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.

Powerguy wrote:

Not arguing that, the issue is that it would have been much much easier to simply add 'wounds from the Vindicare cannot be reallocated using Look Out Sir' to the end of the Deadshot rule with an errata. This is a perfect example of why GW are terrible at writing a clean ruleset, by changing the actual rule they would have a specific exception overriding a standard rule (no using LOS overrides normal LOS rules), but instead we are left with 'you can LOS his wounds and then somehow I magically reallocate wounds back to him again'. The wording they have used results in a pointless loop actually, since you allocate the wound, LOS it, then the Vindicare uses its Deadshot rule to reallocate it (the important bit being that it is still allocating the wound), then you LOS it again and keep going in this loop until you fail it.

Sarcasm aside, I do agree with you. Sometimes even the QnA "yes" or "no" is not so clear as it should be... :(

We already know that we can take upgrades in any order we wish.

Points for Seraphicus is pretty neat. Being able to give the Halberd of Caliban to any DW model (not necessarily even in the command squad) is pretty odd, but what the hell. I'm disappointed that the plasma-landspeeder is indeed Heavy 3 and not Heavy 3 Blast; that pretty much nails that thing down as an overpriced, less durable, underpowered Vindicator.

Glad to see them clear up Abbadon, although the wording of the FAQ could have been better. I would've liked to see them add a special rule for Abbadon instead of making it sound like there was never a problem to begin with, but eh... unless there are more multi-mark models that come out it doesn't really matter.

The shooting wound pool and range bit is new. I don't have a rulebook on me to check the original wording, but that definitely sounds like a change in direction for 40k. I'm sure I haven't been playing that way though. Not having majority toughness affect challenges is a welcome clarification as well.

Well the Ork one hasn't really had much of an improvement. But really, the two that stick out are the melee weapon clarifications. Tankhammers and Big Choppas being AP- ... really? C'mon that's ludicrous. A Big Choppa could have easily been AP4 - good against pesky guardsmen, doesn't bash in the SMs and we get some extra strength. As for Tankhammers, I'm smashing you in the face/chest/leg/arm/privates with a rocket; how does this not breach your armour?

On the upside, burna's power weapon is AP3 - sliced Marines

NOTE: I may have missed those in the last FAQ... if they were there and I missed them, oh well.

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

You can't kill models that are out of range. That's pretty significant, particularly for multi-flamer units.

The ways it is worded, you just need to be in range of at least 1 model. So make sure someone fires a gun w more range...

Can Markerlights affect flyers?
I vaguely remember a thread on here about it where I'm sure the general census was it could but obviously hits on 6s.
I couldn't find it in the last FAQ and doing ctrl f and searching for markerlights but it doesn't say talk about it (that I could see anyway).

Puscifer wrote:
Still no definite answer on TH/SS CML Deathwing though, unless we already have a definite answer?

I don't see any confusion with the new codex rules for it. What is the issue?

edit: ah... some made up controversy about the order of upgrades...

Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No argument here - my Tyranids, in particular, will enjoy this ruling.

But it creates a new question - does that mean that "Look Out, Sir!" can't reallocate a wound out of range? If so, hello character sniping.

 Lansirill wrote:
Being able to give the Halberd of Caliban to any DW model (not necessarily even in the command squad) is pretty odd, but what the hell.

Think you've misinterpreted that. It means that if you have more than one Deathwing Command Squad, only one of them can contain a Deathwing Champion with the Halberd of Caliban.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No its a terrible ruling because:

A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No argument here - my Tyranids, in particular, will enjoy this ruling.

But it creates a new question - does that mean that "Look Out, Sir!" can't reallocate a wound out of range? If so, hello character sniping.

Look out sir has always allowed the wound to be kicked out to a model regardless if it was out of line of sight, out of range or even if the shot was focus fired out of cover and LoS kicked the wound onto a model into cover.

In other words, for the LoS rule to work the way you're suggesting would mean it would have to say that it allocates the wound to the closest model to the character within the normal restrictions for allocating wounds. Because if you were to play this way there would be all sorts of times where LoS simply would not function at all.

 yakface wrote:
A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

Says the guy who wrote the INAT FAQ.

Yes, I agree with you than an FAQ is no place to change rules (other than through actual errata), but this is something that should have been in the rules to begin with. Not in range? Cannot be removed as a casualty. Really simple.

 yakface wrote:
B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

I don't think that's going to be a big a deal as you'd think. I don't expect we'll see too many squads of 9 Bolter Marines with 1 Missile Launcher being to score extra kills.

 yakface wrote:
C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Given 40K involves pre-measuring now, couldn't you just place each template, see who's in range and who isn't, and go from there?

 yakface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No its a terrible ruling because:

A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Frankly, I find it less "gamey" than only killing models in LoS. 1 model is in range of 10 marines, so suddenly all 29 of his out-of-range buddies are jeopardized, even though some may be more than double the possible range away?

It does leave some questions unanswered. What about rapid-fire weapons, for example? If you're double-tapping, does that mean nothing over 12" can be allocated to, even though the gun has a longer range available?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 yakface wrote:
C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Given 40K involves pre-measuring now, couldn't you just place each template, see who's in range and who isn't, and go from there?

Yeah, the flamer example is a bad one - it's pretty easy to determine by waving the template around for a moment, something you're doing anyway to count up hits.

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

 Exhumed wrote:

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

Its GW, you expected something logical

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yes, I agree with you than an FAQ is no place to change rules (other than through actual errata), but this is something that should have been in the rules to begin with. Not in range? Cannot be removed as a casualty. Really simple.

That is the opposite of simple actually. As it stands in the rulebook now, the in/out of range check is done for the FIRING MODELS. You just check to see if any firing model is out of range of all models in the target unit and if they are, then they don't fire. THAT is simple and maintains the overall mechanic for range in the game without making things into a nightmare.

As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

I don't think that's going to be a big a deal as you'd think. I don't expect we'll see too many squads of 9 Bolter Marines with 1 Missile Launcher being to score extra kills.

It happens all the time. Like My Ork Shootas with their 18 range often only have range to a small percentage of enemy models within a unit, but now as long as I have a Big Shoota still firing at 36" I'm all cool. I know lots of people that had been dropping out Big Shootas out of their Boyz squad to save points and protect against Precision Shots, but now this new ruling definitely makes that a less optimal choice.

Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved
in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit? (p64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value.

Q: If a unit of models that are Psykers and armed with force
weapons are affected by the You! You’re a Traitor! result of the
Hallucination psychic power from the Telepathy discipline, does
this force them to spend warp charge points (if they have any
available) and activate their force weapons for the hits they inflict
upon their own unit? (Reference section).
A: Yes.

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged
weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted
Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s
base nearest to the target unit.

@yakface - it sounds like nothing changed to me, but maybe I've been playing it wrong?

Models could only be allocated wounds if any firing model in the unit had range and los (barring barrage), correct?

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

As if Wolf Scouts weren't bad enough:

Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character join a
squad of Wolf Scouts and benefit from the Outflank special rule
because at least one model has the ability? (p27)
A: Yes.
Q: If so, do they roll to see where they enter play using the Wolf Scouts’
Behind Enemy Lines special rule or the normal Outflank special rule?
(p27).
A: The normal Outflank special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Does the The Leaders of the Pack special rule still apply to Space
Wolves taken as an Allied detachment? (p81)
A: Yes.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
@yakface - it sounds like nothing changed to me, but maybe I've been playing it wrong?

Models could only be allocated wounds if any firing model in the unit had range and los (barring barrage), correct?

No, the way it is written in the rulebook is you only check range to the firing models. If they are within range of ANY model in the unit being shot at, then they could cause casualties onto any model in the targeted unit (so long as that model was within LOS of at least one firing model).

So basically LOS and range work kind of opposite in the rulebook. You just check to see which models in the unit being fired at are completely out of LOS (and those models can't be casualties) but for range you just check to see which firing models are completely out of range of any models in the targeted unit (and those models don't fire).

But that's changed now with this FAQ.

 yakface wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

But that's not what the FAQ tells us to do.

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.

The limitation is "any." So if one model has range to a target model, the target can be allocated to, period. It's essentially identical to the LoS restriction - if one model can see you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you. Now, if one model has range to you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you.

Yeah, I'm initially going with J here. It seems like it is ANY and is just answering a question from the rulebook not stealth changnig things like they did with LOS.

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

But that's not what the FAQ tells us to do.

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.

The limitation is "any." So if one model has range to a target model, the target can be allocated to, period. It's essentially identical to the LoS restriction - if one model can see you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you. Now, if one model has range to you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you.

We seem to be talking past each other.

I was responding to H.M.B.C.'s claim that the rules should just be written to deny models from out of range from being casualties, full-stop. And I was pointing out that the only way to actually achieve that ideal would be to resolve every firing model one at a time (in a theoretical sense).

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

Powerguy wrote:

 Malthor wrote:
Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Seriously what the hell is up with this? How can they possibly even make this ruling (that and who the hell is stupid enough to even ask this question in the first place)? The only justification I can think of is that they don't consider units inside of transports to be on the board and thus they can't cast powers, but that should be in the main FAQ since that effects EVERY PSYKER IN THE GAME. I mean Eldar (particularly Mech Eldar) have been kicked pretty hard by 6th edition, this ruling just makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

That's kind of how psykers + transports work for all other units.

 kenshin620 wrote:

 Exhumed wrote:

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

Its GW, you expected something logical

It's... logical, but just incredibly stupidly written.

Oh snap. Dammit, don't we have enough real disputes! Now we H made us have a theoretical one. lol

 yakface wrote:
We seem to be talking past each other.

I was responding to H.M.B.C.'s claim that the rules should just be written to deny models from out of range from being casualties, full-stop. And I was pointing out that the only way to actually achieve that ideal would be to resolve every firing model one at a time (in a theoretical sense).

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

And I was talking on-topic.

I like this ruling - it's easy enough to implement, does mesh with the line of sight rules, and adds some additional tactical elements to movement, without bogging us down in too many details. In essence, it remains a unit-based rule - the unit has a maximum kill range for ranged attacks.