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.

The absurd part is in this:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


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.

If the ML doesn't have to HIT, then what is the difference between a Tac squad with a ML and one without?

You already roll to hit by weapon (because of differing S and AP), so no extra bookkeeping there.

You already "group" the wounds within the "pool" by S and AP, the other "special rule" is the range. So, you roll for the bolters, cause X wounds, and remove casualties within the appropriate range. Any "leftover" wounds are lost. Then you roll for the ML and remove any casualties. It's a very simple process, start with shortest range weapons and conclude with longest.

Yes, the FAQ is poorly worded. But, for me coming straight to 6th Ed from 3rd, the idea of flamer templates causing wounds to models not under the template is just as absurd as wounds being allocated to models out of range. This FAQ seems to be trying to correct both situations, yet it appears there are folks wanting to keep the ability to cause wounds to models that are out of range.

If the intention is to be able to continue to wound out-of-range models, then there is no need for the FAQ.

Youre coming from 3rd. There is your issue. Blast / Template sniping was rmeoved in 4th, and has stayed gone in 5th and 6th. Dont compare them

RAW we have this one spot on, and it is utterly moronic

>>Nosferatu - at least someone finally agrees that it's moronic. Y'all have had 8+ years to get used to it...I feel like I'm learning a whole new game.

There are six marines and six orks facing each other. Both the marine squad and ork squad are arranged in two rows of three, one behind the other.
Both the front and back row of orks are in range of the front row of marines. Only the front row of orks is in range of the back row of marines.
All six marines shoot a single shot with identical weapons and cause four wounds.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

How lets assume the same scenario, the same distances apart.
Lets change it however so front three marines are now replaced by a single marine with a heavy bolter.
Six shots are fired, three from the heavy bolter wound, two from the back row of marines wound.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

Eh? Having read the entire thread and thinking I'd got it sorted this threw me for a loop - isn't it 4 from the first example as all the orcs are in range of at least one of the firing marines? And how do we get 6 dead orcs from only 5 wounds caused? What'd I miss?

I misread the example

SImply put: how far can the longest ranged weapon shoot, out of the models that are shooting? THAT RANGE is how far away wounds can be allocated.

The. End. No more. This is an awful, awful stupid rule change.

Pre-FAQ:





The reason that the wounds in the post-FAQ example can be allocated beyond their range is because Unit A has fired a weapon that has a further range. It follows then that if the new weapon (*) does not have range to the back row of Unit B then neither the shorter ranged weapons or the longer ranged weapon in Unit A would be able to allocate wounds to that row.

Personally, I don't like this aspect of the rule mechanic. I would be inclined to restrict the shorter ranged weapons to killing only those first two models and allow the longer ranged weapon to kill one additional model up to its maximum range. So in this example instead of 5 wounds being scored only 3 would happen.

-Yad

Nicely done, Yad.

Yad - That's a great drawing and I believe completely describes the old and new situation.

Reading through all of the posts, its obvious that several people were incorrectly playing it to begin with; which I think is the cause of at least some of the confusion. Specifically I think some people misunderstood that wound allocation had nothing to do with range; only with LOS.

Overall, it appears that GW's intention was to keep with the 6th Ed meme of establishing model placement as a key factor in the game. The faq tried to balance this against game flow by allowing the shooter to roll all of the dice at once instead of breaking it out by weapon.

Our group tends to role the dice, including all the way through saves, grouped by weapon anyway based on which weapon the shooter wants to try and hit with first. (exa: first bolters, then the las cannon). So I think this is going to be a rule that we simply "rewrite" so to speak such that a given weapon can only wound what is in actual range .. on a weapon by weapon basis. I think this is where GW is going, however this faq as written isn't there yet.

Yad wrote:
Pre-FAQ:





The reason that the wounds in the post-FAQ example can be allocated beyond their range is because Unit A has fired a weapon that has a further range. It follows then that if the new weapon (*) does not have range to the back row of Unit B then neither the shorter ranged weapons or the longer ranged weapon in Unit A would be able to allocate wounds to that row.

Personally, I don't like this aspect of the rule mechanic. I would be inclined to restrict the shorter ranged weapons to killing only those first two models and allow the longer ranged weapon to kill one additional model up to its maximum range. So in this example instead of 5 wounds being scored only 3 would happen.

-Yad

Every post in the the entire 11 pages of this FAQ should be deleted and replaced with these pictures.
I just don't understand why so many people are confused by this, and how it can be called broken when it is more limiting than the rules we had 5 days ago.

-Matt

Thanks for the thumbs up all. The only thing I would add to this is in regards to weapons that have more than one range.

Bolters for example have two ranges that they can be fired at:

1 Shot up to 24''
2 Shots up to 12''

For the purposes of the new wounds allocation rules I would base all allocation decisions upon the ranges actually used when working out the unit's shooting. Not the potential range(s) of the weapon.

So if you were to shoot twice at 12'' then your limited to allocating wounds to within 12'' and LoS.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Thanks for the thumbs up all. The only thing I would add to this is in regards to weapons that have more than one range.

Bolters for example have two ranges that they can be fired at:

1 Shot up to 24''
2 Shots up to 12''

For the purposes of the new wounds allocation rules I would base all allocation decisions upon the ranges actually used when working out the unit's shooting. Not the potential range(s) of the weapon.

So if you were to shoot twice at 12'' then your limited to allocating wounds to within 12'' and LoS.

-Yad

I'd rather avoid the extra bookkeeping and keep a good amount of abstraction.

That's actually where you fall down, Yad. When rapid fired, the bolter still has a 24" range, but the requirement for the extra shots is that there be targets within 12".

A mode larmedwith a Rapid Fire weaponcan fire two shots
at a target up to half the weapon's maximum range away.
Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the
weapon's range away, up to the weapon's maximum range.

 pretre wrote:
That's actually where you fall down, Yad. When rapid fired, the bolter still has a 24" range, but the requirement for the extra shots is that there be targets within 12".

A model armed with a Rapid Fire weapon can fire two shots
at a target up to half the weapon's maximum range away.
Alternatively, it can instead fire one shot at a target over half the
weapon's range away, up to the weapon's maximum range.

Yeah, I understand the mechanic of the RF rule. I'm just not that enthusiastic about how it interacts with the change to wound allocation. I'd prefer to go all in with this change and limit allocation to the actual range used. That's what I was trying to say. Given the RAW of RF weapons though you're still operating under a weapon with a 24'' range no matter how you actually shoot it. What I would like to see is that if you were to use an RF weapon at half range then you ought to be restricted to allocating within that range.

This isn't RAW just HIWPI.

-Yad

Every post in the the entire 11 pages of this FAQ should be deleted and replaced with these pictures.
I just don't understand why so many people are confused by this, and how it can be called broken when it is more limiting than the rules we had 5 days ago.

-Matt

People are confused because Out of Range rule on pg 16 completely contracdicts this and this isn't an amendment or Errata. It's just a clarification so technically Out of Range could override this by RAW.

good picture!

Why guys think it is broken? I think those guys have 24"-Armies that like to stay at the 24"-border and are now suffering from that.

Personally I don't like that rule as well, it should have been weapon based and done like the allocation with mixed weapons (missile casualties can be taken from 48" and bolter casualties from 24") but that doesnt change the fact that it is as the picture indicates.

One question popping up in my local gaming group:

As far as range is concerned with regards to what models in the targeted unit are eligible for wound allocation, the range for a flame thrower = template. For sake of this argument a bolter has a range of 24"


So if a model with a bolter was surrounded by a blob, if he shot and wounded 1 time. you would measure from the firing model A ---------> target B and if that distance was less than what range equaled on the profile of his weapon, that model was eligible to have a wound allocated to it (if it were the next closest model and in LOS)....

So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
hdbb - actually blast sniping was more moronic than this

Ignis - 3 in the first, all 6 in the second, because for the 20th time this thread - it is the SHOOTING ****MODELS****** that determines the total range you can wound up to. Nothing else.

Calm down. It's just a silly game. And just remember probably like 99.999 percent of the player base aren't going to play it this way.

Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Ignispacium wrote:


There are six marines and six orks facing each other. Both the marine squad and ork squad are arranged in two rows of three, one behind the other.
Both the front and back row of orks are in range of the front row of marines. Only the front row of orks is in range of the back row of marines.
All six marines shoot a single shot with identical weapons and cause four wounds.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

Four Orks are removed, because all of the marines had range on at least one Ork, and three of them had range on all six.

How lets assume the same scenario, the same distances apart.
Lets change it however so front three marines are now replaced by a single marine with a heavy bolter.
Six shots are fired, three from the heavy bolter wound, two from the back row of marines wound.
How many ork models are removed as casualties?

Five. First, you take two for the shorter range bolters, then three due to the HB.

That is how it would have been pre-FAQ as well, for this particular example. If, however, only one of the Orks had been in range of the marines, then the number of casualties would be four - if you group wounds by range - five if you contend that the mere existence of the HB in the squad confers some magical range-extending power to the bolters.

If you change the diagram a bit you get this, with two different answers, pre- and post-FAQ:



In the above diagram, only 3 Orks are in range of all six marines, so the pre-FAQ answer to the first scenario would have been 4 casualties. The post-FAQ answer is 3.

In the second scenario, using the same diagram, there are two competing ideas:



In this scenario, pre-FAQ, the answer would have been 5 casualties.

Post-FAQ, the magic-bullet brigade wants to believe that you still get 5 dead Orks, because the HB has range on all of the Orks. Even if the HB had missed, there are some in this discussion that want to be able to deal out both wounds from the bolters to the Orks, even though only one Ork is in range.


The correct answer should be 4, as the 2 wounds caused by the marines in the back row only have range on 1 Ork. The HB still takes out 3.

skyfi wrote:
So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

No, every model that was in range of any of the flame templates can be removed as a casualty. You resolve all of the flame template shots at the same time, and you can kill any models that are in range of any firing model.

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

The excess wounds are not lost. By your drawing every model in the target unit is in range of at least one flame template so if they all fire then all the models in the target unit can be killed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

skyfi wrote:
So 3 flame throwers are surrounded by same blob, shooting into different areas scores a max of 2 hits for each, although they could all focus on same area and score 3 hits each. They each fire at those same 3 models scoring 9 wounds total. Those 3 models have no saves and are removed, there are 6 excess wounds. Do you now compare which colored dice cast for which flame thrower and see if there are any models eligible to have a wound allocated to them? ie. the range between the firing model and target is <= template when placed with the narrow end at the firing model?

No, every model that was in range of any of the flame templates can be removed as a casualty. You resolve all of the flame template shots at the same time, and you can kill any models that are in range of any firing model.

Ill edit a picture in here as well.. In it the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

The excess wounds are not lost. By your drawing every model in the target unit is in range of at least one flame template so if they all fire then all the models in the target unit can be killed.

my sketch is not to scale.


for clarity i thought I stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3 thus their excess wounds couldn't be allocated to 4 & 5. (unless you are arguing that a heavy bolter allows bolt pistols to wound 36" away, which I don't agree with. I think that the BRB states that range is derived on a model by model basis. Thus if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5 their excess wounds would be lost?

skyfi wrote:


... the 3 flame throwing models are labeled A,B,C... A & B Only have range to the first 3 models, and no one else so I think their excess wounds would be lost as nothing is in range. Model C however has 2 other models in it's range (models # 4, and 5) and could allocate his excess wounds to them... which raises a further question, if you can make them take the saves/wounds from models A & B first, then C you could kill models 1,2,3 with A&B and use all 3 of the hits/wounds generated by shooting the clump of 1,2,3 for allocation purposes against models 4 & 5?

What is the range of the Flamer? I believe it is listed as Range: Template (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). So what this rule change means is that you have to check to see what models can be covered by the template in addition to the models you are actually covering when working out how many hits you generate. In your example, you would be able to allocate wounds to the additional models in the target unit. Check out the last example I provided a few posts earlier. In your scenario, it no longer matters that 2 of your models are out of range to models 4 & 5. Because they are covered by other models that are firing they can be assigned wounds.

If there were some additional models in the target unit that were strung out beyond the template's footprint then you would not be able to allocate wounds to them.

-Yad

skyfi wrote:
my sketch is not to scale.

for clarity i thought I stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3 thus their excess wounds couldn't be allocated to 4 & 5. (unless you are arguing that a heavy bolter allows bolt pistols to wound 36" away, which I don't agree with. I think that the BRB states that range is derived on a model by model basis. Thus if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5 their excess wounds would be lost?

Yes you stated that A & B ONLY had range to 1,2,3, but the FaQ states that if a model is within range of any of the shooting units weapons then they can be removed as a casualty.

therefore if A & B were out of range of 4 & 5, but C has range to 4 & 5, then A, B & C can kill any model 1-5 in that unit.

this is the Worst rule change ever! half the people don't get it. half of the half that get it got it wrong.

Why fix something that doesn't need to be fixed? There are a lot more holes in the rules that could have been addressed and play-tested, (do they play-test? sometimes it seems like they don't.)

This is just aggravating. I feel like i'm up the creek without a paddle here. there is nothing i could do even if i wanted to, i could quit... but i really do not want to do that.

It's not that i disagree with the rules. I just wish that they where clear. I mean, right now you have to go to four different 6 different places to play a game, (Big rule book, your codex, your opponents codex, Rules faq, your army f.a.q., and your opponets f.a.q.)

They take rules erratas and call them F.a.q.s this need to stop. This is not an f.a.q. this is errata.

I feel like they need to get some new writers, playtesters, and i'm sure a lot more things, and perhaps start looking outside the U.K. for help.

Am i the only one who feels this way? are there people who strongly disagree with me? is there anything we can do about this poor execution from GW?

Thanks for y'alls takes on it mates. I think our club is going to house rule/vote on what interpretation next week or something if one con consensus can't be reached.


I see what you mean by wording of the faQ and the "any models"



One prevailing argument/pov in the group seems to be that templates can ONLY wound what they touch. Which I can't find a rule for.

I assume this is their logic;


Template = Range

You can only wound what is in range (ie. under the template is their pov i think) when "to hit" rolls are done.

So I think they don't care that hypothetically C could have models 4 and 5 in range (if you simply laid template between C and 4/5 to check range) because when "to hit" rolls were done, his range was limited to the template shape, where it was specifically placed and thus only the models "touched" by it would be eligible to have wounds attributed to them as they were the only ones in "range"

I made 2 scale(ish) drawings for skyfi

In this example all three flamers (in blue) can hit 3 red models, causing up to 9 wounds:


Pre-FAQ that meant that all 5 of the red models could be removed as casualties.

Post-FAQ it means that only 3 can, as the remainder are out of range.

In another example:

Model A can hit models 1 & 2, model B can hit 1 & 2 or 2 & 3 and model C can hit 2 & 3 or 3 & 4 - this could cause a max of 6 wounds.



Pre-FAQ all 6 could have been removed as casualties. Post-FAQ, even if you roll 6 wounds you can only allocate 4 to the red models, as models 5 and 6 are out of range.

Welcome to 40k lol

 BlueDagger wrote:
Welcome to 40k lol

i assume this was for me. After only playing a year i finnaly feel like a 40k player. thank you.