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.

How does this sound?

So assuming you have a unit of ten identical models:

1.) Check range. Let's say six models have range to at least one enemy model in the enemy unit you are targeting.
2.) Of the six models in your unit that have range on the enemy models, find the one closest to the enemy unit and identify all the enemy models in the target enemy unit that lie within his weapon's maximum range.
3.) Roll to hit, roll to wound and make saves.
4.) Unsaved wounds from your firing unit are removed as casualties from the closest models in the enemy unit, this proceeds until you run out of unsaved wounds to assign or you've removed every model that lies within the closest friendly firing model's maximum range, whichever comes first.

Other weapons like heavy bolters and the like would have to be rolled for and assigned separately using their positions and maximum ranges.

You were right, up until the end.

***ALL*** shooting models. Not some, ALL. So you find the longest range in ***ALL*** the shooting models, and that is the furthest you can allocate wounds.

There is a single wound pool. you are trying to create more than one, which has no rules backing at all.

I suggest people who are just posting go back acouple of pages and look at Yads diagrams, or Yaks answers, as they explain this entirely perfectly.

This can be a game changer with two shooting armies facing off where one has a slightly longer range. Before the faq it would be hard to keep backing up your models to keep out of range with the limited table space but now if you can continue to do it with only losing a few models when you change angles it can make a difference. That is if the shorter range army can't add long range weapons or your game group has decided to do this as per weapon range.

 hdbbstephen wrote:
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.

My diagram is positioned where C has range to ALL models in the target unit. that is the difference. I concur with you/your diagrams here.


My question is specifically if C had range to the remaining models, and his wound group had excess wounds from the models A and B... would the models 4&5 that C has range to be eligible to receive excess wounds from 1. Only model C as its in range, or 2. ALL of the models firing regardless of weapon type, 3. ALL of the models firing the SAME weapon type as what C is using? It seems that A & B could Kill 4 & 5 as C is granting their wound GROUP (not pool) "range"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You were right, up until the end.

***ALL*** shooting models. Not some, ALL. So you find the longest range in ***ALL*** the shooting models, and that is the furthest you can allocate wounds.

There is a single wound pool. you are trying to create more than one, which has no rules backing at all.

I suggest people who are just posting go back acouple of pages and look at Yads diagrams, or Yaks answers, as they explain this entirely perfectly.

i think people are getting wound groups and wound pool confused.

Bolters create wound group of 2 wounds, flamers create a wound group of 4, heavy bolter creates a wound group of 2.

My common sense tells me the bolters lethal range is 24", the flamer the template, and the heavy bolter 36".

However the wording of the faq seems to say that the 4 wounds caused by the flamer could be applied to distances up to 24 or 36" (and the bolter from 24" increased to 36")... I'm going to re read yak/yad's posts now though.

 TheContortionist wrote:

 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.

Heh, I've only been playing for only about 4 years and there is one thing I can to realize... GW only cares about $. You think these rules issues are "mistakes"? No, they get the playerbase all worked up or change the way the game plays to keep people relooking at the game. In the end, all they care about is $ and even army release will show you that black and white when you compare the best unit options vs $ cost.

Luckly for people like me that caught onto it, there is plenty of competitor games out there that are 10x more fun. All it takes is the will for someone to get their friends to try something new as a group. I'll look at my Eldar again when GW pulls their head out of their arse or the 40k license is bought by an ethical company.

My 2 cents on the original topics -> wounds create a pool and groups within that pool. If a missile launcher snap fires in a squad of bolters you can kill anything up to 48" with the missile launcher AND the bolters. If you have a squad of Flamers, just use the bolt with one of them and you can kill anything up to 18".

Here is a good combo. I could make a veteran squad and make them all assaulty so they all have a pistol and close combat weapon of some sort. Except one model will be armed with a missile launcher. Once I get within 12" and resolve hits and wounds any wounds caused by the pistols could be allocated out to 48". That is awesome!

whill4 wrote:
Here is a good combo. I could make a veteran squad and make them all assaulty so they all have a pistol and close combat weapon of some sort. Except one model will be armed with a missile launcher. Once I get within 12" and resolve hits and wounds any wounds caused by the pistols could be allocated out to 48". That is awesome!

Nope, it doesn't work that way. The pistols still need a valid target to be able to shoot. A proper example would be if the target unit you're shooting at had only 1 model within 12'' and the remainder were outside of 12''. The longer range of the missile launcher would allow you to allocate wounds beyond twelve inches when otherwise they would be lost after you killed the sole model within 12''.

In short, you have conflated determining how many To Hit rolls you get with the new wound allocation rule.

-Yad

He did say "Once I get within 12".

Just to note, this is how it worked pre-FAQ, just now you have to pay for that missile launcher in the squad that can't be fired if you plan to assault.

 BlueDagger wrote:
He did say "Once I get within 12".

Just to note, this is how it worked pre-FAQ, just now you have to pay for that missile launcher in the squad that can't be fired if you plan to assault.

So he did My bad on that. Yes, you're [whill4] correct. Getting to within (even partially) 12'' would allow you to allocate beyond the 12'' range so long as the unit fires a longer ranged weapon.

-Yad


@BlueDagger: Except I believe the change in wound allocation now requires you to fire that missile launcher if you want to 'extend' the wound allocation range.

It works exactly that way. That is what you have been arguing all along. Once all the models within 12" and LOS have been killed any excess pistol wounds can be allocated to models further than 12" and still in LOS.



Edit: Slow typer

skyfi wrote:
My common sense tells me the bolters lethal range is 24", the flamer the template, and the heavy bolter 36".

Unfortunately, using common sense in 40k is very bad idea. Pre-faq, every weapon had infinite lethal range. Post-FAQ, every weapon in the shooting unit has same lethal range as the longest lethal range weapon has (more or less).

skyfi wrote:
However the wording of the faq seems to say that the 4 wounds caused by the flamer could be applied to distances up to 24 or 36" (and the bolter from 24" increased to 36")... I'm going to re read yak/yad's posts now though.

Yup. Basically, it's playable compromise between infinite lethal range (=pre-faq) and model specific lethal range (='realistic).

Yes, a wound pool is only ever SINGULAR, but can have many wound groups within it.

THe FAQ states wound pool, so that is what we go by,

In reality all the FAQ does is force people to take a long range weapon is a short range weapon squad, which most were already doing. The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there) and assault units (like they needed kicked anymore).

 BlueDagger wrote:
The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there)...

Every Flamer of Tzeentch also comes with a 18" range assault weapon, "warp flame". They're not too concerned.

Once all the models within 12" and LOS have been killed any excess pistol wounds can be allocated to models further than 12" and still in LOS.

Just how many models are you expecting to kill with nine laspistols?

Yeah they have the 18" warp flame, but thipically that extra flamer template would be a lot more worthwhile. Not a huge issue for them your right. Right off the bat I can think that it will hurt triflamer Guardians for Eldar... if anyone was still running them post skimmer nerf.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

My local game store, for one.

Zirilius wrote:

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.

Wrong. Your assumption is that GW never changes rules with FAQs.
That assumption is demonstrably wrong.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

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.

One situation is Gets Hot. If the model was in range when the to-hit roll was made, and the shooting squad rolls very badly and loses a few to Gets Hot, then a few enemies might be out of range due to the loss of the front 3 guys in the shooting squad but they can still be hit according to this rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

None of the stores in my local area are going to play it your way but I don't know how to prove that. Everyone I spoke to has said it is very [Mod: Please do not use the word gay or mis-spelled substitutes as a pejorative. Thank you.].

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually no, given this will be ued in some tourneys this weekend.

Prove it then.

Given you made an extraordinary claim, how about you actually prove it? H0 is that people will play by the FAQ, as those are the rules of the game. You have H1, 99.99% of people wont. Prove it. We'll wait

None of the stores in my local area are going to play it your way but I don't know how to prove that. Everyone I spoke to has said it is very g3hy.

I don't understand what you mean by 'your way'. Do you mean the way the wound allocation rules have changed due to the new FAQ? If so then sure, TO's have every right to adjust the rules as they see fit. If they don't want to follow this particular rule mechanic they can ignore it or change it to their liking. I would hope that they make it known to the players that they are changing the rules. Otherwise, the folks showing up having read and understood the FAQ might be in for a bit of a surprise.

-Yad

I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You realize that FaQ's can, and sometimes do, change rules right?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

This from a guy directly disagreeing with a clear FAQ after it's published.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You realize that FaQ's can, and sometimes do, change rules right?

It happens. I don't think anyone really cares enough how GW rules only that they made a ruling. TBH I don't think anybody had a problem with Abby joining units pre-FAQ, except from a RAW standpoint. I'll continue arguing that a Drop Pod suffers a Hull Point just from entering play. I don't play it that way and if GW ever FAQs it that they do not lose a HP, I won't be surprised. A number of the rulings went how most people play it and I think the only thing that really caught people off guard was the change to Farseers in transports.

Edit: Changed my mind.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

A terrible track record for what - arguing about what the rules say?

Yeah, no. I don't think I've ever argued intent - feel free to point out where I have.
I may have pointed out places where I think intent could go either way, but that's not the same thing as arguing what the rules say.

 BlueDagger wrote:
In reality all the FAQ does is force people to take a long range weapon is a short range weapon squad, which most were already doing. The only units I can think off hand that it hurts is Flamer squads (no sympathy there) and assault units (like they needed kicked anymore).

Doesnt really even effect flamer squads like burna boyz, just take a big mek with kustom mega blast and they can kill anything within 24" of him.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I have heard it all before... Abbadon can't join marked units... Necrons suffer Crash and Burn... Sorry but you guys have a terrible track record in sixth edition and I pity the fools whom you beguile.

You still seem to have large problems understanding what Rules As Written mean. Before those FAQ's were published, according to RAW Abaddon couldn't join marked unit and Necrons suffered Crash and Burn. Now, those FAQs changed the rules and obviously so did the RAW change. Note that in both cases, quite many people did point out before FAQ that "These will most likely be FAQ'd to work differently" and it was no big surprise they were.

Same is true for the removal of casualties from unit. Before FAQ, RAW was that any model in LOS could have wound allocated to them. After FAQ the new RAW is that only models that are both in LOS and in range for at least one shooting model can have wound allocated to them.

If anyone is ignorant enough to try argue that "Only Errata changes rules, FAQ entries don't change the rules", I advise you to read Necron FAQ, especially the last FAQ question and answer:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.