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.

Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

Yep however for units with only one weapon, or things like rapidfire, you might just want to have one guy fire normally to make sure they are all in range(in certain situations) also for flamer units, getting one person to keep a regular weapon also becomes important. Same for some of those mid range weapons. But it only matters in a very narrow range for any given weapon.

HOWEVER as the persona being shot at you can now make more tactical moves. Lets say you need to get into range of their weapons to claim an objective. Now you only have to worry about the one model getting killed instead of losing the entire unit. Adds a new level to tactical movement from the person being shot at.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
so, now if you have a 3x3 squad so 9 guys in a square assuming vs another 9 man squad as 3x3.

The first row assuming able to target all 9 of them
The second row the first 6,
and Third row targets 3.

When doing wound allocation if you did the first row first and wounded 3 then the first 3 in the enemy squads unit gets removed, now when resolving the third row you can't wound anything anymore since nothing is in range, so hence you lose the shots.

A better example would be a curved congo line vs an enemy's triangle formation.
Back then you would be able to form a curve line so that every body is JUST in range to shoot the guy at the tip and wound everybody.
But now in order to wound the entire unit you are required to move the extra range.

In your first example, so long as the first row had range to the back row of the enemy unit all the wounds can be allocated. Wounds go into groups and are resolved, you don't go model by model on what they inflicted.

I thought this is how they are doing it now, since the third row doesn't have range to the 2nd and last row of the unit their shots can't wound them.
Or do they just need one guy to have range over the entire unit?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

 Leth wrote:
Yep however for units with only one weapon, or things like rapidfire, you might just want to have one guy fire normally to make sure they are all in range

RF is unaffected. RF doesn't actually halve the range it just says if a model is found to be within half range then you get an extra shot, so bolters RFing still kill at 24.

 Leth wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause Will was a little too close. Will eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

Fixed that for you, because everyone knows, you fire at will

 Janthkin wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
I would assume that you would have to measure RF on a per model basis now.

You always did. Or were you allowing all models to double-tap, so long as one of them was within 12"?

It's not a difficult FAQ to read on its face: if none of the firing models has range to a particular model in the target unit, that model cannot have wounds allocated to it. Practically speaking, I'm guessing 95% of the cases will be resolved by measuring from the model with the longest-range weapon standing closest to the target unit - anything out of his range can't die.

And what is wrong with that?

 Leth wrote:
Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

Right now it's going to be like: Steve eats 300 bolter rounds and dies. A single snapshot with a sniper rifle kills 299 buddies of Steve. One shot.
Both are weird, it's just personal thing I guess.

 Leth wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Its pretty simple, I fail to see how it is going to take much extra time. You measure the farthest range you got, see which models can be killed, and then measure individual range. Takes maybe 3-4 extra seconds? That is also only when it matters, most of the time it will be pretty straight forward.

I didn't think it would take more time. I think it's a stupid way to do things.

Really? I like it. Makes more sense to me, and helps cut down on damage to units cause steve was a little too close. Steve eats 300 rounds and chuck, barry, adam, and little susie explode

I think the had a consistent abstraction and then went to an inconsistent abstraction. If they had gone by weapons types, so that a group of wounds from bolters cannot wound anyone more than 24" from any of the bolter models while the missile launcher couldn't wound anyone with krak missiles in a squad beyond 48" away that would have been a consistent abstraction.

Now the range of the unit is the longest weapon in it. It seems like the went for the way I'd prefer it and just gave up half way.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think the had a consistent abstraction and then went to an inconsistent abstraction. I they had gone by weapons types, so that a group of wounds from bolters cannot wound anyone more than 24" from any of the bolter models while the missile launcher couldn't wound anyone with krak missiles in a squad beyond 48" away that would have been a consistent abstraction.

Now the range of the unit is the longest weapon in it.

I find this to be more consistent with the Line of Sight rules. So long as one firing model can see you, you're a valid target for wound allocation. And now, so long as one firing model has range to you, you're a valid target for wound allocation.

I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

It used to be as long as you were in range of a single model when made to hit rolls, you could potentially remove infinite models. Now you are restricted of allocating wounds as your max weapon range(for a squad wıth 9 bolters and a heavy bolter this is 36")

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

What did change was that previously if the firing unit had range to one enemy model, then the entire enemy unit could be wounded. Now, only the models within the enemy unit that are within range can be wounded.

The problem now is with usage of the words "Wound Pool" and "any" in the faq. "..,can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within range of any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made."

If you have a unit with multiple weapon types (pretty common) then all of those were put into separate groups but they were in the same "Wound Pool". The shooting player had the option of which group was resolved first. However, the wording here allows a 24" bolter to be able to wound a model at 30" if the firing unit also shoots something like a Heavy Bolter with a 36" range.

If the intent was to make sure a given weapon could not wound a model outside it's range, then the wording should have been:
"...,can Wounds be allocated to models that were not within range of the firing weapon when To Hit rolls were made " This would have resulted in some basic changes to wound allocation.

As it stands, it appears that if you have an option to take a long range weapon in your squad then you probably want to do so.

clively wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
You need range to the enemy unit to be able to fire at them. To wound(hurt in the quote) them all you just need 1 model in range of all of them.

clively wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Isn't it really, as long as any member of the firing unit had range to all 9 of the enemy unit, the whole unit can hurt all 9 of the enemy?

No. Only members of the firing unit that have range to at least one enemy model may fire. This hasn't changed.

That is not what Pretre was saying.

The models that fire still need to have range (and Line of Sight) to at least one model in the target unit to be able to fire. any firing models out of range or Line of Sight can not fire.

Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

My name is pretre and I endorse this message.

How hard would it be to simply make it a rule that you add up the number of models within the range of the number of shots being fired and only that number of models closest to the unit firing, may be removed as casualties?

If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

 pretre wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pretre is saying (Of the models allowed to fire if one guy is in range of all 9 opponents and the rest of the unit only has range to the closest guy in the unit then all 9 guys can die) This is correct.

My name is pretre and I endorse this message.

Ah, a misread on my part. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

Consider this situation:
You have 5 Flamer guys shoot at the enemy. All 5 templates only cover this one lone guy out front and none of the other enemies are under the template. Let's say all wound and all 5 saves are failed. Previously this meant 5 dead enemy models, now it means 1 as the others are out of range of the template.

Now because the flamers have another weapon which has an 18" reach, if one of those are fired it is added to the wound pool and instead of 1 dead guy from the flamers you have now extended their reach and you could kill 5.

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
If they used the new wound allocation in an attempt to nerf flamers of tzeentch they have two attacks one is 18" range. So much for that nerf.

Where'd this come from?

Why would the new WA have anything to do with Flamers?

Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

How does it nerf them? A unit of flamers needs only have a single Flamer use Warpfire the 18" range weapon or have an IC with them that can shoot further and the flamers will be even more dangerous.

Nah they get it as standard. So its not going to really do anything to that unit.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

Seemingly lots of people didn't get it but the top of page 16 was clear as to what to do when it came to range.
That paragraph is now wrong as per the faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olcottr wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I'm confused as to what the confusion was with removing models within weapon range? Was this not the rule in 6th? We've been playing this way since 6th edition came out.

So have we, but apparently the BRB is not explicit in this regard.

It kinda was.

Not to someone who has played 4E and 5E.

40k-noob wrote:
How does it nerf them? A unit of flamers needs only have a single Flamer use Warpfire the 18" range weapon or have an IC with them that can shoot further and the flamers will be even more dangerous.

Not sure that would make them more dangerous. Just as dangerous as they currently were.

 pretre wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Because a 9 man flamer unit can drop it and wipe out an IG blob or ork blob. With a range restriction had it worked. Only models within the flame templates range would of been affected. FoT are over powered. This could of been an attempt to nerf them a little.

Right, I get that it effectively nerfs them. I just don't get where you are getting that the intent of it was to nerf flamers of tzeentch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially since, can't FoT buy an 18" power as an upgrade or something?

That is why I said it didnt work for the current ruling. Re-read my post.

Ya so a unit of tac marines firienf 8 bolters and 1 missle launcher and wound and kill everyone even if there are some at 30 inchs away. Since the a model has a longer range and the unit being shot at can be hit, and wounded right?