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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
QW, why do you hate grammar and proofreading?

They don't. You just don't understand grammar.

No need to be arses. Take that business to OT

Of course there's a need, because it's true. The only reason this thread exists is because people don't know how plural possessives work and think that a perfectly clear sentence is somehow unambiguous. Just look at Ailaros' post with the underlined quote. There's no conflict at all between the underlined sections, he just doesn't understand that "models'" is plural, not singular.

You've stated your take on the situation, and for what it's worth I myself completely overlooked what you pointed out. Congrats, you've educated the unwashed masses (or at least me). By reinforcing what you said by being rude about it you do nothing but harm to your intentions to educate.

You're better than this.

 Necroshea wrote:
By reinforcing what you said by being rude about it you do nothing but harm to your intentions to educate.

And "QW, why do you hate grammar and proofreading?" isn't rude? I think it's pretty rude to accuse the FAQ author of hating grammar and proofreading because you (the quoted person) just don't understand grammar.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
By reinforcing what you said by being rude about it you do nothing but harm to your intentions to educate.

And "QW, why do you hate grammar and proofreading?" isn't rude? I think it's pretty rude to accuse the FAQ author of hating grammar and proofreading because you (the quoted person) just don't understand grammar.

Fighting evil with evil yields no good.

I also feel like I'm targeting you unfairly in this, so I'll stop.

Wait a second. So are you saying that if say (refering to 5th)
You had a guy with a hell pistol (6" or something like that) and
a guy with the Plasma Gun (24") and an enemy within 20" the Hellpistol could wound him?


Because that seems dumb as hell to me

 Galdos wrote:
Wait a second. So are you saying that if say (refering to 5th)
You had a guy with a hell pistol (6" or something like that) and
a guy with the Plasma Gun (24") and an enemy within 20" the Hellpistol could wound him?

No, because the pistol is out of range and doesn't get to fire at all. What this FAQ is talking about is the following situation:

HP--------------------- 8" ---------------------------------------------{marine}
PG -------- 2" -------------- {marine}

In this case both weapons are in range to fire, and the wounds can be allocated to either model in the target unit, you don't track the hellpistol separately and make sure it only goes to the marine 2" away. On the other hand:

HP--------------------- 8" ---------------------------------------------{marine} --------------- 20" -------- {marine} (pretend they're somehow in the same unit)
PG -------- 2" -------------- {marine}

In this case both weapons are in range to fire, but wounds can not be allocated to the third marine 28" away because no firing model is within range of it. Even if you inflict three wounds and kill the two closest marines the third wound is just lost.

oh okay.


I was going to say, the way I understood it at first made no damn sense.

You know, this was already a rule but everyone ignored it/couldn't read.

Precision strikes cannot be outside of the weapons range btw, they never could.