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.

****NOTE****
This is NOT to spark any debate, that's what YMDC is for. My FLGS is going to make a House ruling, and I wanted to 1)Check to see if I got everything covered and 2)Share for other players who feel the same way to share their thoughts, etc.

PLEASE DO NOT START THE DEBATE HERE. IT'S A HOUSE RULING.
***************


40k Players: The new FAQ states that casualties can only be removed if they are within range of the guns firing at them. This means when you shoot, you cannot kill everything, only what you have range to. (The Store owner) and I talked about it and feel this is the intent of the FAQ, and feel that this is the best way to play it until it gets changed.

*When checking to see who can fire, you still measure to see which models are actually in range. Take note, though of how far back in the target unit the range of those weapons can reach. Anything beyond this cannot be killed, no matter how many casualties are caused.

*In units where they have weapons with different ranges, like a Missile Launcher in a Space Marine squad with Bolters, the ranges will be sorted out individually. So the Missile Launcher can kill anything up to it's max range, while the Bolters will be restricted to their standard range. Much like weapons with a different AP value, the ATTACKING player gets to choose which set of weapons will be resolved first. So in the above example, the Missile Launcher will only remove something that can be killed by bolters only IF the attacking players wants the Missile Launcher to be resolved first.

*Rapid Fire Weapons: Their effective 'kill' range is the full distance available to the weapon, and not 1/2 the range. The reason for this is because Rapid Fire Weapons state they get an extra shot if within 1/2 range, which doesn't change the range on the weapon itself.

*Template Weapons: Template weapons will still have to hit as many models as possible, but will only kill anything that the any of the template's can reach. Even if the Template wasn't used to hit a model in question. Torrent Weapons will still be able to kill anything they touch as long as they have LoS. Using 'Wall of Flame' on overwatch doesn't have any range listed, so will be treated as 'unlimited' for casualties they can inflict.

*Blast Weapons: Blast weapons CAN kill beyond their range if they scatter and can kill models out of LoS as well. This hasn't changed. Barrage weapons also remain unchanged.

We know that some players will feel this isn't what the rules state, and can cause some problems. We feel that this is the intent of the FAQ in the first place, and this is the best way to implement the change until they address it in more detail. We encourage players to work it out amongst themselves, but if there is a debate this is how it will be played within the store. Plan accordingly and lets have some fun!

***************
Thanks for the read!

Edit: Added Barrage Weapons

The only flaw that I can immediately pick out is range sniping to pick out ICs or key models.

Say you gun down a 5 man tactical squad with bolters and a missile launcher.

If the defending player picks the order to resolve, they will eat the missile launcher first, then potentially leave the IC out of range of the bolters.

If the attacking player picks the order, they will have all the single wound models eat the bolters, then have the IC eat the missile launcher after he doesn't have anything to "look out, sir".


Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion on how to compramise this besides maybe alternating who picks the next weapon to resolve. Even then that isn't very good.

If you don't want a debate, why do you post on a forum? Granted, you might not want the SAME debate as in YMDC.

@ Mahatamori:
Im open for ideas/discussion. Im not trying to start a rules debate here. That's what YMDC is for. Really don't want to see 'You're wrong, the rule says xxxxx' here. It's a House rule, and what Im looking for are any flaws in the wording that would make it unclear. From YMDC there seems to be 2 major ways the arguement can go, and some players have been asking me which way the FLGS (which I work for) will rule it, prior to a tournament, rather than think it's one way or another mid-game. We all know that sucks. Yes we're going with what appears to be the minority, but this was a decision made with the Store Owner, who has the final say.

@Rabid1903
We did think about who gets to assign the wounds from the different ranges. We decided to go with the Attacker to keep it in line with the rules for mixed AP weapons. The IC sniping still happens when the attacker picks which wounds to resolve first. Only thing we're changing in this regard is we're adding in individual weapons range.

-Thanks for the input

 Akar wrote:
From YMDC there seems to be 2 major ways the arguement can go

One way, actually. There are people who support playing it as written (all wounds allocated up to the range of the longest-ranged weapon, so adding a missile launcher means your bolters can wound 48" away), and there are people who don't like how that works (for whatever reason) and want to reject the FAQ. There's no ambiguity involved at all, only a question of whether or not the rule is a good one. So if you're going to impose this house rule you need to be honest about it and state up front that you're changing the rules because you don't like what GW did.


(Technically there's also a third group, people who don't understand how plural possessives work and think that "models'" and "model's" are the same thing, but they don't really count.)

I agree Peregrine that is the RAW. What we did was look at why the FAQ was even written the way it was and tried to find the RAI. We feel that this is well within the intent of the FAQ. So no, we're not changing any rule beyond what we feel is the intent of the FAQ.

Why even write the FAQ when all it does is hurt the units w/o mixed range weapons?

We thought it quite pointless to allow mixed range weapons to retain their ability to function as they always have after an FAQ addresses ranges. So as a collective group we're making a call based on the FAQ that makes sense.

****
In a Tournament, we plan to make the announcement that this is a House rule, but the RAW will apply, but to please discuss which way you will play it with your players.

I like it! Seems like some common sense has been applied to the FAQ, which more often than not is all that is required to make sense of GW's grammatical errors etc..