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.

 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

Considering their is an 'Instead' in front of it, that looks like an exception, therefore wouldn't follow this new ruling.

whill4 wrote:
This is so cool. I will make sure I have a missile laucher in my Tac squad and my bolters will be effective out to 48".

No. The FAQ addresses wound allocation. The model must be within range to even fire his bolter in the first place. If you are not in range you are not allowed to roll to hit.

FenixZero wrote:
Considering their is an 'Instead' in front of it, that looks like an exception, therefore wouldn't follow this new ruling.

Except that the FAQ ruling says 'When To Hit Rolls are made' guess when you place templates and figure that out? Oh yeah, when to hit rolls are made.

I'm having a hard time reconciling this FAQ with page 16. I think I may not have read this paragraph carefully before the FAQ, but now that I do have the FAQ I'm having a very hard time understanding it. Can someone help explain?

Out of Range

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range

What does this MEAN?

If a model is in range when to hit rolls were made, how would it be then possible for that model to suddenly be OUT of range when casualties are removed? The model hasn't MOVED anywhere. If he was 12" away when to hit rolls were made, even if there were 10 models closer to the enemy than he was, he's still going to be 12" away after those 10 models are removed.

Is the phrase being non-specific? Should it be read "As long as ANY model was in range... " but if that's supposed to be the reading, what is the meaning of "He" later on? The text seems to be referring to a specific model.

Murrdox wrote:
I'm having a hard time reconciling this FAQ with page 16. I think I may not have read this paragraph carefully before the FAQ, but now that I do have the FAQ I'm having a very hard time understanding it. Can someone help explain?

Out of Range

As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range

What does this MEAN?

If a model is in range when to hit rolls were made, how would it be then possible for that model to suddenly be OUT of range when casualties are removed? The model hasn't MOVED anywhere. If he was 12" away when to hit rolls were made, even if there were 10 models closer to the enemy than he was, he's still going to be 12" away after those 10 models are removed.

Is the phrase being non-specific? Should it be read "As long as ANY model was in range... " but if that's supposed to be the reading, what is the meaning of "He" later on? The text seems to be referring to a specific model.

Assume the following weapons are firing: 1 Flamer; 2 Meltaguns; 6 Bolters.

Assume they're firing at a unit of MEQs: 2 of which are 7" away; 2 are 10" away; and 6 are 13" away.

If you resolve the bolter fire first, it's possible that all the MEQs who are closer than 12" to the firing models are dead before you go to resolve the meltaguns & the flamer. Per the "Out of Range" rule, that doesn't matter - the models were in range when they fired, so you resolve all of their attacks, even though everyone with 12" was dead before you went to resolve the 12" meltaguns.

 pretre wrote:

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?

The point is that the Eldar thing has been an exception for what... 3 editions now.

It's not even an exception. The only kind of psychic powers which have been limited in being cast out of transports, since 1998, are:
A) Powers which require LOS but are not psychic shooting attacks.
B) Psychic shooting attacks in a vehicle with no fire points.

Null Zone, Shield of Sanguinius and Doom (to pick three prominent examples) don't give a damn about LOS, and don't require fire points. The 6th edition psychic rules are quite clear that the restriction on casting out of your transport is BASED ON your LOS being restricted. So Null Zone, Shield of Sanguinius, Storm Caller, Doom, Fortune and Guide (etc., etc.) were not restricted and had no reason to be.

This new FAQ ruling makes absolutely no sense. If they want to add a LOS restriction onto those powers for some inexplicable reason, okay, then that would limit those powers to targeting the psyker, another unit in the transport, or the transport itself. But that's not what this idiotic FAQ ruling says.

 pretre wrote:
[The seeker missiles thing, I understand, even though it is silly. Not sure what he's getting at on the Neph. It just lost missile lock, which it shouldn't have had.

I think it's much more likely that the error on the Neph is that the Blacksword missiles weren't printed as Blast (or even Large Blast, though that might be asking too much). It has S6 AP4 missiles. Which is just absurd. The Blood Angel Stormraven has S8 AP1 missiles, a transport capacity of 12, better armor and ceremite, and only costs 20pts more. The Neph is a dedicated gunship with WORSE firepower, for only 10% cheaper. If the missiles are Blast and it has Missile Lock, it starts to look playable.

Thank you, that clears it up. They really should have added a bit to the end of the last sentence so that it reads, "the closest model now lies out of range of one or more weapons fired by the enemy."

Now I understand the confusion about this FAQ better. It does, in fact, lend itself to interpretation that one 42" range weapon in a squad filled with 24" range weapons allows casualties to be removed up to 42", even if some of those casualties are not caused by the weapon with 42" range, and even if the 42" range doesn't cause any casualties!

Similarly, a squad lacking that 42" range weapon suddenly can't wound nearly as many models when put in the exact same firing situation... which seems counter-intuitive.

 Tarrasq wrote:
Personally I wish there was a maximum effective range and an absolute maximum range. The first being the furthest the shooter can fire the weapon with the greatest degree of accuracy they possess. The second being furthest the projectile could go with killing power. Something like a BS and S/AP nerf beyond effective range. Have the difference in each range value differ for each weapon like 24-30" for bolters. But alas it would likely be too much.

Just ebay 2nd edition lol. All weapons had short medium and long ranges which effected the firers BS. Honestly this and cover becoming a save were the hardest things for me to swallow when 3rd was first launched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:
Thank you, that clears it up. They really should have added a bit to the end of the last sentence so that it reads, "the closest model now lies out of range of one or more weapons fired by the enemy."

Now I understand the confusion about this FAQ better. It does, in fact, lend itself to interpretation that one 42" range weapon in a squad filled with 24" range weapons allows casualties to be removed up to 42", even if some of those casualties are not caused by the weapon with 42" range, and even if the 42" range doesn't cause any casualties!

Similarly, a squad lacking that 42" range weapon suddenly can't wound nearly as many models when put in the exact same firing situation... which seems counter-intuitive.

It was a poor addition IMO. I like having a max kill range but that caveat makes even less sense then before.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This new FAQ ruling makes absolutely no sense. If they want to add a LOS restriction onto those powers for some inexplicable reason, okay, then that would limit those powers to targeting the psyker, another unit in the transport, or the transport itself. But that's not what this idiotic FAQ ruling says.

This explanation makes a lot more sense. Thanks!

 wyomingfox wrote:

whill4 wrote:
This is so cool. I will make sure I have a missile laucher in my Tac squad and my bolters will be effective out to 48".

No. The FAQ addresses wound allocation. The model must be within range to even fire his bolter in the first place. If you are not in range you are not allowed to roll to hit.

Of course the models will be in range. If my bolter guy is within 24" of the target unit the missle launcher guy will allow the bolter wound to be possibly allocated to a model in the target unit up to 48" away. This is the reason I said the bolters would be effective out to 48" not the the bolter's range is 48"

Anyway thats what most of the folks above are arguing for.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Just ebay 2nd edition lol. All weapons had short medium and long ranges which effected the firers BS. Honestly this and cover becoming a save were the hardest things for me to swallow when 3rd was first launched.

I remember not being happy with the changes from 2nd to 3rd... and can I please have my webber back?

 wyomingfox wrote:

whill4 wrote:
This is so cool. I will make sure I have a missile laucher in my Tac squad and my bolters will be effective out to 48".

No. The FAQ addresses wound allocation. The model must be within range to even fire his bolter in the first place. If you are not in range you are not allowed to roll to hit.

wyomingfox is correct but unfortunately some people are misleading others to believe you can have 48" bolters now.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 wyomingfox wrote:

whill4 wrote:
This is so cool. I will make sure I have a missile laucher in my Tac squad and my bolters will be effective out to 48".

No. The FAQ addresses wound allocation. The model must be within range to even fire his bolter in the first place. If you are not in range you are not allowed to roll to hit.

wyomingfox is correct but unfortunately some people are misleading others to believe you can have 48" bolters now.

That's the exact same problem i had when i tried to discuss this with my gaming group. They misunderstood as 48" and 36" bolters so it was just a waste of time for a while

Alright, I just got caught up on this thread. I think it all boils down to this problem:

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 (i.e. half the targeted models are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)?

Look at just the underlined text, and you see the confusion.

What determines where the wounds can be allocated, ANY shooting model or THE shooting model?

It really can be read either way.

In this case, I'm on the side against nosferatu and yackface here. You could take a tac squad with a multimelta and cause wounds against only those models that are in range for the bolters, but swap that multimelta for a missile launcher, and suddenly those bolters can kill models that are out of range? That's absurd, and we all know it.

Clearly the point of this is to make it so that any firing model can only wound opposing models that it could actually hurt. What they are attempting (poorly) to do is to make all of their rules consistent. A model can not apply wounds to models that it could not actually hit, whether this be because of range restrictions or because of LOS issues, or whatever.

Whatever weapon upgrades a squad has should have no impact whatsoever on the killing ability of the rest of the squad mates with small arms. Reading the FAQ in such a way where this is so is inane.

i am sure it is somewhere in here but who chooses which hits from which guns to resolve first? are all wounds from every gun in the squad resolved at the same time?

 Ailaros wrote:
Look at just the underlined text, and you see the confusion.

Well, we see YOUR confusion, that you don't understand how plural possessives work.

What determines where the wounds can be allocated, ANY shooting model or THE shooting model?

Any, because it clearly says "models'", which is plural and can not possibly refer to "the shooting model".

In this case, I'm on the side against nosferatu and yackface here. You could take a tac squad with a multimelta and cause wounds against only those models that are in range for the bolters, but swap that multimelta for a missile launcher, and suddenly those bolters can kill models that are out of range? That's absurd, and we all know it.

Not it isn't, because what it reflects is that all shooting happens simultaneously. The bolters can "kill" a model 30" away because what happened on the table is that the bolters killed a model 20" away and the missile launcher killed the 30" model. It's nothing more than an abstraction to keep you from having to track exactly which of 20 different lasguns caused which hit.

And if there are no models at all within 24" then the bolters don't get to fire at all no matter which heavy weapon you have.

Peregrine wrote:Well, we see YOUR confusion, that you don't understand how plural possessives work.

Firstly, just stop. Trying to make an argument that GW is sending you coded messages by where it puts its apostrophes is insane.

Secondly, even if you want to indulge in this insanity, you're still wrong. Both of the underlined bits are possessive. One is a prepositional phrase, but that doesn't matter. You can just as easily rewrite it to say:

can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within any of the shooting models' range when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted models are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)?

and have the exact same meaning.

Which means we can now move on to more useful arguments.

Peregrine wrote:The bolters can "kill" a model 30" away because what happened on the table is that the bolters killed a model 20" away and the missile launcher killed the 30" model.

10 tac marines with bolters and a multimelta shoot at a unit with 1 model in range. The multimelta misses. The bolters can only kill the one model in range.

10 tac marines with bolters and a missile launcher shoot at a unit with 1 model in range of the bolters. The missile launcher misses. The bolters are now free to kill whatever models are in the squad, regardless of the range of the bolters.

It's absurd.

 Ailaros wrote:
Firstly, just stop. Trying to make an argument that GW is sending you coded messages by where it puts its apostrophes is insane.

It's not a coded message, it's just basic grammar. It's no different than recognizing that "model" and "unit" are two different words.

Secondly, even if you want to indulge in this insanity, you're still wrong. Both of the underlined bits are possessive. One is a prepositional phrase, but that doesn't matter. You can just as easily rewrite it to say:

can Wounds from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within any of the shooting models' range when To Hit rolls were made (i.e. half the targeted models are in the shooting models’ range, and half are not)?

and have the exact same meaning.

Great, so we're in agreement. The ambiguity you claim between "any model" and "the model" does not exist, because both references in your revised sentence are plural and therefore must exclude the singular "the model" interpretation. As you've just said, it is very clearly a statement that "within range" is checked according to the collective group of shooting models, not one shooting model at a time.

It's absurd.

Only because you reduce it to the most absurd extreme. Instead consider a situation where you have 50 conscripts with lasguns shooting at 10 marines. If you can only remove models within range of each shooting model's weapon then you have to roll 50 separate dice, somehow mark exactly which die goes with which model, and then measure range for each specific hit to ensure that you aren't removing an illegal model. This is an absolute nightmare to keep track of, so you have to abstract it to a degree and just assume that if you're in range of at least one shooting model you can be killed.

So, all you've pointed out is that if you abstract something it's possible to come up with a situation where the abstraction isn't a good one, but that's just the price you pay for making the game run smoothly the rest of the time.

As above. Allaros you are ignoring that "any" must belong to the plural "model" .

I have already stated , a numbe of times, that it is a stupid rule. It reduces abstraction in some instances, but creates more effort on the way and creates stupid situations.

 Peregrine wrote:


It's not a coded message, it's just basic grammar. It's no different than recognizing that "model" and "unit" are two different words.

The FAQ is also missing the word "of" so I think you are giving GW a bit too much credit with its grasp of the language and its proof reading ability.

 Ravenous D wrote:
The FAQ is also missing the word "of" so I think you are giving GW a bit too much credit with its grasp of the language and its proof reading ability.

But it's still not a "coded message". Unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise (IOW, the sentence makes no sense as-written) you have to assume that a choice of words was deliberate, you can't just say "GW makes typos" and assume it must mean the opposite.

Im not saying either way, Im just sayin GW has screwed up like this before with wording.

Remember how Nid eternal warrior didnt work against double strength +1? It was poorly worded and a dumb FAQ came out and agreed with it for all of 4 days. Or how technically by wording in the Ork book Nobz in shoota mobz cant take power klaws, but GW fixed that. Then there was multiple combats and its 4 different versions last edition. Point is, GW screws up its intent all the time, and this ruling just looks, well, stupid.

In 4th it was hard lined, you kill what you can see and is in range.
In 5th it was abstract, you can kill anyone as long as you have range to at least 1 model to represent dodging, dipping, ducking, diving, and dodging (bonus points for reference).
In 6th its abstract hardlined where you magically can kill everyone as long as one weapon has range to everyone.

these rules are hard enough to understand without people being sarcastic and undermining. I realize this is the internet, but can we all just try to help each other understand these rules without negativity?

I haven't played a game since the new F.a.q. Can someone tell me how much this new ruling has changed the game and if it is as hard to understand in game as it is on paper? thank you.

My two cents on this is.

That now you would have a wound pool that is base on both AP, STR, and Range of The Weapon inflicting the wound.

For example: 5 man scout squad with bolt guns (RNG 24) and a missile launcher (RNG 48). Lets say that the 4 bolt guns can hit 2 models in a 5 man unit at range 24, then the total number of models that can suffer a wound is 2 from those 4 bolt guns. However, the missile launcher can hit the entire enemy unit meaning that the Missile launcher can hit and wound the entire unit (depending on what kind of shot is made).

It seems to me that what GW is trying to follow the spirit of the new cover rules where if you can't see the model you can harm it.

Hence if there are enemy models that are out of the effective range of a weapon then those models are not wounded by its attacks.

More or less the projectile is no longer considered to have enough energy/power/speed to cause a wound, thus rendering the possible wound idempotent.

I do feel that this needs to be better explained as it does seem to have caused quite a bit of confusion.

BLADERIKER wrote:
I do feel that this needs to be better explained as it does seem to have caused quite a bit of confusion.

It's explained perfectly clearly, people just don't understand how possessive nouns work. It's a very simple process:

1) Measure range for each firing model. If you are in range of at least one model in the target unit, you get to shoot.

2) For each model in the target unit find at least one model in the firing unit that is within range of the target model. If you can not, remove it from the pool of potential casualties.

3) Roll to hit and wound.

4) Allocate successful wounds to models in the pool of potential casualties.

5) If you run out of potential casualties before you run out of wounds to resolve, the remaining wounds are lost.

 TheContortionist wrote:
these rules are hard enough to understand without people being sarcastic and undermining. I realize this is the internet, but can we all just try to help each other understand these rules without negativity?

I haven't played a game since the new F.a.q. Can someone tell me how much this new ruling has changed the game and if it is as hard to understand in game as it is on paper? thank you.

The FAQ only changed one thing, models that are not in range of any firing model cant have a wound allocated to them. The out of range rule on page 16 is what gives permission to wound models outside of their range, provided they were in range to fire in the first place. The FAQ puts a limit on this.

Before the FAQ you only had to have one model in the target unit to be in range in order to put wounds on them all the way to the back. So 10 marines could possibly die if only one of them was within 24" of opposing marines all armed with bolters.

This ruling changes it so only one marine would die in that situation. However give that unit a single missile launcher and it behaves as before the ruling, provided all the models in the target unit are within 48".

As unrealistic as that seems, that's how it works until GW changes their mind again. You can't just ignore the out of range rule on page 16 (the magic bullet rule). And despite what some of the posts have said in this thread the FAQ and the magic bullet rule don't completely contradict each other, the former limits the latter it doesn't get rid of it.

Basically this is how it works:

You need to have range and Line of Sight to be able to fire your weapon.

The unit can inflict as many wounds as shots that they hit and wound with.

Then only the models that are in range of any of the units weapons that rolled to hit can be removed as casualties.

Wow so they have taken an already poorly written rule that is a big time sink and made it worse!

Daston wrote:
Wow so they have taken an already poorly written rule that is a big time sink and made it worse!

How do you mean?

BLADERIKER wrote:
My two cents on this is.

That now you would have a wound pool that is base on both AP, STR, and Range of The Weapon inflicting the wound.

No, you do not. You have ONE WOUND POOL, and only one wound pool. Wounds *within* the wound pool are grouped by S and AP or other special rules, however the rule is quite quite clear that it is the range of *any* of the shooting models, PLURAL, that determines the further away model that a wound can be allocated to

THere is absolutely no requirement, none zip zilch nada, to keep track any more than that. If you have a missile launcher firing (not hitting, FIRING) then you can pull casualties from up to 48" away. If you only have bolters, you are limited to 24"

Any other interpretation requires a gross misrerading of the rule. A very stupid rule, that should have been an errata, but a clear rule nonetheless.