a rule would work either way and then a agreement on which way fits
If that doesn't work, either the Arbiter needs to make a ruling or just simply roll a dice to decide until such time the rules are made clearer
[/QUOTE]
In both Shooting and Combat, distributing Rapid Fire Hits is a choice.
Unlike other GW games, the targets are often multiple model units, so you can roll to hit for each individual shot. Necromunda simulates this differently using the Rapid Fire (albeit, not the best method) and Reckless rules. The conditions required to expand Rapid Fire hits are similar to the coherency rules in the bigger games. This allows Necromunda to simulate a shooting attack at a multimodel *unit* with different profiles.
When following the structure of how it works in Shooting, you narrow down your target to a single model. Similar to Blast/Template weapons, you're going to CHOOSE a target that meets the conditions to use Rapid Fire before you even roll the die. The only random element is the number of hits, but even after that, you still get to dictate where those hits go.
Combat changes that first element of shooting. Unlike shooting where, Rapid Fire, Gunfighter, or multiple Shoot(X) actions are needed to simulate multiple models. Assigning attack dice is how Split Fire works in combat because the conditions for treating enemy models as a single unit no longer apply. With rare exceptions, its still the result of a players choice to be in that situation.
Combat now allows the individual atttacks like they should in shooting, and governs the choices available to the player. Similar to the bigger games, combat now closer reflects a single *unit* being involved in a multi unit combat.
It's here that players still choose where they want their attacks to go. Like the bigger games, once an attack has been assigned to a unit, any effects of that attack shouldn't be allowed to spill over to the other unit. Which to me, and it looks like I'm not the only one, is both the intent and the RaW.
I can only speak for myself, but this is probably why we see it as House Rule to allow Rapid Fire to spill over to what should be treated as a separate *unit*, AFTER you've already assigned all of the attacks (and it's effects). All of the other effects that you mentioned, like Toxic, are limited to the assigned attacks, and nothing in the Rapid Fire rules makes it exempt from that.
NOTE: If you're looking for an example of wording needed to be present, look at Reckless.
This is exactly what we see you trying to convince us of. You're House Ruling Rapid Fire to apply differently in Combat like it functions in Shooting because it's what you want, and not necessarily what it is.
In both Shooting and Combat, distributing Rapid Fire Hits is a choice.
Unlike other GW games, the targets are often multiple model units, so you can roll to hit for each individual shot. Necromunda simulates this differently using the Rapid Fire (albeit, not the best method) and Reckless rules. The conditions required to expand Rapid Fire hits are similar to the coherency rules in the bigger games. This allows Necromunda to simulate a shooting attack at a multimodel *unit* with different profiles.
When following the structure of how it works in Shooting, you narrow down your target to a single model. Similar to Blast/Template weapons, you're going to CHOOSE a target that meets the conditions to use Rapid Fire before you even roll the die. The only random element is the number of hits, but even after that, you still get to dictate where those hits go.
Combat changes that first element of shooting. Unlike shooting where, Rapid Fire, Gunfighter, or multiple Shoot(X) actions are needed to simulate multiple models. Assigning attack dice is how Split Fire works in combat because the conditions for treating enemy models as a single unit no longer apply. With rare exceptions, its still the result of a players choice to be in that situation.
Combat now allows the individual atttacks like they should in shooting, and governs the choices available to the player. Similar to the bigger games, combat now closer reflects a single *unit* being involved in a multi unit combat.
It's here that players still choose where they want their attacks to go. Like the bigger games, once an attack has been assigned to a unit, any effects of that attack shouldn't be allowed to spill over to the other unit. Which to me, and it looks like I'm not the only one, is both the intent and the RaW.
I can only speak for myself, but this is probably why we see it as House Rule to allow Rapid Fire to spill over to what should be treated as a separate *unit*, AFTER you've already assigned all of the attacks (and it's effects). All of the other effects that you mentioned, like Toxic, are limited to the assigned attacks, and nothing in the Rapid Fire rules makes it exempt from that.
NOTE: If you're looking for an example of wording needed to be present, look at Reckless.
This is exactly what we see you trying to convince us of. You're House Ruling Rapid Fire to apply differently in Combat like it functions in Shooting because it's what you want, and not necessarily what it is.
In both Shooting and Combat, distributing Rapid Fire Hits is a choice.
Unlike other GW games, the targets are often multiple model units, so you can roll to hit for each individual shot. Necromunda simulates this differently using the Rapid Fire (albeit, not the best method) and Reckless rules. The conditions required to expand Rapid Fire hits are similar to the coherency rules in the bigger games. This allows Necromunda to simulate a shooting attack at a multimodel *unit* with different profiles.
When following the structure of how it works in Shooting, you narrow down your target to a single model. Similar to Blast/Template weapons, you're going to CHOOSE a target that meets the conditions to use Rapid Fire before you even roll the die. The only random element is the number of hits, but even after that, you still get to dictate where those hits go.
Combat changes that first element of shooting. Unlike shooting where, Rapid Fire, Gunfighter, or multiple Shoot(X) actions are needed to simulate multiple models. Assigning attack dice is how Split Fire works in combat because the conditions for treating enemy models as a single unit no longer apply. With rare exceptions, its still the result of a players choice to be in that situation.
Combat now allows the individual atttacks like they should in shooting, and governs the choices available to the player. Similar to the bigger games, combat now closer reflects a single *unit* being involved in a multi unit combat.
It's here that players still choose where they want their attacks to go. Like the bigger games, once an attack has been assigned to a unit, any effects of that attack shouldn't be allowed to spill over to the other unit. Which to me, and it looks like I'm not the only one, is both the intent and the RaW.
I can only speak for myself, but this is probably why we see it as House Rule to allow Rapid Fire to spill over to what should be treated as a separate *unit*, AFTER you've already assigned all of the attacks (and it's effects). All of the other effects that you mentioned, like Toxic, are limited to the assigned attacks, and nothing in the Rapid Fire rules makes it exempt from that.
NOTE: If you're looking for an example of wording needed to be present, look at Reckless.
[/QUOTE]
So I feel you really haven't read or understood my position on this at all...
Its not about what I want, I am the Arbiter of the campaign, at this stage in the campaign I am only there to help new players learn the game and in fact, I don't have a gang myself and if I did have my gang playing, they would even had Auto Pistols for the First Phase of the Campaign
These questions were brought up in our last game and the rules are as clear as mud and completely down to individual perception of the rules and how each person reads it and their own interpretation of the rules!
My replies to other peoples post have been about challenging the whole concept of individual perception vs RAW
The simple answer to my original question, show me a rule that says you can only split Rapid Fire shots in shooting and not close combat, there isn't a rule stating it, it is down to how people are reading the rules and yes there are some that say no, but there are some that say yes
It can be read and cases can be made for either way (see all the posts above), I can see how both ways can be applied as RAW
Because I can not see a clear rule I will take this to the group, explain the RAW and put a level of real world situations and common sense to explain both sides of the argument and see if we can come to an understanding and agreement on how it is played
This forum has been a great source for both sides of the argument and how people view both sides of the rules which I can also bring to the group on other peoples understanding of it
A point of note, having a split of players who can field Auto Pistols from the start vs the same number of players that can't, I know my group will look at the rules objectively and not based on what best for there gang...or what they want!!!
In both Shooting and Combat, distributing Rapid Fire Hits is a choice.
Unlike other GW games, the targets are often multiple model units, so you can roll to hit for each individual shot. Necromunda simulates this differently using the Rapid Fire (albeit, not the best method) and Reckless rules. The conditions required to expand Rapid Fire hits are similar to the coherency rules in the bigger games. This allows Necromunda to simulate a shooting attack at a multimodel *unit* with different profiles.
When following the structure of how it works in Shooting, you narrow down your target to a single model. Similar to Blast/Template weapons, you're going to CHOOSE a target that meets the conditions to use Rapid Fire before you even roll the die. The only random element is the number of hits, but even after that, you still get to dictate where those hits go.
Combat changes that first element of shooting. Unlike shooting where, Rapid Fire, Gunfighter, or multiple Shoot(X) actions are needed to simulate multiple models. Assigning attack dice is how Split Fire works in combat because the conditions for treating enemy models as a single unit no longer apply. With rare exceptions, its still the result of a players choice to be in that situation.
Combat now allows the individual atttacks like they should in shooting, and governs the choices available to the player. Similar to the bigger games, combat now closer reflects a single *unit* being involved in a multi unit combat.
It's here that players still choose where they want their attacks to go. Like the bigger games, once an attack has been assigned to a unit, any effects of that attack shouldn't be allowed to spill over to the other unit. Which to me, and it looks like I'm not the only one, is both the intent and the RaW.
I can only speak for myself, but this is probably why we see it as House Rule to allow Rapid Fire to spill over to what should be treated as a separate *unit*, AFTER you've already assigned all of the attacks (and it's effects). All of the other effects that you mentioned, like Toxic, are limited to the assigned attacks, and nothing in the Rapid Fire rules makes it exempt from that.
NOTE: If you're looking for an example of wording needed to be present, look at Reckless.
[/QUOTE]
So I feel you really haven't read or understood my position on this at all...
Its not about what I want, I am the Arbiter of the campaign, at this stage in the campaign I am only there to help new players learn the game and in fact, I don't have a gang myself and if I did have my gang playing, they would even had Auto Pistols for the First Phase of the Campaign
These questions were brought up in our last game and the rules are as clear as mud and completely down to individual perception of the rules and how each person reads it and their own interpretation of the rules!
My replies to other peoples post have been about challenging the whole concept of individual perception vs RAW
The simple answer to my original question, show me a rule that says you can only split Rapid Fire shots in shooting and not close combat, there isn't a rule stating it, it is down to how people are reading the rules and yes there are some that say no, but there are some that say yes
It can be read and cases can be made for either way (see all the posts above), I can see how both ways can be applied as RAW
Because I can not see a clear rule I will take this to the group, explain the RAW and put a level of real world situations and common sense to explain both sides of the argument and see if we can come to an understanding and agreement on how it is played
This forum has been a great source for both sides of the argument and how people view both sides of the rules which I can also bring to the group on other peoples understanding of it
A point of note, having a split of players who can field Auto Pistols from the start vs the same number of players that can't, I know my group will look at the rules objectively and not based on what best for there gang...or what they want!!!
Similar threads
