Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello everyone! I apologize in advance if this has been covered extensively; everything I find on them matter does not seem to satisfy my curiosity so I decided to ask here. I am rather new to 40k and tabletop wargaming in general, so please bare with me. I have 4 questions, which I have tried to separate sensibly.



1. Pg. 16 of the BRB states that "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.
-----However, the FAQ (Which references page
15 rather than 16 for some reason) states: "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?)?
Answer: No.

My question is does this mean that the FAQ completely
changed the rule to be the opposite of what it
initially meant? In other words, did it first mean
that after calculating wounds you could distribute
them to the entire unit whether it was in range now or
not but now you cannot?-------I am confused as to
whether I am understanding this or not.

2. I have further confused myself by reading other
opinions which stated that "yes, it changed the rule.
Now you may only allocate wounds on enemy models that
are in still in range of at least one of your firing
models".----- If this is true, then what about a
scenario in which the only model left in range of the
enemy unit cannot see the enemy models bc of terrain,
etc, and therefore has no LoS (but all the other out
of range models in his unit do have Los). Does this
negate the rule and end the allocation?

3.If it does not negate the rule, then do you remove
the enemy model closest to the 1 friendly model still
in range, or the enemy model that is closest to
anyone in your unit period?

4. If I have not understood correctly, could someone please just tell me what both rules are widely accepted to mean in relation to each other?

Thank you for any and all clarification.

1) Yes the FaQ changed the rules. you now only allocate wounds to models that are in range of any firing model.

2) As long as any model in the firing unit has Line of sight, then that model in the target unit can be allocated wounds and removed as a casualty.

3) You remove models closest to the unit as a whole as normal measuring from the two closest models in the respective units.

4) see above.

I'm not sure how you can say that the FAQ changed the rules. The rule states that a model in the firing unit can shoot if one model in the target unit is in range and line of sight at the time the unit shoots. That has nothing to do with the FAQ which merely reaffirms that only models that are within range and LOS of at least one member of the shooting unit can have wounds allocated and that "extra" wounds can't carry over to the models out of range or LOS from all members of the shooting unit. Totally unrelated topics.

Shooting from a unit is simultaneous so the removal of casualties has no bearing on "still in range" when it comes to an individual model within the unit shooting. If they were within range of at least one model in the target unit when the shooting was declared, they shoot and wounds from their shooting goes into the wound pool. For example, the guy standing in the back of the unit that is shooting is only within range of one member of the target unit when shooting is declared and To Hit rolls are made. That one guy he was in range of is removed as a casualty. That guy in back is still considered "in range" because the shooting was simultaneous.

Again, the rule being cited is talking about who can shoot and the FAQ about who can die. Not talking about the same thing. The page listed for the FAQ is correct once you realize what it is actually talking about.

This is where my confusion comes from, as it seems everyone has their own view of how the rules apply. Is there an official tournament ruling anywhere on this that anyone has heard?

@helotaxi: It seems that you and Deathreaper agree that the rules mean the same thing; but you disagree on whether that means the FAQ changed the rule correct?

So I guess you are both stating that, only models in range and los to an enemy model may fire-> the hits/wounds of every firing model are calculated and added to the wound pool--> the wounds may then only be distributed to enemy models that are still in range and LoS of at least one firing model-- Correct or not?

I assume if this is true, then that means as long as I have a marine with a missile launcher (46in range) who fired, and who has LoS to the remaining enemy troops (who are now out of bolter range), I may allocate wounds to enemy models that the missile launcher marine is in range of and has LoS with. Is this correct?

One last question (I am so sorry for my ignorance here)----> Helotaxi- So the single model who still is in range of the enemy models (and therefore allows remaining wounds to be allocated)--he must also have a LoS to the enemy? Even if other models in his unit have no range, but do have LoS? That seems like they are implying that all the remaining wounds are coming from that one model who is still in Range and LoS--correct?

Thanks again guys.

It changed the rules because, as it is written in the BRB, if one model in the targeted unit is in range, then all of the enemy models in the targeted unit can be allocated wounds and removed as a casualty.

The FaQ changed this so that a model in a targeted unit needs to be in range of any of the weapons in the firing unit to be allocated wounds and removed as a casualty.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ:

40k FaQ wrote:Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)? (p15)
A: No.

If a model in the target unit was in range of any of the weapons fired when the to hit rolls were made, than that model can be selected for would allocation. This goes for all of the models in the unit being fired upon.

So if you take a HKM on an LRC here is how it works on the turn you shoot the missile.

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 this 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).

Here is a Picture to help with the explanation (Please excuse the crudity of this model. I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.).

If the above was confusing, hopefully this example will be more clear:
Scenario: a LRC 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 in the spoiler as to not confuse people.


Post FAQ: Only the Assault Cannon from the LRC 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. (The one enemy model that is within range can be allocated any and all of the wounds until he dies, but he is the only one eligible to die).

Post FaQ: The Assault Cannon and HKM from the LRC 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.

That pretty much clears it up for me, thank you! So, as long as even one firing model still has range AND LoS to the enemy unit, all the wounds allocated from firing models (who are now out of range) may still be given to the enemy unit--at least until the enemy models go from LoS and range from ALL of the firing units?

This is a bit strange, as it could make it appear like the missile launcher guy is decimating the enemy by himself, but on the other hand I like it because it adds even more reason to move units around the board tactically, taking terrain and LoS into consideration. It also seems like this would aid "directing fires" and tactically placing wound groups from different weapons in order to take out certain characters with certain weapons. Am I correct in assuming this?

Thanks again.

P.S. Wonderful explanation by the way.

Yes kind of, but a single model only needs to have both range and Line of Sight to fire initially.

If at least one model in the firing unit has range, and any model in the firing unit has Line of sight to a model, then a wound can be allocated to the model in the targeted unit.

No stranger than bolters being able to shoot and kill at 24 inches, but utterly ineffective at 24.00000001 inches.

Ok, so what you are saying is that, initially, only individual models that have Range and LoS may fire at the enemy unit. They score hits and wounds. However, if wounds are left over (and enemies are now out of their personal ranges) then as long as one model has range on them, the wounds can continue to be allocated (assuming other models have LoS)? So the model that is still in range does NOT have to have LoS to the remaining troops as well as Range? OR- Are you saying that, initially, as long as ANY model in the unit has range, then all of the models in the unit can fire on enemies that they have LoS to?

To also be clear, you are NOT saying that, as long as one model has Range and LoS, all the models in the unit can fire, right?

Yes, that is correct. The model in range does not, according to "out of sight", page 16, matter for allocation based on LOS.

Your last statement is correct; "Out of Sight" on page 16 ONLY concerns itself with WOUND ALLOCATION. The initial shooting steps are where you are told that only models with LOS to any model in the target unit may fire, and page 16 has no bearing on that, neither does the FAQ change this.

The FAQ simply changes how far away a model can be and still have a wound allocated to it - distance. It does not alter LOS requirements

Again, if you think about all the shooting happening simultaneously, it makes a lot more sense and becomes a lot easier to wrap your noggin around. The term "still" adds confusion because it indicates a sequence where none really exists.

And the way I read the BRB, the FAQ still changes nothing, it merely restates what is already there. If a model in a target unit was in range and LOS of at least one model in the shooting unit at the time shooting was declared, then it is vulnerable for wound allocation purposes.

helotaxi wrote:
And the way I read the BRB, the FAQ still changes nothing, it merely restates what is already there. If a model in a target unit was in range and LOS of at least one model in the shooting unit at the time shooting was declared, then it is vulnerable for wound allocation purposes.

Except, of course, the BRB says nothing of the sort as far as allocation is concerned.

There are tons of things that the BRB doesn't spell out in excruciating and exhauting detail. Failing to apply just a timy bit of understanding on the gamer's part when reading the rules makes the game, and not just 40k but any game, unplayable. As such, the FAQ *changed* nothing. It only provided the common sense for you.

helotaxi wrote:
There are tons of things that the BRB doesn't spell out in excruciating and exhauting detail. Failing to apply just a timy bit of understanding on the gamer's part when reading the rules makes the game, and not just 40k but any game, unplayable. As such, the FAQ *changed* nothing. It only provided the common sense for you.

You can talk to me in a patronizing tone all you want, but if you inserted the same restrictions as the FAQ prior to its existence, you were literally inventing rules. Hiding behind "common sense" and "just apply a tiny bit of understanding" is more you trying to seem more intelligent than the rules actually saying what you think they said.

Does the BRB have any restriction on allocating wounds to models out of range if the unit was in range beforehand? It's a yes or no question. The answer according to the actual rules is no. The FAQ changes that to yes. Pretending otherwise is lying to yourself.

Where are you getting a "beforehand"? All firing from a unit is simultaneous. That is the "understanding" required. If you apply that logic to the rules for shooting then the FAQ merely states what is already known. The BRB tells you when to check range and how. It tells you who is eligible to be removed as a casualty (those within range and LOS of at least one model in the firing unit). Once casualy removal has begun, shooting is complete. If you are playing it otherwise then you are not following the rules. Other than differing weapons, you don't track who fired what shot and scored what hit. You merely do as the rulebook tells you: determine the number of models in the shooting unit with range and LOS to at least one model in the target unit, determine the number of shots that can be fired by those models, roll to hit, roll to wound determing the number of wounds caused and then begin wound allocation and saving throws starting with the closest model within LOS of at least one model in the shooting unit, you proceed unti you either run out of wounds or run out of models within range and LOS of at least one member of the firing unit. The BRB never gave you permission to either allocate wounds to models outside of range and LOS of at least one member of the shooting unit OR to discard remaining wounds in the wound pool just because only one model in the shooting unit has range and LOS "after" the first casualty is removed. The FAQ does nothing more than clarify that.

If you overthink it beyond that, then you can generate some scenarios where it doesn't make complete sense (i.e. a shooting unit where most of the unit only has LOS to a single enemy but a single shooter has LOS to the entire target unit); the FAQ merely tells you that even in that situation, all the models in the target unit are in jeopary of being removed as casualties. The rules tell you the same thing.

No patronizing tone intended. If you read it that way...

helotaxi wrote:
Where are you getting a "beforehand"? All firing from a unit is simultaneous. That is the "understanding" required. If you apply that logic to the rules for shooting then the FAQ merely states what is already known. The BRB tells you when to check range and how. It tells you who is eligible to be removed as a casualty (those within range and LOS of at least one model in the firing unit).

The bolded does not exist in the BRB. That's the point that you're missing.

No patronizing tone intended. If you read it that way...

I don't feel the need to spell out why I read it that way in excruciating and exhausting detail. Anyone with a tiny bit of understanding and common sense could see that.
If you feel otherwise...

Since we're tlaking about a permissive ruleset, since the BRB doesn't give you permission to remove as casualties models outside of range and LOS of any member of the firing unit, you would be taking liberties with the rules to assume that you could.

helotaxi wrote:
Since we're tlaking about a permissive ruleset, since the BRB doesn't give you permission to remove as casualties models outside of range and LOS of any member of the firing unit, you would be taking liberties with the rules to assume that you could.

I have permission to target units in range, correct?
I have permission to hit and cause wounds, correct?
I have permission to allocate wounds, correct?

Where is the denial of permission for range? I can cite it for LoS but there isn't one for range. Until you can cite one, you must concede that the FAQ in question changed a rule (in a dumb way IMO).

Do you understand how your post was patronizing now?

Denial is not required in a permissive ruleset. That is the basic premise upon which the rules are constructed. Denial is implicit unless specific permission is granted.

Show me where the BRB grants permission to allocate wounds to models outside range and/or LOS. Barring that permission (which doesn't exist) you cannot do so. The BRB tells you how you may allocate wounds. It never tells you that you can ignore range and/or LOS when doing so, therefore, you cannot. The FAQ *changes* nothing. It only states a restriction implicit in the lack of permission to the contrary.

Do you understand that I don't care how you took my post since I'm not in the practice of wordsmithing my posts so as to take no chance of anyone reading it the wrong way.

helotaxi wrote:
Denial is not required in a permissive ruleset. That is the basic premise upon which the rules are constructed. Denial is implicit unless specific permission is granted.

Right. I've shown permission. You must now deny it.

Do you understand that I don't care how you took my post since I'm not in the practice of wordsmithing my posts so as to take no chance of anyone reading it the wrong way.

You should be in the practice of being polite, which you demonstrably were not.

helotaxi wrote:
Denial is not required in a permissive ruleset. That is the basic premise upon which the rules are constructed. Denial is implicit unless specific permission is granted.

Show me where the BRB grants permission to allocate wounds to models outside range and/or LOS. Barring that permission (which doesn't exist) you cannot do so. The BRB tells you how you may allocate wounds. It never tells you that you can ignore range and/or LOS when doing so, therefore, you cannot. The FAQ *changes* nothing. It only states a restriction implicit in the lack of permission to the contrary.

Do you understand that I don't care how you took my post since I'm not in the practice of wordsmithing my posts so as to take no chance of anyone reading it the wrong way.

pg 35 covered it.
continue allocating wounds to the closest model until wound pool is empty, or the unit has been removed.

Permission to wound anyone in the unit regardless of range.

Out of site only restricted allocating wounds to models that could not be seen by the firing unit. Nothing about emptying the pool if the models were out of range.

Fair enough. That makes the statement in the Blast USR redundant though when it does grant you specific permission to wound models beyond range. That statement in the Blast USR is further evidence that you do not truly have permission to allocate wounds beyond range of the shooting unit, at least in intent. RAW I can see your argument, though it still requires you to make an assumption of permission to do something. The FAQ still jives better with my understanding of the rules as written.

helotaxi wrote:
RAW I can see your argument, though it still requires you to make an assumption of permission to do something.

Well, no - permission to allocate exists. There's nothing denying it (for range). There's no "assumption" of permission, it's already granted by the rules.

That statement in the Blast USR is further evidence that you do not truly have permission to allocate wounds beyond range of the shooting unit, at least in intent

As if GW doesn't ever put redundant statements out there... and it's not truly redundant - Out of Range would mean that if the unit the blast scatters over is out of range you could not allocate. The statement in Blasts allows you to allocate.

Regardless, the FAQ exists and has changed how the rules are played.

You DO (or rather did) have to assume that you can ignore restrictions on range in order to allocate wounds beyond range since specific permission to ignore range is not granted. In the case of Blast it is explicitly granted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:


Regardless, the FAQ exists and has changed how the rules are played.

Not the same as what the rules actually say, though is it?

helotaxi wrote:
You DO (or rather did) have to assume that you can ignore restrictions on range in order to allocate wounds beyond range since specific permission to ignore range is not granted. In the case of Blast it is explicitly granted.

What restrictions on range?

rigeld2 wrote:


Regardless, the FAQ exists and has changed how the rules are played.

Not the same as what the rules actually say, though is it?

Well no - the BRB doesn't say to restrict allocation based on range. The FAQ does, and therefore it gets played that way. The current RAW includes the FAQs, but previous to that FAQ, RAW was that there was no restriction on allocating out of range.

Permissive ruleset, not restrictive. You have to be granted permission to ignore the range of the shooting models, which you never were. Another way to look at it would be that the shooting models would need permission to shoot and wound models beyond the stated range of their weapons. Again, this permission is not granted anywhere. A model is armed with X which has a range of Y. You are not given permission to allocate wounds to models beyond range Y.

helotaxi wrote:
Permissive ruleset, not restrictive. You have to be granted permission to ignore the range of the shooting models, which you never were. Another way to look at it would be that the shooting models would need permission to shoot and wound models beyond the stated range of their weapons. Again, this permission is not granted anywhere. A model is armed with X which has a range of Y. You are not given permission to allocate wounds to models beyond range Y.

Sigh...

I am told to check range to the unit. It is in range.
I'm told to allocate wounds with no restrictions. Why are you implying there is a restriction there?

You're attempting to apply a permissive rules set in an entirely improper and unworkable manner.

@rigeld2---- Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the FAQ be effectively placing a restriction on the models that you can and cannot allocate wounds to? FAQ=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?)?
Answer: No.


Doesn't this act as a restriction against being allowed to continue to allocate wounds until the unit is gone? I may be misunderstanding both of you of course.

So far, it seems to me to work like this (please correct again if I am wrong) with the BRB + FAQ-

1. You check to see which models in your unit may fire by checking their individual ranges and LoS to the enemy. As long as a model has range and LoS to at least one enemy model, they may fire.
2. Once you have figured out how many friendly models can shoot, you roll the To Hits.
3. Out of those hits, you determine how many are wounds.
4. Once the amount of wounds achieved is calculated, they are put into the wound pool.
5. In order to figure out which enemy models may be removed, you must check to see which model/models have the longest range and LoS and how many enemy models fall into that range and LoS.
6. Any enemy model that falls into LoS with one of your models, and also falls into the Range of one of your models may be allocated a wounds and removed.

Do I finally have a firm comprehension of this? Or am I still wrong?

helotaxi wrote:
If a model in a target unit was in range and LOS of at least one model in the shooting unit at the time shooting was declared, then it is vulnerable for wound allocation purposes.

Where does it say that?

Unless you are using an unusual firing method, you fire at units, not models.
This means that each firing model is in range of the enemy unit at the time range is determined.
The wound pool is then directed at models at a point after which range has been determined and will grind on regardless of range after that.

Out of range reminds us of this, every firing model is in range of the unit at any particular stage (wound group) regardless of the changing distance. So, a unit consisting entirely of flamers, for eg, could happily burn its way through a unit most of which (in model and therefore wound allocation terms), lies beyond the templates.

When the book refers to "now" its not an error/confusing.
Edited out an error.

My opinion is that the FAQ is worded so poorly that it should be ignored completly.
The rule on p16 is pretty clear to me that if a shooter had a target in range when he shot he can allocate a wound to any model in that unit even if it is no longer in range.
The notion of 'effective kill range' that has been mentioned (by adding a weapon with longer range to a unit) is something that is never mentioned in the rulebook at all.

If the wound allocation was to be changed the way that 'the internets' interpets the FAQ it really shound be in the FAQ part of the FAQ but rather in the ERRATA section. This really changes the way the game is played that much.

I think that the biggest confusion lies in the queastion in the FAQ. Since p16 says we can allocate wounds even to those no longer in range, My interpetation is that tha FAQ is just a clarification that you can not allocate wounds from attackers that were not in range when checking range to the target. This is already stated in the rulebook as you only get to roll to hit with those within range. The FAQ is only a reminder that wound can not be allocated from attacker that were not in range when targeting a unit.

It cannot be a reminder' models out of range at step 2 never roll to hit (well, they auto miss) so can NEVER end up with wounds that can be allocated

It is a complete change to the rules, which often occurs in the FAQ section.