Akar wrote:
I actually like this FAQ. It's abstract enough to let the players sort out the details, effectively turning all of us in to 'playtesters'. It's not that difficult to sort out and I often wonder how many of us have PLAYED a few games before posting. I have yet to play, so I'll pretty much leave it at that for now.

Personal Opinion aside, and after reading all the threads, one thing I either missed or it hasn't been discussed is the 'Look Out Sir' rule, and range. Does this get around the 'Look Out Sir rule' if only the IC is left in range.

IGNORE the mixed range units for right now, and look at the non-mixed range units. I play Necrons for example and only have units with static ranges. Let's say I shoot 20 Warriors (Yes, all are in range to be able to shoot), but only 1/2 the target squad is within 24" including the IC. So once I've killed all the models withing 24" except the IC, does the IC HAVE to take the wounds, or can he still 'Look Out Sir' to models outside of the 24"? I am assuming that he has to take the wounds, effectively being sniped out.

*Note: Still working through all the FAQ's so don't know if it's been covered there yet either.

 yakface wrote:


"[The re-allocation may] even be a model that is out of range or line of sight of the Shooting attack."

I'd safely say the LoS rule takes precedence over range and line of sight restrictions.

Pyrian wrote:

FenixZero wrote:
No, it says that for wounds in the wound pool 'when To Hit rolls were made'. You don't make 'To Hit' rolls with Templates, as such it is exempt from the new FAQ ruling.

First off, you're aware that this argument only even begins to work if the firing unit consists entirely of flame template weapons? Because, if even a single to-hit roll is made, then there was a time when to-hit rolls were made, and it doesn't matter whether a given weapon actually rolled to-hit or not.

...Furthermore, there is a time when to-hit rolls are made even when no actual to-hit rolls are made, i.e. there is a defined time in the firing sequence when you would make your zero to-hit rolls for your all-template unit, which arguably means your position doesn't even work for all-template firing anyway. (Plus, it's silly and ridiculous, but eh, this is a rules forum, so that's kind of not entirely relevant.)

FenixZero wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

FenixZero wrote:
No, it says that for wounds in the wound pool 'when To Hit rolls were made'. You don't make 'To Hit' rolls with Templates, as such it is exempt from the new FAQ ruling.

First off, you're aware that this argument only even begins to work if the firing unit consists entirely of flame template weapons? Because, if even a single to-hit roll is made, then there was a time when to-hit rolls were made, and it doesn't matter whether a given weapon actually rolled to-hit or not.

...Furthermore, there is a time when to-hit rolls are made even when no actual to-hit rolls are made, i.e. there is a defined time in the firing sequence when you would make your zero to-hit rolls for your all-template unit, which arguably means your position doesn't even work for all-template firing anyway. (Plus, it's silly and ridiculous, but eh, this is a rules forum, so that's kind of not entirely relevant.)

Ork Battlewagon full of Ork Burnas can do this.

And just because there is a place where To Hit rolls would be made, doesn't matter if none were made.

canadianguy wrote:
So what if your longer range and shorter range weapon have the same AP?

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

Bulldogging wrote:
I read through the pages but I'm unclear on one situation.

Landspeeder with 2 Heavy Flamers(has no other guns that are longer range).

Does this basically heavily weaken that model by making both hit the same enemy models, and limiting wounds to them?

 yakface wrote:

Bulldogging wrote:
I read through the pages but I'm unclear on one situation.

Landspeeder with 2 Heavy Flamers(has no other guns that are longer range).

Does this basically heavily weaken that model by making both hit the same enemy models, and limiting wounds to them?

You've got it.

But instead, if the Speeder had one Flamer and one Heavy Bolter then any model in the affected unit (that was also within line of sight of the Speeder) would be valid to have a wound allocated to it.

FenixZero wrote:
But with flamers they don't follow the new FAQ, because they don't roll To Hit. So the two HF could cause up to 6 wounds to unit, and it could affect the entire unit, not just the three models hit by the two flamers.

Instead of rolling To Hit,
simply placethe template so that its narrow end is touching the
base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as
many models in the target unit as possible

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

Really?, do eldar vehicles have fire points?, seeker missiles need 6's to hit like every other non skyfire weapon in the game and not sure on the jetfighter ruling?

 pretre wrote:

FenixZero wrote:
But with flamers they don't follow the new FAQ, because they don't roll To Hit. So the two HF could cause up to 6 wounds to unit, and it could affect the entire unit, not just the three models hit by the two flamers.

What makes you think this?

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.

Even without To Hit rolls, flamers still use that step of the shooting phase.

Instead of rolling To Hit,
simply placethe template so that its narrow end is touching the
base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as
many models in the target unit as possible

 yakface wrote:

Bulldogging wrote:
I read through the pages but I'm unclear on one situation.

Landspeeder with 2 Heavy Flamers(has no other guns that are longer range).

Does this basically heavily weaken that model by making both hit the same enemy models, and limiting wounds to them?

You've got it.

But instead, if the Speeder had one Flamer and one Heavy Bolter then any model in the affected unit (that was also within line of sight of the Speeder) would be valid to have a wound allocated to it.

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.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.