Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.


am i reading this right? if only 5 models in a 20 man squad are within range of my guns i can't harm the rest of the squad like i've always been to? is that right?

I think so, that is how it sounds. No longer can you measure to be just in range of the first bloke and then let rip on his mates.

So..... flamers suck now?

How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

I'll take a stab at this. With blast it'll be place the marker in range, roll for scatter, determine how many hits have been done, roll to wound and then start removing models that are in range and LOS until you run out of models in range or wounds to take.

I may of course be completely wrong here.
*EDIT* Ignore me, LThanatos has the rule below.

This entry is only making reference to "rolling to hit" so blasts and templates are excluded from this restriction.

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Blast special rule:

Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasdng through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hitand wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)

What about units with mixed weapons? For example a tactical squad with 24" bolters and a 48" missile launcher: can the bolters suddenly cause wounds outside their 24" range (as long as there is at least one model within 24") because of the range of the missile launcher? Doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rule.

this Faq that is actually and errata is going to take a lot more F.a.q (cough cough) to fix it. I'm sure there are a lot more questions to come. this is fantastic.

jayjester wrote:So..... flamers suck now?

Not necessarily. You just need at least one shooting model that has a further range

Redemption wrote:What about units with mixed weapons? For example a tactical squad with 24" bolters and a 48" missile launcher: can the bolters suddenly cause wounds outside their 24" range (as long as there is at least one model within 24") because of the range of the missile launcher? Doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rule.

That's how I read it. Against the spirit? I'd argue that this whole answer goes against the spirit of the rule as it is written in the book. But I suppose it does prevent some silly situations, like flamers being able to wipe out a horde of troops stretching 24" or more, when the flamers are all concentrated on one flank...

Thats the key. Heavy weapons just got more important, as they generally provide better range. As long as one weapon is in range, wounds can be allocated to everything in the unit. Doesnt matter that only 1 krak missile wound is actually in range all those bolters can wound as well.

So if I understand this correctly. If I have a squad of 5 Chosen, four armed with flamers and the Chosen Champ with base equipment and I fire into a mob of Orks I can wound all the Ork within range of the Chosen's Bolt Pistol(We'll say Bolt Pistol though he has a Bolter also) or all models within 12 inches of him.

But if the Chosen Champ is dead I can only wound models which are in range of any of the Flamer templates. This sounds right but I of course might be wrong again.

If models in the unit you're firing at are out of range of the model that's firing, they cannot be hit by it and therefore cannot be wounded via the wound pool.

To expand on your example, if only 5 of the 20 are in range of your bolters, then you're rolling to hit and wound 5, not 20, because the weapon you're firing cannot reach past its maximum range. Blasts are the exception to the rule because the scatter can legally take the shot beyond its maximum range.

It also works in reverse - If the 5 men at the front of your squad can just about reach the 5 men at the front of your opponent's squad, then only those 5 can fire, the rest of your unit is out of range of the enemy and would not fire.

Some say it's silly, but I would say since you're now allowed to pre-measure pretty much everything before you make a decision, just don't make stupid decisions! :-)

Looks like a pretty big change overall!

So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

Look Out Sir! allows you to protect your characters well enough anyway IMO. As for your non characters with your heavy weapons and such... beware the Vindicare and any character due to Precise Shots allowing the rolling player to allocate wounds to whichever model he wants!

Ouch, Trying to decide if this hurts or helps FireWarriors.

I was very happy about about avoiding an, IMO immensely "gamey" aspect of the game, namely LOS-sniping and range-sniping.

I am kinda worried that we are moving back in that direction.

How does this interact with Look Out, Sir? Can I allocate the hit to the nearest model if said model is out of range?

I don't get the range-sniping argument. How exactly would one take advantage of not being able to hurt something that's out of range?

Enceladus wrote:
beware the Vindicare and any character due to Precise Shots allowing the rolling player to allocate wounds to whichever model he wants!

Any character? I think it's just the Vindi.

rigeld2 wrote:
So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

I'm not sure why you mention range sniping.

Your opponent already had to pull his models from the front first, you can't force him to pull them any more closer to the front by being out of range of half the unit...

I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

Our group has always had trouble with wound allocation from rapid fire as well. We just kind of fudge it so a FAQ on that would be helpful.

 Redemption wrote:
I don't get the range-sniping argument. How exactly would one take advantage of not being able to hurt something that's out of range?

By making sure only the sergeant is in range. Then only the sergeant will die.
But if the sergeant is all you want dead, then that;s a win.

Remember, wounds from different ap weapons form SEPARATE wound pools.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

Per the FAQ, all that matters are the models in the unit being shot at that are completely out of range of all firing weapons when 'to hit' rolls were made.

So yes, you always use the longest range of any weapon being fired to determine what models are 'in range' and therefore viable to be pulled.


And to someone else's question about Look Out Sir...as far as I know Look out Sir has always been able to chuck wounds onto models in the unit that are out of line of sight, range, etc, so this is no change (so long as that model is of course the closest to the character using LoS).

 Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

I'm not sure why you mention range sniping.

Your opponent already had to pull his models from the front first, you can't force him to pull them any more closer to the front by being out of range of half the unit...

I guess that's true...


On another note - Blessings can be used the turn you arrive from Reserves.
Iron Arm Doom just got significantly deadlier.

 lunarman wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
I don't get the range-sniping argument. How exactly would one take advantage of not being able to hurt something that's out of range?

By making sure only the sergeant is in range. Then only the sergeant will die.
But if the sergeant is all you want dead, then that;s a win.

Yes but as it stood pre-faq and even now if the sergeant is the model you want dead and is the closest model all of the attacks must go through him first anyway.
The FAQ didn't stop you using LOS! to kick all those wounds back to some mooks.

 Briancj wrote:
Remember, wounds from different ap weapons form SEPARATE wound pools.

That is incorrect. They form different groups within the pool.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

It actually says "not within range [of] any of the shooting models". If a model with a longer range weapon is shooting, then more target models will fill that requirement.

It's a bit of a messy ruling.

As has been said already, there is no range sniping in 6th. That's 4E mentality. That sergeant would be dead if you just placed your unit for him to be the closest model. And after he dies you allocate wounds to the rest of his unit.

Yes, that does seem an odd change to make. Almost makes you wonder if they understood they have essenitally errata'd Out of Range, as this is not a FAQ but a literal change to the rules.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

It actually says "not within range [of] any of the shooting models". If a model with a longer range weapon is shooting, then more target models will fill that requirement.

It's a bit of a messy ruling.

I agree its a terrible ruling because it goes against what the rulebook actually says and on top of that makes the situation even more confusing IMHO. It also adds a further 'gamey' feel in that you want to have one long ranged weapon in the unit just to allow you to max your casualty range out.

 yakface wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

Per the FAQ, all that matters are the models in the unit being shot at that are completely out of range of all firing weapons when 'to hit' rolls were made.

That's not what it says. It may be the reading we are meant to take but shooting model is different to models that have shot since we use a sequential method of using up the wound pools wound types.

When making a Shooting attackagainst a unit, can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)? (p15)

It says the shooting models.
Here is an example I have 12 chaos marines, 6 have plasma pistols and 6 have bolters. When I am emptying the wounds from the plasma pistols who are the shooting models? In my mind that is the pistols, when the nearest model is more than 12" from any of the plasma pistol marines the rest of the plasma wounds get tossed. Next we go through the bolter rounds, these can keep going until 24".

Except it says from *any* of the shooting models.

WOund pools can also contain very different range weaponry in them - a plasma pistol and plasma cannon will both populate the same pool, for example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it says from *any* of the shooting models.

WOund pools can also contain very different range weaponry in them - a plasma pistol and plasma cannon will both populate the same pool, for example.

Actually all wounds occupy the same pool and are grouped by strength and Ap.
This wouldn't be the first faq that makes things more complicated.

yakface wrote:I agree its a terrible ruling because it goes against what the rulebook actually says and on top of that makes the situation even more confusing IMHO. It also adds a further 'gamey' feel in that you want to have one long ranged weapon in the unit just to allow you to max your casualty range out.

Thankfully, GW has provided an email address for FAQ issues, so if they get a few emails from people about it then it may well change in the future:

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

I encourage anyone who has an issue with this or any other question to email them about it.

liturgies of blood wrote:

When making a Shooting attackagainst a unit, can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)? (p15)

It says the shooting models.
Here is an example I have 12 chaos marines, 6 have plasma pistols and 6 have bolters. When I am emptying the wounds from the plasma pistols who are the shooting models? In my mind that is the pistols, when the nearest model is more than 12" from any of the plasma pistol marines the rest of the plasma wounds get tossed. Next we go through the bolter rounds, these can keep going until 24".

The problem is the word any. The ruling does not restrict itself to "any models within the same group of weapons within that wound pool"; it literally just says any of the shooting models. That heavy weapon trooper is a firing model within the unit, so satisfies the rule.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it says from *any* of the shooting models.

WOund pools can also contain very different range weaponry in them - a plasma pistol and plasma cannon will both populate the same pool, for example.

Actually all wounds occupy the same pool and are grouped by strength and Ap.

The wound pool is all the wounds caused by a single round of shooting. Within that pool you will have groups of wounds with different APs.

All that matters is if models in the target unit are within range of ANY of the shooting models (models in the unit that shot).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

I'm not sure why you mention range sniping.

Your opponent already had to pull his models from the front first, you can't force him to pull them any more closer to the front by being out of range of half the unit...

I guess that's true...


On another note - Blessings can be used the turn you arrive from Reserves.
Iron Arm Doom just got significantly deadlier.

Really? how?

It says outflank and reserve rolls, so thats when rolling for a 3 plus to see if they come on, not the scatter dice or movement from reserve.

 yakface wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it says from *any* of the shooting models.

WOund pools can also contain very different range weaponry in them - a plasma pistol and plasma cannon will both populate the same pool, for example.

Actually all wounds occupy the same pool and are grouped by strength and Ap.

The wound pool is all the wounds caused by a single round of shooting. Within that pool you will have groups of wounds with different APs.

All that matters is if models in the target unit are within range of ANY of the shooting models (models in the unit that shot).

I disagree, it may be changed or clarified in the next round of faqs as this will create war. One guard blob with a rune priest with unlimited range living lightening can apply wounds all the way to the back of a mob of boys as the priest has the range.

I do think it is not RAI that a missile launcher maxes out your bolter range and that interpretation will be abused to no ends.

Why would it be "abused", when that was already the rule as per page 16?

All they have done is make you keep track of max range within a unit now, as opposed to the simpler "am I in range of the unit" test you needed to pass previously.

Seems an un-needed change, especially when it really should be an errata.

 yakface wrote:

 Briancj wrote:
Remember, wounds from different ap weapons form SEPARATE wound pools.

That is incorrect. They form different groups within the pool.

Just looked it up, ugh. I guess the key phrase, here, is:

"As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made..."

Bad FAQ. Bad. No cookie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why would it be "abused", when that was already the rule as per page 16?

All they have done is make you keep track of max range within a unit now, as opposed to the simpler "am I in range of the unit" test you needed to pass previously.

Seems an un-needed change, especially when it really should be an errata.

Because this faq is a bit of a game changer, page 16 doesn't matter any more this faq has re-written that paragraph. Previously you just had to be in range, now you have to remain in range.
Short range units will have to be closer to the enemy to deal the same kind of damage.

Yes, but that isnt "abuse" so much as you are just following the actual rule, not the FAQ answer.

I do hate it when they rule something the exact opposite to the clearly written rule, for no seeming reason. The prior system was a nice simple abstract, now we STILL have an abstract (as one 24" range weapon can make a unit of bolt pistols wound models 13" away) just a more complicated and ugly one.

It would make more sense, IMHO, to resolve wounds by range groups.

And we could look at rapid fire weapons in a different light. Instead of saying 2 shots up to half range OR 1 shot up to max range, say 1 shot up to half range AND 1 shot up to max range.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but that isnt "abuse" so much as you are just following the actual rule, not the FAQ answer.

I do hate it when they rule something the exact opposite to the clearly written rule, for no seeming reason. The prior system was a nice simple abstract, now we STILL have an abstract (as one 24" range weapon can make a unit of bolt pistols wound models 13" away) just a more complicated and ugly one.

Well it does make certain things look ridiculous. I can wound all the way to the end of a conga line of ork boys that crosses the board cos I have an attacked rune priest with living lightening in a blob of guard. You can't as you only have a rune priest with JOTWW.

 Redemption wrote:
I don't get the range-sniping argument. How exactly would one take advantage of not being able to hurt something that's out of range?

I didn't present the range-sniping argument as such. I worry about a general development.
I fully realize that with 6th editions rules for removing models range-sniping is not really a separate issue.

MarkyMark wrote:
Really? how?

It says outflank and reserve rolls, so thats when rolling for a 3 plus to see if they come on, not the scatter dice or movement from reserve.

Responded in the other thread.

I think the intent is to separate your ranges in the wound pool. Let the 5 bolters wound until models are out of range then switch to your missile. Basically just being smart about allocation.

It does seem rather strange, and a bit more than a simple abstraction of reality for the sake of the game.

Say I have a unit armed with a lot of Plasma Pistols.
The problem in this scenario is that ALL the Plasma Pistols can only reach/hit/wound/kill the closest model in the target unit because the target unit is placed in a triangular shape.

So I can only ever kill one model.

But here is the kicker! I forgot I had joined a IC to the unit.
That IC also have a Plasma Pistol, but crucially he is also armed with a Boltgun.

Assuming I haven't moved the Plasma Pistol-unit firing the Bolt Gun "extends" the range of the Plasma Pistols allowing me to wound lots of targets with my Plasma Pistols.

Seems a bit too much like GW just haven't thought the situation through



.

Half are in and half are not. Very clear.

Steel - -remember you can still fire at 24" after moving with a Bolter. CHange from 5th and previous.

Storm - then actually say that then. I dont think that is the intent at all - perssonally I dont think they actually intended this, they were just trying to answer the quewstions people who mix up subjectbject in the p16 rule have

 yakface wrote:

Looks like a pretty big change overall!

Yeah. No more magic bullets. Combine this with 6th edition's general prohibition of not being able to wound models that are not in LOS and it looks like we are returning to 3rd and 4th edition's ability to hide and protect models.

Well, no, the magic bullets are still ther, they need to be carried by a krak missile / heavy bolter / etc instead.

Yeah it's full of typos but it's clear. Any shooting models, not talking about weapons. Even if we were talking about weapons it would be done by AP not range since you can't split up the pool. The entire squad (that are in range of the unit) are shooting models. Yes this sucks for Burnaboys and hey they also nerfted flamers a little bit! well until you include a herald.

Side note about templates, it just says in range, not under the template so when measuring range it's pretty much an 8 inch radius (disregarding torrent)

This doesn't present any offensive advantages, only some defensive options.

copper.talos wrote:

Enceladus wrote:
beware the Vindicare and any character due to Precise Shots allowing the rolling player to allocate wounds to whichever model he wants!

Any character? I think it's just the Vindi.

Not true, i'm afraid. See the Precise Shots and Precise Strikes entry in the BRB. It states any character that rolls 6's to hit in either shooting or CC can allocate the wounds as he sees fit.

Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

I don't see how templates or blasts change from this. Considering it says when rolling to hit I don't think I ever rolled to hit with my flamers or blasts. Place them maybe, scatter them most definetly but never roll to hit. =p

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

fething slowed.
I assumed since it talks about the wound pool it was talking about shooters that hit.

Doom of Malan'Tai just got insane,
and maybe some cheesy psykers too

I feel like my FLGS is just gonna keep using the "old" rules until they clear this up a ton...this is pretty absurd...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

totally screws things up. re examining FAQ and need to nose a BRB to be sure this does not make 48" bolt pistols. I am assuming the pistols have to atleast be in range to start. If not things just got beyond weird.

barnowl wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

totally screws things up. re examining FAQ and need to nose a BRB to be sure this does not make 48" bolt pistols. I am assuming the pistols have to atleast be in range to start. If not things just got beyond weird.

No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

barnowl wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

totally screws things up. re examining FAQ and need to nose a BRB to be sure this does not make 48" bolt pistols. I am assuming the pistols have to atleast be in range to start. If not things just got beyond weird.

No. The FAQ does not override the need for a model to be in range and LOS of at least one enemy model in the target unit in order to fire his weapon (or in other words, a model whose weapon is not in range of at least one enemy is not allowed to roll to hit in the first place). So if a model is only armed with a bolt pistol and there are not any enemy models within 12", that model may not fire and may not roll to hit.

I don't understand the problem with flamers. The range of a flamer is Template, not 0".

 yakface wrote:


No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Blast templates remian unchanged given thier special rules, correct? So how will this affect a unit of flamers? Will they be only be able to affect the farthest models that the closest flamer can reach as measured by the flame template?

 wyomingfox wrote:

 yakface wrote:


No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Blast templates remian unchanged given thier special rules, correct? So how will this affect a unit of flamers? Will they be only be able to affect the farthest models that the closest flamer can reach as measured by the flame template?

When has it ever been otherwise? Any models fully or partially under the template are hit.

 wyomingfox wrote:

 yakface wrote:


No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Blast templates remian unchanged given thier special rules, correct? So how will this affect a unit of flamers? Will they be only be able to affect the farthest models that the closest flamer can reach as measured by the flame template?

Well, if the unit has another longer ranged weapon firing at the same time, then the whole issue is moot.

But yeah, for like a squad of Burnas I guess you'd check range by seeing the furthest any template could hit in the enemy unit.

what about overwatch??

If the unit was charging in how would I determine the range of what gets hit and what not...

 yakface wrote:

 wyomingfox wrote:

 yakface wrote:


No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Blast templates remian unchanged given thier special rules, correct? So how will this affect a unit of flamers? Will they be only be able to affect the farthest models that the closest flamer can reach as measured by the flame template?

Well, if the unit has another longer ranged weapon firing at the same time, then the whole issue is moot.

But yeah, for like a squad of Burnas I guess you'd check range by seeing the furthest any template could hit in the enemy unit.

It's always been that way according to Out of Range.

 Makutsu wrote:
what about overwatch??

If the unit was charging in how would I determine the range of what gets hit and what not...

The same way you work out who gets hit currently and add in the extra limitation of maximum range.

This doesn't change ALL of the rules it just changes one part of the wound pool emptying process.

 yakface wrote:

barnowl wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Actually, wait are people saying that it's jsut the models that shot?
So if my missile launcher missed I can still wound further than the 24" on my bolters?

Yes, it is just those that shot, not those that hit

As I said, completely idiotic, ugly change to the rules that creates more complication and MORE abstraction, not less.

totally screws things up. re examining FAQ and need to nose a BRB to be sure this does not make 48" bolt pistols. I am assuming the pistols have to atleast be in range to start. If not things just got beyond weird.

No, a firing model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model in the target unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

So if I have an Space Marine Assault squad (pistols and chainswords) with an IC armed with a Stormbolter, and I am firing at a unit of 10 chaos marines, only two of which(closest) are at 12" inches away.

Lets say I get awesome to Hit rolls and cause 7 wounds with the pistols but completely miss with the Stormbolter, I can still kill 7 Chaos dudes, even though only 2 of them are in range of the pistols?

I could outfit a PCS with 3 Flamers and a Lasgun, and wound with my flamers and my PC's pistol up to 24" away?

olcottr wrote:
I could outfit a PCS with 3 Flamers and a Lasgun, and wound with my flamers and my PC's pistol up to 24" away?

No,to use the flamers, at least one of the target models must in its range.

So as long as one model in the PCS is within Template range?

And for an IS, as long as one model in your unit is within half-range with a lasgun, then all models with lasguns can have 2 shots?

I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You had to do that before the faq. If only half of your unit was within RF range, then only half could make RF shots.

I think a bigger question is if all of your unit is within RF of 1 enemy model and you roll well, can the shots be allocated beyond that 1 model. RF puts a limit of 12" on bolter range. However, the bolter normally has a 24" range. So, either you can only wound that 1 model, which is how the faq seems to read and is silly or all of them can wound which seems equally silly given the obvious intent.

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You always did. Or were you allowing all models to double-tap, so long as one of them was within 12"?

It's not a difficult FAQ to read on its face: if none of the firing models has range to a particular model in the target unit, that model cannot have wounds allocated to it. Practically speaking, I'm guessing 95% of the cases will be resolved by measuring from the model with the longest-range weapon standing closest to the target unit - anything out of his range can't die.

Enceladus wrote:
Not true, i'm afraid. See the Precise Shots and Precise Strikes entry in the BRB. It states any character that rolls 6's to hit in either shooting or CC can allocate the wounds as he sees fit.

Vindicare is different. He has deadshot which is different from precision shot. That faq applies only to the vindi.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You always did. Or were you allowing all models to double-tap, so long as one of them was within 12"?

It's not a difficult FAQ to read on its face: if none of the firing models has range to a particular model in the target unit, that model cannot have wounds allocated to it. Practically speaking, I'm guessing 95% of the cases will be resolved by measuring from the model with the longest-range weapon standing closest to the target unit - anything out of his range can't die.

Without grouping wounds based on range I think this is the only way that makes sense at this point. Although it does seem to break what the intent appears to be; namely that a given weapon can only harm what it can reach.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You always did. Or were you allowing all models to double-tap, so long as one of them was within 12"?

It's not a difficult FAQ to read on its face: if none of the firing models has range to a particular model in the target unit, that model cannot have wounds allocated to it. Practically speaking, I'm guessing 95% of the cases will be resolved by measuring from the model with the longest-range weapon standing closest to the target unit - anything out of his range can't die.

oops nevermind, I always fired from gunboats so I guess RF doesn't really matter

Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

olcottr wrote:

It's always been that way according to Out of Range.

No, pre-FAQ, out of range only applied to firing models that were completely out of range of any models at all in the target unit. If a firing model was within range of any model in the target unit, then his wounds could be allocated to any model (within LOS) in that enemy unit.

The FAQ now puts a max range limit on where wounds can be allocated in the target unit.

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

 yakface wrote:

olcottr wrote:

It's always been that way according to Out of Range.

No, pre-FAQ, out of range only applied to firing models that were completely out of range of any models at all in the target unit. If a firing model was within range of any model in the target unit, then his wounds could be allocated to any model (within LOS) in that enemy unit.

The FAQ now puts a max range limit on where wounds can be allocated in the target unit.

Oh, we've been doing it wrong then. My mind tends to put in 4E or 5E rules where the 6E is vague.

RF is completely unaffected and can still kill models at full weapon range. All rapid fire says is

If a unit shooting Rapid Fire weapons is found to be partially within half range of the target, the firing models within half range fire two shots, while those further away fire one.

The only situation that isn't straight forward is a template weapon with no other weapons in the unit. (Over watch for templates ignores range so that isn't an issue)
I would say that it would be all models in range of any template in all directions, meaning you have a 7" range i believe.

so, now if you have a 3x3 squad so 9 guys in a square assuming vs another 9 man squad as 3x3.

The first row assuming able to target all 9 of them
The second row the first 6,
and Third row targets 3.

When doing wound allocation if you did the first row first and wounded 3 then the first 3 in the enemy squads unit gets removed, now when resolving the third row you can't wound anything anymore since nothing is in range, so hence you lose the shots.

A better example would be a curved congo line vs an enemy's triangle formation.
Back then you would be able to form a curve line so that every body is JUST in range to shoot the guy at the tip and wound everybody.
But now in order to wound the entire unit you are required to move the extra range.

@Makutsu: that's not even close.

 Makutsu wrote:
so, now if you have a 3x3 squad so 9 guys in a square assuming vs another 9 man squad as 3x3.

The first row assuming able to target all 9 of them
The second row the first 6,
and Third row targets 3.

When doing wound allocation if you did the first row first and wounded 3 then the first 3 in the enemy squads unit gets removed, now when resolving the third row you can't wound anything anymore since nothing is in range, so hence you lose the shots.

A better example would be a curved congo line vs an enemy's triangle formation.
Back then you would be able to form a curve line so that every body is JUST in range to shoot the guy at the tip and wound everybody.
But now in order to wound the entire unit you are required to move the extra range.

In your first example, so long as the first row had range to the back row of the enemy unit all the wounds can be allocated. Wounds go into groups and are resolved, you don't go model by model on what they inflicted.

Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

Yep however for units with only one weapon, or things like rapidfire, you might just want to have one guy fire normally to make sure they are all in range(in certain situations) also for flamer units, getting one person to keep a regular weapon also becomes important. Same for some of those mid range weapons. But it only matters in a very narrow range for any given weapon.

HOWEVER as the persona being shot at you can now make more tactical moves. Lets say you need to get into range of their weapons to claim an objective. Now you only have to worry about the one model getting killed instead of losing the entire unit. Adds a new level to tactical movement from the person being shot at.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
so, now if you have a 3x3 squad so 9 guys in a square assuming vs another 9 man squad as 3x3.

The first row assuming able to target all 9 of them
The second row the first 6,
and Third row targets 3.

When doing wound allocation if you did the first row first and wounded 3 then the first 3 in the enemy squads unit gets removed, now when resolving the third row you can't wound anything anymore since nothing is in range, so hence you lose the shots.

A better example would be a curved congo line vs an enemy's triangle formation.
Back then you would be able to form a curve line so that every body is JUST in range to shoot the guy at the tip and wound everybody.
But now in order to wound the entire unit you are required to move the extra range.

In your first example, so long as the first row had range to the back row of the enemy unit all the wounds can be allocated. Wounds go into groups and are resolved, you don't go model by model on what they inflicted.

I thought this is how they are doing it now, since the third row doesn't have range to the 2nd and last row of the unit their shots can't wound them.
Or do they just need one guy to have range over the entire unit?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

 Leth wrote:
Yep however for units with only one weapon, or things like rapidfire, you might just want to have one guy fire normally to make sure they are all in range

RF is unaffected. RF doesn't actually halve the range it just says if a model is found to be within half range then you get an extra shot, so bolters RFing still kill at 24.

 Leth wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause Will was a little too close. Will eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

Fixed that for you, because everyone knows, you fire at will

 Janthkin wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You always did. Or were you allowing all models to double-tap, so long as one of them was within 12"?

It's not a difficult FAQ to read on its face: if none of the firing models has range to a particular model in the target unit, that model cannot have wounds allocated to it. Practically speaking, I'm guessing 95% of the cases will be resolved by measuring from the model with the longest-range weapon standing closest to the target unit - anything out of his range can't die.

And what is wrong with that?

 Leth wrote:
Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

Right now it's going to be like: Steve eats 300 bolter rounds and dies. A single snapshot with a sniper rifle kills 299 buddies of Steve. One shot.
Both are weird, it's just personal thing I guess.

 Leth wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

I think the had a consistent abstraction and then went to an inconsistent abstraction. If they had gone by weapons types, so that a group of wounds from bolters cannot wound anyone more than 24" from any of the bolter models while the missile launcher couldn't wound anyone with krak missiles in a squad beyond 48" away that would have been a consistent abstraction.

Now the range of the unit is the longest weapon in it. It seems like the went for the way I'd prefer it and just gave up half way.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think the had a consistent abstraction and then went to an inconsistent abstraction. I they had gone by weapons types, so that a group of wounds from bolters cannot wound anyone more than 24" from any of the bolter models while the missile launcher couldn't wound anyone with krak missiles in a squad beyond 48" away that would have been a consistent abstraction.

Now the range of the unit is the longest weapon in it.

I find this to be more consistent with the Line of Sight rules. So long as one firing model can see you, you're a valid target for wound allocation. And now, so long as one firing model has range to you, you're a valid target for wound allocation.

I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

It used to be as long as you were in range of a single model when made to hit rolls, you could potentially remove infinite models. Now you are restricted of allocating wounds as your max weapon range(for a squad wıth 9 bolters and a heavy bolter this is 36")

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

What did change was that previously if the firing unit had range to one enemy model, then the entire enemy unit could be wounded. Now, only the models within the enemy unit that are within range can be wounded.

The problem now is with usage of the words "Wound Pool" and "any" in the faq. "..,can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range of any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made."

If you have a unit with multiple weapon types (pretty common) then all of those were put into separate groups but they were in the same "Wound Pool". The shooting player had the option of which group was resolved first. However, the wording here allows a 24" bolter to be able to wound a model at 30" if the firing unit also shoots something like a Heavy Bolter with a 36" range.

If the intent was to make sure a given weapon could not wound a model outside it's range, then the wording should have been:
"...,can Wounds be allocated to models that were not within range of the firing weapon when To Hit rolls were made " This would have resulted in some basic changes to wound allocation.

As it stands, it appears that if you have an option to take a long range weapon in your squad then you probably want to do so.

clively wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
You need range to the enemy unit to be able to fire at them. To wound(hurt in the quote) them all you just need 1 model in range of all of them.

clively wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

That is not what Pretre was saying.

The models that fire still need to have range (and Line of Sight) to at least one model in the target unit to be able to fire. any firing models out of range or Line of Sight can not fire.

Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

My name is pretre and I endorse this message.

How hard would it be to simply make it a rule that you add up the number of models within the range of the number of shots being fired and only that number of models closest to the unit firing, may be removed as casualties?

If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

 pretre wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

My name is pretre and I endorse this message.

Ah, a misread on my part. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

How does it nerf them? A unit of flamers needs only have a single Flamer use Warpfire the 18" range weapon or have an IC with them that can shoot further and the flamers will be even more dangerous.

Nah they get it as standard. So its not going to really do anything to that unit.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

Not to someone who has played 4E and 5E.

40k-noob wrote:
How does it nerf them? A unit of flamers needs only have a single Flamer use Warpfire the 18" range weapon or have an IC with them that can shoot further and the flamers will be even more dangerous.

Not sure that would make them more dangerous. Just as dangerous as they currently were.

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

That is why I said it didnt work for the current ruling. Re-read my post.

Ya so a unit of tac marines firienf 8 bolters and 1 missle launcher and wound and kill everyone even if there are some at 30 inchs away. Since the a model has a longer range and the unit being shot at can be hit, and wounded right?

 yakface wrote:


The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Thank you, Yak. This is the clearest statement that anyone has made in the entire thread.

NecronLord3 wrote:How hard would it be to simply make it a rule that you add up the number of models within the range of the number of shots being fired and only that number of models closest to the unit firing, may be removed as casualties?

This is precisely how I've been playing the game since the release of 6th ed based on my interpretation of the rules. The FAQ today has literally changed nothing about how i'm playing my games.

clively wrote:Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You don't extend the reach by using a different weapon with a longer range. By that logic i'll just put a Lascannon in a squad of Bolters and enjoy my 48" Bolter shots. It's completely illogical. The other weapon with a longer range would have absolutely no effect on the flamers that could only hit 1 model. The 5 wounds they caused still only apply to the one model they could hit. The other weapon with the longer range would be able to wound the next closest model to the one killed by those flamers. If it makes it easier for you, simply use different coloured dice or roll separately for each target model in this particular scenario. The 5 flamers could only hit one guy, so your wound rolls for him are rolled on red dice, while at the same time your wound roll for the weapon with the longer range is rolled on a white die.

People saying this is all of a sudden a nerf to the flamer are completely wrong. The nerf happened upon the release of 6th ed, you've just been playing them incorrectly!

Super, wound allocation suddenly makes more real world sense (Apart from the wording being awful as usual). Only regret is this does not extend to blast, so wound allocation still doesnt make any wordly sense

It's an abstraction, just like in 5E, when you could take casualties off the back of your unit.

Enceladus wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:How hard would it be to simply make it a rule that you add up the number of models within the range of the number of shots being fired and only that number of models closest to the unit firing, may be removed as casualties?

This is precisely how I've been playing the game since the release of 6th ed based on my interpretation of the rules. The FAQ today has literally changed nothing about how i'm playing my games.

clively wrote:Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You don't extend the reach by using a different weapon with a longer range. By that logic i'll just put a Lascannon in a squad of Bolters and enjoy my 48" Bolter shots. It's completely illogical. The other weapon with a longer range would have absolutely no effect on the flamers that could only hit 1 model. The 5 wounds they caused still only apply to the one model they could hit. The other weapon with the longer range would be able to wound the next closest model to the one killed by those flamers. If it makes it easier for you, simply use different coloured dice or roll separately for each target model in this particular scenario. The 5 flamers could only hit one guy, so your wound rolls for him are rolled on red dice, while at the same time your wound roll for the weapon with the longer range is rolled on a white die.

People saying this is all of a sudden a nerf to the flamer are completely wrong. The nerf happened upon the release of 6th ed, you've just been playing them incorrectly!

I am completely agreeing with you. Bolters do not suddenly have a potential 48" range.

Enceladus wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You don't extend the reach by using a different weapon with a longer range. By that logic i'll just put a Lascannon in a squad of Bolters and enjoy my 48" Bolter shots. It's completely illogical.

I think you misunderstand.

5 bolters shoot. The target unit is made up of 10 guys and only 1 is within 24" with 9 strung out behind it.
Pre FAQ: bolters could kill any of the 10 guys as only 1 needed to be in range and the wounds are simply allocated to the others.
Post FAQ: bolters can only kill the 1 guy who is actually within range of the weapon because the wounds cannot be allocated beyond range.

Next scenario:
5 bolters + 1 lascanon shoots. Same situation with target unit.
Pre FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys.
Post FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys... Because the lascannon that was fired means all of the models in the enemy unit are in range for wound allocation.

Third scenario
5 bolters + 1 lascanon. Target unit is actually at 30" range.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.

In other words, it didn't change how far your weapons go for purposes of determining if they can shoot. It changed how many guys can take wounds based upon ALL of the weapons being fired from the unit.

 puma713 wrote:

 yakface wrote:


The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Thank you, Yak. This is the clearest statement that anyone has made in the entire thread.

Agreed.

So a 24" weapon unit with RF would be able to rapid fire enemy unit if they are within 12" of the closest and wound everybody if 1 models range can reach every enemy model

clively wrote:

Enceladus wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You don't extend the reach by using a different weapon with a longer range. By that logic i'll just put a Lascannon in a squad of Bolters and enjoy my 48" Bolter shots. It's completely illogical.

I think you misunderstand.

5 bolters shoot. The target unit is made up of 10 guys and only 1 is within 24" with 9 strung out behind it.
Pre FAQ: bolters could kill any of the 10 guys as only 1 needed to be in range and the wounds are simply allocated to the others.
Post FAQ: bolters can only kill the 1 guy who is actually within range of the weapon because the wounds cannot be allocated beyond range.

Next scenario:
5 bolters + 1 lascanon shoots. Same situation with target unit.
Pre FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys.
Post FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys... Because the lascannon that was fired means all of the models in the enemy unit are in range for wound allocation.

Third scenario
5 bolters + 1 lascanon. Target unit is actually at 30" range.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.

In other words, it didn't change how far your weapons go for purposes of determining if they can shoot. It changed how many guys can take wounds based upon ALL of the weapons being fired from the unit.

 puma713 wrote:

 yakface wrote:


The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Thank you, Yak. This is the clearest statement that anyone has made in the entire thread.

Agreed.

Agree

Well since everyone is doing it... I guess I concur...

olcottr wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

Not to someone who has played 4E and 5E.

Funnily enough I've played both of those games.

 Dozer Blades wrote:


I am completely agreeing with you. Bolters do not suddenly have a potential 48" range.

No, they don't. What it is saying is that if I have 1 of your units within range of all of my bolters, I can roll To-Hit with all of my bolters and place them in the Wound Pool. If you are 25" away, I can't roll To-Hit against you anyway. So, let's say that 3 of your guys are in range of all of my bolters. So, I get 10 shots against those 3 guys, 24" away. Before the FAQ, I could only kill those 3 guys.

Post-FAQ, as long as I have someone in my unit that can hit someone outside of that 24" range, I can still allocate bolter shots beyond 24" away. So, for instance, if I had a missile launcher in the unit, then my bolters don't stop at those 3 guys 24" away. They continue into the unit, up to a max range of 48". if anyone in the unit is 49" away, nothing can be allocated to him, because he is outside of max range of the unit.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

olcottr wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

Not to someone who has played 4E and 5E.

Funnily enough I've played both of those games.

Do you have a memory wipe program? Because I still have 4E and 5E rules running around in my head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
So a 24" weapon unit with RF would be able to rapid fire enemy unit if they are within 12" of the closest and wound everybody if 1 models range can reach every enemy model

That's the way I see it.

 Makutsu wrote:
So a 24" weapon unit with RF would be able to rapid fire enemy unit if they are within 12" of the closest and wound everybody if 1 models range can reach every enemy model

Correct, mind you RF doesn't decrease range it simpily says that if you are within half distance you get an extra shot, not that you have halve your range to get 2 shots. There is a difference there.

clively wrote:

Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

But templates don't roll to hit, making them exempt from the FAQ changes, which didn't affect them before.

FenixZero wrote:

clively wrote:

Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

But templates don't roll to hit, making them exempt from the FAQ changes, which didn't affect them before.

Not quite. The FAQ says "when rolling to Hit" meaning during that part of the Shooting Phase. That flamer hits are resolved differently does not give them immunity.

From BRB p 52, Instead of rolling To Hit, simply place the template so that its narrow end is touching the
base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as
many models in the target unit as possible, without touching
any other friendly models (including other models from the
firing model's unit). Ary rnodels fully or partially under the
template are hit.

seems to only effect burnas since everything else has at least 1 other weapon that i can think of and would hardly ever be able to use all flamers since you want touch friendlies.Since this isn't called dakka dakka i guess we don't care about orks and can just move on.

templates are effected, it's what is within range of the template.

"5 bolters shoot. The target unit is made up of 10 guys and only 1 is within 24" with 9 strung out behind it.
Pre FAQ: bolters could kill any of the 10 guys as only 1 needed to be in range and the wounds are simply allocated to the others.
Post FAQ: bolters can only kill the 1 guy who is actually within range of the weapon because the wounds cannot be allocated beyond range.

Next scenario:
5 bolters + 1 lascanon shoots. Same situation with target unit.
Pre FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys.
Post FAQ: bolters+lascannon could kill any of the 10 guys... Because the lascannon that was fired means all of the models in the enemy unit are in range for wound allocation.

Third scenario
5 bolters + 1 lascanon. Target unit is actually at 30" range.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.
Pre FAQ: bolters can't shoot due to being out of range. Lascanon could.

In other words, it didn't change how far your weapons go for purposes of determining if they can shoot. It changed how many guys can take wounds based upon ALL of the weapons being fired from the unit.

The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting."

This right here makes it clear for me.

 jegsar wrote:
seems to only effect burnas since everything else has at least 1 other weapon that i can think of and would hardly ever be able to use all flamers since you want touch friendlies.Since this isn't called dakka dakka i guess we don't care about orks and can just move on.

templates are effected, it's what is within range of the template.

Burnas can upgrade up to 3 Burnas to Meks for free. Meks have KMB. Upgrade one Burna to a Mek and you are fine.

perfect, problem solved

Here is the tricky question. When firing from a vehicle would you have to shoot one of the weapons that had the greater range?

Example:
Space marines in rhino shoot 2 flamers out the top. Would their range still be up to what a bolter could shoot or would they be limited to the models that fired?

 Tomb King wrote:
Here is the tricky question. When firing from a vehicle would you have to shoot one of the weapons that had the greater range?

Example:
Space marines in rhino shoot 2 flamers out the top. Would their range still be up to what a bolter could shoot or would they be limited to the models that fired?

Only what fired

"shooting models", so yes you would need to do bolter and flamer.

 puma713 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


I am completely agreeing with you. Bolters do not suddenly have a potential 48" range.

No, they don't. What it is saying is that if I have 1 of your units within range of all of my bolters, I can roll To-Hit with all of my bolters and place them in the Wound Pool. If you are 25" away, I can't roll To-Hit against you anyway. So, let's say that 3 of your guys are in range of all of my bolters. So, I get 10 shots against those 3 guys, 24" away. Before the FAQ, I could only kill those 3 guys.

Post-FAQ, as long as I have someone in my unit that can hit someone outside of that 24" range, I can still allocate bolter shots beyond 24" away. So, for instance, if I had a missile launcher in the unit, then my bolters don't stop at those 3 guys 24" away. They continue into the unit, up to a max range of 48". if anyone in the unit is 49" away, nothing can be allocated to him, because he is outside of max range of the unit.

No, before the FAQ you could kill anyone in the unit. As stated on page 16 as long as an enemy unit starts in range they remain in range of firing even if casualty removal takes models out of range. Only by entirely changing the wording do you get any other interpretation.

Post FAQ you can only kill people up to the furthest range possible int he shooting models.

Stupid, ugly, ugly change.

This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

rollawaythestone wrote:
This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

Unless they have an autocannon, lascannon, missile launcher, heavy bolter etc...

rollawaythestone wrote:
This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

Or have a single model with longer range.
Yes, shooting will be weaker but it will be an uneven change. Some units wont even bother, some will change dramatically. All depending on weapon options allowed for the squad.

Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

Unless they have an autocannon, lascannon, missile launcher, heavy bolter etc...

No you are still required to get a tad bit closer in order to reach the farthest guy in the unit meaning that overall makes the distance between assault and shooty untis closer

 puma713 wrote:

 yakface wrote:


The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Thank you, Yak. This is the clearest statement that anyone has made in the entire thread.

Well it will definitely make you think twice now about which wound groups to have your opponent resolve first.

 Makutsu wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

Unless they have an autocannon, lascannon, missile launcher, heavy bolter etc...

No you are still required to get a tad bit closer in order to reach the farthest guy in the unit meaning that overall makes the distance between assault and shooty untis closer

It really does not.

Say you have a unit of Tac marines with bolters. Before you could be within 24 inches of one guy and kill the whole unit. Now you need to be within 24 inches of every model that you want to kill for them to be able to doe.

However if you have a missile launcher in the unit with 9 tac marines with bolters then the bolters only need to be within 24 inches of one guy to be able to kill everone within 48 inches of the unit.

Therefore the distance is really not any closer.

Well, assuming you only have 1 weapon for the unit, it does.

It still makes the gap smaller in order to threaten the entire unit, originally you just had to be within 48" of the first model now you have to be within 48" - distance of the furthest model

olcottr wrote:

FenixZero wrote:

clively wrote:

Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

But templates don't roll to hit, making them exempt from the FAQ changes, which didn't affect them before.

Not quite. The FAQ says "when rolling to Hit" meaning during that part of the Shooting Phase. That flamer hits are resolved differently does not give them immunity.

From BRB p 52, Instead of rolling To Hit, simply place the template so that its narrow end is touching the
base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as
many models in the target unit as possible, without touching
any other friendly models (including other models from the
firing model's unit). Ary rnodels fully or partially under the
template are hit.

Yea, and that means that wounds can overflow from the models that were hit to other models in the unit. Thats how I read the rule from the BRB in light of the FAQ.

I'm pretty sure before the FAQ you could only kill what was in range of your weapons, including flamers. I remember looking that up and having it save half my Warp Spiders.

If anything, this buffs Flamers of Tzeentch, since now as long as one of them uses Warpfire, the effective range of Breath of Chaos is bigger in terms of what they can kill, but not what they can hit.

Let's say you have a two-model unit. One with a Plasma Pistol, the other with a Plasma Gun. If the model with the Plasma Gun dies from Gets Hot!, does the Plasma Pistol lose the ability to Wound a model over 12" away? Assuming all other criteria was met.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

I don't see how this does anything to flamers. When is the last time you "rolled" to hit with templates? It also refers to shooting "models" range, not unit. So magic 48" bolter fire is still impossible.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rollawaythestone wrote:
This is a bit of a boost to assault based units. Shooting units will need to get a bit closer in order to maximize their shooting, rather than form a gun-line at the minimum distance possible to be in range of the targeted unit.

Unless they have an autocannon, lascannon, missile launcher, heavy bolter etc...

No you are still required to get a tad bit closer in order to reach the farthest guy in the unit meaning that overall makes the distance between assault and shooty untis closer

It really does not.

Say you have a unit of Tac marines with bolters. Before you could be within 24 inches of one guy and kill the whole unit. Now you need to be within 24 inches of every model that you want to kill for them to be able to doe.

However if you have a missile launcher in the unit with 9 tac marines with bolters then the bolters only need to be within 24 inches of one guy to be able to kill everone within 48 inches of the unit.

Therefore the distance is really not any closer.

It's not really a big change for Marine-esque units that have a heavy weapon. Although protecting that heavy weapon is slightly more important. It really effects big mobs of units which are hard to get into position in the first place to lay down shooting - things like large Termagant squads or Ork boy mobs. This FAQ ruling is going to shave precious inches off of those units range. I know it will definitely effect my Termagants who already have a pitiful 12".

 Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

I'm not sure why you mention range sniping.

Your opponent already had to pull his models from the front first, you can't force him to pull them any more closer to the front by being out of range of half the unit...

Range sniping or Mirco sniping were things that were around in 4th

Basically you use to eyeball the range and put your models exactly in the right place to kill off certain models in the other squad, or you use tanks to block your own line of sight so that your plasma gun can only kill the heavy weapon in the other squad. Its even worse now with the fact we all can derp measure without penalty.

This also kills the Ork burna bus, a few months ago I almost made an army around that, Im glad I didnt otherwise I'd be losing my on GW.

 Goat wrote:
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

I don't see how this does anything to flamers. When is the last time you "rolled" to hit with templates? It also refers to shooting "models" range, not unit. So magic 48" bolter fire is still impossible.

It does something to flamers because they have a range of template, and instead of rolling to hit you place the template.

 yakface wrote:
The only thing the new ruling does is limit wounds he causes from being allocated onto models in the enemy unit that are out of range from ALL models that are shooting.

Yak said it best, but I will try to explain, as many people played it incorrectly before the FaQ.

How it worked before:



How it works now:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I'm pretty sure before the FAQ you could only kill what was in range of your weapons, including flamers. I remember looking that up and having it save half my Warp Spiders.

If anything, this buffs Flamers of Tzeentch, since now as long as one of them uses Warpfire, the effective range of Breath of Chaos is bigger in terms of what they can kill, but not what they can hit.

Nope, reread page 16 again, and get subjectbject the right way round this time.

 jegsar wrote:
Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

I guess they don't. And that's why I don't like this change.

Personally I preferred the way things were, and not because I'm bitter and afraid of change.
Yes, before you could just move 5 guys in range to one guy and call it a day. The thing is, everybody could do it and every unit was equally affected. Your 5 guys with 24" had to do exactly the same thing as your opponents guys with 24". Now 5 marines with bolters may not have the same effective range as another 5 marines with bolters, only because they are accompanied by some guy standing behind them.
More realistic? I disagree.

How do Blast weapons figure into this?

Let's take a Devastator Squad with a Plasma Cannon. Does having a Lascannon with it allow the Plasma Cannon to wound models between 36" and 48"?
Does having a Multi-melta with it allow the Multi-melta to wound models between 24" and 36"?

 Macok wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

I guess they don't. And that's why I don't like this change.

Personally I preferred the way things were, and not because I'm bitter and afraid of change.
Yes, before you could just move 5 guys in range to one guy and call it a day. The thing is, everybody could do it and every unit was equally affected. Your 5 guys with 24" had to do exactly the same thing as your opponents guys with 24". Now 5 marines with bolters may not have the same effective range as another 5 marines with bolters, only because they are accompanied by some guy standing behind them.
More realistic? I disagree.

What are you talking about??
This is more realistic hands down.
Your guns can't reach hence can't hurt.
If some guy was standing further behind, the bullet is already slower and might start to deter making it less effective.
How is this not realistic?

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So range and LOS sniping is in.
As a Nid this makes me happy because I rarely have specific models I'm trying to protect.
As a player in general this makes me sad.

I'm not sure why you mention range sniping.

Your opponent already had to pull his models from the front first, you can't force him to pull them any more closer to the front by being out of range of half the unit...

Range sniping or Mirco sniping were things that were around in 4th

Basically you use to eyeball the range and put your models exactly in the right place to kill off certain models in the other squad, or you use tanks to block your own line of sight so that your plasma gun can only kill the heavy weapon in the other squad. Its even worse now with the fact we all can derp measure without penalty.

This also kills the Ork burna bus, a few months ago I almost made an army around that, Im glad I didnt otherwise I'd be losing my on GW.

well if you make one burna a mek and give him a big shoota, then you can wound everything in 36" if I'm reading this right.

 Makutsu wrote:

 Macok wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

I guess they don't. And that's why I don't like this change.

Personally I preferred the way things were, and not because I'm bitter and afraid of change.
Yes, before you could just move 5 guys in range to one guy and call it a day. The thing is, everybody could do it and every unit was equally affected. Your 5 guys with 24" had to do exactly the same thing as your opponents guys with 24". Now 5 marines with bolters may not have the same effective range as another 5 marines with bolters, only because they are accompanied by some guy standing behind them.
More realistic? I disagree.

What are you talking about??
This is more realistic hands down.
Your guns can't reach hence can't hurt.
If some guy was standing further behind, the bullet is already slower and might start to deter making it less effective.
How is this not realistic?

Maybe this will help: 5 marines with bolters can wound models up to 24" away. 4 marines with bolters can wound models up to 48" away IF the 5th marine has a Missile Launcher.

olcottr wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

 Macok wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

I guess they don't. And that's why I don't like this change.

Personally I preferred the way things were, and not because I'm bitter and afraid of change.
Yes, before you could just move 5 guys in range to one guy and call it a day. The thing is, everybody could do it and every unit was equally affected. Your 5 guys with 24" had to do exactly the same thing as your opponents guys with 24". Now 5 marines with bolters may not have the same effective range as another 5 marines with bolters, only because they are accompanied by some guy standing behind them.
More realistic? I disagree.

What are you talking about??
This is more realistic hands down.
Your guns can't reach hence can't hurt.
If some guy was standing further behind, the bullet is already slower and might start to deter making it less effective.
How is this not realistic?

Maybe this will help: 5 marines with bolters can wound models up to 24" away. 4 marines with bolters can wound models up to 48" away IF the 5th marine has a Missile Launcher.

Those four bolters still have to be in range, though.

Neither this current FAQ approach or the old approach made much sense. To make sense, you'd have to track range in the Wound Pool and break down wounds into AP and Range categories and allocate them closest range to farthest. So that wounds can only be allocated within range of the firing model.

What about Torrent weapons?

Can I only allocate Wounds to models actually under the template? Or to models within 8" of the firing unit? Or to models within 12" + 8" of the firing unit?

Less realistic when you play a guy that will block out half your squad with a tank to kill your sgts, special weapons and commanders

rollawaythestone wrote:

olcottr wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

 Macok wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Since when does GW care about un even changes. this also allows for crazy stuff like putting 3 havocs out of range of their havocs and leaving 1 in (assuming their non HW havocs are closwer to soak up wounds first. The one that is in of yours is he only HW that can die...

I guess they don't. And that's why I don't like this change.

Personally I preferred the way things were, and not because I'm bitter and afraid of change.
Yes, before you could just move 5 guys in range to one guy and call it a day. The thing is, everybody could do it and every unit was equally affected. Your 5 guys with 24" had to do exactly the same thing as your opponents guys with 24". Now 5 marines with bolters may not have the same effective range as another 5 marines with bolters, only because they are accompanied by some guy standing behind them.
More realistic? I disagree.

What are you talking about??
This is more realistic hands down.
Your guns can't reach hence can't hurt.
If some guy was standing further behind, the bullet is already slower and might start to deter making it less effective.
How is this not realistic?

Maybe this will help: 5 marines with bolters can wound models up to 24" away. 4 marines with bolters can wound models up to 48" away IF the 5th marine has a Missile Launcher.

Those four bolters still have to be in range, though.

To the closest model. They can wound farther models in the same target unit, up to 24" in the first example and 48" in the second example.

sirlynchmob wrote:


well if you make one burna a mek and give him a big shoota, then you can wound everything in 36" if I'm reading this right.

It looks that way, but I have a feeling its model per model, which then would force you to apply wounds for certain weapons first or lose the wounds entirely, hmm.

I'm still not understanding how having a missile launcher allows bolters to wound deeper than 24". The FAQ says model not unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Goat wrote:
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

I don't see how this does anything to flamers. When is the last time you "rolled" to hit with templates? It also refers to shooting "models" range, not unit. So magic 48" bolter fire is still impossible.

It does something to flamers because they have a range of template, and instead of rolling to hit you place the template.

True, but template range =/= To Hit rolls. So it should still work like it did before, you get hits on an enemy unit with a template, cause wounds as normal, then the enemy unit takes a number of saves until the wound poll is empty, regard of distance from the template weapon.

Well, it's still more realistic than one guy in the front in range everybody behind him drops dead.

It could be that the 48" shoots and kills a guy in the back distracting them or blowing them forward so that guys with bolters can now hurt them.

FenixZero wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Goat wrote:
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

I don't see how this does anything to flamers. When is the last time you "rolled" to hit with templates? It also refers to shooting "models" range, not unit. So magic 48" bolter fire is still impossible.

It does something to flamers because they have a range of template, and instead of rolling to hit you place the template.

True, but template range =/= To Hit rolls. So it should still work like it did before, you get hits on an enemy unit with a template, cause wounds as normal, then the enemy unit takes a number of saves until the wound poll is empty, regard of distance from the template weapon.

Not true because the FaQ says you can only wound models in range. The range for a template is Template, so the furthest distance the template will reach is the limit of where the wounds may be allocated. Whe to hit rolls are made, well Templates place the template at that step, so figure out range from that.

 Makutsu wrote:
What are you talking about??
This is more realistic hands down.
Your guns can't reach hence can't hurt.
If some guy was standing further behind, the bullet is already slower and might start to deter making it less effective.
How is this not realistic?

And now your guns can't reach so they can't hurt. Except sometimes they can't reach but can hurt. Your opponent has the same guns, with the same range, but in fact, they are not the same and have different effective range. How is that realistic? It may be more realistic in some situations, but at the same it creates other strange scenarios.

OK, overall I guess it may seem more real, but not by a long shot. It does in units that do not have special / heavy weapons. Those are more often than not already weaker and rarer (especially in the short range department). This pushes them even more towards less useful. At least the earlier situation was more consistent from the abstract point of view and did not create weird interactions between weapons that should work separately.

I guess the rules are here to stay and me staying on this route will quickly change to whining (If I'm not already there.) so I'll just stop. Still, I am disappoint.

 Goat wrote:
I'm still not understanding how having a missile launcher allows bolters to wound deeper than 24". The FAQ says model not unit.

Because model with missile launcher is the "any model" from unit A that is in the range to enemy models in unit B that now can be allocated wounds from all the A models.

 Goat wrote:
I'm still not understanding how having a missile launcher allows bolters to wound deeper than 24". The FAQ says model not unit.

Actually, it says models, plural, as in you take into account every model that is firing. So any models that can fire in the first place, as in 1 enemy model is close enough, can also wound other models if other firing models have longer ranged weapons.

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, it's still more realistic than one guy in the front in range everybody behind him drops dead.

It could be that the 48" shoots and kills a guy in the back distracting them or blowing them forward so that guys with bolters can now hurt them.

I wouldnt worry about applying realism to a game with guys with giant hydralic hands fighting space bugs and fugus people.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, it's still more realistic than one guy in the front in range everybody behind him drops dead.

It could be that the 48" shoots and kills a guy in the back distracting them or blowing them forward so that guys with bolters can now hurt them.

I wouldnt worry about applying realism to a game with guys with giant hydralic hands fighting space bugs and fugus people.

Basically, well someone was commenting on it so yeah

 DeathReaper wrote:

FenixZero wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Goat wrote:
Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

I don't see how this does anything to flamers. When is the last time you "rolled" to hit with templates? It also refers to shooting "models" range, not unit. So magic 48" bolter fire is still impossible.

It does something to flamers because they have a range of template, and instead of rolling to hit you place the template.

True, but template range =/= To Hit rolls. So it should still work like it did before, you get hits on an enemy unit with a template, cause wounds as normal, then the enemy unit takes a number of saves until the wound poll is empty, regard of distance from the template weapon.

Not true because the FaQ says you can only wound models in range. The range for a template is Template, so the furthest distance the template will reach is the limit of where the wounds may be allocated. Whe to hit rolls are made, well Templates place the template at that step, so figure out range from that.

No, it says that for wounds in the wound pool 'when To Hit rolls were made'. You don't make 'To Hit' rolls with Templates, as such it is exempt from the new FAQ ruling.

Let's see, to figure out the Threat Range of your firing unit, you basically have to determine which enemy model is at the max range of each of your firing models. Sounds like a lot of work for a Vet Squad that could conceivably have 5 different ranges (Template, 12", 24", 36", 48")

No, you only have to work out ANY of the shooting models are in range. Hence "ANY" and "Shooting Models"

If ONE model is in range to all of the enemy, you can kill all of the enemy

It's giving me a headache trying to conceive of using these rules with multiple Infantry Squads, with the Sgts pistol, the Guardsman's lasgun, the Special Weapon, and the Heavy Weapon. Just whining. I'll stop now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you only have to work out ANY of the shooting models are in range. Hence "ANY" and "Shooting Models"

If ONE model is in range to all of the enemy, you can kill all of the enemy

Yes, but you have to check every single one of your firing models to determine who can reach the farthest enemy model.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

FenixZero wrote:
No, it says that for wounds in the wound pool 'when To Hit rolls were made'. You don't make 'To Hit' rolls with Templates, as such it is exempt from the new FAQ ruling.

First off, you're aware that this argument only even begins to work if the firing unit consists entirely of flame template weapons? Because, if even a single to-hit roll is made, then there was a time when to-hit rolls were made, and it doesn't matter whether a given weapon actually rolled to-hit or not.

...Furthermore, there is a time when to-hit rolls are made even when no actual to-hit rolls are made, i.e. there is a defined time in the firing sequence when you would make your zero to-hit rolls for your all-template unit, which arguably means your position doesn't even work for all-template firing anyway. (Plus, it's silly and ridiculous, but eh, this is a rules forum, so that's kind of not entirely relevant.)

I'm still not understanding how having a missile launcher allows bolters to wound deeper than 24". The FAQ says model not unit.

The FAQ says "any of the shooting models' range". That clearly includes the one missile launcher.

Seems that the confusion arises from not playing it raw in the first place.

Previously a bolter could wound upto an infinite range as long as one enemy model from the target unit was within 24".
Now it can only wound up to range of the longest range model in the unit.

Note that being able to wound is not the same as being able to shoot and shooting range is still done on a model by model basis.

Olcottr - no you dont, as the ones in the middle with the same range weapons will be further away then ones further forward.

Think of it this way: To determine which of your models can fire, you only determine if the distance to the enemy unit (closest enemy model) is within range of their weapon. Easy.

To determine which enemy model can be wounded, you have to check the distance to every one of your firing models to see if any are in range. Not so easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Olcottr - no you dont, as the ones in the middle with the same range weapons will be further away then ones further forward.

Units with only one range of weapon are fairly rare.

olcottr wrote:
Think of it this way: To determine which of your models can fire, you only determine if the distance to the enemy unit (closest enemy model) is within range of their weapon. Easy.

To determine which enemy model can be wounded, you have to check the distance to every one of your firing models to see if any are in range. Not so easy.

Or, just check the guy with the longest-ranged weapon standing closest to the enemy. It's really not that hard. About the only time I can see the need to measure more than once is in units with pistols + flamers, or a mix of 36" and 24" guns in a strange line.

olcottr wrote:
Think of it this way: To determine which of your models can fire, you only determine if the distance to the enemy unit (closest enemy model) is within range of their weapon. Easy.

To determine which enemy model can be wounded, you have to check the distance to every one of your firing models to see if any are in range. Not so easy.

That's why you use a tape measure. It's about as hard as checking which models get to rapidfire.

olcottr wrote:
Think of it this way: To determine which of your models can fire, you only determine if the distance to the enemy unit (closest enemy model) is within range of their weapon. Easy.

To determine which enemy model can be wounded, you have to check the distance to every one of your firing models to see if any are in range. Not so easy.

But that's the exact same operation! You can even do it with the same measurement (by "sweeping" the tape measure)! Why is it easy one way, and hard the other way? By the time you're done checking range for each firing model, you should already know how many enemy models are in range. (That's how we did it before 5th, after all.)

olcottr wrote:
Units with only one range of weapon are fairly rare.

They're also the difficult case. Units with multiple ranges will typically only involve one range measurement - the longest.

olcottr wrote:
Think of it this way: To determine which of your models can fire, you only determine if the distance to the enemy unit (closest enemy model) is within range of their weapon. Easy.

To determine which enemy model can be wounded, you have to check the distance to every one of your firing models to see if any are in range. Not so easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Olcottr - no you dont, as the ones in the middle with the same range weapons will be further away then ones further forward.

Units with only one range of weapon are fairly rare.

Back to front, you measure range to shoot on a model by model basis as per page 12, then to see how many models you can wound measure the maximum range of the unit so either the firer closest or the guy with the biggest gun as per pg16/Faq.

I have a Phd in engineering... so far no one has provided a clear explanation as to how this works in my opinion. All I am seeing is lots and lots of hand waving.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have a Phd in engineering... so far no one has provided a clear explanation as to how this works in my opinion. All I am seeing is lots and lots of hand waving.

If no model in the firing unit has range to a particular target model, the target model cannot have wounds allocated to it.

Kind of like if no model in the firing unit has LoS to a particular target model, the target model cannot have wounds allocated to it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have a Phd in engineering...

This is the internet. Nobody is likely to care about your credentials, and nobody could check them if they did.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
so far no one has provided a clear explanation as to how this works in my opinion. All I am seeing is lots and lots of hand waving.

What is unclear about the original FAQ? Models completely out of range of all models in the firing unit can't be killed be it - that's it. A few people are desperately trying to read something more complicated into it, but it's really quite simple.

Really? Yak explained it perfectly

You can wounds models up to the range of the weapon that has the longest range in the unit, instead of just finding one model in range to begin with.

Huh, could be good for Tzeentch Flamers.

Have 8 Flamers flame a squad, even if some are hiding at the back away from them. Then have the last Flamer fire Warpfire. Everyone's still in 'range.'

Does that work?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have a Phd in engineering... so far no one has provided a clear explanation as to how this works in my opinion. All I am seeing is lots and lots of hand waving.

Just goes to show they hand those pieces of paper out to anyone... [meant as a little joke]

I think all but a few of us are on the same page now,
For anyone else i present my masterwork of paint
blue=bolter
green=missile launcher
red= willing victim

In the top image you roll to hit 4 bolter shots and 1 missile launcher shot, you can potentially kill all the enemy, the two bolters at the back are out of range and so do not get to roll to hit.

The lower you get 4 bolter shots but can only at maximum kill one of the enemy.


Before the faq the lower part would have let you shoot 4 bolters and potentially kill all the enemy.

Lou_Cypher wrote:
Huh, could be good for Tzeentch Flamers.

Have 8 Flamers flame a squad, even if some are hiding at the back away from them. Then have the last Flamer fire Warpfire. Everyone's still in 'range.'

Does that work?

I'm not sure I'd call that "good" for flamers, since it's one less firing a template (although a full squad will still annihilate almost any single unit with 8 shots), but yes, that's the general idea.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, before the FAQ you could kill anyone in the unit. As stated on page 16 as long as an enemy unit starts in range they remain in range of firing even if casualty removal takes models out of range. Only by entirely changing the wording do you get any other interpretation.

Ah. As you notice, I don't have all the 6th rules down yet. Just picked up the book a couple weeks ago.

However, my post-FAQ understanding is correct.

So, here's a summary of what I've gathered from this:

Steps:
1) Check if your unit can hit a target unit.
2) Models that are in range of target unit can roll to hit the target unit and roll for wounds.
3) Take your longest ranged weapon, and see how far it can shoot. You can now only apply the wounds to the models within that longest range.This applies to flamers, but not blast weapons.
4) Do saves and stuff, removing from the front.

Does that sound about right?

The question is not even proper English... this is almost as bad as their original answer to combat squads which was completely undecipherable.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The question is not even proper English... this is almost as bad as their original answer to combat squads which was completely undecipherable.

maybe you are new to the internet. sorry i didn't use proper English i had just woke up and saw this.

 TheContortionist wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The question is not even proper English... this is almost as bad as their original answer to combat squads which was completely undecipherable.

maybe you are new to the internet. sorry i didn't use proper English i had just woke up and saw this.

Just taking a guess here, but I think he wasn't referring to you...

 yakface wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't think the heavy weapon example works. It says shooting models not the unit and since the pool is emptied group by group does that mean that you look at the group of bolter rounds and use them up until you hit max range and then move to the heavy weapon wounds and repeat?

Also how does this work with rapid fire? Do you just ignore the fact you just killed to a range beyond 12" and continue using up the rest of the bolter rounds?

Per the FAQ, all that matters are the models in the unit being shot at that are completely out of range of all firing weapons when 'to hit' rolls were made.

So yes, you always use the longest range of any weapon being fired to determine what models are 'in range' and therefore viable to be pulled.

page 12 "check range" states that at least one model in the unit must be in range of the target unit. When checking range, simple measure each firer to the nearest visible model of the target unit. Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy modles in the target unit does'nt shoot - his shots would not be accurate enough to hit anything.

no, you don't use the longest range of any weapon being fired to determine what models are "in range" and viable to be pulled. Page 12 says this is used to TARGET the unit, not to check the range. Checking the range is the next sentence and says that each model is individually measured to check its range via nearest visible enemy model. It does not say anything about those models being able to be "pulled". This rule points out range is model to model.

Page 13 "which models can fire" states any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire. This rules points out that models firing is done model to model.

Page 13 "rolling to hit". To determine if the firing model has hit it's target, roll a D6 for each model that is in range. This rule is points out the rolls to hit are model to model as well.

Q. When making a shooting attack against a unit, can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls are made? (Page 15).
A. No.

First off GW should have made this an errata to page 15 and not a FAQ, and it is poor English; I put in ( ) of how it should read. It's confusing how they messed up the words. Now we have to dissect their new faq question to make sense of it and in order to do this we need pages 12 and 13. The first part - When making a shooting attack against a unit (page 12 which models can fire rule), can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range (of any of the) shooting models when (the) To Hit rolls are made (page 13 which models can fire and rolling to hit rules).

The answer is "No."

I think this rule is pretty clear, and I feel like most of you are wrong...even GW on their part. This is how it should go down - 9 models of a 10 man squad has a shooting attack that shoots 24 inches and 1 model has a 48 inch weapon. They are positioned 5 in front and 5 in the back. . The target unit has 10 models in it, 2 of which are at exactly 24 inches from the shooting units first rank of models. The shooting unit then checks to see if he can target the unit. To do this he checks his furthest ranged weapon which is 48 inches. The unit can target it.

Now the shooter checks his range from each model, and find that 5 of the models can shoot at the 2 models at 24 inches and the 48 range weapon can shoot at the enemy as well. So she shooter grabs 5 white dice for the 24 inch weapon and 1 green dice for the 48 inch weapon and rolls them all. Everything hits! Now the shooter must put those wounds into the wound pool - 6 total. The shooter then picks up the 5 white dice and the 1 green dice and rolls for wounds. Everything wounds! The enemy rolls his saving throws and fails 4 of the white 24 inch range dice and fails the 1 green 48 inch dice. The enemy then removes the 2 models that are in the 24 inch range and NO MORE the rest of the white dice wounds are lost based on the new FAQ, then the enemy removes 1 model past the 24 inch range because the 48 inch weapon is within range. This is all per how page 12-13 and the new FAQ is written.

 virx67 wrote:
So, here's a summary of what I've gathered from this:

Steps:
1) Check if your unit can hit a target unit.
2) Models that are in range of target unit can roll to hit the target unit and roll for wounds.
3) Take your longest ranged weapon, and see how far it can shoot. You can now only apply the wounds to the models within that longest range.This applies to flamers, but not blast weapons.
4) Do saves and stuff, removing from the front.

Does that sound about right?

That does not sound right to me. Explained above the quote.

 TheContortionist wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The question is not even proper English... this is almost as bad as their original answer to combat squads which was completely undecipherable.

maybe you are new to the internet. sorry i didn't use proper English i had just woke up and saw this.

My apology - I was referring to the question in the FAQ.

: )

Gunline vs assault doesn't get changed much, gunline vs gunline and assault vs assault changes a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kal-El, the condition is based on when rolling to hit... You don't even need to hit with the ML to remove models past 24

Kal-El wrote:
First off GW should have made this an errata to page 15 and not a FAQ, and it is poor English; I put in ( ) of how it should read. It's confusing how they messed up the words. Now we have to dissect their new faq question to make sense of it and in order to do this we need pages 12 and 13. The first part - When making a shooting attack against a unit (page 12 which models can fire rule), can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range (of any of the) shooting models when (the) To Hit rolls are made (page 13 which models can fire and rolling to hit rules).

The answer is "No."

I think this rule is pretty clear, and I feel like most of you are wrong...even GW on their part. This is how it should go down - 9 models of a 10 man squad has a shooting attack that shoots 24 inches and 1 model has a 48 inch weapon. They are positioned 5 in front and 5 in the back. . The target unit has 10 models in it, 2 of which are at exactly 24 inches from the shooting units first rank of models. The shooting unit then checks to see if he can target the unit. To do this he checks his furthest ranged weapon which is 48 inches. The unit can target it.

Now the shooter checks his range from each model, and find that 5 of the models can shoot at the 2 models at 24 inches and the 48 range weapon can shoot at the enemy as well. So she shooter grabs 5 white dice for the 24 inch weapon and 1 green dice for the 48 inch weapon and rolls them all. Everything hits! Now the shooter must put those wounds into the wound pool - 6 total. The shooter then picks up the 5 white dice and the 1 green dice and rolls for wounds. Everything wounds! The enemy rolls his saving throws and fails 4 of the white 24 inch range dice and fails the 1 green 48 inch dice. The enemy then removes the 2 models that are in the 24 inch range and NO MORE the rest of the white dice wounds are lost based on the new FAQ, then the enemy removes 1 model past the 24 inch range because the 48 inch weapon is within range. This is all per how page 12-13 and the new FAQ is written.

Except that's not what the FAQ says.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

 Janthkin wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
First off GW should have made this an errata to page 15 and not a FAQ, and it is poor English; I put in ( ) of how it should read. It's confusing how they messed up the words. Now we have to dissect their new faq question to make sense of it and in order to do this we need pages 12 and 13. The first part - When making a shooting attack against a unit (page 12 which models can fire rule), can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range (of any of the) shooting models when (the) To Hit rolls are made (page 13 which models can fire and rolling to hit rules).

The answer is "No."

I think this rule is pretty clear, and I feel like most of you are wrong...even GW on their part. This is how it should go down - 9 models of a 10 man squad has a shooting attack that shoots 24 inches and 1 model has a 48 inch weapon. They are positioned 5 in front and 5 in the back. . The target unit has 10 models in it, 2 of which are at exactly 24 inches from the shooting units first rank of models. The shooting unit then checks to see if he can target the unit. To do this he checks his furthest ranged weapon which is 48 inches. The unit can target it.

Now the shooter checks his range from each model, and find that 5 of the models can shoot at the 2 models at 24 inches and the 48 range weapon can shoot at the enemy as well. So she shooter grabs 5 white dice for the 24 inch weapon and 1 green dice for the 48 inch weapon and rolls them all. Everything hits! Now the shooter must put those wounds into the wound pool - 6 total. The shooter then picks up the 5 white dice and the 1 green dice and rolls for wounds. Everything wounds! The enemy rolls his saving throws and fails 4 of the white 24 inch range dice and fails the 1 green 48 inch dice. The enemy then removes the 2 models that are in the 24 inch range and NO MORE the rest of the white dice wounds are lost based on the new FAQ, then the enemy removes 1 model past the 24 inch range because the 48 inch weapon is within range. This is all per how page 12-13 and the new FAQ is written.

Except that's not what the FAQ says.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

Just as you say that's not what the FAQ says... You can't put " " around part of a sentence to plead your case, especially when it's a poorly written sentence. All we can do is interpret the rules and I interpret it how I wrote it. This ENTIRE edition is based off of model by model, why would GW change it for one rule? It says it right there in your quote in the ( ) that it is model to model. It also shows more evidence of GWs poorly written sentences because the first usage of model should be plural since the word "are" was used instead of "is".

doesn't matter what the BRB says anymore, subject is closed with the way the FAQ works. Only questionable thing is, what is in range of the template since it doesn't roll to hit but that you can easily play RAI for to come to a fair agreement.

What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

 Crablezworth wrote:
What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

I thought this for a bit earlier today; however as someone else pointed out rapid fire doesn't decrease your range, it just gives you an extra shot when the target unit is within half range.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

I've stated this 3 times now, RF doesn't change the range of the weapon, it just states that you get an extra shot if the closest model is found to be within half of it's range.
Meaning bolters always kill at 24 regardless of RFing.

Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

Kal-El wrote:
Just as you say that's not what the FAQ says... You can't put " " around part of a sentence to plead your case, especially when it's a poorly written sentence. All we can do is interpret the rules and I interpret it how I wrote it. This ENTIRE edition is based off of model by model, why would GW change it for one rule? It says it right there in your quote in the ( ) that it is model to model. It also shows more evidence of GWs poorly written sentences because the first usage of model should be plural since the word "are" was used instead of "is".

The entire edition? Hardly. See the Line of Sight rules - a perfectly analogous Unit-to-Model situation.

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Lets say a LRBT fires at a target. Battle cannons range is 72inches. Where ever that blast land you roll to hit and to wound and kill whatever fails its saves. It doesnt say what is under the template, it says you can only wound what is in range, and with a 72inch cannon your pretty much in range of anything.

jegsar wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

I've stated this 3 times now, RF doesn't change the range of the weapon, it just states that you get an extra shot if the closest model is found to be within half of it's range.
Meaning bolters always kill at 24 regardless of RFing.

pretre wrote:Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 pretre wrote:
Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

Hey guess what a 10 man guard squad rapid fires. Everyone is in 12 inch range. Why not elect 1 model to fire 1 shot at 24 Inches so then technically the whole enemy unit is now within the firing units range. Problem solved?

Step by step analysis of rules with addition of FAQ:

1) Choose target
2) Check LOS, then distance to target from weapon with the longest range. If it has no LOS, or is not in distance, then it picks another target.
3) All models fire at the same time.
4) Roll to hit for each shot that's in range.
5) Roll to wound, add wounds to wound pool.
6) Allocate wounds, and remove causalities.

"Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No."

So, we must have a wound pool for the FAQ to take place. Then, we only allocate wounds to the models that are in range of ANY of the shooting models. So if all your bolters are in range of only half of an enemy squad, you can only kill off the half that is in range. If you have a missile launcher in that squad, the bolters can kill off the whole squad. That's RAW for the FAQ.

tankboy145 wrote:

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Lets say a LRBT fires at a target. Battle cannons range is 72inches. Where ever that blast land you roll to hit and to wound and kill whatever fails its saves. It doesnt say what is under the template, it says you can only wound what is in range, and with a 72inch cannon your pretty much in range of anything.

Please, please please read this entire thread. All of these issues have already been addressed in triplicate, as jegsar has politely pointed out. A blast weapon has specific rules that allow it to scatter beyond normal range and still cause damage. It isn't impacted by this FAQ.

Yeah at this point all of the issues are solved. virx67 summed it up again and for those of you worried about RF, read the rule or at least the rest of thing page.

I'm done responding to this thread so enjoy, this is one ruleset that is fairly simple to understand if not a little annoying to carry out.

@tankboy; you missed the joke.
@virx: that's been said about twenty times.

 Janthkin wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
First off GW should have made this an errata to page 15 and not a FAQ, and it is poor English; I put in ( ) of how it should read. It's confusing how they messed up the words. Now we have to dissect their new faq question to make sense of it and in order to do this we need pages 12 and 13. The first part - When making a shooting attack against a unit (page 12 which models can fire rule), can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range (of any of the) shooting models when (the) To Hit rolls are made (page 13 which models can fire and rolling to hit rules).

The answer is "No."

I think this rule is pretty clear, and I feel like most of you are wrong...even GW on their part. This is how it should go down - 9 models of a 10 man squad has a shooting attack that shoots 24 inches and 1 model has a 48 inch weapon. They are positioned 5 in front and 5 in the back. . The target unit has 10 models in it, 2 of which are at exactly 24 inches from the shooting units first rank of models. The shooting unit then checks to see if he can target the unit. To do this he checks his furthest ranged weapon which is 48 inches. The unit can target it.

Now the shooter checks his range from each model, and find that 5 of the models can shoot at the 2 models at 24 inches and the 48 range weapon can shoot at the enemy as well. So she shooter grabs 5 white dice for the 24 inch weapon and 1 green dice for the 48 inch weapon and rolls them all. Everything hits! Now the shooter must put those wounds into the wound pool - 6 total. The shooter then picks up the 5 white dice and the 1 green dice and rolls for wounds. Everything wounds! The enemy rolls his saving throws and fails 4 of the white 24 inch range dice and fails the 1 green 48 inch dice. The enemy then removes the 2 models that are in the 24 inch range and NO MORE the rest of the white dice wounds are lost based on the new FAQ, then the enemy removes 1 model past the 24 inch range because the 48 inch weapon is within range. This is all per how page 12-13 and the new FAQ is written.

Except that's not what the FAQ says.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

This is obviously the way the writers intended this FAQ question to work. I can't believe there are people trying to argue this any other way. Oh wait, this is YMDC on Dakka, nevermind.

Occam's Razor...

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

So that would mean the actual range of any weapon is equal to the one with the furthest?

By RAW the question is explicitly stated for an example wherein the target unit has exactly half in range so the answer only applies to this specific case?

jegsar wrote:Gunline vs assault doesn't get changed much, gunline vs gunline and assault vs assault changes a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kal-El, the condition is based on when rolling to hit... You don't even need to hit with the ML to remove models past 24

jegsar wrote:doesn't matter what the BRB says anymore, subject is closed with the way the FAQ works. Only questionable thing is, what is in range of the template since it doesn't roll to hit but that you can easily play RAI for to come to a fair agreement.

The subject is not closed and it does matter what the BRB says because pages 12-13 both say otherwise. The new FAQ is listed as a FAQ frequently asked questions and not an errata which is a rule change, so therefor what's in the MRB is still relevant. Also if someone does not roll to hit with their missile launcher I'm not taking a model for the wound since the boltersare out of range. When overwatch kills your assault guys and you lose your charge because the distance changed, you don't get to still assault...it's sorry about your luck. This applies here. The wounds are lost.

Janthkin wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
Just as you say that's not what the FAQ says... You can't put " " around part of a sentence to plead your case, especially when it's a poorly written sentence. All we can do is interpret the rules and I interpret it how I wrote it. This ENTIRE edition is based off of model by model, why would GW change it for one rule? It says it right there in your quote in the ( ) that it is model to model. It also shows more evidence of GWs poorly written sentences because the first usage of model should be plural since the word "are" was used instead of "is".

The entire edition? Hardly. See the Line of Sight rules - a perfectly analogous Unit-to-Model situation.

Again, pages 8, 12, and 16 state otherwise and line of sight rules are model to model. Just because one marine can see the enemy target does not mean the entire squad can see that same target.

See page 16 - Out of Sight. One model with LOS means anything can be allocated to the target unit.

And you're absolutely wrong - GW can and does change rules using FAQs instead of errata. It's happened before, it's happened now, and it'll happen again.

rigeld2 wrote:
See page 16 - Out of Sight. One model with LOS means anything can be allocated to the target unit.
And you're absolutely wrong - GW can and does change rules using FAQs instead of errata. It's happened before, it's happened now, and it'll happen again.

This and the range of the ML is still 28 so the bolter would wound up to 48 if the closest model to the bolter is within 24.
@Kal-El

Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made

please tell me where the ML needs to roll to hit as long as any of the shooting models roll to hit. This covers beams, novas, etc... also.

RAW, it works
RAI, it works
Does it make sense yes because it would be way to slow and you would then need to split up the wound pool not only by ap but range and who knows what else. This would slow down the game too much.
Does it make sense in comparison to reality? no but neither does the warp, and it doesn't need to as this is a game.

Kal-Els interpretation is the most sound to me and it is backed up by other BRB entries. I don't feel this interpretation is gamesy in anyway, but rather more realistic and cinematic, which is what GW was going for this edition.

Alright guys to help clear this up. The Out of Range rule on page 16 allows a model that fired to continue to be counted as in range even if the closest enemy in the unit being fired upon is outside the maximum range of that model. This rule does not cease to apply now, there is just a limit to how far it goes.

Before the FAQ the Out of Range rule let you continue to allocate to models in the target unit that were out of range of all weapons in the firing unit. The FAQ puts a limit on this, all models in the target unit that are out of range of all of the weapons in the firing unit are now safe.

To rephrase. As the rules are now, every model in the target unit that is either outside the line of sight of every model in the firing unit or outside the maximum range of every weapon in the firing unit cannot have a wound allocated to it.

A model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model to fire at all.

What I find funny about this whole situation is we seem to have 3 distinct groups of people who are all arguing past each other without being entirely certain which direction the person they are arguing with is trying to go (and no insult intended towards any of these groups, just trying to point out what I'm seeing going on)!


1) First, we have people that seem to have been playing the LOS rules incorrectly pre-FAQ and were playing that casualties in a target unit could not be pulled beyond a weapon's range (missing the fact that the rules seemed to indicate that range only mattered regarding whether the FIRING models themselves were within range of their target enemy unit). So to that group of people, those that are arguing that this FAQ now allows casualties to be pulled from within range of any firing weapon in the unit, sound like they are trying to completely cheese the rule to gain an advantage. They're saying things like: 'how dare you try to claim that you can now pull casualties based on the longest range firing weapon', implying that this new FAQ ruling is some sort of BUFF to the casualty removal rules!


2) Then you have the people who played (IMHO) correctly pre-FAQ and understand that range was just measured for firing models and if the firing model was within range of the target unit then from that point on range played no further role in the shooting process. To those people (which includes me), the new FAQ is clearly a change of rules and an overall 'nerf' to the casualty removal rules. Yes, having one longer ranged weapon firing in the unit can allow a firing unit to get around this new restriction, but there is no doubt that this IS a restriction compared to what the rules themselves previously detailed for casualty removal.


3) Then finally we have people who understood how the range rules worked pre-FAQ (as with camp #2), but they always clearly FELT that this rule was stupid and they wished GW would change the range rules to make them more 'realistic'. So to these people, the FAQ ruling is like a tease...it SEEMS to answer the question they wanted answered, but not entirely the way they were hoping for. So now they're desperately trying to figure out how to make arguments to make the FAQ ruling play the way they think it should have been answered.

This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

As Janthkin has pointed out several times, it actually does make the range rules kind of mirror the LOS rules now, so its not that big a deal.

So when you're checking range/LOS initially you're just checking to see what models in the firing unit are within range/LOS of at least one model in the firing unit (so they can fire).

Then in the casualty removal step, if it matters, you'd now double check range and LOS again but this time to the enemy models in the target unit to see which of them are valid to be casualties (with those that are completely out of LOS and/or range being exempt).

Really not *that* hard...

 Fafnir13 wrote:
This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

You only seperate by Strength and AP in the wound pool. Additionally it only states the wound pool as a WHOLE is limited by the longest ranged weapon in the unit, so you do not care about range of the individual "wound" at all.

I concur with Janthkin and Yakface. It's really not as big a deal or as complicated as it initially appears.

Except I don't think that interpretation is going to stick. This FAQ seems to be a counter to the "magic bullets" complaint where models too far out we're getting wounded. If that's their main consideration, how long will they tolerate pistols able to wound outside their range just because there's a bolter along? It would seem to go against the intended effect of the rule which, it at least a recent historical sense, generally gets quashed by yet another FAQ.
Believe me, I would be happy to use the more liberal reading of "firing unit.". I usually have crypteks with 36" shots with my warrior groups. Like I said, the RAW is fairly solid, but I'm guessing it won't last.

I suspect it will. One thing I noticed is that it provides a nice little benefit to SM squads with a longer-ranged heavy weapon, as opposed to Grey Hunter or Strike Squads, who are all 24" max range (even the psycannons).

Well, I personally hope they simply toss the FAQ answer out and change it once they realize that what they've written does actually contradict what the rulebook says...or if they're really committed to making that rules change then going all the way and putting out an errata for the LOS rules section.

I don't know. Given the Eldar power ruling, the Seeker Missile ruling, and the Nephilim jetfighter ruling, they're kind of on a tear in messing stuff up.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
Except I don't think that interpretation is going to stick. This FAQ seems to be a counter to the "magic bullets" complaint where models too far out we're getting wounded. If that's their main consideration, how long will they tolerate pistols able to wound outside their range just because there's a bolter along? It would seem to go against the intended effect of the rule which, it at least a recent historical sense, generally gets quashed by yet another FAQ.
Believe me, I would be happy to use the more liberal reading of "firing unit.". I usually have crypteks with 36" shots with my warrior groups. Like I said, the RAW is fairly solid, but I'm guessing it won't last.

I imagine they did think this through and chose to put up with the quirk of longer wound range in exchange for simplifying things, i'm sure they could have elected for each firers wounding range to be limited to his weapon range but it would considerably more work to measure and keep track of.

Its not that hard, we did it back in 4th ed

So what your saying (This example will help me understand)

If I have a unit of 3 Tyranid warriors, With DS (18'') and 1 with a Venom Cannon (36'') And choose to shoot at a unit of 10, 5 are within 18'', 5 of the target unit are outside the 18'', but wounds can still be allocated outside, to all 10 of the target unit because my unit contains a model with a range of 36''?

Does the 36'' have to be fired for it to work like this? (I have 2 gun options in the set up above) Surley I have to actually be firing the weapon in question? Or is this soley based on the units Min&Max range?

You have it right, and it's the weapons which are being fired that matter.

The change here is that previously, even if all 3 of your warriors just had DS, and were in range of just 1 enemy model in the target unit, their wounds could be allocated to and potentially kill anyone in that unit (working closest to farthest, as usual).

Yeah, the previous rules did away with bullets suddenly stopping at max range.

Now, bullets stop at max range unless someone else in the unit has a longer ranged gun.

Hence why it's an inelegent abstraction now.

Personally I wish there was a maximum effective range and an absolute maximum range. The first being the furthest the shooter can fire the weapon with the greatest degree of accuracy they possess. The second being furthest the projectile could go with killing power. Something like a BS and S/AP nerf beyond effective range. Have the difference in each range value differ for each weapon like 24-30" for bolters. But alas it would likely be too much.

Basically all this FAQ prevents is say an entire squad of 18inch guns being in range of 2-4 dudes getting to inflict a lot of wounds...now they are only able to hurt those 2-4 dudes unless they have a bigger gun with them to increase their max range. The FAQ doesnt say that specific gun, it only talks about the unit out of range. Units usually have varied ranges, like this wouldnt effect flames unless you had NOTHING but flamers and who does that? even an orky Slugga would give them the range they need to cover their target unit.

I actually like this FAQ. It's abstract enough to let the players sort out the details, effectively turning all of us in to 'playtesters'. It's not that difficult to sort out and I often wonder how many of us have PLAYED a few games before posting. I have yet to play, so I'll pretty much leave it at that for now.

Personal Opinion aside, and after reading all the threads, one thing I either missed or it hasn't been discussed is the 'Look Out Sir' rule, and range. Does this get around the 'Look Out Sir rule' if only the IC is left in range.

IGNORE the mixed range units for right now, and look at the non-mixed range units. I play Necrons for example and only have units with static ranges. Let's say I shoot 20 Warriors (Yes, all are in range to be able to shoot), but only 1/2 the target squad is within 24" including the IC. So once I've killed all the models withing 24" except the IC, does the IC HAVE to take the wounds, or can he still 'Look Out Sir' to models outside of the 24"? I am assuming that he has to take the wounds, effectively being sniped out.

*Note: Still working through all the FAQ's so don't know if it's been covered there yet either.

 Akar wrote:
I actually like this FAQ. It's abstract enough to let the players sort out the details, effectively turning all of us in to 'playtesters'. It's not that difficult to sort out and I often wonder how many of us have PLAYED a few games before posting. I have yet to play, so I'll pretty much leave it at that for now.

Personal Opinion aside, and after reading all the threads, one thing I either missed or it hasn't been discussed is the 'Look Out Sir' rule, and range. Does this get around the 'Look Out Sir rule' if only the IC is left in range.

IGNORE the mixed range units for right now, and look at the non-mixed range units. I play Necrons for example and only have units with static ranges. Let's say I shoot 20 Warriors (Yes, all are in range to be able to shoot), but only 1/2 the target squad is within 24" including the IC. So once I've killed all the models withing 24" except the IC, does the IC HAVE to take the wounds, or can he still 'Look Out Sir' to models outside of the 24"? I am assuming that he has to take the wounds, effectively being sniped out.

*Note: Still working through all the FAQ's so don't know if it's been covered there yet either.

Well that's a mighty optimistic way of looking at things, sir. I admire your positive world-view!

As for your question, considering that the LoS rule says that:

"[The re-allocation may] even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the Shooting attack."

I'd safely say the LoS rule takes precedence over range and line of sight restrictions.