The absurd part is in this:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


THere is absolutely no requirement, none zip zilch nada, to keep track any more than that. If you have a missile launcher firing (not hitting, FIRING) then you can pull casualties from up to 48" away. If you only have bolters, you are limited to 24"

Any other interpretation requires a gross misrerading of the rule. A very stupid rule, that should have been an errata, but a clear rule nonetheless.

If the ML doesn't have to HIT, then what is the difference between a Tac squad with a ML and one without?

You already roll to hit by weapon (because of differing S and AP), so no extra bookkeeping there.

You already "group" the wounds within the "pool" by S and AP, the other "special rule" is the range. So, you roll for the bolters, cause X wounds, and remove casualties within the appropriate range. Any "leftover" wounds are lost. Then you roll for the ML and remove any casualties. It's a very simple process, start with shortest range weapons and conclude with longest.

Yes, the FAQ is poorly worded. But, for me coming straight to 6th Ed from 3rd, the idea of flamer templates causing wounds to models not under the template is just as absurd as wounds being allocated to models out of range. This FAQ seems to be trying to correct both situations, yet it appears there are folks wanting to keep the ability to cause wounds to models that are out of range.

If the intention is to be able to continue to wound out-of-range models, then there is no need for the FAQ.

Youre coming from 3rd. There is your issue. Blast / Template sniping was rmeoved in 4th, and has stayed gone in 5th and 6th. Dont compare them

RAW we have this one spot on, and it is utterly moronic

>>Nosferatu - at least someone finally agrees that it's moronic. Y'all have had 8+ years to get used to it...I feel like I'm learning a whole new game.

There are six marines and six orks facing each other. Both the marine squad and ork squad are arranged in two rows of three, one behind the other.
Both the front and back row of orks are in range of the front row of marines. Only the front row of orks is in range of the back row of marines.
All six marines shoot a single shot with identical weapons and cause four wounds.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

How lets assume the same scenario, the same distances apart.
Lets change it however so front three marines are now replaced by a single marine with a heavy bolter.
Six shots are fired, three from the heavy bolter wound, two from the back row of marines wound.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

Eh? Having read the entire thread and thinking I'd got it sorted this threw me for a loop - isn't it 4 from the first example as all the orcs are in range of at least one of the firing marines? And how do we get 6 dead orcs from only 5 wounds caused? What'd I miss?

I misread the example

SImply put: how far can the longest ranged weapon shoot, out of the models that are shooting? THAT RANGE is how far away wounds can be allocated.

The. End. No more. This is an awful, awful stupid rule change.

Pre-FAQ:





The reason that the wounds in the post-FAQ example can be allocated beyond their range is because Unit A has fired a weapon that has a further range. It follows then that if the new weapon (*) does not have range to the back row of Unit B then neither the shorter ranged weapons or the longer ranged weapon in Unit A would be able to allocate wounds to that row.

Personally, I don't like this aspect of the rule mechanic. I would be inclined to restrict the shorter ranged weapons to killing only those first two models and allow the longer ranged weapon to kill one additional model up to its maximum range. So in this example instead of 5 wounds being scored only 3 would happen.

-Yad

Nicely done, Yad.

Yad - That's a great drawing and I believe completely describes the old and new situation.

Reading through all of the posts, its obvious that several people were incorrectly playing it to begin with; which I think is the cause of at least some of the confusion. Specifically I think some people misunderstood that wound allocation had nothing to do with range; only with LOS.

Overall, it appears that GW's intention was to keep with the 6th Ed meme of establishing model placement as a key factor in the game. The faq tried to balance this against game flow by allowing the shooter to roll all of the dice at once instead of breaking it out by weapon.

Our group tends to role the dice, including all the way through saves, grouped by weapon anyway based on which weapon the shooter wants to try and hit with first. (exa: first bolters, then the las cannon). So I think this is going to be a rule that we simply "rewrite" so to speak such that a given weapon can only wound what is in actual range .. on a weapon by weapon basis. I think this is where GW is going, however this faq as written isn't there yet.

Yad wrote:
Pre-FAQ:





The reason that the wounds in the post-FAQ example can be allocated beyond their range is because Unit A has fired a weapon that has a further range. It follows then that if the new weapon (*) does not have range to the back row of Unit B then neither the shorter ranged weapons or the longer ranged weapon in Unit A would be able to allocate wounds to that row.

Personally, I don't like this aspect of the rule mechanic. I would be inclined to restrict the shorter ranged weapons to killing only those first two models and allow the longer ranged weapon to kill one additional model up to its maximum range. So in this example instead of 5 wounds being scored only 3 would happen.

-Yad

Every post in the the entire 11 pages of this FAQ should be deleted and replaced with these pictures.
I just don't understand why so many people are confused by this, and how it can be called broken when it is more limiting than the rules we had 5 days ago.

-Matt

Thanks for the thumbs up all. The only thing I would add to this is in regards to weapons that have more than one range.

Bolters for example have two ranges that they can be fired at:

1 Shot up to 24''
2 Shots up to 12''

For the purposes of the new wounds allocation rules I would base all allocation decisions upon the ranges actually used when working out the unit's shooting. Not the potential range(s) of the weapon.

So if you were to shoot twice at 12'' then your limited to allocating wounds to within 12'' and LoS.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Thanks for the thumbs up all. The only thing I would add to this is in regards to weapons that have more than one range.

Bolters for example have two ranges that they can be fired at:

1 Shot up to 24''
2 Shots up to 12''

For the purposes of the new wounds allocation rules I would base all allocation decisions upon the ranges actually used when working out the unit's shooting. Not the potential range(s) of the weapon.

So if you were to shoot twice at 12'' then your limited to allocating wounds to within 12'' and LoS.

-Yad

I'd rather avoid the extra bookkeeping and keep a good amount of abstraction.

That's actually where you fall down, Yad. When rapid fired, the bolter still has a 24" range, but the requirement for the extra shots is that there be targets within 12".

A mode larmedwith a Rapid Fire weaponcan fire two shots
at a target up to half the weapon's maximum range away.
Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the
weapon's range away, up to the weapon's maximum range.

 pretre wrote:
That's actually where you fall down, Yad. When rapid fired, the bolter still has a 24" range, but the requirement for the extra shots is that there be targets within 12".

A model armed with a Rapid Fire weapon can fire two shots
at a target up to half the weapon's maximum range away.
Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the
weapon's range away, up to the weapon's maximum range.

Yeah, I understand the mechanic of the RF rule. I'm just not that enthusiastic about how it interacts with the change to wound allocation. I'd prefer to go all in with this change and limit allocation to the actual range used. That's what I was trying to say. Given the RAW of RF weapons though you're still operating under a weapon with a 24'' range no matter how you actually shoot it. What I would like to see is that if you were to use an RF weapon at half range then you ought to be restricted to allocating within that range.

This isn't RAW just HIWPI.

-Yad

Every post in the the entire 11 pages of this FAQ should be deleted and replaced with these pictures.
I just don't understand why so many people are confused by this, and how it can be called broken when it is more limiting than the rules we had 5 days ago.

-Matt

People are confused because Out of Range rule on pg 16 completely contracdicts this and this isn't an amendment or Errata. It's just a clarification so technically Out of Range could override this by RAW.

good picture!

Why guys think it is broken? I think those guys have 24"-Armies that like to stay at the 24"-border and are now suffering from that.

Personally I don't like that rule as well, it should have been weapon based and done like the allocation with mixed weapons (missile casualties can be taken from 48" and bolter casualties from 24") but that doesnt change the fact that it is as the picture indicates.

One question popping up in my local gaming group:

As far as range is concerned with regards to what models in the targeted unit are eligible for wound allocation, the range for a flame thrower = template. For sake of this argument a bolter has a range of 24"


So if a model with a bolter was surrounded by a blob, if he shot and wounded 1 time. you would measure from the firing model A ---------> target B and if that distance was less than what range equaled on the profile of his weapon, that model was eligible to have a wound allocated to it (if it were the next closest model and in LOS)....

So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

Calm down. It's just a silly game. And just remember probably like 99.999 percent of the player base aren't going to play it this way.

Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Ignispacium wrote:


There are six marines and six orks facing each other. Both the marine squad and ork squad are arranged in two rows of three, one behind the other.
Both the front and back row of orks are in range of the front row of marines. Only the front row of orks is in range of the back row of marines.
All six marines shoot a single shot with identical weapons and cause four wounds.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

Four Orks are removed, because all of the marines had range on at least one Ork, and three of them had range on all six.

How lets assume the same scenario, the same distances apart.
Lets change it however so front three marines are now replaced by a single marine with a heavy bolter.
Six shots are fired, three from the heavy bolter wound, two from the back row of marines wound.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

Five. First, you take two for the shorter range bolters, then three due to the HB.

That is how it would have been pre-FAQ as well, for this particular example. If, however, only one of the Orks had been in range of the marines, then the number of casualties would be four - if you group wounds by range - five if you contend that the mere existence of the HB in the squad confers some magical range-extending power to the bolters.

If you change the diagram a bit you get this, with two different answers, pre- and post-FAQ:



In the above diagram, only 3 Orks are in range of all six marines, so the pre-FAQ answer to the first scenario would have been 4 casualties. The post-FAQ answer is 3.

In the second scenario, using the same diagram, there are two competing ideas:



In this scenario, pre-FAQ, the answer would have been 5 casualties.

Post-FAQ, the magic-bullet brigade wants to believe that you still get 5 dead Orks, because the HB has range on all of the Orks. Even if the HB had missed, there are some in this discussion that want to be able to deal out both wounds from the bolters to the Orks, even though only one Ork is in range.


The correct answer should be 4, as the 2 wounds caused by the marines in the back row only have range on 1 Ork. The HB still takes out 3.

skyfi wrote:
So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

No, every model that was in range of any of the flame templates can be removed as a casualty. You resolve all of the flame template shots at the same time, and you can kill any models that are in range of any firing model.

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

The excess wounds are not lost. By your drawing every model in the target unit is in range of at least one flame template so if they all fire then all the models in the target unit can be killed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

skyfi wrote:
So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

No, every model that was in range of any of the flame templates can be removed as a casualty. You resolve all of the flame template shots at the same time, and you can kill any models that are in range of any firing model.

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

The excess wounds are not lost. By your drawing every model in the target unit is in range of at least one flame template so if they all fire then all the models in the target unit can be killed.

my sketch is not to scale.


for clarity i thought I stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3 thus their excess wounds couldn't be allocated to 4 & 5. (unless you are arguing that a heavy bolter allows bolt pistols to wound 36" away, which I don't agree with. I think that the BRB states that range is derived on a model by model basis. Thus if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5 their excess wounds would be lost?

skyfi wrote:


... the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

What is the range of the Flamer? I believe it is listed as Range: Template (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). So what this rule change means is that you have to check to see what models can be covered by the template in addition to the models you are actually covering when working out how many hits you generate. In your example, you would be able to allocate wounds to the additional models in the target unit. Check out the last example I provided a few posts earlier. In your scenario, it no longer matters that 2 of your models are out of range to models 4 & 5. Because they are covered by other models that are firing they can be assigned wounds.

If there were some additional models in the target unit that were strung out beyond the template's footprint then you would not be able to allocate wounds to them.

-Yad

skyfi wrote:
my sketch is not to scale.

for clarity i thought I stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3 thus their excess wounds couldn't be allocated to 4 & 5. (unless you are arguing that a heavy bolter allows bolt pistols to wound 36" away, which I don't agree with. I think that the BRB states that range is derived on a model by model basis. Thus if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5 their excess wounds would be lost?

Yes you stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3, but the FaQ states that if a model is within range of any of the shooting units weapons then they can be removed as a casualty.

therefore if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5, but C has range to 4 & 5, then A, B & C can kill any model 1-5 in that unit.

this is the Worst rule change ever! half the people don't get it. half of the half that get it got it wrong.

Why fix something that doesn't need to be fixed? There are a lot more holes in the rules that could have been addressed and play-tested, (do they play-test? sometimes it seems like they don't.)

This is just aggravating. I feel like i'm up the creek without a paddle here. there is nothing i could do even if i wanted to, i could quit... but i really do not want to do that.

It's not that i disagree with the rules. I just wish that they where clear. I mean, right now you have to go to four different 6 different places to play a game, (Big rule book, your codex, your opponents codex, Rules faq, your army f.a.q., and your opponets f.a.q.)

They take rules erratas and call them F.a.q.s this need to stop. This is not an f.a.q. this is errata.

I feel like they need to get some new writers, playtesters, and i'm sure a lot more things, and perhaps start looking outside the U.K. for help.

Am i the only one who feels this way? are there people who strongly disagree with me? is there anything we can do about this poor execution from GW?

Thanks for y'alls takes on it mates. I think our club is going to house rule/vote on what interpretation next week or something if one con consensus can't be reached.


I see what you mean by wording of the faQ and the "any models"



One prevailing argument/pov in the group seems to be that templates can ONLY wound what they touch. Which I can't find a rule for.

I assume this is their logic;


Template = Range

You can only wound what is in range (ie. under the template is their pov i think) when "to hit" rolls are done.

So I think they don't care that hypothetically C could have models 4 and 5 in range (if you simply laid template between C and 4/5 to check range) because when "to hit" rolls were done, his range was limited to the template shape, where it was specifically placed and thus only the models "touched" by it would be eligible to have wounds attributed to them as they were the only ones in "range"

I made 2 scale(ish) drawings for skyfi

In this example all three flamers (in blue) can hit 3 red models, causing up to 9 wounds:


Pre-FAQ that meant that all 5 of the red models could be removed as casualties.

Post-FAQ it means that only 3 can, as the remainder are out of range.

In another example:

Model A can hit models 1 & 2, model B can hit 1 & 2 or 2 & 3 and model C can hit 2 & 3 or 3 & 4 - this could cause a max of 6 wounds.



Pre-FAQ all 6 could have been removed as casualties. Post-FAQ, even if you roll 6 wounds you can only allocate 4 to the red models, as models 5 and 6 are out of range.

Welcome to 40k lol

 BlueDagger wrote:
Welcome to 40k lol

i assume this was for me. After only playing a year i finnaly feel like a 40k player. thank you.

How does this sound?

So assuming you have a unit of ten identical models:

1.) Check range. Let's say six models have range to at least one enemy model in the enemy unit you are targeting.
2.) Of the six models in your unit that have range on the enemy models, find the one closest to the enemy unit and identify all the enemy models in the target enemy unit that lie within his weapon's maximum range.
3.) Roll to hit, roll to wound and make saves.
4.) Unsaved wounds from your firing unit are removed as casualties from the closest models in the enemy unit, this proceeds until you run out of unsaved wounds to assign or you've removed every model that lies within the closest friendly firing model's maximum range, whichever comes first.

Other weapons like heavy bolters and the like would have to be rolled for and assigned separately using their positions and maximum ranges.

You were right, up until the end.

***ALL*** shooting models. Not some, ALL. So you find the longest range in ***ALL*** the shooting models, and that is the furthest you can allocate wounds.

There is a single wound pool. you are trying to create more than one, which has no rules backing at all.

I suggest people who are just posting go back acouple of pages and look at Yads diagrams, or Yaks answers, as they explain this entirely perfectly.

This can be a game changer with two shooting armies facing off where one has a slightly longer range. Before the faq it would be hard to keep backing up your models to keep out of range with the limited table space but now if you can continue to do it with only losing a few models when you change angles it can make a difference. That is if the shorter range army can't add long range weapons or your game group has decided to do this as per weapon range.

 hdbbstephen wrote:
I made 2 scale(ish) drawings for skyfi

In this example all three flamers (in blue) can hit 3 red models, causing up to 9 wounds:


Pre-FAQ that meant that all 5 of the red models could be removed as casualties.

Post-FAQ it means that only 3 can, as the remainder are out of range.

In another example:

Model A can hit models 1 & 2, model B can hit 1 & 2 or 2 & 3 and model C can hit 2 & 3 or 3 & 4 - this could cause a max of 6 wounds.



Pre-FAQ all 6 could have been removed as casualties. Post-FAQ, even if you roll 6 wounds you can only allocate 4 to the red models, as models 5 and 6 are out of range.

My diagram is positioned where C has range to ALL models in the target unit. that is the difference. I concur with you/your diagrams here.


My question is specifically if C had range to the remaining models, and his wound group had excess wounds from the models A and B... would the models 4&5 that C has range to be eligible to receive excess wounds from 1. Only model C as its in range, or 2. ALL of the models firing regardless of weapon type, 3. ALL of the models firing the SAME weapon type as what C is using? It seems that A & B could Kill 4 & 5 as C is granting their wound GROUP (not pool) "range"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You were right, up until the end.

***ALL*** shooting models. Not some, ALL. So you find the longest range in ***ALL*** the shooting models, and that is the furthest you can allocate wounds.

There is a single wound pool. you are trying to create more than one, which has no rules backing at all.

I suggest people who are just posting go back acouple of pages and look at Yads diagrams, or Yaks answers, as they explain this entirely perfectly.

i think people are getting wound groups and wound pool confused.

Bolters create wound group of 2 wounds, flamers create a wound group of 4, heavy bolter creates a wound group of 2.

My common sense tells me the bolters lethal range is 24", the flamer the template, and the heavy bolter 36".

However the wording of the faq seems to say that the 4 wounds caused by the flamer could be applied to distances up to 24 or 36" (and the bolter from 24" increased to 36")... I'm going to re read yak/yad's posts now though.

 TheContortionist wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
Welcome to 40k lol

i assume this was for me. After only playing a year i finnaly feel like a 40k player. thank you.

Heh, I've only been playing for only about 4 years and there is one thing I can to realize... GW only cares about $. You think these rules issues are "mistakes"? No, they get the playerbase all worked up or change the way the game plays to keep people relooking at the game. In the end, all they care about is $ and even army release will show you that black and white when you compare the best unit options vs $ cost.

Luckly for people like me that caught onto it, there is plenty of competitor games out there that are 10x more fun. All it takes is the will for someone to get their friends to try something new as a group. I'll look at my Eldar again when GW pulls their head out of their arse or the 40k license is bought by an ethical company.

My 2 cents on the original topics -> wounds create a pool and groups within that pool. If a missile launcher snap fires in a squad of bolters you can kill anything up to 48" with the missile launcher AND the bolters. If you have a squad of Flamers, just use the bolt with one of them and you can kill anything up to 18".

Here is a good combo. I could make a veteran squad and make them all assaulty so they all have a pistol and close combat weapon of some sort. Except one model will be armed with a missile launcher. Once I get within 12" and resolve hits and wounds any wounds caused by the pistols could be allocated out to 48". That is awesome!

whill4 wrote:
Here is a good combo. I could make a veteran squad and make them all assaulty so they all have a pistol and close combat weapon of some sort. Except one model will be armed with a missile launcher. Once I get within 12" and resolve hits and wounds any wounds caused by the pistols could be allocated out to 48". That is awesome!

Nope, it doesn't work that way. The pistols still need a valid target to be able to shoot. A proper example would be if the target unit you're shooting at had only 1 model within 12'' and the remainder were outside of 12''. The longer range of the missile launcher would allow you to allocate wounds beyond twelve inches when otherwise they would be lost after you killed the sole model within 12''.

In short, you have conflated determining how many To Hit rolls you get with the new wound allocation rule.

-Yad

He did say "Once I get within 12".

Just to note, this is how it worked pre-FAQ, just now you have to pay for that missile launcher in the squad that can't be fired if you plan to assault.

 BlueDagger wrote:
He did say "Once I get within 12".

Just to note, this is how it worked pre-FAQ, just now you have to pay for that missile launcher in the squad that can't be fired if you plan to assault.

So he did My bad on that. Yes, you're [whill4] correct. Getting to within (even partially) 12'' would allow you to allocate beyond the 12'' range so long as the unit fires a longer ranged weapon.

-Yad


@BlueDagger: Except I believe the change in wound allocation now requires you to fire that missile launcher if you want to 'extend' the wound allocation range.

It works exactly that way. That is what you have been arguing all along. Once all the models within 12" and LOS have been killed any excess pistol wounds can be allocated to models further than 12" and still in LOS.



Edit: Slow typer

skyfi wrote:
My common sense tells me the bolters lethal range is 24", the flamer the template, and the heavy bolter 36".

Unfortunately, using common sense in 40k is very bad idea. Pre-faq, every weapon had infinite lethal range. Post-FAQ, every weapon in the shooting unit has same lethal range as the longest lethal range weapon has (more or less).

skyfi wrote:
However the wording of the faq seems to say that the 4 wounds caused by the flamer could be applied to distances up to 24 or 36" (and the bolter from 24" increased to 36")... I'm going to re read yak/yad's posts now though.

Yup. Basically, it's playable compromise between infinite lethal range (=pre-faq) and model specific lethal range (='realistic).

Yes, a wound pool is only ever SINGULAR, but can have many wound groups within it.

THe FAQ states wound pool, so that is what we go by,

In reality all the FAQ does is force people to take a long range weapon is a short range weapon squad, which most were already doing. The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there) and assault units (like they needed kicked anymore).

 BlueDagger wrote:
The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there)...

Every Flamer of Tzeentch also comes with a 18" range assault weapon, "warp flame". They're not too concerned.

Once all the models within 12" and LOS have been killed any excess pistol wounds can be allocated to models further than 12" and still in LOS.

Just how many models are you expecting to kill with nine laspistols?

Yeah they have the 18" warp flame, but thipically that extra flamer template would be a lot more worthwhile. Not a huge issue for them your right. Right off the bat I can think that it will hurt triflamer Guardians for Eldar... if anyone was still running them post skimmer nerf.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

My local game store, for one.

Zirilius wrote:

Every post in the the entire 11 pages of this FAQ should be deleted and replaced with these pictures.
I just don't understand why so many people are confused by this, and how it can be called broken when it is more limiting than the rules we had 5 days ago.

-Matt

People are confused because Out of Range rule on pg 16 completely contracdicts this and this isn't an amendment or Errata. It's just a clarification so technically Out of Range could override this by RAW.

Wrong. Your assumption is that GW never changes rules with FAQs.
That assumption is demonstrably wrong.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

Murrdox wrote:
I'm having a hard time reconciling this FAQ with page 16. I think I may not have read this paragraph carefully before the FAQ, but now that I do have the FAQ I'm having a very hard time understanding it. Can someone help explain?

Out of Range

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range

What does this MEAN?

If a model is in range when to hit rolls were made, how would it be then possible for that model to suddenly be OUT of range when casualties are removed? The model hasn't MOVED anywhere. If he was 12" away when to hit rolls were made, even if there were 10 models closer to the enemy than he was, he's still going to be 12" away after those 10 models are removed.

Is the phrase being non-specific? Should it be read "As long as ANY model was in range... " but if that's supposed to be the reading, what is the meaning of "He" later on? The text seems to be referring to a specific model.

One situation is Gets Hot. If the model was in range when the to-hit roll was made, and the shooting squad rolls very badly and loses a few to Gets Hot, then a few enemies might be out of range due to the loss of the front 3 guys in the shooting squad but they can still be hit according to this rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

None of the stores in my local area are going to play it your way but I don't know how to prove that. Everyone I spoke to has said it is very [Mod: Please do not use the word gay or mis-spelled substitutes as a pejorative. Thank you.].

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

None of the stores in my local area are going to play it your way but I don't know how to prove that. Everyone I spoke to has said it is very g3hy.

I don't understand what you mean by 'your way'. Do you mean the way the wound allocation rules have changed due to the new FAQ? If so then sure, TO's have every right to adjust the rules as they see fit. If they don't want to follow this particular rule mechanic they can ignore it or change it to their liking. I would hope that they make it known to the players that they are changing the rules. Otherwise, the folks showing up having read and understood the FAQ might be in for a bit of a surprise.

-Yad

I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You realize that FaQ's can, and sometimes do, change rules right?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

This from a guy directly disagreeing with a clear FAQ after it's published.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You realize that FaQ's can, and sometimes do, change rules right?

It happens. I don't think anyone really cares enough how GW rules only that they made a ruling. TBH I don't think anybody had a problem with Abby joining units pre-FAQ, except from a RAW standpoint. I'll continue arguing that a Drop Pod suffers a Hull Point just from entering play. I don't play it that way and if GW ever FAQs it that they do not lose a HP, I won't be surprised. A number of the rulings went how most people play it and I think the only thing that really caught people off guard was the change to Farseers in transports.

Edit: Changed my mind.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

A terrible track record for what - arguing about what the rules say?

Yeah, no. I don't think I've ever argued intent - feel free to point out where I have.
I may have pointed out places where I think intent could go either way, but that's not the same thing as arguing what the rules say.

 BlueDagger wrote:
In reality all the FAQ does is force people to take a long range weapon is a short range weapon squad, which most were already doing. The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there) and assault units (like they needed kicked anymore).

Doesnt really even effect flamer squads like burna boyz, just take a big mek with kustom mega blast and they can kill anything within 24" of him.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You still seem to have large problems understanding what Rules As Written mean. Before those FAQ's were published, according to RAW Abaddon couldn't join marked unit and Necrons suffered Crash and Burn. Now, those FAQs changed the rules and obviously so did the RAW change. Note that in both cases, quite many people did point out before FAQ that "These will most likely be FAQ'd to work differently" and it was no big surprise they were.

Same is true for the removal of casualties from unit. Before FAQ, RAW was that any model in LOS could have wound allocated to them. After FAQ the new RAW is that only models that are both in LOS and in range for at least one shooting model can have wound allocated to them.

If anyone is ignorant enough to try argue that "Only Errata changes rules, FAQ entries don't change the rules", I advise you to read Necron FAQ, especially the last FAQ question and answer:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

Luide, to be fair I still believe the raw on abandon pre FAQ was clear he could join a unit as the units mark was not a different mark to those in his collection. Also, due to the exact timing on flyers and the crash and burn rules it was clear to me that reserves occurred chronologically before passenger damage. That said, it was an argument for a reason--unclear rules--and the FAQ does not change unclear rules, just answer them.

DevianID wrote:
Luide, to be fair I still believe the raw on abandon pre FAQ was clear he could join a unit as the units mark was not a different mark to those in his collection.

You're wrong though. The rule is explicit and it is not what you claim it was. Requirement was that IC may not have different mark from the unit, not other way around like you claimed here. And Abaddon obviously has three different marks from any marked unit...

DevianID wrote:
Also, due to the exact timing on flyers and the crash and burn rules it was clear to me that reserves occurred chronologically before passenger damage.

And you're wrong again. It's been shown multiple times that because the 'disembark' portion (placing models) happens after taking hits, moving the reserves that happens instead of 'disembark' must therefore occur after the hits have been taken. Now, there were RAI arguments about why that should not happen, but that was RAI, not RAW.

DevianID wrote:
That said, it was an argument for a reason--unclear rules--and the FAQ does not change unclear rules, just answer them.

While Crash and burn did require reading the rules in detail and quick read through it would leave the situation unclear, marked IC's joining marked units was crystal clear. Only problem with those were people who read the rule wrong, thinking the requirement was somehow about how IC must have same mark as the unit, when it was never about that.
These were not so much about unclear rules as unpopular rules for their respective players. Again, it was pretty obvious both of those would be FAQ'd in the way they were. I mean, Necron unit having some sort of disadvantage?

But point still stands: both of those FAQ entries changed the rules. Same as the FAQ entry that states "use individual Toughness in Challenges" is also a rules change. (Note how they forgot to do same for WS)

Now, there are actual unclear rules answered in this round of FAQs, like FNP vs Force weapon and how does Crash and Burn interact with Dreadnought transported on SR.

Disclaimer: RAW != HIWPI.

There is no need to debate Crash and Burn or Abaddon joining marked units any further. There can be no useful purpose served by antagonistically declaring one person or another to be categorically wrong about them, and further posts along those lines will be treated as flamebaiting/trolling.

I read the entire thread and I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around the changes and what they mean for the game in a grander scale.

I would like to word this so simpletons like myself can understand...
As long as ANY of the firing models have range on EVERY model in the target unit, wounds can be allocated to EVERY model in the target unit, regardless of the number of firing models are ACTUALLY in range. (While still following other shooting and LOS rules)

Can anyone confirm that this a better way of understanding it?

Yes, but each model has to have range to at least 1 model in the unit being shot at to be able to shoot at all.

Any models that don't have range to an enemy model still don't shoot.

1) In order to shoot a model has to have range to a model in the target unit. That has not altered.

2) In order for a wound to be allocated from the wound pool a firing model must have range to that model, of ANY of the firing models.

roxor08 wrote:
I read the entire thread and I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around the changes and what they mean for the game in a grander scale.

I would like to word this so simpletons like myself can understand...
As long as ANY of the firing models have range on EVERY model in the target unit, wounds can be allocated to EVERY model in the target unit, regardless of the number of firing models are ACTUALLY in range. (While still following other shooting and LOS rules)

Can anyone confirm that this a better way of understanding it?

Its a stop gap between 4th and 5th rules, and is a nerf to shooting, but that was needed seeing as combat is terrible in this edition. Im just a little surprised it took them 6 months to figure that out.

I don't mind GW trying to make money - it's a business. I don't like unbalancing rules though, and something that's a weapon becoming a force multiplier for free bugs me.

Example:
10 marines with 9 bolters and a multi-melta: max wounding range 24".

10 marines, 9 with bolters one with missile. The missile doubles bolter wounding (but not the range they can fire, I know that) range. The missile costs points based on its strength and ap. it's not pointed as a force multiplier that extends the wounding range of his fellows. That annoys me that bolters in a missile squad are different from bolters in a bolter or multi melta squad.


In contrast, the banner of devastation, which makes bolters near it better than standard bolters, or Lysander, which makes his squad better with bolters, both are force multipliers which pay for those abilities.

I think it's been worded wrong, and should apply weapon by weapon, but I doubt it will be played that way. As it is, I foresee this affecting the way I play next to none at all, as up until now weapons always were able to wound what wasn't in range as long as they were in range to fire, so it's not like the game becomes completely different.

It wont be played that way, as that isnt what the rule tells you. In addition you wopld have to create an additional wound pool for your "interpretation" to be correct, creating more rules out of whole cloth.

Spellbound wrote:
I don't mind GW trying to make money - it's a business. I don't like unbalancing rules though, and something that's a weapon becoming a force multiplier for free bugs me.

Thats a contradiction seeing as GW unbalances rules for the purpose of making money.

Does anybody really think that, when the next FAQ comes out, that just because you have a longer range weapon in the unit that your other weapons will suddenly magically be able to wound models at a greater distance than they should?

Is there any reason, besides trying to remain a RAW purist, that a T.O. should rule in this direction?

If they meant for Warp Quake to only have two possible outcomes- dead or back in Reserves, they'd have written it that way explicitly.

No, you can't just keep Warp Quaking them over and over.

 Loopy wrote:
Does anybody really think that, when the next FAQ comes out, that just because you have a longer range weapon in the unit that your other weapons will suddenly magically be able to wound models at a greater distance than they should?

Is there any reason, besides trying to remain a RAW purist, that a T.O. should rule in this direction?

Sorry, but have you read pg 16 and the rest of this thread?

Before the FAQ, you used the rules on pg 16 of the rulebook which state that if a firing model was in range when it rolled to hit, any wounds caused may be allocated past the maximum range of the weapon as long as the model being allocated the wound is the closest (and within LOS of one firing model).

So if you had 10 storm bolters armed grey knight in range of just one ork out of the 30 in the squad, you could wound and kill 20, despite only being in range of 1. If you had 9 Marines with a boltgun and 1 with a heavy bolter all in range of one ork, you could kill up to 12.

After the FAQ, it places an additional limitation that no wounds may be allocated to a model that is out of range of ALL of the firing units weapons.

So to use the previous example, if you had 10 storm bolters armed grey knight in range of just one ork out of the 30 in the squad, you could wound and kill 1, If you had 9 Marines with a boltgun and 1 with a heavy bolter all in range of one ork, you still could kill up to 12 assuking that all 12 are withing 36".

This is a nerf to shooting. and its perfectly clear the way it should operate. Now theres nothing to stop a TO ruling it another way, but then its not RAW or RAI, the TO may as well rule that Necrons auto-lose, its and equally valid ruling.

 Loopy wrote:
Does anybody really think that, when the next FAQ comes out, that just because you have a longer range weapon in the unit that your other weapons will suddenly magically be able to wound models at a greater distance than they should?

Is there any reason, besides trying to remain a RAW purist, that a T.O. should rule in this direction?

WEll, it is more restrictive than the old rules/ Or were you not playing those correctly? Page 16 is quite , quite clear on this

I played the way you all suggest the FAQ is this weekend and its complete crap. I agree with an entire squad of storm bolters only killing in their max range. That is a no brainier and common sense. The part that makes this rule complete crap is the Furthest weapon allowing wounds past the shorter ranges max range. I did not enjoy my games because every time someone pulled this stupid rule I died a little each time on the inside. It really took the spirit of the game out of it for me.

Kal-El wrote:
I played the way you all suggest the FAQ is this weekend and its complete crap. I agree with an entire squad of storm bolters only killing in their max range. That is a no brainier and common sense. The part that makes this rule complete crap is the Furthest weapon allowing wounds past the shorter ranges max range. I did not enjoy my games because every time someone pulled this stupid rule I died a little each time on the inside. It really took the spirit of the game out of it for me.

And were you playing it correctly before? I ask because it was previously the case that all weapons were allowed to wound past their maximum range as long as they were in range when to hit rolls were made. Did you not enjoy your games then? Did you die a little inside each time people played by both the spirit and word of the rules?

If you don't like the rules fine, thats your opinion, and by all means, you're welcome to it. but the rule itself is straight forward, simple and clear. I think a lot of people are confused by this beacuse they weren't playing the rules correctly in the first place and see this a a boost to shooting as opposed to the nerf it actually is.

Yes, that is how we played pg 16 before the FAQ. Now, with the FAQ, it seems as if that interpretation of the "Out of Range" rule is incorrect because the FAQ directly contradicts it. The way I see it, this contradiction can only be settled if we re-interpret page 16.

I think that, after that FAQ, the only way to interpret the "Out of range" rule on page 16 is thus:

Models that were in range to a model before wounds were allocated stay within range after wounds were allocated. Note that it doesn't specify models or units within range... just "the enemy". This rule can't be used to decide whether a model or the unit is within range. You have to use the previous shooting rules and the FAQ to do this.

All this rule seems to be doing is telling players they don't have to retcon their attacks after models start dying due to wounds.

Kal-El wrote:
I played the way you all suggest the FAQ is this weekend and its complete crap. I agree with an entire squad of storm bolters only killing in their max range. That is a no brainier and common sense. The part that makes this rule complete crap is the Furthest weapon allowing wounds past the shorter ranges max range. I did not enjoy my games because every time someone pulled this stupid rule I died a little each time on the inside. It really took the spirit of the game out of it for me.

All this change did was nerf units that have only one range of weapons. Pre-FAQ the spirit of the game was far "worse".

Yeah this doesn't ruin the game for me, because before if your ten grey knights with storm bolters were within range of only a single guy, and 9 of them could only see that one guy, but ONE could see the rest of the enemy unit, then ALL could would ALL models in the unit. Quite silly.

Now they'll kill just that one guy, unless one guy has a....uh....some weapon that is longer.

So it was silly before, and it's silly now. Oh well. In warmachine you can't throw knocked down models - that doesn't make any sense either, but oh well. These things happen.

What annoys me most about the change is, pre-FAQ the "out of range" rules were a nice compromise between realism and gaminess for dealing with the "bullets falling out of the air" issue. ie, 23.999" away, bolters are deadly explosive tipped self-propelled-rocket launchers; 24.00001" away and you watch the bolts pile up on the floor. The range was a condition on shooting, not casualty removal (seriously, what firearm has a maximum range of 144 feet?).

Now, we once again have bullets that stop at max range but that additionally have somehow developed a magical ability to detect longer ranged bullets being fired (by a different gun) at the same time and mimic their max range instead.

The Infinite wrote:
What annoys me most about the change is, pre-FAQ the "out of range" rules were a nice compromise between realism and gaminess for dealing with the "bullets falling out of the air" issue. ie, 23.999" away, bolters are deadly explosive tipped self-propelled-rocket launchers; 24.00001" away and you watch the bolts pile up on the floor. The range was a condition on shooting, not casualty removal (seriously, what firearm has a maximum range of 144 feet?).

Now, we once again have bullets that stop at max range but that additionally have somehow developed a magical ability to detect longer ranged bullets being fired (by a different gun) at the same time and mimic their max range instead.

The problem is that to resolve this correctly, the wound pool rules need to be revamped and that is a potential mess waiting to happen. IMHO, they should have simply left it alone and try to fix it in 7th.

I find it pretty simple and just as logical as the LOS abstraction.

All it's doing is making range work the same way LOS does. If a given model has range & LOS to ANY model in the target unit, that model can fire. If ANY single firing model in the firing unit has range and LOS to a given model, that model is eligible to have a wound allocated to it. So just like if there's a model around the corner of a building or something which none of the firers can see, he can't be killed, if there's a model who's out of range of all the firing models, he also can't be killed.

Both are abstractions attempting to make things a bit more model-based than the 5th ed rules.

It's this simple, have you ever played a 3000 point game with guard vs guard at same 20 through 24 inches away both 100+ models shooting at each other. 1 squad of 50 shooting 100 shots at 24 inches takes enough time to roll out, to do it the realistic way would mean that you would need to roll, 2 dice at a time and measure each model to each model. You'd never get past turn 2 in a day.

If you were to say. {"well all bolters are group" then you still have magic bullets from one bolter in front carrying the others a little farther. It's the same idea and will slow down the game way too much. That is why the TO and anyone else would never rule it that way. Now if you want to play that way, go play kill teams, it is very fun.

ItsPug wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
I played the way you all suggest the FAQ is this weekend and its complete crap. I agree with an entire squad of storm bolters only killing in their max range. That is a no brainier and common sense. The part that makes this rule complete crap is the Furthest weapon allowing wounds past the shorter ranges max range. I did not enjoy my games because every time someone pulled this stupid rule I died a little each time on the inside. It really took the spirit of the game out of it for me.

And were you playing it correctly before? I ask because it was previously the case that all weapons were allowed to wound past their maximum range as long as they were in range when to hit rolls were made. Did you not enjoy your games then? Did you die a little inside each time people played by both the spirit and word of the rules?

If you don't like the rules fine, thats your opinion, and by all means, you're welcome to it. but the rule itself is straight forward, simple and clear. I think a lot of people are confused by this beacuse they weren't playing the rules correctly in the first place and see this a a boost to shooting as opposed to the nerf it actually is.

Yes I was playing it the correct way, and I have no issue with how the wounds were resolved then because it made sense then, if you imagine the squad moving around dodging etc. The way it is now I have no issue with a 24 inch gun only killing what it can reach, it makes sense because real bullets only go so far....So could not reach the back guys....its a duh. The issue I have and the part I'm calling crap is that you only need a longer range weapon in your squad and then your gun can wound outside their range.

That's just plain stupid...so just because one guys gun shoots further now all the other guns bullets can magically wound the entire squad, where as if they did not have a longer weapon they just stop? That's stupid and contradicts itself and it bugs the crap out of me, so yeah I did not enjoy the 3 games i played like I did before because it does not make sense.

Kal-El wrote:
The way it is now I have no issue with a 24 inch gun only killing what it can reach, it makes sense because real bullets only go so far....So could not reach the back guys....its a duh. The issue I have and the part I'm calling crap is that you only need a longer range weapon in your squad and then your gun can wound outside their range.

That's just plain stupid...so just because one guys gun shoots further now all the other guns bullets can magically wound the entire squad, where as if they did not have a longer weapon they just stop? That's stupid and contradicts itself and it bugs the crap out of me, so yeah I did not enjoy the 3 games i played like I did before because it does not make sense.

I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that statement.

IMO it makes exactly as much sense as the LOS rules, and is overall now a more consistent abstraction, because both function essentially the same way.

 Mannahnin wrote:
IMO it makes exactly as much sense as the LOS rules, and is overall now a more consistent abstraction, because both function essentially the same way.

I agree. Adding more granularity would make it downright painful to deal with units of many mixed weapons, much as only allowing individual models to kill what they can see would increase the amount of bookkeeping required without really improving the game. It'd be like trying to play Necromunda, but with "gangs" of 50+ models.

Kal-El wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
I played the way you all suggest the FAQ is this weekend and its complete crap. I agree with an entire squad of storm bolters only killing in their max range. That is a no brainier and common sense. The part that makes this rule complete crap is the Furthest weapon allowing wounds past the shorter ranges max range. I did not enjoy my games because every time someone pulled this stupid rule I died a little each time on the inside. It really took the spirit of the game out of it for me.

And were you playing it correctly before? I ask because it was previously the case that all weapons were allowed to wound past their maximum range as long as they were in range when to hit rolls were made. Did you not enjoy your games then? Did you die a little inside each time people played by both the spirit and word of the rules?

If you don't like the rules fine, thats your opinion, and by all means, you're welcome to it. but the rule itself is straight forward, simple and clear. I think a lot of people are confused by this beacuse they weren't playing the rules correctly in the first place and see this a a boost to shooting as opposed to the nerf it actually is.

Yes I was playing it the correct way, and I have no issue with how the wounds were resolved then because it made sense then, if you imagine the squad moving around dodging etc. The way it is now I have no issue with a 24 inch gun only killing what it can reach, it makes sense because real bullets only go so far....So could not reach the back guys....its a duh. The issue I have and the part I'm calling crap is that you only need a longer range weapon in your squad and then your gun can wound outside their range.

That's just plain stupid...so just because one guys gun shoots further now all the other guns bullets can magically wound the entire squad, where as if they did not have a longer weapon they just stop? That's stupid and contradicts itself and it bugs the crap out of me, so yeah I did not enjoy the 3 games i played like I did before because it does not make sense.

Just for a bit of information I used to run a Furioso dread with Frag cannon and Heavy flamer in a drop pod. (well 2 of them actually, but thats beside the point)

Now you say you had no issue with how the wounds were resolved before the FAQ. So in this instance my Furioso would drop in, put a flamer template over the 6 ork models in range, and kill up to 18, including those who were well out of range of the dreadnoughts weapons. You state you're ok with this because it represents the squad "moving around dodging etc" despite this being, in your own words, crap, because my weapons "can wound outside their range"

Your argument contradicts itself.

This is a game mechanic, it is never going to be realistic, but it makes more sense than it did before.

Last warning - any further rude posts in this thread will result in a suspension of posting privileges. We're discussing rules - anything that looks like an attack on a person, rather than a discussion of their point, will be treated harshly.

I'm starting to think that this was the way it was intended all along, the FAQ just clarified the out of range rule.

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

If you interpret this from the point of view of the models in the unit being shot at... the FAQ doesn't change anything.

With a slight rewording

As long as an enemy model was in range of the shooting unit when To Hit rolls were made....

...lies out of range of a model that fired.

No, it entirely changed the rule. The rule was 100% clear before.

So if I take a HKM on an LRC can rapid fire the Hurricane Bolters with unlimited range the turn I shoot the missile?

That depends on what you mean by "Rapid fire the Hurricane Bolters with unlimited range"?

"Rapid Fire" has not been an adjective/fire mode since 4th edition. You don't "Rapid Fire" a bolter anymore than you "Assault" a meltagun or "Heavy" a Lascannon.

Hurricane Bolters have a range of 24". If they are within 12" of the target, they get to fire twice as many shots. If all you fire from a LR: Crusader in a given turn is the hurricane bolters, then they cannot inflict casualties further than 24: away. If you simultaneously fire a Heavy Bolter on the LR, wounds from all of those shots can be allocated up to 36" away. if you fire a Hunter Killer Missile that same turn, wounds can theoretically be allocated any distance away, although of course the Hurricane Bolters can only fire at all if the enemy unit's closest model is within 24" of them.

 Tarrasq wrote:
I'm starting to think that this was the way it was intended all along, the FAQ just clarified the out of range rule.

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

If you interpret this from the point of view of the models in the unit being shot at... the FAQ doesn't change anything.

With a slight rewording

As long as an enemy model was in range of the shooting unit when To Hit rolls were made....

...lies out of range of a model that fired.

I agree with this. It's a clarification of the original rule, not a re-write. It's how I've always played it anyway.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So if I take a HKM on an LRC can rapid fire the Hurricane Bolters with unlimited range the turn I shoot the missile?

As stated by Mannahnin The Hurricane Bolters still need to be within 24 inches of at least one model in the target unit to be able to roll to hit with the Hurricane Bolters, but since you are firing the HKM as well, the wounds from that shooting can be allocated to models that are not within 24 inches of the Hurricane Bolters.

Here are my Mad MS Paint skillz to show you how the new Wound allocation works with your example.

The Hurricane bolters are in range so they get to fire 6 shots, but not within 12 inches so they do not Double Tap. The Assault cannon is within range so it can fire.

If only the Hurricane bolters and Assault cannon fire, the only casualties that can be caused by the 10 shots are from models 1 and 2.

If the HKM fires then any model from 1-20 can be removed as a casualty. (Tough there are only potentially 11 models that can be killed because you only have 11 shots).

(Please excuse the crudity of this model. I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.).

 BryllCream wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:
I'm starting to think that this was the way it was intended all along, the FAQ just clarified the out of range rule.

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

If you interpret this from the point of view of the models in the unit being shot at... the FAQ doesn't change anything.

With a slight rewording

As long as an enemy model was in range of the shooting unit when To Hit rolls were made....

...lies out of range of a model that fired.

I agree with this. It's a clarification of the original rule, not a re-write. It's how I've always played it anyway.

It is NOT a clarification of the original rule. Read the original rule one more time:

"As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range."

If that rule was somehow referring to a model in the unit being SHOT AT, then this rule literally makes no sense, since casualty removal would never normally cause a model in the unit being shot at to suddenly end up out of range...i.e. if a model being shot at starts the shooting attack within range then no matter how many of his chums get removed as casualties during that attack he's still going to be within range.

This rule ONLY ever made sense if it was referring to a model in the firing unit, as casualty removal can end up making firing models out of range, as the more models you pull from the front of the unit, the more firing models suddenly end up 'out of range'.

So this is most certainly a change to the printed rules. It may be how they always meant for it to be played, but it is NOT what they actually wrote.

 yakface wrote:

It is NOT a clarification of the original rule. Read the original rule one more time:

"As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range."

If that rule was somehow referring to a model in the unit being SHOT AT, then this rule literally makes no sense, since casualty removal would never normally cause a model in the unit being shot at to suddenly end up out of range...i.e. if a model being shot at starts the shooting attack within range then no matter how many of his chums get removed as casualties during that attack he's still going to be within range.

This rule ONLY ever made sense if it was referring to a model in the firing unit, as casualty removal can end up making firing models out of range, as the more models you pull from the front of the unit, the more firing models suddenly end up 'out of range'.

So this is most certainly a change to the printed rules. It may be how they always meant for it to be played, but it is NOT what they actually wrote.

It is. The section you quoted specified "even if the closest model now lies out of range". The FAQ simply reminds us that you are not allowed to remove models who're out of range.

 BryllCream wrote:

 yakface wrote:

It is NOT a clarification of the original rule. Read the original rule one more time:

"As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range."

It is. The section you quoted specified "even if the closest model now lies out of range". The FAQ simply reminds us that you are not allowed to remove models who're out of range.

No it really is not.

The sentence is clear if you read it like this:

"As long as a [firing] model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range."

He refers to the firing model.

 BryllCream wrote:

It is. The section you quoted specified "even if the closest model now lies out of range". The FAQ simply reminds us that you are not allowed to remove models who're out of range.

No, if you're reading that rule as applying to the models being fired upon, then as soon as the 'closest model' (in the unit being fired upon) is out of range then the rest of the models in the unit would also be out of range...so the rule cannot possibly make sense when read that way.

 yakface wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

It is. The section you quoted specified "even if the closest model now lies out of range". The FAQ simply reminds us that you are not allowed to remove models who're out of range.

No, if you're reading that rule as applying to the models being fired upon, then as soon as the 'closest model' (in the unit being fired upon) is out of range then the rest of the models in the unit would also be out of range...so the rule cannot possibly make sense when read that way.

That is probably what page 16 is referring to.

 yakface wrote:

"As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range."

If that rule was somehow referring to a model in the unit being SHOT AT, then this rule literally makes no sense, since casualty removal would never normally cause a model in the unit being shot at to suddenly end up out of range...i.e. if a model being shot at starts the shooting attack within range then no matter how many of his chums get removed as casualties during that attack he's still going to be within range

Couldn't this possibly cover the case of abilities such as Pavane of Slaanesh?

So...
Imagine a unit of scarabs (or other swarms) that are getting flamered by a strength 6+ template (for instant death reasons) and there isn't a weapon with longer range. Say 6 of the 10 bases are in range of a flamer templates. Normally, the number of wounds would double and wipe the entire unit out. With this new interpretation, the doubled wounds WOULDN"T be allocated to the bases that are out of range?

 Anpu-adom wrote:
So...
Imagine a unit of scarabs (or other swarms) that are getting flamered by a strength 6+ template (for instant death reasons) and there isn't a weapon with longer range. Say 6 of the 10 bases are in range of a flamer templates. Normally, the number of wounds would double and wipe the entire unit out. With this new interpretation, the doubled wounds WOULDN"T be allocated to the bases that are out of range?

Because I know it is coming, the doubling of wounds prior to allocation is under debate in another thread. Assuming wounds do double before allocation, the wounds would not be able to be allocated to models that cannot be hit by a template.

I wasn't even going to bring it up because its irrelevant to the answer.

That's correct - wounds from a shooting attack can't be allocated past the max range of the firing models.

I'm well versed in the "when to double" argument... my group doubles and then applies instant death.

Has anyone thought of how this rule may affect blast templates? To me it's clear that flamers are affected by this change because its clear that they have a range. In the whole Vulnerable to blasts thing, would the range (ie, the area under the template) limit the number of models on which wounds could be allocated?

Either way, I'm sending these to the GW FAQ email.

This exact scenario happened to me last night...

Noise marines with a blastmaster fire on genestealers behind blocking terrain:

....GGG. BBBB.................. ..
....GGG. BBBB.................
....GGGGBBBB................... N
GG.......................................... Bl N N N N

G are genestealers, N is NM w sonic blaster, Bl is NM w blastmaster
B is blocking terrain...making the majority genestealers not seen


I fire the blastmaster, it scatters and wounds 7...the rules technici ally contradict...but we ended up only pulling the models the blastmaster could see.
Additionally my noise marines wounds did not get allocated as well...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I argued the scatter weapon pulls from the front and the noise marines pull what they see.

I conceded because it was going to be a fun game, and i didn't want to spoil killing bugs

 Tarrasq wrote:
I'm starting to think that this was the way it was intended all along, the FAQ just clarified the out of range rule.

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

If you interpret this from the point of view of the models in the unit being shot at... the FAQ doesn't change anything.

With a slight rewording

As long as an enemy model was in range of the shooting unit when To Hit rolls were made....

...lies out of range of a model that fired.

emmmm, no. The FAQ changed the dynamic not clarify it.

I see even with the new FAQs release today (2/16), this still stands...

What about a unit with 10 twin-linked flamers and one storm bolter shooting at a squad of 30 orks. Each of the flamers hit 5 orks causing 40 wounds. The storm bolter fires but wiffs.

Does the wording of this rule allow the squad to be wiped out? The stormbolters range is 24" after all.

Before anyone asks. The entire ork mob was within 24".

 Idolator wrote:
What about a unit with 10 twin-linked flamers and one storm bolter shooting at a squad of 30 orks. Each of the flamers hit 5 orks causing 40 wounds. The storm bolter fires but wiffs.

Does the wording of this rule allow the squad to be wiped out? The stormbolters range is 24" after all.

Before anyone asks. The entire ork mob was within 24".

Post FaQ: Yes the whole unit can be killed in your situation.

Pre FaQ: The whole unit could be killed as well.

P.S. 10 flamers each hitting 5 times is how many wounds? (Hint not 40).

50 hits, if he failed to wound 10 times is how many wounds? (Hint: not 50)

rigeld2 wrote:
50 hits, if he failed to wound 10 times is how many wounds? (Hint: not 50)

Right he said hits and never said he failed to wound 10 times, I read it as hits meaning they all scored wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
50 hits, if he failed to wound 10 times is how many wounds? (Hint: not 50)

Right he said hits and never said he failed to wound 10 times, I read it as hits meaning they all scored wounds.

He said each hit 5 times and made 40 wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:50 hits, if he failed to wound 10 times is how many wounds? (Hint: not 50)

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
50 hits, if he failed to wound 10 times is how many wounds? (Hint: not 50)

Right he said hits and never said he failed to wound 10 times, I read it as hits meaning they all scored wounds.

Let's all play nice, please.

I like to use this forum to clarify things. That way I can wrap my head around them when I'm playing.

But yes, the 50 hits with flamers caused 40 wounds. They were very unlucky 'ard boys. I didn't mention that becasue it wasn't relevant to the question.

I wasn't trying to spike the debate, it was an honest question. That you answered well.

since its been necroed. this came up in a game today.

a barrage weapon scatters outside of its 36" maximum range. Can you allocate wounds to the unit hit that is outside of the maximum range because its barrage?

Yes as you treat the shot as coming from the centre hole of the marker.

So what about the rules on page 14 "The Wound Pool" and page 15 "Mixed Wounds". These seem to suggest that the wounds are sepperated and allocated according to Strength, AP, and Special Rules. The ability to use a heavy weapons range to boost the range of an assault or rapid fire weapon seems to me to be a moot point as you declare which wound pool you are using first.

I'll quote page 15 here. - "This allows you to place your shots where they'll do the most damage!"

The maximum range of a weapon is the farthest that it can do damage.

Templates(flamers) use special rules and therefore go into a seperate wound pile from bolters. Plasma pistols have different strength and AP from a bolt pistol so must be put into a seperate wound pile.

These are all rolled for in order, chosen by the shooter, to maximise their effectiveness at their given range.

This is just my two cents and how we've been playing it at my gaming group since sixth edition came out. All that this FAQ seems to have done is confirm to me how we've been playing all along.

It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

So only models under a template such as those hit by a unit of Daemon flamers can be removed(only 11 models out of 20 were actually under the different firing templates). The wounds no longer roll into the rest of the squad, yes? Only up to the 11 can be removed due to wounds depending on saves?

Correct. Flamers (the unit) have a weapon with an 18" range however, so as long as one of them fires that they can probably nuke your whole unit.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

And no matter what, it's all still just one wound pool...I think that's what you're saying, but the message got a little muddled.

Yeah, sorry - still one wound pool just groups inside that pool.

No coffee.

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. Flamers (the unit) have a weapon with an 18" range however, so as long as one of them fires that they can probably nuke your whole unit.

Gotcha, thats the piece I was having a hard time wrapping my head around.

So, one more time because I'm a "show me" guy and only have a couple of games in since the change and have a tourney coming.

Ten marines using bolters fire at x squad. 5 marines are within 12" so are within double tap range and roll an extra die, the other 5 are within 24", as long as they fire(the 5 out of rapid fire range) ANY/ALL wounds from the wound pool can still spread throughout squad? Even if the 5 rapid fire marines have more wounds left to assign in the event all models within the rapid fire "in range" enemy models are removed and puts their 12" shots out of range during model removal?

First of all, Bolters don't have a 12" range ever. They just get to roll an extra die inside half range, meaning that in your example the extra wounds can be allocated out to 24" as normal for a bolter.

But lets assume they were firing las pistols for some stupid reason. To allocate to a model past 12", yes the Bolters would have to fire. Important note - you don't even have to hit with the longer ranged weapon, just fire it

Rapid fire no longer changes the range of the gun. So no matter what, the max range of that weapon is the same.

 yakface wrote:

Rapid fire no longer changes the range of the gun. So no matter what, the max range of that weapon is the same.

Kinda not my question.

I'll ask another way.

Same 10 marines same firing sequence.

Do I have to roll 10 red colored dice for the "half max range" bolters and 5 blue colored dice for the over "half max range" in order not to over assign the red wounds in the event all enemy models are removed before all red wounds have been determined. (therefor go away because they would be out of range)

For reference:
I get same wound pool, but if I elect to assign bolter wounds that remove models before a melta shot is resolved due to its range limitation. The melta shot goes away.

No. Each firing unit has a max range for its casualties to be pulled from equal to the longest range that any model in the unit fires.

 yakface wrote:

No. Each firing unit has a max range for its casualties to be pulled from equal to the longest range that any model in the unit fires.

OK, that makes it easy.

Thanks.

 Byte wrote:
For reference:
I get same wound pool, but if I elect to assign bolter wounds that remove models before a melta shot is resolved due to its range limitation. The melta shot goes away.

Not true whatsoever. As long as a model is in range of any weapon that was fired from the unit it can be allocated.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

How I'm reading the new FAQ, so it's just my opinion and how we've been playing, you'll have to decide for yourself how you and your gaming group are going to play; is that if a model is not in range of the particular weapon when the shooting starts then it can't be hit by that weapon.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
For reference:
I get same wound pool, but if I elect to assign bolter wounds that remove models before a melta shot is resolved due to its range limitation. The melta shot goes away.

Not true whatsoever. As long as a model is in range of any weapon that was fired from the unit it can be allocated.

O goodness.

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 guess I missed the fact I wondered into a RAW/RAI debate. Thanks for the feedback however.

bigbaboonass wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

How I'm reading the new FAQ, so it's just my opinion and how we've been playing, you'll have to decide for yourself how you and your gaming group are going to play; is that if a model is not in range of the particular weapon when the shooting starts then it can't be hit by that weapon.

That is not what the FaQ says.

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."

Note the FaQ says that if a model was not in range of "any of the shooting models" then it can not be killed by the shooting attack.

Here is a diagram explaining how the new wound allocation works (Follow this post in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/500992.page#5202843

 DeathReaper wrote:

bigbaboonass wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

How I'm reading the new FAQ, so it's just my opinion and how we've been playing, you'll have to decide for yourself how you and your gaming group are going to play; is that if a model is not in range of the particular weapon when the shooting starts then it can't be hit by that weapon.

That is not what the FaQ says.

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."

Note the FaQ says that if a model was not in range of "any of the shooting models" then it can not be killed by the shooting attack.

Here is a diagram explaining how the new wound allocation works (Follow this post in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/500992.page#5202843

As cute as it seems to shoot holes in the FAQ ruling I have to think its not the direction intended. RAW yes, RAI no. If played this way it borders on TFG. Just saying. Would you really play it like this?

Pretty sure it wasn't to permit assault cannons unlimited range because the unit is also firing a HKM.

That's exactly how it works. Pre-FAQ, there was no range limitation for wound allocation, just for firing. If, for example, a unit fired 5 flamers, which each covered the same front 7 models out of a 30 model unit, they would cause 35 hits and potentially kill all 30 models.

Now, post-FAQ, if they just fire those 5 flamers, they are limited to killing models within range of those flamers. But if they fire at least one weapon with longer range, wounds may be allocated out to the longest range.

This is an abstraction.

Just like if I have a squad of 20 Chaos Space Marines firing bolters at a unit if 5 IG, and one of those IG is completely out of LOS around the corner of a building, my 40 bolter shots cannot kill that last guy, but if ONE of my CSMs has LOS to that guy around the corner, those 40 bolter shows now CAN kill that guy around the corner.

Just like you always needed just one firing model to have LOS, you now also need at least one firing model to have range.

bigbaboonass wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

How I'm reading the new FAQ, so it's just my opinion and how we've been playing, you'll have to decide for yourself how you and your gaming group are going to play; is that if a model is not in range of the particular weapon when the shooting starts then it can't be hit by that weapon.

Right -house rules are fine, but that's how the FAQ reads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

bigbaboonass wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's all one wound pool. And range does not mean that it's a separate wound group inside the pool - only STR, AP, or a special rule can split it out. And even then it only matters for when it gets allocated.

How I'm reading the new FAQ, so it's just my opinion and how we've been playing, you'll have to decide for yourself how you and your gaming group are going to play; is that if a model is not in range of the particular weapon when the shooting starts then it can't be hit by that weapon.

That is not what the FaQ says.

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."

Note the FaQ says that if a model was not in range of "any of the shooting models" then it can not be killed by the shooting attack.

Here is a diagram explaining how the new wound allocation works (Follow this post in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/500992.page#5202843

As cute as it seems to shoot holes in the FAQ ruling I have to think its not the direction intended. RAW yes, RAI no. If played this way it borders on TFG. Just saying. Would you really play it like this?

Pretty sure it wasn't to permit assault cannons unlimited range because the unit is also firing a HKM.

Spoiler:

I think it's absolutely intended.

I seriously wonder why people didn't had a problem with this kind of shooting for 4 years and now suddenly it doesn't make sense for a pistol wound to be allocated 20" away.

If you read the FAQ carefully it shows that weapons cannot cause any wounds past their maximum range... So no an assault cannon is not suddenly unlimited range due to a HKM. Anyone who plays it that way is doing it wrong. It could have been worded a lot better.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you read the FAQ carefully it shows that weapons cannot cause any wounds past their maximum range... So no an assault cannon is not suddenly unlimited range due to a HKM. Anyone who plays it that way is doing it wrong. It could have been worded a lot better.

I underscored the incorrect part of your post (With clarification that the Assault Cannon still needs range to at least 1 model in the target unit to be able to fire at all), and the Orange is not always true.

Scenario: a Razorback with a TL Assault Cannon and a HKM is the firing unit. The target unit is a unit of 4 infantry models, all of these models are in Line of Sight.

Pre FAQ: Only the Assault Cannon from a razorback fires. If the Assault Cannon has range to 1 enemy model, and not the other models in the unit, then four enemy models, in Line of Sight, can be killed (assault cannons have 4 shots).

Post FAQ: Only the Assault Cannon from a razorback fires. If the Assault Cannon has range to 1 enemy model, and not the other models in the unit, then only the enemy model that was in range and in Line of Sight, can be killed.

Post FaQ: The Assault Cannon and HKM from a razorback fires. If the Assault Cannon has range to 1 enemy model, but the HKM has range to all 4 models, in the target unit, then four enemy models, in Line of Sight, can be killed.

All the FAQ says is you must pull models closest first from wounds inflicted by weapons with sufficient range. Like I said it was poorly worded so the rules lawyers jumped all over it immediately.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
All the FAQ says is you must pull models closest first from wounds inflicted by weapons with sufficient range. Like I said it was poorly worded so the rules lawyers jumped all over it immediately.

It was poorly worded and the intent can never be assumed. You are forced to go with what is written. If it was a simple typo or similar that is one thing but this FAQ changed how we play the game.
Don't call everyone a lawyer cos you don't like it.

The FAQ creates a new paradigm in shooting within 40k.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
All the FAQ says is you must pull models closest first from wounds inflicted by weapons with sufficient range. Like I said it was poorly worded so the rules lawyers jumped all over it immediately.

... No, that's not all it says. DR has explained it correctly.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
All the FAQ says is you must pull models closest first from wounds inflicted by weapons with sufficient range. Like I said it was poorly worded so the rules lawyers jumped all over it immediately.

No it doesnt, not at all. It is impossible to read it that way, especially after the excellent explanations here.

Disagree all you want, but the rules are clear on this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
All the FAQ says is you must pull models closest first from wounds inflicted by weapons with sufficient range.

It doesn't say this at all. DR gave a good explanation on how it works. It goes out and says it plainly: Wounds from Wound pool can be allocated to a Model if any firing model has range to that model. Nothing more, nothing less. (disclaimer: all other wound allocation rules still apply)

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Like I said it was poorly worded so the rules lawyers jumped all over it immediately.

Personally, I found it crystal clear. I guess it must have been poorly worded considering how badly you have misunderstood it.