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.

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.