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.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

I've stated this 3 times now, RF doesn't change the range of the weapon, it just states that you get an extra shot if the closest model is found to be within half of it's range.
Meaning bolters always kill at 24 regardless of RFing.

Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

Kal-El wrote:
Just as you say that's not what the FAQ says... You can't put " " around part of a sentence to plead your case, especially when it's a poorly written sentence. All we can do is interpret the rules and I interpret it how I wrote it. This ENTIRE edition is based off of model by model, why would GW change it for one rule? It says it right there in your quote in the ( ) that it is model to model. It also shows more evidence of GWs poorly written sentences because the first usage of model should be plural since the word "are" was used instead of "is".

The entire edition? Hardly. See the Line of Sight rules - a perfectly analogous Unit-to-Model situation.

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Lets say a LRBT fires at a target. Battle cannons range is 72inches. Where ever that blast land you roll to hit and to wound and kill whatever fails its saves. It doesnt say what is under the template, it says you can only wound what is in range, and with a 72inch cannon your pretty much in range of anything.

jegsar wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
What f**ks this up more is if models with rapidfire weapons are within 12 and want to shoot they have to rapid fire, so it's going to be more beneficial now to keep a dude out of 12 inches just to ensure all the other guys who are rapid firing can wound the whole target unit..

I've stated this 3 times now, RF doesn't change the range of the weapon, it just states that you get an extra shot if the closest model is found to be within half of it's range.
Meaning bolters always kill at 24 regardless of RFing.

pretre wrote:Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 pretre wrote:
Hey, you know what this really screws up? Rapid fire!

Hey guess what a 10 man guard squad rapid fires. Everyone is in 12 inch range. Why not elect 1 model to fire 1 shot at 24 Inches so then technically the whole enemy unit is now within the firing units range. Problem solved?

Step by step analysis of rules with addition of FAQ:

1) Choose target
2) Check LOS, then distance to target from weapon with the longest range. If it has no LOS, or is not in distance, then it picks another target.
3) All models fire at the same time.
4) Roll to hit for each shot that's in range.
5) Roll to wound, add wounds to wound pool.
6) Allocate wounds, and remove causalities.

"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."

So, we must have a wound pool for the FAQ to take place. Then, we only allocate wounds to the models that are in range of ANY of the shooting models. So if all your bolters are in range of only half of an enemy squad, you can only kill off the half that is in range. If you have a missile launcher in that squad, the bolters can kill off the whole squad. That's RAW for the FAQ.

tankboy145 wrote:

Polecat wrote:
How does that work with blast markers, if the centre is just within weapon range?

The weapon range is measured from the barrel, and models out of that range can not be wounded no matter how many were under the marker?

Lets say a LRBT fires at a target. Battle cannons range is 72inches. Where ever that blast land you roll to hit and to wound and kill whatever fails its saves. It doesnt say what is under the template, it says you can only wound what is in range, and with a 72inch cannon your pretty much in range of anything.

Please, please please read this entire thread. All of these issues have already been addressed in triplicate, as jegsar has politely pointed out. A blast weapon has specific rules that allow it to scatter beyond normal range and still cause damage. It isn't impacted by this FAQ.

Yeah at this point all of the issues are solved. virx67 summed it up again and for those of you worried about RF, read the rule or at least the rest of thing page.

I'm done responding to this thread so enjoy, this is one ruleset that is fairly simple to understand if not a little annoying to carry out.

@tankboy; you missed the joke.
@virx: that's been said about twenty times.

 Janthkin wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
First off GW should have made this an errata to page 15 and not a FAQ, and it is poor English; I put in ( ) of how it should read. It's confusing how they messed up the words. Now we have to dissect their new faq question to make sense of it and in order to do this we need pages 12 and 13. The first part - When making a shooting attack against a unit (page 12 which models can fire rule), can wounds from the wound pool be allocated to models that were not within range (of any of the) shooting models when (the) To Hit rolls are made (page 13 which models can fire and rolling to hit rules).

The answer is "No."

I think this rule is pretty clear, and I feel like most of you are wrong...even GW on their part. This is how it should go down - 9 models of a 10 man squad has a shooting attack that shoots 24 inches and 1 model has a 48 inch weapon. They are positioned 5 in front and 5 in the back. . The target unit has 10 models in it, 2 of which are at exactly 24 inches from the shooting units first rank of models. The shooting unit then checks to see if he can target the unit. To do this he checks his furthest ranged weapon which is 48 inches. The unit can target it.

Now the shooter checks his range from each model, and find that 5 of the models can shoot at the 2 models at 24 inches and the 48 range weapon can shoot at the enemy as well. So she shooter grabs 5 white dice for the 24 inch weapon and 1 green dice for the 48 inch weapon and rolls them all. Everything hits! Now the shooter must put those wounds into the wound pool - 6 total. The shooter then picks up the 5 white dice and the 1 green dice and rolls for wounds. Everything wounds! The enemy rolls his saving throws and fails 4 of the white 24 inch range dice and fails the 1 green 48 inch dice. The enemy then removes the 2 models that are in the 24 inch range and NO MORE the rest of the white dice wounds are lost based on the new FAQ, then the enemy removes 1 model past the 24 inch range because the 48 inch weapon is within range. This is all per how page 12-13 and the new FAQ is written.

Except that's not what the FAQ says.

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.

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

This is obviously the way the writers intended this FAQ question to work. I can't believe there are people trying to argue this any other way. Oh wait, this is YMDC on Dakka, nevermind.

Occam's Razor...

"Any of the shooting models." No piece-by-piece assessment of which wounds came from which range bands, just a simple check - if a target model is within range of ANY model that fired at the target unit, it is eligible to have a wound allocated to it.

So that would mean the actual range of any weapon is equal to the one with the furthest?

By RAW the question is explicitly stated for an example wherein the target unit has exactly half in range so the answer only applies to this specific case?

jegsar wrote:Gunline vs assault doesn't get changed much, gunline vs gunline and assault vs assault changes a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kal-El, the condition is based on when rolling to hit... You don't even need to hit with the ML to remove models past 24

jegsar wrote:doesn't matter what the BRB says anymore, subject is closed with the way the FAQ works. Only questionable thing is, what is in range of the template since it doesn't roll to hit but that you can easily play RAI for to come to a fair agreement.

The subject is not closed and it does matter what the BRB says because pages 12-13 both say otherwise. The new FAQ is listed as a FAQ frequently asked questions and not an errata which is a rule change, so therefor what's in the MRB is still relevant. Also if someone does not roll to hit with their missile launcher I'm not taking a model for the wound since the boltersare out of range. When overwatch kills your assault guys and you lose your charge because the distance changed, you don't get to still assault...it's sorry about your luck. This applies here. The wounds are lost.

Janthkin wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
Just as you say that's not what the FAQ says... You can't put " " around part of a sentence to plead your case, especially when it's a poorly written sentence. All we can do is interpret the rules and I interpret it how I wrote it. This ENTIRE edition is based off of model by model, why would GW change it for one rule? It says it right there in your quote in the ( ) that it is model to model. It also shows more evidence of GWs poorly written sentences because the first usage of model should be plural since the word "are" was used instead of "is".

The entire edition? Hardly. See the Line of Sight rules - a perfectly analogous Unit-to-Model situation.

Again, pages 8, 12, and 16 state otherwise and line of sight rules are model to model. Just because one marine can see the enemy target does not mean the entire squad can see that same target.

See page 16 - Out of Sight. One model with LOS means anything can be allocated to the target unit.

And you're absolutely wrong - GW can and does change rules using FAQs instead of errata. It's happened before, it's happened now, and it'll happen again.

rigeld2 wrote:
See page 16 - Out of Sight. One model with LOS means anything can be allocated to the target unit.
And you're absolutely wrong - GW can and does change rules using FAQs instead of errata. It's happened before, it's happened now, and it'll happen again.

This and the range of the ML is still 28 so the bolter would wound up to 48 if the closest model to the bolter is within 24.
@Kal-El

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

please tell me where the ML needs to roll to hit as long as any of the shooting models roll to hit. This covers beams, novas, etc... also.

RAW, it works
RAI, it works
Does it make sense yes because it would be way to slow and you would then need to split up the wound pool not only by ap but range and who knows what else. This would slow down the game too much.
Does it make sense in comparison to reality? no but neither does the warp, and it doesn't need to as this is a game.

Kal-Els interpretation is the most sound to me and it is backed up by other BRB entries. I don't feel this interpretation is gamesy in anyway, but rather more realistic and cinematic, which is what GW was going for this edition.

Alright guys to help clear this up. The Out of Range rule on page 16 allows a model that fired to continue to be counted as in range even if the closest enemy in the unit being fired upon is outside the maximum range of that model. This rule does not cease to apply now, there is just a limit to how far it goes.

Before the FAQ the Out of Range rule let you continue to allocate to models in the target unit that were out of range of all weapons in the firing unit. The FAQ puts a limit on this, all models in the target unit that are out of range of all of the weapons in the firing unit are now safe.

To rephrase. As the rules are now, every model in the target unit that is either outside the line of sight of every model in the firing unit or outside the maximum range of every weapon in the firing unit cannot have a wound allocated to it.

A model still has to be in range of at least one enemy model to fire at all.

What I find funny about this whole situation is we seem to have 3 distinct groups of people who are all arguing past each other without being entirely certain which direction the person they are arguing with is trying to go (and no insult intended towards any of these groups, just trying to point out what I'm seeing going on)!


1) First, we have people that seem to have been playing the LOS rules incorrectly pre-FAQ and were playing that casualties in a target unit could not be pulled beyond a weapon's range (missing the fact that the rules seemed to indicate that range only mattered regarding whether the FIRING models themselves were within range of their target enemy unit). So to that group of people, those that are arguing that this FAQ now allows casualties to be pulled from within range of any firing weapon in the unit, sound like they are trying to completely cheese the rule to gain an advantage. They're saying things like: 'how dare you try to claim that you can now pull casualties based on the longest range firing weapon', implying that this new FAQ ruling is some sort of BUFF to the casualty removal rules!


2) Then you have the people who played (IMHO) correctly pre-FAQ and understand that range was just measured for firing models and if the firing model was within range of the target unit then from that point on range played no further role in the shooting process. To those people (which includes me), the new FAQ is clearly a change of rules and an overall 'nerf' to the casualty removal rules. Yes, having one longer ranged weapon firing in the unit can allow a firing unit to get around this new restriction, but there is no doubt that this IS a restriction compared to what the rules themselves previously detailed for casualty removal.


3) Then finally we have people who understood how the range rules worked pre-FAQ (as with camp #2), but they always clearly FELT that this rule was stupid and they wished GW would change the range rules to make them more 'realistic'. So to these people, the FAQ ruling is like a tease...it SEEMS to answer the question they wanted answered, but not entirely the way they were hoping for. So now they're desperately trying to figure out how to make arguments to make the FAQ ruling play the way they think it should have been answered.

This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

As Janthkin has pointed out several times, it actually does make the range rules kind of mirror the LOS rules now, so its not that big a deal.

So when you're checking range/LOS initially you're just checking to see what models in the firing unit are within range/LOS of at least one model in the firing unit (so they can fire).

Then in the casualty removal step, if it matters, you'd now double check range and LOS again but this time to the enemy models in the target unit to see which of them are valid to be casualties (with those that are completely out of LOS and/or range being exempt).

Really not *that* hard...

 Fafnir13 wrote:
This is such a head ache. Anyone else missing 5th yet?
I suppose it's only one more measurement, but it greatly increases the chances for committing errors and having "discussions" over whether model X is really in range.
My gut feeling on the whole "any firing model" thing is that it is only the range of the wound currently up for allocation. Weapons with different values (including range no, I guess) are generally kept track of separately.
Could easily be the RAW way as well. Just depends on GW.
I still think this whole thing is rubbish. Going to go bury myself in the rule book again to try to make sense of it.

You only seperate by Strength and AP in the wound pool. Additionally it only states the wound pool as a WHOLE is limited by the longest ranged weapon in the unit, so you do not care about range of the individual "wound" at all.

I concur with Janthkin and Yakface. It's really not as big a deal or as complicated as it initially appears.

Except I don't think that interpretation is going to stick. This FAQ seems to be a counter to the "magic bullets" complaint where models too far out we're getting wounded. If that's their main consideration, how long will they tolerate pistols able to wound outside their range just because there's a bolter along? It would seem to go against the intended effect of the rule which, it at least a recent historical sense, generally gets quashed by yet another FAQ.
Believe me, I would be happy to use the more liberal reading of "firing unit.". I usually have crypteks with 36" shots with my warrior groups. Like I said, the RAW is fairly solid, but I'm guessing it won't last.

I suspect it will. One thing I noticed is that it provides a nice little benefit to SM squads with a longer-ranged heavy weapon, as opposed to Grey Hunter or Strike Squads, who are all 24" max range (even the psycannons).

Well, I personally hope they simply toss the FAQ answer out and change it once they realize that what they've written does actually contradict what the rulebook says...or if they're really committed to making that rules change then going all the way and putting out an errata for the LOS rules section.

I don't know. Given the Eldar power ruling, the Seeker Missile ruling, and the Nephilim jetfighter ruling, they're kind of on a tear in messing stuff up.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
Except I don't think that interpretation is going to stick. This FAQ seems to be a counter to the "magic bullets" complaint where models too far out we're getting wounded. If that's their main consideration, how long will they tolerate pistols able to wound outside their range just because there's a bolter along? It would seem to go against the intended effect of the rule which, it at least a recent historical sense, generally gets quashed by yet another FAQ.
Believe me, I would be happy to use the more liberal reading of "firing unit.". I usually have crypteks with 36" shots with my warrior groups. Like I said, the RAW is fairly solid, but I'm guessing it won't last.

I imagine they did think this through and chose to put up with the quirk of longer wound range in exchange for simplifying things, i'm sure they could have elected for each firers wounding range to be limited to his weapon range but it would considerably more work to measure and keep track of.

Its not that hard, we did it back in 4th ed

So what your saying (This example will help me understand)

If I have a unit of 3 Tyranid warriors, With DS (18'') and 1 with a Venom Cannon (36'') And choose to shoot at a unit of 10, 5 are within 18'', 5 of the target unit are outside the 18'', but wounds can still be allocated outside, to all 10 of the target unit because my unit contains a model with a range of 36''?

Does the 36'' have to be fired for it to work like this? (I have 2 gun options in the set up above) Surley I have to actually be firing the weapon in question? Or is this soley based on the units Min&Max range?

You have it right, and it's the weapons which are being fired that matter.

The change here is that previously, even if all 3 of your warriors just had DS, and were in range of just 1 enemy model in the target unit, their wounds could be allocated to and potentially kill anyone in that unit (working closest to farthest, as usual).